Predicted witcher 3 system specs? Can I run it .

[Merc616]

Oh, I wish, I wished I could have waited a little bit, as the R9 290x's came way down in price and Nvidia released the 980 at a ridonkulous price compared to when I might have jumped, they were charging hundreds more for the equivalent, not even a few months later, this. My point here is very simple, it changes so damn fast you can never be 100%, just know there's always something competitive around the corner and the only thing you will need to be certain of is CPU, for now, it is Intel, and done, but that's why the price will not be nice, monopolies do that... Just find out all you can, and try to look at updates. That' s the best advice I can give.

So true. One time I bought a $650 nVidia card and just a few months later there were faster and much cheaper cards on the market. You can never keep up.

 

[Tracido]

So true. One time I bought a $650 nVidia card and just a few months later there were faster and much cheaper cards on the market. You can never keep up.

Yeah, in this case it was between the R9 290x and next best being 780Ti, price made it quite dumb to choose the other THEN, but now the 980's are UNDER 600$... You have to give up at some point and realize you can't always predict the direction of the market.

 

[mavowar]

To those looking for some good sites to learn PC stuff here you go

Here is a good site, try the forums, the members will answer any questions you have, the site admin also runs a great Youtube channel
https://teksyndicate.com/forum

https://teksyndicate.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNovoA9w0KnxyDP5bGrOYzg

oh and try Linus site and youtube channels

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0vBXGSyV14uvJ4hECDOl0Q

 

[Dovah94]

So, if I use Intel i5 3570 over AMD FX 8350 with GTX 970, you think that there not be much difference in Witcher 3 performance at all. I say: I will have same number of FPS no mater what CPU I chose. Witcher 3 will work on Intel i5 3570 even better, am I right?

 

[Tracido]

So, if I use Intel i5 3570 over AMD FX 8350 with GTX 970, you think that there not be much difference in Witcher 3 performance at all. I say: I will have same number of FPS no mater what CPU I chose. Witcher 3 will work on Intel i5 3570 even better, am I right?

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570-vs-AMD-FX-8350 Answer your question?

 

[GuyNwah]

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570-vs-AMD-FX-8350 Answer your question?

Sorry, that is a worthless site and an invalid comparison. Core i5 simply blows the magic smoke off AMD FX in any real application, especially if it's CPU-bound, whether or not it is multithreaded.

Comparing processors of different architectures on clock speed has been a badge of meaningless numbers ever since the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP days.

With all that said, though, I don't think the CPU will be limiting for the game, unless the eye candy relies heavily on CPU floating point.

 

[Tracido]

Sorry, that is a worthless site and an invalid comparison. Core i5 simply blows the magic smoke off AMD FX in any real application, especially if it's CPU-bound, whether or not it is multithreaded.

Comparing processors of different architectures on clock speed has been a badge of meaningless numbers ever since the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP days.

With all that said, though, I don't think the CPU will be limiting for the game, unless the eye candy relies heavily on CPU floating point.

? It (the i5) came out on top, by a hair, as there were many comparisons discussed and programs used, I thought it was rather unbiased. Though, I was looking for overalls in multiple categories. However, alright, guess that's all that mattered whatsoever on the site. lol

 

[tahirahmed]

Good news for those willing to learn more about Nvidia HairWorks/Fur performance, I bought Far Cry 4 yesterday and playing it on everything ultra at 1080p, the AA is set to SMAA and HairWorks are turned on, with all that I get 60 fps most of the time on my R9 290 and looking at the furry animals doesn't hit fps like previously it was in Call of Duty Ghosts.

Since the Witcher 3 will also use HairWorks feature heavily I think it won't bring huge performance hits. Again this is just my assumption by looking at that feature in a different game, the real performance depends on game engine and how extensively the feature is used.

 

[Vigilance.492]

Good to hear someone with an AMD GPU weigh in on Far Cry 4.

As I said in the other thread I was dropping about 5-10FPS per animal on-screen with Hairworks, which is still pricey, but as you said definitely a big improvement over Ghosts and it's fantastic to hear it isn't performing rubbish for AMD users.

I trust CDPR's implementation of Hairworks will both look and run even better than FC4's, especially considering how early and extensively Hairworks was/is implemented into TW3.

