Predicted witcher 3 system specs? Can I run it .

[dragonbird]

I would like to remind everyone that the purpose of this thread is to post information to help guide prospective players. One post has just been deleted. Insulting language towards other forum members, or their purchase decisions, will not be tolerated.

Neither will "See what a big one I've got" posts.

 

[prince_of_nothing]

Yeah I suppose I'd need a very high end GPU for Physx and that kind of stuff. Thanks for answering.

PhysX has different settings as well so you may be able to get away with running PhysX on your primary GPU depending on your resolution.

The more resources a game uses, the less you'll have left over to run the PhysX adequately. But if you game at say, 1080p or a lower res, a GTX 770 might have enough power to run the game's graphics at high quality plus PhysX on low settings I'd wager.

My recommendation though would be to get a cheap used dedicated PhysX card. I bought a GTX 650 Ti on eBay for 85 bucks, and that should easily be capable of running the PhysX at max settings in the Witcher 3.

I think CDPR and NVidia are going to go all out with PhysX in the Witcher 3, as it's the first single player game that uses the PhysX 3.x SDK exclusively, so it's going to be a showcase title for the technology.. Sophisticated effects like fluid, turbulence, force fields, cloth, hair and fur should all be in the game.

And while PhysX 3.x will run faster than previous versions, the effects will still be taxing on hardware.

 

[501105]

PhysX has different settings as well so you may be able to get away with running PhysX on your primary GPU depending on your resolution.

The more resources a game uses, the less you'll have left over to run the PhysX adequately. But if you game at say, 1080p or a lower res, a GTX 770 might have enough power to run the game's graphics at high quality plus PhysX on low settings I'd wager.

My recommendation though would be to get a cheap used dedicated PhysX card. I bought a GTX 650 Ti on eBay for 85 bucks, and that should easily be capable of running the PhysX at max settings in the Witcher 3.

I think CDPR and NVidia are going to go all out with PhysX in the Witcher 3, as it's the first single player game that uses the PhysX 3.x SDK exclusively, so it's going to be a showcase title for the technology.. Sophisticated effects like fluid, turbulence, force fields, cloth, hair and fur should all be in the game.

And while PhysX 3.x will run faster than previous versions, the effects will still be taxing on hardware.

Maybe, though it is a trade of between investing the money in a second card for the Physx or investing it a stronger card in general. If you have a strong enough card (titan, 780 ti etc) maxing the game with the added load of Physx should be just fine. However, if you have a lower tier card than a second one just for the Physx might be the best option.

The same rule applies to Metro: Last Light which has settings for the Physx option. Benches showed that a beast like the 780 ti is more efficient at running the whole proces than say a 780 gtx with an added 660 for the Physx. That said, something like the ti is a rather hefty investment that is hardcore.

 

[Tuchi]

First, you should read more carefully before slinging invectives because nowhere did I make any kind of equivalency between the next gen consoles and high end PC hardware. I only said the next gen consoles were way more powerful than the old gen, and way more PC like in nature.

Second, if CDPR was targeting high end PCs EXCLUSIVELY for the Witcher 3, then perhaps your comment would have more validity. But since they're not, then what you said is totally incorrect.

Third, despite the consoles having significantly less powerful hardware than a high end PC, the consoles are much more efficient in using what they have as they are a fixed platform so developers can optimize them much further than what is possible on the PC.

Try playing the Witcher 3 (with the same visual fidelity as the consoles) on a PC with the same power envelope as a PS4 and Xbox One and see how far you get..

