Sign on Options
Theme:

Computers wept openly when Crytek unleashed Crysis on the world. The game made the most powerful computers sputter and hiccup when trying to run the game at high image quality levels. Fortunately, Far Cry 2, based on Ubisoft Montreal's Dunia engine, is nowhere near as taxing. Aside from leaving behind the pleasant beaches of the Pacific for the savannahs of Africa, Far Cry 2 also includes a new DirectX 10 engine. Like other Cry games, Far Cry 2 has huge draw distances, lush forests, incredibly detailed shadows, and spectacular fire/heat effects. Running the game with maximum settings requires a modern computer, but you don't need a hulking beast of a machine to run the game well.

Far Cry 2 comes with a built-in test that has three different performance runs. You can find the test in the game folder's /bin directory. We found the short test to be the most consistent. To be on the safe side, we averaged the results of five runs for our final frame rate score.

Settings

A visually complex game such as Far Cry 2 has its fair share of quality settings that can slow down performance. We found two or three settings that you should adjust if you're looking for a little frame rate boost.

Video Cards

Like just about any other first-person shooter, Far Cry 2 loves a good GPU. We tested almost 20 video cards, ranging from the premium Radeon 4870X2 down to the aging GeForce 6800.

CPU

Far Cry 2 really likes processors. We dug into our pile of CPUs and pulled out Intel Core 2s, AMD Phenoms, and Pentium 4s to see how the game scales with CPU power.

Memory

Far Cry 2 requires 1GB of RAM to run in Windows XP and 2GB in Windows Vista, and our testing confirmed the requirements. Going below the required hardware will severely hamper performance.

Systems

Far Cry 2's minimum requirements consist of an anemic 3.2GHz Pentium 4, 1GB of RAM, and at least a GeForce 6800-class video card. We built a system matching the minimum specs in our test lab, but the actual Far Cry 2 test consistently crashed on the machine. However, in between crashes, the game ran just fine after we lowered all of the settings and reduced the resolution to the lowest setting. We built Ubisoft's recommended system with an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz CPU, a GeForce 8600 GTS, and 2GB of RAM with Windows Vista 32-bit for the operating system. It wasn't the quickest machine, but it ran the game well at moderate resolutions and quality settings. Our high-end system packed with a 3.2GHz quad core and a Radeon 4870X2 was able to run Far Cry 2 at high resolution with the best image quality settings.

System Performance

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

1680x1050, Medium Quality

Recommended System Requirements
31

1920x1200, Very High Quality

Recommended System Requirements
13
High-End System
52

System Setup:

High-End System: Intel Core2 QX9650, eVGA 780i, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2), 750GB Seagate 7200.11 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows Vista 32-bit SP1. Graphics Card: Radeon 4870X2, beta Catalyst HotFix 70517.

Recommended System: Intel Core2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz, eVGA 680i, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2), 750GB Seagate 7200.11 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows Vista 32-bit SP1. Graphics Card: GeForce 8600 GTS, beta Nvidia ForceWare 180.42.

211 Comments

  • mdrew93

    Posted May 16, 2010 5:22 am GMT

    Amazingly, and I don't know how, my old pc (specs below) with xp can run this. I think my gpu is the only thing that saves me.
    AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (required is 3500+)
    Ram: 512 MB (required is 1gb)
    GPU: MSI Nvidia 8500GT 512 mb (required 256 mb)

    It runs is acceptable with everything but realtree on low (realtree is on medium). Of course I usually play it on my dad's 2.7ghz dual core with 2gb of ram and about the same gpu as mine has, but it's impressive that mine can run it at all.

  • kimivenkat

    Posted Nov 22, 2009 9:03 am GMT

    i have athlon X2 7750 black edition 3 ghz (oc)
    xfx gts 250 1gb ddr3 core edition 4gb ddr 2 800mhz ram

    i am running the game with ultra high . except shadow in very high, 1280 X 600 very nice graphics

  • nationmaster

    Posted Jul 15, 2009 12:44 am GMT

    Although i can run Far Cry 2 at ultra high, very high, high settings with 1680x1050 resolution,
    when i start the game, still appears "warning: your video card drivers are too old. please update your them".