 

[Ajira]

My little G3258 can handle all "next gens", even AC Unity. I wonder will it be enough for Witcher 3? If you are building a system for W3 and you are in a tight budget, buy an intel g3258. For example, an overclocked G3258 at 4.2 GHZ performs better than FX 6300 in many game. When you have more money you can buy a i5 but with FX series, your upgrade path will be blocked. And you can overclock G3258 with a H81 motherboard.

 

[Merc616]

Good news for those willing to learn more about Nvidia HairWorks/Fur performance, I bought Far Cry 4 yesterday and playing it on everything ultra at 1080p, the AA is set to SMAA and HairWorks are turned on, with all that I get 60 fps most of the time on my R9 290 and looking at the furry animals doesn't hit fps like previously it was in Call of Duty Ghosts.

Since the Witcher 3 will also use HairWorks feature heavily I think it won't bring huge performance hits. Again this is just my assumption by looking at that feature in a different game, the real performance depends on game engine and how extensively the feature is used.

Thanks for the post. It's good to hear more feedback on GameWorks with AMD GPUs.

 

[tahirahmed]

Good to hear someone with an AMD GPU weigh in on Far Cry 4.

As I said in the other thread I was dropping about 5-10FPS per animal on-screen with Hairworks, which is still pricey, but as you said definitely a big improvement over Ghosts and it's fantastic to hear it isn't performing rubbish for AMD users.

I trust CDPR's implementation of Hairworks will both look and run even better than FC4's, especially considering how early and extensively Hairworks was/is implemented into TW3.

Thanks for the post. It's good to hear more feedback on GameWorks with AMD GPUs.

Your welcome.

Yes it's a big improvement over CoD Ghosts, any high end card can brute force through CoD HairWorks implementation but it was still weird to face big fps drops when you look at the dog, fortunately that's no longer the case in FC4, I can see 3 - 4 wolves on screen at the same time without fps hits. The game face occasional stutter but I don't think it's related to HairWorks as turning it off makes no difference and the stutter only happens when you drive too fast, I think it's some problem with the game because I saw Nvidia users also reporting it.

There are two HairWorks modes in FC4 1) "On" and 2) "Simulated" I don't know what's the difference between them the game runs and looks almost same with both but with "On" setting the fur looks a bit better on Yaks and Tigers.

Overall it's a better game than the mess that was AC Unity with good implementation of HairWorks, I hope CDPR also implement it in the right way ? or do it even better and we get optimized AMD drivers on the right time. With DAI, FC4, ACU and CoD AW AMD really did good work on drivers, we got new drivers much faster than before.

 

[Vigilance.492]

Simulated is Nvidia Hairworks, On is just simply Ubisoft's own Hair solution.

'On' definitely shouldn't look better than 'Simulated' on Yaks & Tigers and you most certainly shouldn't be losing "almost no frames" with Simulated on, there definitely should be somewhat of a drop. If you weren't observing any FPS difference between the two settings then I think something is wrong there, because folk like myself and samplerico are definitely noticing drops from Hairworks, which is the 'Simulated' setting.

 

[samplerico]

Simulated is Nvidia Hairworks, On is just simply Ubisoft's own Hair solution.

'On' definitely shouldn't look better than 'Simulated' on Yaks & Tigers and you most certainly shouldn't be losing "almost no frames" with Simulated on, there definitely should be somewhat of a drop. If you weren't observing any FPS difference between the two settings then I think something is wrong there, because folk like myself and samplerico are definitely noticing drops from Hairworks, which is the 'Simulated' setting.

+1

In Nvidia gameworks post ive up some screens of the performance impact beetwen activated and simulated option for fur. And i can tell u thers definetely a noticeable drop in frames.

 

[tahirahmed]

@Vigilance

I haven't tested "Simulated" that much because I didn't saw much visual difference between the two so I just went back to "On". I'll try it on "Simulated" now. I do get fps drop but that's negligible as far as gameplay experience is concerned like say with Vsync on I remain mostly on 60 and with fur instances it gets to 55 or so which doesn't make you feel it unless you have an fps counter running on top.