And I say this as a 15 year veteran of PC gaming, who has a high end rig that stomps all over your machine />/>/>/>

lol. no man you are incorrect here. what you said may be true if we were talking in theory, but you was refferring to an article stating and i quote" the will be almost no difference bewteen the pc version and the console version" wich is FALSE no matter how you look at it. that beeing said i'm was not trying to be elitist or anything as i was tryng to say to that other guy two posts above i know very well the value of money and i find extreamly disrespectfoul, even if you have them, to waste them. even more if you are wasting them with subpar products compared to very good products almost the same price ( namel my configuration) also since you attacked me personally by saybng this : who has a high end rig that stomps all over your machine />/>/>/> i will respond you on a personal evel here. i do not know who you are nor do i care, but i earn my money working becouse this is how my family thaces me the valure of money, since i was really young and since is a family tradition. all i have that is for my enjoyment i purchase erning my own money, this so i can develop the skill to handle money, even extreamly big money in the future. it's for educational propuses. so if you were tryng ( and that's clear) to show off with me , please go back to your corner, you're embarassing. the point here is,i could have purchased all the most expansive extreamly powerfoul componets, every time i want for my rig just ascking money to my mom ( wich is probably what you do) and be perfectly happy with the most powerfoul thing ever,always, the only problem is to do that i would had to resort to money that id did not gained myself and that would be unhethic and wrong. this mutch i learnd from my experience in handling money so far. since i know many people out there work very hard to earn they're money i fell compelled to help them in the only way i can, trought a forum, wich is to give adivse, if they're are genuinely wasting thier hard earned money. wich if would be EXACTLY the case if one have to belive that article. so you better read yourself your own post AND the article before you reply. what you stated quoting the article was FALSE it is A FALSE CLAIM. and that's a FACT. the hypothesis you made after that are just that hypothesis, nothing more

 

[Tuchi]

sorry this post slipped

 

[alextyc1]

Ahh yes...
The all mighty wall of text

 

[prince_of_nothing]

Maybe, though it is a trade of between investing the money in a second card for the Physx or investing it a stronger card in general. If you have a strong enough card (titan, 780 ti etc) maxing the game with the added load of Physx should be just fine.

The reason why I said getting a dedicated card may be the best option is because I think the PhysX workload in this game will be very high due to the amount of effects that will supposedly be employed.

The rendering load will be very high as well, but if he is willing to play at reduced settings, then it might be possible to run everything on a single card.

But if he wants to MAX out the PhysX effects and the 3D effects, then a dedicated card will almost assuredly be needed....even if he has a Titan or GTX 780 Ti. The only way I can see circumventing this would be to run the game at a low resolution (ie 1080p and below), but who buys a Titan or GTX 780 Ti to run at those resolutions?

The same rule applies to Metro: Last Light which has settings for the Physx option. Benches showed that a beast like the 780 ti is more efficient at running the whole proces than say a 780 gtx with an added 660 for the Physx. That said, something like the ti is a rather hefty investment that is hardcore.

As long as the workload doesn't exceed the capabilities of the dedicated card, then running a dedicated should always be faster.

If the GTX 780 Ti is faster running everything by itself, then it's because the graphics and PhysX workload were both within it's capabilities to run at the same time. But Metro Last Light is mostly a corridor shooter with a limited amount of PhysX effects.

Witcher 3's will have a much greater selection of PhysX effects, more than any PhysX game out right now. Off the top of my head, Witcher 3 will have:

1) Fluid effects

2) Hair and Fur

3) Cloth

4) Destruction

Source

And although it wasn't confirmed by any source, I'm willing to bet money that the game will also have smoke, fog etcetera as well.. So like I said, the PhysX workload in this game will very likely require a dedicated card to max it out and run it comfortably..

 

[sidspyker]

Correct me if I'm wrong but some of those are APEX not Physx. APEX(except Turbulence) runs on every card now, both AMD and Nvidia.

 

[prince_of_nothing]

Although tsuchinokoultimate got his post deleted before I could reply, I want to clear up one thing that he said..

The article he referred to does NOT state there will be "almost no differences" between the PC and console.

The article states that the differences "won't be huge." But when you look at the exact quote from Marcin himself:

For PC, which in theory is infinitely scalable, you’ll be able to get more, but you have to invest. On the consoles, the difference will not be huge because they’re actually brand new PCs. So I think gamers on each platform will get an extremely good experience and they should be very satisfied with the quality."

It's possible that Marcin wasn't comparing the consoles to the PC, but the consoles to each other, ie the PS4 vs the Xbox One. Either way though, "won't be huge" obviously doesn't mean there won't be "almost no differences."

These are the differences I think will be between the PC and the console versions:

1) Resolution. PC won't be limited to 1080p, but be able to scale to much higher resolutions, including 4K support I'm betting..

2) Frame rate. PC will obviously be able to get much higher frame rates than the consoles, which will be limited to 30 FPS.

3) Draw distance. PC should have further draw distances than the consoles.

4) Textures. Texture detail has very little impact on GPU performance (provided you have enough VRAM), so I'm betting the consoles will have the texture quality set to a custom combination of high and very high. PCs will be able to run the game at the highest texture setting, either very high or ultra.

5) Shadows. Big differences here. Witcher 3 will likely have NVidia's PCSS which stands for percentage closer soft shadows. Consoles won't be able to run that as it's too intensive.

6) Lighting. I don't know what kind of lighting system the game will use, but since lighting is very GPU intensive, I'm betting that the consoles will get an appropriately scaled back solution.

7) Ambient occlusion. PCs will have access to HBAO+, by far the best and most accurate form of game ambient occlusion. Consoles will likely get either regular HBAO, or SSAO. Most likely HBAO.

Anti aliasing. Consoles will use FXAA, whilst PCs will have access to superior forms of AA that include MSAA and TXAA.

9) Loading times. Whilst there won't be any in game loading times, the initial load should be much faster on a PC.

10) Object and detail pop in. Object and detail pop in should be much less noticeable on PC, since PCs will have further draw distances due to greater amounts of RAM, VRAM, CPU and GPU horsepower.

11) PhysX. Witcher 3 is confirmed to use PhysX 3.x. This means that the PhysX in the game should run very well on the console's eight core CPU, but will be limited in scale. On the PC, the PhysX will have the option to be hardware accelerated, which will mean much more impressive and realistic looking PhysX effects.

12) 3D vision support. Witcher 3 might have 3D Vision support, which the consoles obviously won't have.

Whew! That's it off the top of my head!

 

[501105]

@Prince_of_Nothing
Physx effects are a heavy burden, but if a titan or 780 ti (both top of the line very expensive cards) are not even able to run the game at max 3D settings and Physx wise @1080p than I would seriously question the quality of the optimisation as a whole (I am indeed buying a 780 ti or similar for 1080p btw). For comparison, the same card manages to reach 100fps in games like BF4, Far Cry 3 and nearly 80 in Metro: Last Light. I know that TW3 is supposed to be very heavy but that would be a tad insane, especially considering the fact that CD Projekt says that there is not a huge difference between pc and the consoles (although that could be pure marketing talk).

I do get that TW3 has lots of physx effects btw, but requiring an extra card to be able to fully run the whole thing seems completely absurd.

 

[prince_of_nothing]

Correct me if I'm wrong but some of those are APEX not Physx. APEX(except Turbulence) runs on every card now, both AMD and Nvidia.

Apex is basically just an artist tool for implementing those features quickly and efficiently. Apex still uses PhysX (I think it can use other physics engines as well but don't quote me on this) for the actual physics calculations however.

As far as running on other cards, PhysX as of right now uses only CUDA which is specific to NVidia hardware. I think they have plans to port it over to DirectCompute though, which would enable access for AMD cards. Not sure if that's going to be done by the time the Witcher 3 comes out later this year though.

But since the Witcher 3 will be using PhysX 3.x, it should run very well on the CPU as well. So even if you're using AMD hardware, you will still be able to run PhysX provided your CPU can handle it. The highest PhysX setting will likely require hardware acceleration though..

Yeah I forgot about turbulence. Witcher 3 will likely have turbulence as an effect as well.

 

[prince_of_nothing]

@Prince_of_Nothing
Physx effects are a heavy burden, but if a titan or 780 ti (both top of the line very expensive cards) are not even able to run the game at max 3D settings and Physx wise @1080p than I would seriously question the quality of the optimisation as a whole (I am indeed buying a 780 ti or similar for 1080p btw). For comparison, the same card manages to reach 100fps in games like BF4, Far Cry 3 and nearly 80 in Metro: Last Light. I know that TW3 is supposed to be very heavy but that would be a tad insane, especially considering the fact that CD Projekt says that there is not a huge difference between pc and the consoles (although that could be pure marketing talk).

I do get that TW3 has lots of physx effects btw, but requiring an extra card to be able to fully run the whole thing seems completely absurd.

It really depends, because we don't really know the scale of the PhysX effects and how they will be employed so all of this is just guesstimating.

Give you an example. When Mafia 2 came out 3 years ago, the PhysX effects in that game could have up to 10,000 particles on screen at the same time. Nowadays though, games have WAY more particles on screen.

A game like Hawken for instance probably uses up to 100,000 particles on screen at the same time. I have no idea how many particles the Witcher 3 will use, but it's likely going to be a great deal; and not only that, there will be a lot of variation and the effects will be much more sophisticated than previous PhysX titles..

Fluid simulation in particular is extremely compute intensive. That's why we haven't had any games yet with large bodies of simulated water, because we don't have the computational power as of yet.

Honestly, there's just too many unknowns right now to come to any reasonable conclusion. The only thing we can bet on with certainty is that the PhysX effects will be spectacular, because CDPR take pride in their work and they want to impress people as much as possible. That's why they switched from Havok to PhysX in the first place, as PhysX allows for much more intensive physics effects.

And NVidia is driving this as well, because this game will be a major showcase for NVidia technology.

 

[mexxo]

Hello guys!

Do you think I'll be able to run W3 with:

i7 3630QM 2,4 GHz
GT 750M 2GB
8GB RAM

?
Thx

 

[GuyNwah]

Hello guys!

Do you think I'll be able to run W3 with:

i7 3630QM 2,4 GHz
GT 750M 2GB
8GB RAM

?
Thx

I think it will run; I can't imagine that you would get all the eye candy, and you probably won't get 1920x1080 resolution. But if the game scales anything like TW2 has, it should be readily playable.

The 750M GPU is about 50% stronger than the minimum requirement for TW2 and a little stronger than the PS4's GPU. So performance should be at least as good as on the consoles, but probably not a whole lot better.

All that's guesswork until we have actual system requirements and some information on how the game scales on different hardware.

 

[wookieeasik]

Hey guys,

Do you think i will be able to run Witcher 3 at highest settings ?

i7 - 4770K CPU @ 3.50GHZ
GeForce GTX 690 4GB
16GB ram

Thanks.

 

[Aditya]

I have a GT 555M 3GB on my 2 year old laptop, and I'm already crying. Well should able to run on decent playable level. Then next year time for a new lappy!

Oh and I hope there is again support for AlienFX, me love dem lights

 

[Geralt_and_Ciri]

Maybe 3 GTX 780 TI for run this on minimun

 

[Kostiak92]

Hi guys!
What do you think about my Alienware 14 laptop??
i7-4700MQ CPU @ 2.40 GHz (8 CPUs)
Nvidia GeForce GT 750M
8GB RAM
Will I be able to run TW3 in a smooth way? I don't want the highest settings but to see this game in a beautiful way of graphics as it's going to be =) Thnx.

 

[GuyNwah]

Hi guys!
What do you think about my Alienware 14 laptop??
i7-4700MQ CPU @ 2.40 GHz (8 CPUs)
Nvidia GeForce GT 750M
8GB RAM
Will I be able to run TW3 in a smooth way? I don't want the highest settings but to see this game in a beautiful way of graphics as it's going to be =) Thnx.

No way anybody can say for sure. But the previous game was strongly dependent on the GPU architecture, and the 750m is a good fit for it. I'd be surprised if that would not play the game smoothly; I would also be surprised if it were capable of showing all the eye candy.

 

[Kostiak92]

No way anybody can say for sure. But the previous game was strongly dependent on the GPU architecture, and the 750m is a good fit for it. I'd be surprised if that would not play the game smoothly; I would also be surprised if it were capable of showing all the eye candy.

Thank you)) Yeah, I know that nobody can say for sure about the system requirements now... Just wanted to hear somebody's opinion at least.