    Intel Core2 Quad Q6600, GeForce 8800 GTS 512Mb, 4096 Mb RAM, Windows Vista 32-bit

  • Express_Diablos

    Posted May 11, 2009 8:32 pm GMT

    I'm running the game at Very High and High settings at 1200x1048 screening with a Nivida 9400 GT card. 2.0 Intel Celeron processor, 2 gigs of ram, Windows XP, pretty big hard drive. So if you got that you can run the game just fine with a little lag here and there in area's.

  • hash94

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 7:21 am GMT

    i wonder what if someone run far cry 2 on Alienware Alx X58 it will max out sooo sooooo easy

    think!

  • voodoochild815

    Posted Feb 11, 2009 7:47 am GMT

    this game runs like a champ... and it looks as good if not better then its console counterpart on even the lowest settings

  • grootelaar

    Posted Jan 29, 2009 11:10 am GMT

    hope fully those videocards will not cost you a high power bill in the future

  • chrisda

    Posted Jan 17, 2009 8:29 pm GMT

    @ Hoplite32....A Radeon 9600 GT??? Last time i checked, ATI and Nvidia weren't cross-breeding

  • chrisda

    Posted Jan 17, 2009 8:22 pm GMT

    @ will952....HUGE difference, thats the amount of memory dedicated to graphics, the more the merrier

  • teetsaar

    Posted Jan 11, 2009 8:49 pm GMT

    Kids these days, all about showin' off their system'!

  • core_DEVOUR

    Posted Dec 28, 2008 11:41 pm GMT

    can i run it on my:
    core2duo t5800
    intel gma4500mhd
    2gig of ram?

  • will952

    Posted Dec 26, 2008 6:50 am GMT

    btw is there much difference between a 9800gt 512mb and a 9800 gt 1024mb?

  • will952

    Posted Dec 26, 2008 6:50 am GMT

    red bars= fps(frames per second)
    for good performance u want 25+ fps

  • GAS30U5

    Posted Dec 24, 2008 12:11 pm GMT

    sorry, noob here, but can someone explain to me how the red bars work?

  • jvsexy

    Posted Dec 10, 2008 4:05 pm GMT

    hi,ive got a 9800 GTX 512mb - there isnt ANY difference between Ultra High & Very High. Ultra high will also slowdown your performance. Playing this game on High settings also looks really gorgeous. Also play with atleast 2GB RAM. Cheeers

  • shaunwongwk

    Posted Dec 9, 2008 7:05 am GMT

    Well, i can max out every setting except shadows and geometry, each at medium and very high respectively and i get and average of 37 FPS. Im running the game on a E6300 @ 1.86Ghz and An XFX 8800GT 512 Mb.
    By the way, are shadows more CPU or GPU bound?

    Turning up the shadows on max just slaughters my rig especially areas that have long draw distances

  • lazee_paras

    Posted Dec 7, 2008 11:50 pm GMT

    Hi i've got an ASUS EAH 3450 for trial. Both Far Cry 2 and Crysis are playable. Is this card ok or should i get some other card.

  • icepop4who

    Posted Nov 21, 2008 12:35 am GMT

    @Stephen_1979

    I hope you're talking about DirectX 9 "max" on Windows XP, because DirectX 10 very high in Crysis is by far the most demanding rendering in any game.

  • -SallaD-

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 4:42 pm GMT

    At the higher end of the scale, Far Cry 2's settings only change draw distances. Performance get's killed for little improvements in graphical quality. I run between High and Very High, prefering the higher fps over draw distances(for when I play on "infamous"). Unlike any other game to date, grass, I noticed, is still rendered very well at HUGE distances no matter what settings you run. Considering 90% of the map is grass, I can live without full detail trees... Anyone noticed how smooth shadow edges are in this game?

    8800GTX (768MB), 64x2 5200+ @ 2.6GHz (stock), Vista Premium (32 bit), 2GB 800MHz RAM. Viewsonic VX1932WM (2ms gtg 1440x900).

  • stephen_1979

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 4:52 am GMT

    I found Far Cry 2 harder to run on max settings than Crysis on max settings which runs fine on my PC. To get Far Cry to run smoothly I turned down the shadows and geometry setting from 'ultra high' to 'very high' which makes no noticeable difference to the graphics quality but it gave a big boost to the frame rate. Q6600 @ 2.4GHz, 512MB 8800GTS OC, 4GB RAM.

