The GameStar Hands-On Session: Technical Matters and First Impressions

[frynse]

There is no "max" that anything short of a massive SLI rig will run. They have said that Ultra will run on machines that currently run High. Ultra is not the maximum settings.

Since the 770 is considerably less performant than the demonstrated 980, I'd speculate that the game is not yet ready to run on High and 30 fps on the 770, but that it should be by release time.

I was thinking about ultra or around there, not max with all the overkill settings like ubersampling and all that jazz.
But I guess there's not much real clarification, just a bunch of guess work at this time. Although I will say if 30fps is all they can scrounge up on a 770 on high, it leaves something to be desired with the optimization.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

He didn't said for High... it's probably for Ultra. Are you seriously thinking that a MUCH more powerful pc with 770 will only be able to run the game for 30fps on High, just as same Consoles? Don't be ridiculous.

I don't think Jahn Marmais's original statement that console graphics will be comparable to "high" level on PC is true anymore. According to the game journos (like the Gamestar guys here) who've played the game on all platforms the PC version on high settings looked better than the console versions. More sharpness, better colors, more and better shaders and effects, far better LOD settings (like vegetations and other visual details) and so on.

 

[eskiMoe]

He didn't said for High... it's probably for Ultra. Are you seriously thinking that a MUCH more powerful pc with 770 will only be able to run the game for 30fps on High, just as same Consoles? Don't be ridiculous.

Well, first of all, it's clear from the article that PC's high settings are noticeably better compared to either console versions. Secondly, I don't think anybody is being ridiculous here. Like @Guy N'wah has said on multiple occasions, the game seems to chew up and spit out lesser GPUs for fun..

 

[Scholdarr.452]

There is no "max" that anything short of a massive SLI rig will run. They have said that Ultra will run on machines that currently run High. Ultra is not the maximum settings.

They said so, yes. But honestly, optimization is not magic. I really doubt they will be able to deliver solid 30FPS+ without frame drops on ultra with a single GPU that is available so far. But maybe they prove me wrong. I'm just wary about that, especially if they stick to their statement that they don't sacrifice any more visual quality just to lower the hardware requirements. Optimization is needed but how much can it really improve, especially in an open world game with a ton of variables and influences on performance?

And again, like Durante said - more than once - "judging game performance at "max settings" is enormously counterproductive". I'd rather have ultra settings that look actually noticably better than high settings but for which you need REALLY good hardware or hardware that isn't really available yet than a tuned down ultra settings just to silence those whiners in the PC community who think that they had any claim to be able to play a game on maximum settings just because they own expensive and powerful hardware...

 

[yokokorama]

I'm really starting to regret not getting an i7 4790 over my i5 4690k. I'm even regretting getting the 970 over the 980, especially with the new information about 1/8 of the 970's VRAM being isolated in a lesser / slower cache. Although I admit the latter is a lesser regret given the much larger price gap between those two GPUs, but still . . . when I built my rig last month I was feeling a hell of a lot more confident in my ability to run the game at my preferred settings than I am now.

Hopefully CDProjekt Red really optimizes the game, because I'll be a bit disappointed if I can't play the game on favorable settings with my specs. I have no illusions about being able to play on Ultra settings, but I'm really hoping I could run the game at ~60 FPS on an adjusted high settings.

I'll remain optimistic until I have a reason to believe otherwise. Considering the game is complete and all the company's time is being allocated for bugs and optimization, perhaps they can pull it off before launch over these next 4 months.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I'm really starting to regret not getting an i7 4790 over my i5 4690k. I'm even regretting getting the 970 over the 980, especially with the new information about 1/8 of the 970's VRAM being isolated in a lesser / slower cache. Although I admit the latter is a lesser regret given the much larger price gap between the two, but still . . . when I built my rig last month I was feeling a hell of a lot more confident than I am now..

On a side note: many hardware sellers already offer the possiblity to get a full refund for GTX 970 cards, at least here in Germany. So maybe you should try your luck and get a GTX 980 instead.

 

[yokokorama]

As I said, though, it is a lesser regret for me given the extra $200 that I'd have to dish out for a 980 which is a pretty hefty amount.

My biggest regret though is not getting the i7 4790 when it was at ~$260 on Black Friday week and instead opting for the i5 4690k at $200. Everyone on tech forums said there wasn't a notable difference for gaming purposes but I'd feel a lot safer now. Heck, I got an Hyper 212 EVO in case I wanted to overclock, so I probably ended up saving only about $20 or $30 getting that i5 over the i7 4790 (which I could have just kept the stock cooler for since it isn't overclockable).

Dumb decision on my part in retrospect, but whatever. I guess its part of learning.

 

[frynse]

As I said, though, it is a lesser regret for me given the extra $200 that I'd have to dish out for a 980 which is a pretty hefty amount.