 

[samplerico]

@Vigilance

I haven't tested "Simulated" that much because I didn't saw much visual difference between the two so I just went back to "On". I'll try it on "Simulated" now. I do get fps drop but that's negligible as far as gameplay experience is concerned like say with Vsync on I remain mostly on 60 and with fur instances it gets to 55 or so which doesn't make you feel it unless you have an fps counter running on top.

Well, when a litter of wolves is in the proximitys i guarantee you dnt need a fps counter in the top to feel the 30fps drop. Furthermore, perhaps its just me but in some games (dunia engine ones included) i can even feel when im running 60FPS stable and when i get 5-10FPs drop.

http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/30010-Nvidia%E2%80%99s-GameWorks-A-double-edged-sword-for-Witcher-3?p=1465787&viewfull=1#post1465787

 

[tahirahmed]

Okay after a quick test I can confirm that fps drop is bigger on "Simulated" compared to "On". It drops to like 50 or even 40 with animals and distant sighting. I think it's still better than what I faced in CoD: Ghosts (25 - 30 fps drops just by looking at the dog) so this is improvement for AMD users and overall.

As for how the fur looks between the two settings, I have mixed opinions. Upon careful looking the fur looks better on "Simulated" for certain animals (Tigers and Yaks) but on some smaller animals it looks like a mess of blur.

To keep this on topic I have posted a screenshot on the thread samplerico mentioned.

http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/30010-Nvidia’s-GameWorks-A-double-edged-sword-for-Witcher-3?p=1466492&viewfull=1#post1466492

 

[GuyNwah]

My little G3258 can handle all "next gens", even AC Unity. I wonder will it be enough for Witcher 3? If you are building a system for W3 and you are in a tight budget, buy an intel g3258. For example, an overclocked G3258 at 4.2 GHZ performs better than FX 6300 in many game. When you have more money you can buy a i5 but with FX series, your upgrade path will be blocked. And you can overclock G3258 with a H81 motherboard.

I have one too; it 's a fast little CPU. Most of what I do are single-threaded compute-bound jobs, and there is nothing more economical for it. (I put it on a Z97 motherboard, though, since I expect to trade up to a Broadwell when desktop Broadwells (eventually) come out.)

I wouldn't be surprised if it outperformed a lot of lesser 4-core models.

 

[petergrusz]

So will it run? Thanks.

Hello, fellow Witcher fans!

I would like to ask whether I will be able to run The Witcher 3 on my computer :
CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 Quad Core 955 Black Edition (3.2 GHz)
GPU: ATI Sapphire HD5870 1GB
RAM: 4 GB
Resolution: 1680x1050
---------------------------------
I would like to run the game with these settings:
No V-sync, No AA, Lowest multisampling
no ambient occlusion, no motion blur, no other fancy graphic features
BUT i would love tohave the models and textures on HIGH (not ultra)


Do you think it would be possible to get decent FPS ?

Thank you very much.

P.S. - If there is anything I can upgrade for a relatively low price and would really help me, please do tell.

 

[tahirahmed]

@petergrusz

I think overall your system needs an upgrade, specially the CPU and GPU. You might also want to go with 8 GB ram for more smoother gaming experience.

Now I can only speculate on how the Witcher 3 will run but it's quite safe to assume that the game will need more than 1 GB vram for high textures since it's a next gen game with open world, very detailed characters, environments and all so your 1 GB vram will cause issues, stuttering and your CPU may not handle it very well too so your experience won't be good regardless of fps.

I would advice you to go with GTX 970 (under 400$) or R9 290 (under 300$) if you decide to upgrade. They come with 4 GB vram so that's plenty for 1080p, now I can suggest lower GPUs than those but if you're going to upgrade then why not future proof your system ? and I personally think both of these cards are quite capable to handle anything you throw at them at 1080p with max settings. Maybe they cannot handle stuff like HairWorks or TressFX very well in open world games but I don't count these new techs as they can be unfairly demanding but other than that these cards are very good.

With any of these you will also need to upgrade your CPU since your current CPU will most certainly bottleneck them.

EDIT:

I don't understand what you mean by "Lowest Multisampling" because that too is a type of AA and you said no AA but in any case almost every type of AA needs more vram as well except maybe FXAA.