  • keatman

    Posted Nov 17, 2008 8:43 pm GMT

    This is my personal preference: I feel the game is better without the shadows, seriously. Well, it is because shadows make things dark and hard to spot, especially the enemies (under Low Shadow Setting). Damn! I had a hard time locating those jerks because of the shadows from the trees or other things and I got a migraine after the 1st time played this game. I hate to admit it, the visual is still good although there is no shadow. I dont know, mayb is my GPU, 8600GT. The game runs smoothly with mostly medium settings and a lil of high settings.

  • broca

    Posted Nov 16, 2008 4:10 am GMT

    @soccerdude84: I think GS mixed up the images for quality comparisons cos unless i'm blind I can only see a slight difference between low and ultra high!

  • broca

    Posted Nov 16, 2008 4:04 am GMT

    It'll run a lot better than Crysis because it's a million miles away from Crysis' quality. Boring game too.. Drive here... Drive there...

  • IxEmoKidIx

    Posted Nov 15, 2008 4:51 pm GMT

    I have Asus Geforce 4550 and it works just fine. Tho, I'm going to buy 1 GB more RAM, I have 1 , gonna have 2. Then I think it's a bit lesser lag. And when I first started the game, the computer automatic took the settings to High/Very High and 3 things on low.

  • trezachiel

    Posted Nov 14, 2008 8:52 pm GMT

    this is it? this is useless. lol. three results.

  • soccerdude84

    Posted Nov 14, 2008 8:16 am GMT

    they also don't have comparisons for very high or ultra high for the shading setting, and no comparisons for fire, real trees, ambient, vegetation, or post fx, guess I'll have to wait for tweakguides to make a guide for this

  • soccerdude84

    Posted Nov 14, 2008 8:02 am GMT

    also, it seems that HDR alone doesn't make a difference unless you add bloom as well, strange, usually you can't have both at the same time

  • soccerdude84

    Posted Nov 14, 2008 8:00 am GMT

    Am I the only one not seeing a difference in the textures? maybe the images didn't load right for me.

  • Hoplite32

    Posted Nov 13, 2008 11:51 pm GMT

    Surprisingly the game runs fine on my old XP with a Radeon 9600 GT; so long as it's on the lowest possible graphics settings. The crashes are infrequent and gameplay is smooth, until TOO many bullets start to fly, but even then it's hardly noticable.

  • IMaBIOHAZARD

    Posted Nov 13, 2008 5:35 pm GMT

    definitely worth buying BEFORE it drops; not for the MP tho, that's sorta average.

  • Dimitriov

    Posted Nov 12, 2008 7:10 pm GMT

    The MP videos i've seen looked alright, not really that much in the way of FPS MP games coming out except maybe the next call of duty but correct me if I'm wrong, I'd say this is a game that might be worth buying after the price drops.

  • Anteares

    Posted Nov 12, 2008 5:49 pm GMT

    this means that the graphics are better than the game(heard the MP was dedcent though). Anyways, the single player stinks to high heaven. Don't be woooed by the 'system requirements' into throwing your money away.

  • jp-gnr

    Posted Nov 12, 2008 8:10 am GMT

    mmm.. in my opinion theyre comparing 2 different (too diferent) hardware configurations as they have a 8600gts form nvidia in the (recommended system) and a 4870x2 (high end sys) , lets be fair and compare either ati or nvidia on both configurations, also i noticed a lack of info on both system ram configurations , because i dunno if they are comparing 2gb ddr3 with 2gb ddr2 .

  • Black_Kill3r

    Posted Nov 12, 2008 6:41 am GMT

    Seems my crappy pc will run Farcry 2 at 1280/800 no problem !!!

