Predicted witcher 3 system specs? Can I run it .

[Caelistas]

Predicted witcher 3 system specs? Can I run it .

Are there any kind of system requirements released atm?

I could run TW2 at fairly high settings with the following hardware at 50-60 fps @1900x1200:

Intel I7-920 CPU- OC'd to 3.2 Ghz
6 Gb DDR3 Ram (1033Mhz speeds me thinks, it's pretty old)
AMD HD 6950 2 Gb Sapphire Edition - Small OC to 840Mhz Gpu clock/ 1325 Mhz Memory clock
Win 7-64 Bit


Witcher 2 settings:

Texture downscaling: none
Texture Memory size: Large
Shadow Quality: High
Number of shadowed Lights: High
LOD distance: normal
Bloom: Enabled
Light Shafts: Enabled
Anti-aliasing: Enabled
Blur effects: Disabled
Depth of field- gameplay: Disabled
Vignette: Enabled
Wet surfaces rain effect: Enabled
SSAO: Disabled
Motion blur: Disabled
Cinematic Depth of Field: Disabled
Depth of field- cutscenes: Enabled
Dangling objects limit: Disabled
Ubersampling: Disabled
Vertical Sync: Disabled
Decals: Medium spec



So... can i run TW3 at "good-enough" settings or do i need an upgrade..?

 

[sidspyker]

The game is like an year away from release no word on system requirements yet...but this video does touch upon the subject:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTkSGmLA1qM[/media]

 

[DonSwingKing]

It will run, but i'm affraid not on the highest settings.

 

[pulseangel666]

Well this makes me happy, the fact that they are aiming for it to play on GeForce 300 series, so I guess if they optimize it right (and I know they will) I can run it on high setting on my GeForce 580

 

[501105]

I am thinking of buying a 770 gtx to be ready for it, though doubting wether or not that will be enough to max it.

 

[volsung]

I am thinking of buying a 770 gtx to be ready for it, though doubting wether or not that will be enough to max it.

By the time TW3 comes out Maxwell will most likely be out as well. Why don't you wait a bit and decide when it's time?

I am also eyeballing the GTX 770 (I like the number 7!) but perhaps an 870 will be a better choice. Judging by this semilogarithmic performance plot, Nvidia seems to be drastically improving their performance/watt ratio.

Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/20130412175120_Nvidia_Next_Generation_Maxwell_Architecture_Will_Break_New_Grounds.html

 

[DonSwingKing]

Well this makes me happy, the fact that they are aiming for it to play on GeForce 300 series, so I guess if they optimize it right (and I know they will) I can run it on high setting on my GeForce 580 />

The Geforce 300 series does not exist, so they have no idea what they are talking about just yet.

 

[501105]

By the time TW3 comes out Maxwell will most likely be out as well. Why don't you wait a bit and decide when it's time?

I am also eyeballing the GTX 770 (I like the number 7!) but perhaps an 870 will be a better choice. Judging by this semilogarithmic performance plot, Nvidia seems to be drastically improving their performance/watt ratio.

Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/20130412175120_Nvidia_Next_Generation_Maxwell_Architecture_Will_Break_New_Grounds.html

That is true, but games like Metro Last Light and Crysis 3 are currently beating the heck out of my poor 560 ti. The Witcher 3 is slated for a 2014 release, which might even mean the end of 2014 and that means not being able to properly handle a lot of the games on my end.

I am really loving the Witcher 3 so far, but I would hate having to play many of the upcoming releases on low settings to wait for the 8 series. Also not helping is the fact that I saw the OC`ed Gigabyte version of 770 gtx on sale today. 365 euros, comes with a 10% overclock and two games in the form of Tomb Raider and Last Light.

 

[Sana_mia]

The Geforce 300 series does not exist, so they have no idea what they are talking about just yet.

They do exist. Just nobody cared about them. Nearly all where re-branded 200 series cards mostly for OEMs.

 

[GuyNwah]

They do exist. Just nobody cared about them. Nearly all where re-branded 200 series cards mostly for OEMs.

Indeed. The 340 and 360M were the strongest of the lot, and they were rebranded GT240's. There are a lot of them in cheap laptops from 2010.

However, I still think it was a slip of the tongue, as the 300's were a litter of runts, and they aren't DX11 capable.

His comment that they would like to get the game to run on Haswell-equipped mobiles is more interesting.

 

[Yuurii]

I'm wondering will AMD FX-8350 piledriver be enough for this game to run it on clean high? And if PS4 and XBox one has 8 cores maybe PC version will be optimised to use 8 cores!?

 

[rethla]

I'm wondering will AMD FX-8350 piledriver be enough for this game to run it on clean high? And if PS4 and XBox one has 8 cores maybe PC version will be optimised to use 8 cores!?

Yeh hopefully gaming will take a giant 10 year leap into multicore territory now that the consoles finally have catched up.

 

[AngelOfPassion]

Yeh hopefully gaming will take a giant 10 year leap into multicore territory now that the consoles finally have catched up.

That is exactly what i want to know. When are games going to ship w/ multicore support and will TW3 have multicore support?

 

[GuyNwah]

When developers decide they need multiple threads or processes on multiple cores badly enough to make the additional complexity worth it.

"Support" is a misleading term. TW1 "supports" multicore processors just fine. I can run it on a Core i7 without any modification or special configuration. It will only use one core, but it still "supports" that processor.

What is wanted is games that "benefit from" multicore processors, games that run better because they can spread their workload across as many as 4 to 8 cores.

TW3, with its zero loading time feature, is probably going to be written to take advantage of at least 3 or 4 cores.

