I think just the fact that you can import your save game to TW3 and carry your decisions from the earlier games with you to the third game is enough reason to go with the PC version.
But does it cover all the little details or just the major ones? During The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2 you made tons of decisions.But there's a decision import mechanic for the consoles as well.
I'd rather play it safe..
Like if
you saved Thaler in the first game you got a small gift from one of his spies in Flotsam in TW2.
Stuff like that.
Last edited:
But does it cover all the little details or just the major ones? During The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2 you made tons of decisions.
I'd rather play it safe..
That implies all of our decisions get transferred over in the third game. Either way, I doubt CDPR would half-ass it.
I can't remember exactly but in some interview CDPR mentioned that their engine is already taking advantage of quad core processors and the article was old, so i'd be surprised if they are not taking benefit of HT by now. Dragon Age Inquisition is the best example in recent games that took good benefit of HT and why Frostbite is regarded as one of the best engines, I think REDEngine will follow the same path, it should because the game has much higher demand of A.I calculation and other stuff than DAI.
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/dragon-age-inquisition-pc-performance-analysis/
That said I also think that any Sandy, Ivy or Haswell i5s will work just fine, they have great performance per core. I highly doubt that the game alone will be able to bottleneck CPU (like Assassins Creed Unity), the bottle necking is more dependent on how much fps you want from your graphic card, for example I almost bottleneck my overclocked i5 4690k when I play DAI over 120 fps, the utilization reaches around 85% - 95% on all cores but if I lock the fps to 60 then the utilization drops down to 60%.
.. I hate you guys
Your words got into me. Iam surprising myself looking into ( small? ) desktop ( screen+mouse+keyboard and stuff ). Comparing what I could get with my price range. Especially since I realized 980 and 980m are not the same thing ( you said noob? ). Anyways. You guys for making me wonder if a ( tower? ) desktop could fit in a big suitcase
Edit : I know it doesn't exist. Just want you to know that you made me doubt.
Lol. Well if you're making this decision then it's good, I know that a PC doesn't give you the portability but power/performance wise it's always better than a laptop specially when gaming is your primary activity and you don't have to worry about heat issues that much. It also gives you ability to play with overclocking, lots of benefits but sacrifice of portability.
both 970M and 980M are not equivalent to their desktop brothers, you can see full specifications here.
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-980m/specifications
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-980/specifications
The most noticeable differences are
1. Less CUDA cores (due to 4 deactivated SMMs)
2. Significantly less memory bandwidth (due to less speed).
It's the same GM204 chip used in desktop GTX 980 but with compromises here and there to reduce power consumption and heat output.
New gaming rig for the Witcher 3
Long story short, my Cousin is back from holiday and needs his gaming PC back forcing me to build a rig for the Witcher 3. (my first rig, feel free to move this thread if it's in the wrong place).
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/Thebull94/saved/#view=LVg48d
Essentially
How's it looking so for? I'm quite worried with Witcher 3s bloated specs so i'm hoping they're overstated. Was at least hoping for High at 60fps but apparently it's for medium-high @ 30fps (the 290 is listed as 'equal to the 770' which also baffled me). Guess i'll have to wait and see.
I only plan to game at 1080p @ 60fps so how is it? Also, is it overpriced by British standards?
Long story short, my Cousin is back from holiday and needs his gaming PC back forcing me to build a rig for the Witcher 3. (my first rig, feel free to move this thread if it's in the wrong place).
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/Thebull94/saved/#view=LVg48d
Essentially
- Asus R9 290
- x2 4GB RAM
- i5 4460 (don't plan on OC'ing so is the 4690K even worth the upgrade?)
- 1 TB Seagate (apparently a WD is better so i'll probably change to that)
How's it looking so for? I'm quite worried with Witcher 3s bloated specs so i'm hoping they're overstated. Was at least hoping for High at 60fps but apparently it's for medium-high @ 30fps (the 290 is listed as 'equal to the 770' which also baffled me). Guess i'll have to wait and see.
I only plan to game at 1080p @ 60fps so how is it? Also, is it overpriced by British standards?
There is actually a thread dedicated to this subject:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/32239-Building-a-gaming-PC/page79
By far the most critical component there is the GPU. This AMD card looks decent, but some features that TW3 plans to use are Nvidia only. Luckily though they are optional.
Last edited:
Moved it for you.
The results we've seen so far don't indicate any kind of bloat or padding in the specs; a more likely explanation is that they are serious about advancing the state of the art in game-scale 3D animation. If they didn't make use of the best hardware available to consumers to deliver all the game's eye candy, they would be selling themselves and the power users short.
Yea, I didn't want to get a 970 (
Is it worth upgrading to a 290x?
Will the 290 handle the game on high at roughly 60fps? I hear the 290 is more or less on par with the 970 (OC'd it surpasses it, at least the sapphire does and it also utilizes the full 4 GB Ram)?
@Thebull94 : I didn't really follow AMD cards developments that much, since I use Linux and until lately they weren't the optimal choice because of multiple issues (this might change in the future with Vulkan API). So you better ask those who actually use AMD.
I've had AMD CPUs in my last three computers, and they were the only components I never had had any trouble with. As far as GPUs, I can't say much, but my technician warns that, while they're good cards, they tend to burn out rather quickly. I switched to an ASUS nVidia Geforce GTX 970 for The Witcher III on those recommendations.
Last edited:
I've known many people that game on AMD GPUs that had no problems.
There's not much of an option, I'm definitely am not going for a 970 and a 980 is not in my budget at all. The main options GPU wise I would consider would be a 290x / different types of 290s (Sapphire, Asus, MSI etc).
EDIT: Cheers for the responses anyway, any feedback is good
There's not much of an option, I'm definitely am not going for a 970 and a 980 is not in my budget at all. The main options GPU wise I would consider would be a 290x / different types of 290s (Sapphire, Asus, MSI etc).
EDIT: Cheers for the responses anyway, any feedback is good
ASUS was recommended to me for quality construction by my technicians, who are both heavy gamers. So I'll pass that on, for what it's worth.
Cheers m8, i've heard the Sapphire r9 290/x are the best (by pretty much everyone) but I just can't seem to find one under £260 (strapped for cash) and the Asus gets the job done.
970 is still a great card and the controversy surrounding it way overblown. I'm gaming @ 3440x1440 and haven't ran into VRAM issues yet. I doubt you'll ran into them anytime soon if you're planning on playing @ 1080p.
I however am going to sell these when Pascal arrives next year so they never were a long term upgrade for me. If you're planning on sticking with your GPU for several years that extra 512mb VRAM in the 290/X might be tempting.
I however am going to sell these when Pascal arrives next year so they never were a long term upgrade for me. If you're planning on sticking with your GPU for several years that extra 512mb VRAM in the 290/X might be tempting.