With a good CPU and motherboard and a tolerance for the extra hassles of running SLI, yes, and at that point you're close to the limit of what consumer motherboards can do. ("Good" = Core i5/i7 Sandy Bridge, AMD FX-8xxx, and up.)
- Status
And the 3GB of vram? it will be a problem in the future or not? will the horsepower of two 780 in sli be oversized with 3GB of vram?
srry my english...
My cpu is an Intel Core i5-4670K and my motherboard is an MSI Z87-GD65 Gaming. My avatar is actually a pic of my rig, though its probably hard to see any of it.
I am strongly considering sli at this point, though I am sort of nervous about it. Especially considering if I do this I wont be touching my pc(upgrade wise of course) for a very long time.
It's good to wait for sometime and then get another 780 for sli, it will be real cheap after sometime. My processor is i5 4690k and I ran two R9 290 (one mine and one of my friend's), they ran pretty good, I will too think about getting another R9 290 but near the release of TW3.
Hmm... The different AA techniques available and post processing effects, also use huge amounts of memory. Hitman Absolution is a well known example of this. As far as I'm aware, the memory used for these features is halved in SLI and Crossfire for each card, which is likely the reason I could set some ridiculously high AA settings when mine was still working? It turns out also, that the 6gb Vram recommendation in Shadows of Mordor for ultra settings at 1080p, most likely assumes maximum super-sampling settings are being applied (which kills frame rates anyway, regardless of the amount of Vram available), meaning those who run it with FXAA, should see a lot less Vram required. Time will tell.....
As for the entire texture maps having to be duplicated on both cards, it's a ridiculous limitation, that should have been addressed long ago. Nvidia were supposed to be doing something about it with Maxwell, unified memory, which was basically just making system memory more available, and there are various other plans in the memory utilization area, but all that has been pushed back to Pascal now.
Last edited:
I will be buying a new GFX for this game alone. Right nowI hav a AMD 7870 XT and while it performs well in most games I doubt it will run TW3 in a manner that is acceptable to me. I think I will go for the new GFX 970 by Nvidea that will hopefully drop a bit in price when February arrives.
My only is if I should buy a new CPU too and maybe mainboard? My currently CPU is Intel i5 3570K 3.400 Mhz and a MSI Z77 mainboard.
I hope the change in GFX will be enough to run the game in High settetings. Otherwise I proberly have to sell a kidney for the rest too!
My only is if I should buy a new CPU too and maybe mainboard? My currently CPU is Intel i5 3570K 3.400 Mhz and a MSI Z77 mainboard.
I hope the change in GFX will be enough to run the game in High settetings. Otherwise I proberly have to sell a kidney for the rest too!
Hey guys,
Witcher 3 is the only game I'm waiting for and the only one I want to pre-order. I truly love the whole universum and I also think about the first game as the best game ever made. My problem is in my rig, I'm not really sure I can handle the W3. What I'm looking for is 1080p and at least 40 fps. I don't really care about amount of shadows, quality of AA or details, it could easily be turned down. I just need that 1920x1080. As a student, I can't afford any upgrades right now, so I hope my PC will deliver all the needed performance with pride
And what's inside the box?
GTX 660 2GB
6 GB RAM
and what is, I'm afraid, my real weakness... The stock AMD II X4 940 BE CPU...
In recent days, my financial situation can MAYBE (about 15 % success rate) result in replacing my CPU with an Core i5 platform, but for now, the situation looks like this... So guys, what do you think? Will it work? And when will (ETA) the official HW specs be released?
To fully describe my situation, I was really confident that my processor won't be a problem for another 2 years... But as I'm looking at the newest games with their absurdly high requirements (that Ring thing and also that scary thing,) I'm really getting some bad feelings about this :X
Thanks for any positive response And I'll truly hate you for negative response, so think about it and be positive!
Witcher 3 is the only game I'm waiting for and the only one I want to pre-order. I truly love the whole universum and I also think about the first game as the best game ever made. My problem is in my rig, I'm not really sure I can handle the W3. What I'm looking for is 1080p and at least 40 fps. I don't really care about amount of shadows, quality of AA or details, it could easily be turned down. I just need that 1920x1080. As a student, I can't afford any upgrades right now, so I hope my PC will deliver all the needed performance with pride
And what's inside the box?
GTX 660 2GB
6 GB RAM
and what is, I'm afraid, my real weakness... The stock AMD II X4 940 BE CPU...
In recent days, my financial situation can MAYBE (about 15 % success rate) result in replacing my CPU with an Core i5 platform, but for now, the situation looks like this... So guys, what do you think? Will it work? And when will (ETA) the official HW specs be released?
To fully describe my situation, I was really confident that my processor won't be a problem for another 2 years... But as I'm looking at the newest games with their absurdly high requirements (that Ring thing and also that scary thing,) I'm really getting some bad feelings about this
:X Thanks for any positive response
And I'll truly hate you for negative response, so think about it and be positive! 
We cant really tell you anything for sure and no idea when they'll release the specs. I'd guess it'll be a few more months until they publish the system requirements because they're still optimizing stuff. I think TW2 was more GPU intensive than CPU and I'm expecting TW3 to be the same (I have a Phenom II X4 955 myself @3.2GHz).
Welcome to the forums, btw!
Welcome to the forums, btw!
There is no way to render a scene in which camera and actors are moving from frame to frame with a partial set of textures. Absent real memory sharing, which no high-performance card currently has or could even have as long as they are connected by PCI Express. It is not a "ridiculous" limitation at all.
Whether current programming styles are actually wasteful of VRAM or are using it to achieve unprecedented performance remains to be seen. My bet is on the former. Sloppy work is cheaper and gets games to market faster, where they make more money.
Where there's a will, there's a way. This limitation has been there since SLI's and crossfires inception, not to mention, textures are far from being the only thing eating up memory as I already said. The only reason they haven't bothered, is nobody has been ahead of the memory included due to consoles having limited memory. That's not the case any more, so hopefully the likes of NVlink will solve this problem of memory sharing. But again, it's Pascal, a long ways away.
Oh without a doubt much of it is wasteful, but at least if the rumours are true, simply turning down the AA settings, should allow users of single 4gb cards to max out Shadow of Mordors textures, and SLI/ Crossfire users will probably be able to dial it up a bit.
2Gb for filters only seems as much absurd.. Even if it was the case 4Gb are still too much IMHO. I think the real point is that IF there is not a good reason for this programming (which I personally do not see) more and more people should simply stop to give 'em money.. I think that PC enthusiasts are too much looking too much for numbers while neglecting what's behind, good efficiency and programming which is essential. Having a beastly rig does not solve problems, because more than often it could be done BETTER with the same rig
That's just a guess on my part. The rumours going around are that 6gbs are required if super-sampling is maxed out. That won't make much of a difference anyway, as unless you're running a powerful SLI/Crossfire setup, max super-sampling will kill your frame rate regardless of how much Vram you have, just look at the difference cranking it up makes in Crysis 3 benchmarks, and that's also at relatively low resolutions.2Gb for filters only seems as much absurd.. Even if it was the case 4Gb are still too much IMHO. I think the real point is that IF there is not a good reason for this programming (which I personally do not see) more and more people should simply stop to give 'em money.. I think that PC enthusiasts are too much looking too much for numbers while neglecting what's behind, good efficiency and programming which is essential. Having a beastly rig does not solve problems, because more than often it could be done BETTER with the same rig
Yes they could no doubt be more efficient, but have you seen SOM? The game is quite a looker, it rivals what I've seen of Witcher 3 in the looks department. Lets just hope CDPR don't kill us with Vram requirements also.
Last edited:
If SSAA is making it have 6GB VRAM requirements then that makes perfect sense, downsampling is known to eat VRAM for breakfast.
:look::huh:
No, it looks a lot better than the guy in his chicken suit........ Look for the PC screens, not the consoles.
Witcher 3 has brighter colours, so can throw the eye, however the other is Mordor after all, so art direction has to be more dreary.
Yeah, but looking at some of the textures on the Uruk leaders and even the protagonist itself you can objectively say that the resolution on them isn't as high as you'd expect or at least it doesn't seem as detailed. I'm not saying it looks bad, mind you, it looks great and at the end of the day I care more about gameplay/framerate than ultra HD graphics (as long as the game looks decent, story and characters are good and gameplay is fun then for me that's a good game for the most part).
But I wouldn't put it much higher that TW3 in the eye-candy factor.... dunno if I'd even put it higher than TW3.
But I wouldn't put it much higher that TW3 in the eye-candy factor.... dunno if I'd even put it higher than TW3.
- Status