 

[chaosapiant]

I can run W2 on Ultra sans Ubersampling now on my GTX 660, and i'm still going to upgrade my PC for W3. It's over a year away, and what is top of the line now will be much more reasonably priced in another year from now. I can't wait!

 

[AngelOfPassion]

When developers decide they need multiple threads or processes on multiple cores badly enough to make the additional complexity worth it.

"Support" is a misleading term. TW1 "supports" multicore processors just fine. I can run it on a Core i7 without any modification or special configuration. It will only use one core, but it still "supports" that processor.

What is wanted is games that "benefit from" multicore processors, games that run better because they can spread their workload across as many as 4 to 8 cores.

TW3, with its zero loading time feature, is probably going to be written to take advantage of at least 3 or 4 cores.

That is exactly what I was meaning. I guess multicore support has just become a slang term to make it easier to say they want the game designed to actually utilize all the cores.

With next gen PS4's sporting 8 core processors I believe we will see a huge amount of games on the PC that will be optimized for use with 8 cores. There are many developers, unfortunately quoted off the record, that have stated that they would prefer an AMD 8 core processor for future proofing OVER an intel multi core processor. That is a HUGE statement to make considering intel has been the processor of choice for PC gaming performance if price isn't put into play. I believe those statements have been made because console ports will already be designed on an engine that utilizes 8 cores.

Now, if we could only get some decent GPU's that have 4+GB of DDR5 VRAM for a little cheaper we would be set. I believe an 8 core processor setup paired with a GPU with 4-6GB of VRAM would weather you through the storm of these next gen consoles and potentially leave you not needing another upgrade until next-next gen haha. You might not be maxing anything on 1080p toward the end though...

I plan on making that upgrade path sometime next year if high VRAM GPU prices go down. Then the only thing I really need to worry about is the whole debate on DirectX being reworked. If that happens then my lovely new GPU may need to be replaced again... I see DirectX being the biggest bottleneck for next gen PC ports though so that is probably the biggest future-proof obstacle.

 

[Daywalker30]

I really hope Witcher 3 will at least run the same as Witcher 2 with the same graphic level.

 

[volsung]

I don't see why devs should utilize more cores just for the sake of it. The new consoles may have 8 core processors but CPU performance has nothing to do with the number of cores. Also it seems these new consoles offer a lot more functionality than simply playing games and they might need to perform some background computing.

CPU performance is affected by a number of factors, such as instructions per cycle and bus frequencies. In the high performance line of CPU's, we see 16-core AMD CPU's competing in the same performance category as the 4 or 8-core Intel CPU's. They simply use different approaches. Also performance depends on the parallel programming model utilized. For example, with Intel's hyperthreading, we may get 2 threads per physical core but at least the Xeons share L1 cache, enabling potential cache races and context switches which cost many CPU cycles. AMD has used, as far as I know, cores with their own level 1 cache, more appropriately designed for multi-process programming. As an example, in an 8-core/16-thread Xeon CPU an MPI program will run faster and more efficiently with 8 processes than 12 or 16, possibly due to cache conflicts.

I do not know anything about game design, but I am guessing not all tasks are easy to separate. And depending on program design, you may end up with more problems sharing data across processes than simply performing a super fast sequential calculation on a single fast core. Graphics processing, on the other hand, is usually highly linear (not to be confused with sequential), relying mostly on matrix algebra, which is exactly what GPU's are designed for and highly efficient in heavily multi-threaded environments.

So food for thought: perhaps an 8-core console CPU is just as capable as a 4-core fully powered desktop CPU. And perhaps it will take a while before developers, who need to play it safe, design games that run efficiently on 6 or more cores. Or perhaps they already know what to do and are simply waiting for the right time to introduce their correctly coded multi-process next-gen games

 

[AngelOfPassion]

I don't see why devs should utilize more cores just for the sake of it. The new consoles may have 8 core processors but CPU performance has nothing to do with the number of cores. Also it seems these new consoles offer a lot more functionality than simply playing games and they might need to perform some background computing.
/>

All I am really saying that if you take a game engine designed for use with an 8 core system, a port to PC is going to be way more friendly for an 8 core CPU. The game will already be optimized for use with 8 cores available and the coding in the game engine will reflect that.

Any CPU with less than 8 cores would not be a good idea if you are building a gaming PC at the moment. Even developers for multiple titles are saying that as mentioned in my first post. They are suggesting to choose an AMD 8 core over Intel CPU's as a suggestion for a gaming PC.

The only real issues for next gen games on PC are RAM and DirectX at the moment. Our current GPU's just don't sport enough VRAM to be worth upgrading since the PS4 has access to 8GB of DDR5 that it can use for VRAM OR system RAM. Don't even get me started on how much of a bottleneck DirectX is. I see DirectX making some HUGE changes in the near future for PC's. The sheer fact that information doesn't have to pass through a motherboard bus to be allocated to VRAM in a PS4 is unbelievable. PC's are at a huge disadvantage here. We have to have software sort everything out for us and allocate between system RAM and VRAM between multiple different components of hardware in our systems while a PS4's VRAM and system RAM are shared between one component. I just can't imaging buying any card with less than 4-6GB's of VRAM with this knowledge.

 

[Georgie_Porgie]

Any CPU with less than 8 cores would not be a good idea if you are building a gaming PC at the moment. Even developers for multiple titles are saying that as mentioned in my first post. They are suggesting to choose an AMD 8 core over Intel CPU's as a suggestion for a gaming PC.

Future or not today Intel is better and someone who wants the best of the best will chose Intels 4 or 6 cores over AMDs 8 cores. So I don't see a point buying something inferior from AMD and hope that maybe in the future it will be better, unless he wants something cheap