My biggest regret though is not getting the i7 4790 when it was at ~$260 on Black Friday week and instead opting for the i5 4690k at $200. Everyone on tech forums said there wasn't a notable difference for gaming purposes but I'd feel a lot safer now. Heck, I got an Hyper 212 EVO in case I wanted to overclock, so I probably ended up saving only about $20 or $30 getting that i5 over the i7 4790 (which I could have just kept the stock cooler for since it isn't overclockable).

Dumb decision on my part in retrospect, but whatever. I guess its part of learning.

You're over exaggerating. You have a very good CPU, and the upgrade which you speak of would have seen none, or at best, incredibly minuscule improvement in the performance. Bigger chance you'll get more out of your k edition by OC'ing instead of a buying a non k.

In general, I think it's bizarre we've come to people with as beastly rigs as yours, being concerned about not even being able to run it decently on just high settings. Either we're all blowing this way out of proportion by misinterpreting this, or CDPR will have some answering to do. Any self respecting developer who makes a PC title will make sure it's able to run at 60fps on at least next to highest settings without requiring a NASA computer. And let's be honest here for a minute, TW3 looks good, but not *that* good to warrant shit liking requiring 2x 980ti's or whatever just to make our way past 30 fps on high settings. Compare it to Ground Zeroes which, similar to TW3, has big open levels and looks great without being super duper amazing. But that manages to run amazingly at high frame rates on just half way decent rigs. I mean fuck, I saw one dude running it at 30 fps on a non gaming laptop.

Anyway, I'll be surprised and disappointed if TW3 can't manage to have a high fps on high-ish settings on great rigs, and as I said, I hope this is a mix of the game still being in the process of optimization or simply some sentences being taken out of context.

 

[Xvenger]

As I said, though, it is a lesser regret for me given the extra $200 that I'd have to dish out for a 980 which is a pretty hefty amount.

My biggest regret though is not getting the i7 4790 when it was at ~$260 on Black Friday week and instead opting for the i5 4690k at $200. Everyone on tech forums said there wasn't a notable difference for gaming purposes but I'd feel a lot safer now. Heck, I got an Hyper 212 EVO in case I wanted to overclock, so I probably ended up saving only about $20 or $30 getting that i5 over the i7 4790 (which I could have just kept the stock cooler for since it isn't overclockable).

Dumb decision on my part in retrospect, but whatever. I guess its part of learning.

dear god never thought I'd see the day so soon where a gtx 970/980's performance is in question for anything other than highest value. What's the "best" one Nvidia's got currently anyway? (disregarding SLIs for now)

 

[Zabanzo]

What's the "best" one Nvidia's got currently anyway? (disregarding SLIs for now)

GTX 980, I dont think they have more powerful card avaible right now..

 

[Xvenger]

GTX 980, I dont think they have more powerful card avaible right now..

GG

anyway back to topic, I'm really curious how the ultra setting will play out now and if that's the highest it can go. It sounds like a massive gap between, low, medium, high and ultra in terms of hardware capabilities

 

[yokokorama]

You're over exaggerating. You have a very good CPU, and the upgrade which you speak of would have seen none, or at best, incredibly minuscule improvement in the performance. Bigger chance you'll get more out of your k edition by OC'ing instead of a buying a non k.

Not sure if its safe for me to push past 4.0 GHZ considering I am using a Hyper 212 EVO (which I have read is good for moderate overclocking but nothing too crazy) and 4.0 GHZ is just the i7 4790's base clock.

In general, I think it's bizarre we've come to people with as beastly rigs as yours, being concerned about not even being able to run it decently on just high settings.

Sorry mate, I wasn't trying to be obnoxious; I also hate it when people walk into DAI forums with something like i7 5930's and quad 980s asking if they can run the game at 1080p.

I am aware my specs are pretty good. But when I hear that a PC with superior specs to mine on both the GPU and CPU end was struggling to maintain 30 FPS on High (not Ultra) with several specs turned off, I think at least some concern from me is justified. Obviously, we're all banking on these 4 months for optimization but as I said, I think being a little worried shouldn't be too much out of the ordinary considering recent releases.

 

[frynse]

@yokokorama
Didn't mean to imply you were obnoxious at all.
I think the best course of action is just to wait and see how things develop as I really don't see it being very logical for high tier rigs to barely be able to run it. If CDPR has any sense, a rig like that should be more than enough, and even if it isn't by some madness, there's no point in rushing out and getting expensive parts that may not even be needed if we're lucky.

 

[onionshavelayers]

I am aware my specs are pretty good. But when I hear that a PC with superior specs to mine on both the GPU and CPU end was struggling to maintain 30 FPS on High (not Ultra) with several specs turned off, I think at least some concern from me is justified.

At least it gives you something to look forward to in the future. With your rig you'll get really high quality graphics anyway, but then every time you upgrade your computer you can test it out on witcher 3. And I'm sure most of us will be playing this game for years to come, it will just make the upgrade process more fun.

 

[ChrisStayler]

I paid 360 euros to buy an MSI GTX 970 and now I hear that we will probably need SLI to play on Ultra? I would be really disappointed if we come to that in the end.

