I've had to regrettably cancel my pre-order, as my computer will most likely not be able to run The Witcher 3 on minimum.There's no point in buying a game if it won't work on you computer.
What are your specs.
I'm also concerned about notebooks. Those are heavy requirements for a notebook to meet. Notebooks downclock the CPU and GPU to save power and heat, and don't have the ability desktops do to get rid of heat. But those aren't specs oriented to low-power CPUs and GPUs.
I don't have anything even remotely resembling a "gaming notebook" so won't be working from firsthand knowledge of how this game performs on them.
We will have to see what voodoo, and whodoo CD project Red pulls out of there arse to make that black magic work.
Last edited:
I posted them on page 3, but here they are:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...-Requirements-are-here!?p=1503730#post1503730
I'm noob in all of this, but I'll try.
Nvidia 650M 1GB
4GB RAM
Intel Core i5 2.60GHz
I think that's all? Oh yes, it's a notebook.
Last edited:
Oh I think you're fine. You're clearly within spec for everything except the GPU, and comparing GPUs is a black art.
You have: HD 6950. Cayman Pro, 1408:88:32 (that's stream processors:vertex shaders
utput processors), 800 MHz, 25.6 GPixel/sec, 70 GTexel/secGame requires: HD 7870. Pitcairn XT, 1280:80:32, 1000 MHz, 32 GPixel/sec, 80 GTexel/sec
So you're at worst 20% under minimum on the GPU, and I say 20% under those very conservative minimum specs is still a good risk.
Oh I think you're fine. You're clearly within spec for everything except the GPU, and comparing GPUs is a black art.
You have: HD 6950. Cayman Pro, 1408:88:32 (that's stream processors:vertex shaders
Game requires: HD 7870. Pitcairn XT, 1280:80:32, 1000 MHz, 32 GPixel/sec, 80 GTexel/sec
So you're at worst 20% under minimum on the GPU, and I say 20% under those very conservative minimum specs is still a good risk.
Is "conservative minimum specs" code for higher than they actually are, or lower?
Oh I think you're fine. You're clearly within spec for everything except the GPU, and comparing GPUs is a black art.
You have: HD 6950. Cayman Pro, 1408:88:32 (that's stream processors:vertex shaders
Game requires: HD 7870. Pitcairn XT, 1280:80:32, 1000 MHz, 32 GPixel/sec, 80 GTexel/sec
So you're at worst 20% under minimum on the GPU, and I say 20% under those very conservative minimum specs is still a good risk.
Um, you've kind of lost me there Guy. I know about as much on graphics processors as most people would know about quantum physics (which is, needless to say, absolutely nothing)
I'm concerned that you're going to overwork those poor hamsters.
Seriously, the GT 650M sounds like it will be limiting.
A gtx 660 seems rather high for a minimum spec, considering the xbone can run it. But must be what that Guy 'N Whats his name said about dem ROPS.
Oof, not much that can be done there. Are you telling me our illustrious Valkyrie doesn't have a proper desktop to work/game on and make awesome music? Sacrilege!
@JDionysusL No problem! I added some rough prices I've seen for good to great pieces you would need to build a solid gaming PC. I'm sure you could go even cheaper still and be able to build something that would run it decently, but it depends on how much you want to future proof.
Last edited:
Pfff..... Do you know what are you talking about? High-end i5 has equal performance in games as high-end i7. Difference between them about 1-5 fps. i7 for games is overkill. All new systems specs for new games just marketing and nothing more.
The Xbone has what is equivalant to the Radeon 7870 which ~ equal to the GTX 660. Besides, with console, they do not have nearly as much overhead as PCs do, and they are able to program down to the metal since all Xbone's have the same exact hardware, something that PCs do not have., so it is far easier for them to squeeze every bit of power potential out of a console than it is for the PC.
I'll decode some of that for you.
The number of pixels you can process in a given time determines your frame rate. For, say, 60 fps at 1920x1080, you need to be able to process 124.44 million pixels per second.
The stated pixel rate (25.6 GP/s for the 7870) is the number of pixel clocks times the number of output processors. But that's not the pixel rate you will actually get. The output processors need to do some computation on each pixel. For TW2, this computation takes about 200 to 250 clocks. So you actually need:
124.44 million x 200 = 24.9 billion or 24.9 GPixel/sec to get 60 fps at 1920x1080.
I don't know what the factors for TW3 will be, yet. Anybody who does, isn't ready to talk about them. But no matter what they are, a 6950 with a capacity of 25.6 GPixel/sec is going to be about 20% behind a 7870 GHz. This will not translate to "the game won't run" but "you have to cut back the resolution to make the game run well". Even if you have to cut back to 1280x720 to get a good frame rate, I think this game will look damn good.
@Guy N'wah, Lassagna Queen aside.... we are the most afortunated people having you here, among us.
Thank you, thank you very much for your patience, your kindness and your experience.
Thank you, thank you very much for your patience, your kindness and your experience.
@Guy N'wah , Lassagna Queen aside.... we are the most afortunated people having you here, among us.
Thank you, thank you very much for your patience, your kindness and your experience.
Yeah I have to agree. Thanks to your excellent technical knowledge I went from "I can probably run it at medium" to "I am hoping like hell I can run it at medium."
For work I have another PC, but there is an old graphic card. I'll see it's specs when I'll get to it tomorrow.
Last edited:
