PC specs and benchmarks DISCUSSION

[web-head91]

you know, i wonder low-end configurations will fare with the game just as much as i'm curious about seeing it on high-end PCs. :hmm:

 

[Phalzyr]

I think there is something wrong with those benchmarks because in the youtuber party thing they all said it was ultra/ constant 60fps on 980 (they said the same in those ign streams last week)

Are those based off of latest patch which added some quality to the settings? The YT and IGN didn't have that patch so assume their FPS is now for lower than ultra settings...

LOL ninja'd man I type slow...

 

[MomoSinX]

you know, i wonder low-end configurations will fare with the game just as much as i'm curious about seeing it on high-end PCs. :hmm:

We will see. I will try to run it on my laptop, i5 at 3,2GHz but only 2 cores, 8 gigs of ram and a GT555M. The latter is my weakest point but my max resolution is only 720p so it might produce at least somewhat playable framerates on the lowest settings. I still have to wait until 1 AM here for unlock though.

 

[uthvag]

you know, i wonder low-end configurations will fare with the game just as much as i'm curious about seeing it on high-end PCs. :hmm:

i have an 860m , betting on high/medium high @30 fps. the nvidia tweak guide is useful for comparisons

its prob the same as the 660/570 , so even if ultra gives 15 , high will give at least 25

but we will see after better benchmarks come out

 

[web-head91]

We will see. I will try to run it on my laptop, i5 at 3,2GHz but only 2 cores, 8 gigs of ram and a GT555M. The latter is my weakest point but my max resolution is only 720p so it might produce at least somewhat playable framerates on the lowest settings. I still have to wait until 1 AM here for unlock though.

i have an 860m , betting on high/medium high @30 fps. the nvidia tweak guide is useful for comparisons

its prob the same as the 660/570 , so even if ultra gives 15 , high will give at least 25

but we will see after better benchmarks come out

very interresting, well i shall await eagerly the results. :hatsoff:

 

[Salulu]

Just a warning for anybody who will try to mess with tweaking the settings outside the graphical menus.
This is what happens when you raise the grass density setting too high.
http://international.download.nvidi...ak-interactive-comparison-1-9600-vs-2400.html
It replaces all variety of grass to just a single type, very unpleasant looking.

 

[general_hades]

I like the Hairwork, but have to see what it will do with my frames first.

nothing good to them, that's for sure!

 

[Angelicorum]

http://wccftech.com/witcher-3-initial-benchmarks/

Titan X barely averages 60 on 1080p...

Dat optimization.

Also, remember nvidia's chart:

Titan X for 4K? Kek.

:c looks like the boyfriend will be able to have fancy hairworks -sniff-

 

[sidgoku123]

Probably the worst optimized game since Gta 4,Not to mention having same graphics as the ps4 version.
You're telling me that a 350$ ps4 runs this thing at 30fps at 1080p and a 350$ gpu like 970 only manages to do the same albiet with some finicky hair and anti aliasing and everything else looking the same.

This is actually the only game I've seen which looks almost wxactly like home consoles yet has steep requirements.

Poorly optimized to Nth degree.

 

[MomoSinX]

I got like 15 fps on the lowest settings at 1024 LOL. BUT, I can't turn off shadows, at all, which pretty much kills my poor GPU completely. Gotta have to wait for some ini miracle doers I guess.

 

[web-head91]

I got like 15 fps on the lowest settings at 1024 LOL. BUT, I can't turn off shadows, at all, which pretty much kills my poor GPU completely. Gotta have to wait for some ini miracle doers I guess.

rofl XD
well i wish you best of luck friend. pushing the limits of old hardware was something i was very used to, and i'm confident you can do the same. XD
still remember playing skyrim with a nvidia geforce GS 8400 with everything low and a resolution of 800*600 XDD
ah good times 8D

 

[The_Blog]

Looks like this doesn't apply anymore:

Get under 40 FPS in some situations on a Gigabyte GTX 770. As far as I know (please correct me) a GTX 770 is about on par with a 960.

 

[MomoSinX]

rofl XD
well i wish you best of luck friend. pushing the limits of old hardware was something i was very used to, and i'm confident you can do the same. XD
still remember playing skyrim with a nvidia geforce GS 8400 with everything low and a resolution of 800*600 XDD
ah good times 8D

I only need like 10 extra fps to be fully playable in 1366 so yeah DD. It's still beyond me why can't we completely eradicate shadows though. That alone would have saved me already.

 

[bezzio]

If you have problems with fps, drop hairworks and foliage visibility=high and my fps went from 30->52. I can keep other settings at ultra and use AA too.

 

[The_Blog]

If you have problems with fps, drop hairworks and foliage visibility=high and my fps went from 30->52. I can keep other settings at ultra and use AA too.

Ofcourse I already turned down Hairworks. i now use the Geforce Experience preset with a bit of tweaking. Now I'm never under 45 FPS. Would love to get 60, but I don't want to turn it down even more. I think I'm quite happy now. Although a bit more performance through some updates or new drivers is always appreciated

 

[blizzzilla]

Get under 40 FPS in some situations on a Gigabyte GTX 770. As far as I know (please correct me) a GTX 770 is about on par with a 960.

The game has problems with old architectures like Kepler. The newer cards like the 960 perform a lot better than the old ones like 770. I have no problems with my GTX 970 at Ultra to get 50-60 fps without Hairworks. I even went a bit higher than the Geforce Experience program recommended.

 

[scorpgul]

EVGA GTX 780 Ti Classified KINGPIN, i7 3770K at 4.5 GHZ with Hyperthreading on, 8GB DDR3 RAM, Windows 8.1 64 Bit "Nvidia Hairworks" off, "Foliage Distance" High, "Blur", "Motion Blur", "Depth of Field", "Chromatic Aberration" off and I am getting 40-60 fps. "Nvidia Hairworks" is way too demanding, even if it is just Geralt, instantly lose 10 fps and "Foliage Distance" at Ultra is another 12 FPS

 

[Ashwind123]

MSI 970, i7 4790K, 8GB RAM - Stock settings (Factory OC) - Everything on Ultra + Hairworks I am getting on average 40-45fps. Except certain cut scenes... I feel that there are 2 different type of cut scenes, one that locks to 30fps and the other does not? The 30fps cut scenes' audio is also much softer... Is that just me?

Turning Foliage Distance down to High immediately puts me in the 50ish FPS. Turning Hairworks to Garelt only or off give me another 5 FPS. So, without Hairworks and Foliage set to high, I get an average of 55FPS. So I too find that these 2 settings hits performance the hardest.

Gonna try applying OC and with Foliage tuned down a bit and maybe Hairworks turned down a little, GTX 970 should be able to run this game @1080 60FPS XD - especially if we get some patches and driver upgrades.

I think the recommended CPU is an overkill though because my CPU is not working much 90% of the time (maybe because the game works really will with multi cores)

 

[nleibert]

I'm getting fantastic performance on Ultra settings with a Radeon 290 overclocked and an Intel i7 4770K @ 4.3GHz, it runs super smooth and gameplay is a blast! You can tell CDPR did a great job optimizing the PC version! Downgrade my ass, Ultra looks so good.

Here's my 3dMark benchmarks results for reference:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/4400376

 

[Ishmaelsonata]

EVGA 780 GTX Classified Factory OC, NVIDIA 347.88 Driver, 8GB Ram, i5 4670k - Everything on Ultra - Hairworks, I am getting on avg 40-45 fps, with Hairworks set to on for ALL, I get 25 Fps?!!! The performance cost for this feature on Kepler architecture is way too high.

I played around with a couple of different drivers, 350.12 and 352.88. It seems that 347.88 gives me the best performance for my setup. Have anyone else tried other drivers and found them to yield better performance?