  • project590

    Posted Nov 12, 2008 12:57 am GMT

    Now i got my new com and i can“t get farcry2 running cos always when I try to run it it wont except my serial!!Why?new game and never used???Manual unlock ...same thing???help please:-(But my new com runs nicely though):-) starting to overclock it...runs nicely 3.65GHz maby more when i got to know more my new bios settings

  • skywarp001

    Posted Nov 11, 2008 3:39 pm GMT

    im getting my 4870x2 on saterday. Prepare to own all who opose

  • ChaoSXDemon

    Posted Nov 11, 2008 1:00 pm GMT

    God, ATI 4870X2 is a joke. Why would anyone use a cross-fire -.- I'm just using a 4870 and it's silky smooth under 1680X1050 with 8x AA and V-syc.

    Specs: Intel Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0 GHz 6Mb L2 Cache; ATI Radeon HIS HD 4870; 2X2Gb Mushkin 1066 MHz RAM; 500 Gb Westerndigital 7200.11 SATA HDD;

  • ecw1983

    Posted Nov 11, 2008 12:11 pm GMT

    UH oh, Guys look at the console wars going on in the L4D hand on comments

  • Jonfen

    Posted Nov 11, 2008 10:34 am GMT

    As far as I know, there are no such restrictions, Draker. I am running the game on medium settings, with HDR and Bloom effects myself.

  • Draker696

    Posted Nov 11, 2008 8:19 am GMT

    I gotta give these guys a credit for making the game look great on low settings. And is it possible to have HDR and Bloom on medium settings? Or does it have restrictions like crysis?

  • sangoanuta

    Posted Nov 11, 2008 7:21 am GMT

    Very funny to see that DX10 was hyped up for nothing... It didn't introduce anything good or worth mentioning in the gaming universe.

    Another missed shot from MS.

  • Eothein

    Posted Nov 11, 2008 7:11 am GMT

    My PC is a 2.8 GHZ Pentium 4 Processor, a 9600GT, 2.5 gigs of RAM and it laps this game up at the highest settings, although I do play at 1024x768 due to my 14 inch monitor, but still this game plays extremely smoothly and my specs don't even match the minimum as stated on the box, talk about excellent scaling.

  • BontraXenderKyl

    Posted Nov 11, 2008 5:43 am GMT

    I'm glad as well that FarCry2 is less heavier than Crysis Warhead

  • c-monemmers

    Posted Nov 11, 2008 5:17 am GMT

    I played crysis warhead, and my new computer just couldn't handle the game on high graphics. I'm glad the game is less heavy then crysis, because i'm planning to buy it...
    sweet sweet fire

  • GhostyMcboo

    Posted Nov 10, 2008 9:00 pm GMT

    I love how low looks great. That is a huge plus in my opinion. Ultra high I'm sure looks better while the game is running, but if these shots are accurate I would happily swap frame rate for "Ultra High" anyday if it looks that good on lower graphics settings.

    I'm one of these gamers who can't afford a rig that should be taxed by Hydro companies. Anyone from Quebec knows how much Quebec Hydro is anyways....

  • RICKY1001

    Posted Nov 10, 2008 8:46 pm GMT

    Farcry is running well on my pc under vista operating system with all settings to high.
    My system
    1.)Amd Phenom 8450
    2.)hybrid Crossfirex with Ati hd 3450
    3.)Corsair(2Gb)Ram

  • GreyMarine

    Posted Nov 10, 2008 8:24 pm GMT

    Is this game able to run on 256MB graphic card?

  • jogunther

    Posted Nov 10, 2008 8:21 pm GMT

    Yeah man, my overclocked 7600 GTX has lost its kick and its time to say goodbye.

  • homsar57

    Posted Nov 10, 2008 6:40 pm GMT

    Well my EVGA 7600gt has lasted through many games over the years, and it did its job running battlefield 2 and Half life 2 back when those were the benchmarks. But it looks like I've met my match here, *sigh* at least I've got a girlfriend to help me through this little heartache.
    Core 2 Duo 1.8ghz
    Nvidia 7600gt
    2gigs DDR2 Ram
    (Laptop xP)

  • x_pavel

    Posted Nov 10, 2008 3:00 pm GMT

    I have ATI Radeon x1950GT (overclocked to PRO) - and standard Core2Duo processor at 2.33MHZ (overclocked to 2.67MHZ) and the game runs perfect at medium details (even with AA turned on - in some sceneries it a bit freezes so I rather turn it off).... My HW is good mainstream and the game at medium details still looks very nice.... so dont worry...

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel