I have a ryzen 5 3600 and a rtx 2070 super.
I can try for a RT minimum, but I think I can go for a better experience with ultra 1440p.
It seems that if you don't have a great graphics card for it, RT is more of a downgrade experience.
I'd expect it would depend. I'm in a similar boat with a 3900x and 2070S. Given the spec list it would appear 1440P at ultra settings would be obtainable. This raises the question of what is the difference between something like ultra and high. Or a mix of ultra and high on different settings. The same applies to the 2160p recommendations where it lists a 2080S. A 2070S is not a 2080S. The question is whether a lower end GPU could do 2160p with the graphical sliders tweaked.
"RT High" probably would not be in the cards. The trouble is "RT High" lists 1440p with RT ultra. One would assume this means the base 1440p specs, or ultra graphical quality, with the highest RT setting. Again, a 2070S is not a 3070. So, same question. How much mileage can be gained from reducing the RT settings, some of the standard graphical settings or both?
I bring it up because, to me, the system reqs basically translate to, "If you're using settings close to these then you need hardware close to this.". Put differently, they're not very useful outside of a generic ballpark. This is not meant to bash CDPR either. In their defense they don't have a lot of options outside of presenting requirements in this form.
Not that any of this matters. I don't buy new PC hardware until it's been available for 6 months to a year. In part to bypass the "it's released but you can't buy it anywhere" phase. Also to let everyone else be guinea pigs. So when CP finally does release, assuming it does
this time , I'll see where my current hardware stands and plan accordingly.