I know how you feel buddy and i have a GTX 980. I will be lucky if i can juggle some Ultra and High graphics and stay at about 60 or 50 fps.

---------- Updated at 05:21 AM ----------

You're over exaggerating. You have a very good CPU, and the upgrade which you speak of would have seen none, or at best, incredibly minuscule improvement in the performance. Bigger chance you'll get more out of your k edition by OC'ing instead of a buying a non k.

In general, I think it's bizarre we've come to people with as beastly rigs as yours, being concerned about not even being able to run it decently on just high settings. Either we're all blowing this way out of proportion by misinterpreting this, or CDPR will have some answering to do. Any self respecting developer who makes a PC title will make sure it's able to run at 60fps on at least next to highest settings without requiring a NASA computer. And let's be honest here for a minute, TW3 looks good, but not *that* good to warrant shit liking requiring 2x 980ti's or whatever just to make our way past 30 fps on high settings. Compare it to Ground Zeroes which, similar to TW3, has big open levels and looks great without being super duper amazing. But that manages to run amazingly at high frame rates on just half way decent rigs. I mean fuck, I saw one dude running it at 30 fps on a non gaming laptop.

Anyway, I'll be surprised and disappointed if TW3 can't manage to have a high fps on high-ish settings on great rigs, and as I said, I hope this is a mix of the game still being in the process of optimization or simply some sentences being taken out of context.

I can't stand the notion that 30 fps is something even to consider for a PC. I play on consoles as well most of the games are 30fps but it's not all that bad because i have a controller and whenever i move left or right it goes slow so i don't care so i don't care i don't have a choice. But in a PC game were you use a M+K you end up turning pretty fast and the FPS hinders that a lot. And i don't play with a controller on the PC because why would i it's like putting a weight on my feet and asking me to run. A M+K is like spreading my harms and flying because the M+K is so freeing. Anyway i will end up lowering graphics just to play on 60 or 50 fps.

 

[Sharpy47]

Okay there are so many confusion right now... I just don't believe in this statement about 30fps with 770 on High. This is just nonsense, how is that can even be called a costumisation??

So we now know that consoles won't even be running on high as in press event PC version was running on "High" and looked superior to consoles...

So the question is - can people with recommended or above specs expect to run atleast the "console" settings with their rigs for 60+ fps? If not than its a TOTAL Bs.

 

[frynse]

So the question is - can people with recommended or above specs expect to run atleast the "console" settings with their rigs for 60+ fps? If not than its a TOTAL Bs.

It would be nice if they could clear that up, as well as a lot of the other questions we have.
But so far it seems like they're sticking with their console parity story in order to not hurt console players' feelings, and I doubt they're going to give more than vague responses in order to keep that up. So whether this is just an older than dirt PR line to try and pull one over on the console players, or if they've truly restricted the PC version when they cosied up with Microsoft - that remains to be seen.
Either way, it annoys the shit out of me when there's conflicting stories about different aspects and you can't get a straight answer out of the devs that actually makes sense when they're lying through their teeth.

 

[Scryar]

Okay there are so many confusion right now... I just don't believe in this statement about 30fps with 770 on High. This is just nonsense, how is that can even be called a costumisation??

So we now know that consoles won't even be running on high as in press event PC version was running on "High" and looked superior to consoles...

So the question is - can people with recommended or above specs expect to run atleast the "console" settings with their rigs for 60+ fps? If not than its a TOTAL Bs.

I would like to know this as well. Last thing I heard was that the consoles will run the game on something between medium and high with 30 fps. A pc with the recommended specs is supposed to run the game with a graphic quality between medium and high with 30 fps as well. This doesn't make any sense. Even with the better hardware optimization on consoles the recommended pc hardware is far above the console hardware. It has to be medium/high settings with 60 fps or very high/ultra with 30 fps on pc with the recommended hardware. Anything else would be dissapointing.

 

[prince_of_nothing]

There is no "max" that anything short of a massive SLI rig will run. They have said that Ultra will run on machines that currently run High. Ultra is not the maximum settings..

A lot of games recently have custom settings that surpass the default ultra settings, so I'm thinking Witcher 3 will be another one. I hope that a single Titan X GPU will be able to max out Witcher 3 at 1440p. I'm going to sell my G1 GTX 970s and buy one when it's available, as I'm tired of SLI..

Oh, and great translation!

 

[Sharpy47]

I would like to know this as well. Last thing I heard was that the consoles will run the game on something between medium and high with 30 fps. A pc with the recommended specs is supposed to run the game with a graphic quality between medium and high with 30 fps as well. This doesn't make any sense. Even with the better hardware optimization on consoles the recommended pc hardware is far above the console hardware. It has to be medium/high settings with 60 fps or very high/ultra with 30 fps on pc with the recommended hardware. Anything else would be dissapointing.

I definetely Agree. I just think that the man didn't really knew what he was talking about in that matter when it comes to technical things.