Sandy Bridge with a single GPU, I think you're fine. The memory system on Sandy Bridge turned out so well that the server model of these CPUs is still current. What you don't get is PCI-e 3.0, and you would want that only for high-end SLI.
Sandy Bridge with a single GPU, I think you're fine. The memory system on Sandy Bridge turned out so well that the server model of these CPUs is still current. What you don't get is PCI-e 3.0, and you would want that only for high-end SLI.
I know its a lot to read through, but check what was said earlier in this thread. Minimum is probably referring to medium, and recommended is probably insane 4k level stuff. So you might be fine.
I strongly doubt that. 4k is way too much for a GTX 770 in any modern ('next gen') game.
(The R9 290 fares a lot better there, having more raw power and double the video RAM; the comparison GTX 770 = R9 290 stinks of Gameworks anyway)
I'd assume that a GTX770 is enough for decent framerates under high settings and fullHD; also a R9 280 X should be enough for that once you turn off Nvidias secret sauce.
Last edited:
.jpg)
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt launches on May 19th, 2015. If you are looking to play the game on PC, here are the minimum and recommended system requirements.
Minimum System Requirements
Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz
AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660
AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
RAM 6GB
OS 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)
DirectX 11
HDD Space 40 GB
Recommended System Requirements
Intel CPU Core i7 3770 3,4 GHz
AMD CPU AMD FX-8350 4 GHz
Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 770
AMD GPU Radeon R9 290
RAM 8GB
OS 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)
DirectX 11
HDD Space 40 GB
I really hope that this is joke!!!
First difference between i5-2500K and i7 3770 in games is so small - aka irrelevant! So how then i5-2500K can be minimum?
Second, i was expecting something like HD5870 to be minimum and Core2Quad Q9650 for CPU, or even Dual Core like E8600?
Here we have minimum requirements that basically represent the power of PS4, which i hope that is not a real requirement because on a PC we have something that is called SCALING!
I know that for many games hardware requirements are wrong, and this is not ok, and also developers are aware of this. And i really hope that this is the case with this game. If not - i'm not gonna support this game.
I don't need engine demonstration, i need great story, quest, atmosphere - more important elements. Here is my thread where everything is explained:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/21776-Optimization-Customization-Tweaking
Last edited:
YOU DO NOT ASK ABOUT THE SECRET INGREDIENT!
Seriously though I way a little hyperbolic, but not to off the mark. Recommended probably is for higher setting with minimum reaching medium. At least that was how it was for the last two games. Actually it was even more forgiving.
This isn't bad at all,but just in case im building high end machine so that game can look beautiful at 1440p
Attachments
-
1272972031053_f.jpg
I'm figuring that I'll need to upgrade the GPU at least, though I'll try it as is first in any case.
PCIe16 GT430 1GB (4GB shared RAM) (64 CUDA cores, weak on fill rate among other things (highest res 1440x900 on monitor)
32GB DDR3 low latency RAM
i5 2400 CPU (3.1 GHz)
Win7 x64 & DX11
(marginal HDD, though some housekeeping &/or an additional drive are planned anyway).
PCIe16 GT430 1GB (4GB shared RAM) (64 CUDA cores, weak on fill rate among other things (highest res 1440x900 on monitor)
32GB DDR3 low latency RAM
i5 2400 CPU (3.1 GHz)
Win7 x64 & DX11
(marginal HDD, though some housekeeping &/or an additional drive are planned anyway).
Last edited:
Save yourself some pain and get a cheap new GPU with multiple performance
The CPU is good enough, since the performance difference to the i5 2500 is only a few percents.
I think I will wait and see. It might be less unacceptable than at first blush... and if nothing else I've got a better chance of finding the most suitable cost replacement once there are reports on real world performance.
Waiting till May will not make the replacement more costly, and might add better cost/performance ratio items to the potential list. For now it serves "well enough".
Waiting till May will not make the replacement more costly, and might add better cost/performance ratio items to the potential list. For now it serves "well enough".
I think that means you can run it fine on low settings, on these specs.
I don't think there will be some artificial "no crossing" boundry, like in CoD: Ghosts for example.
Hey! what do you think about my PC specs, I think everything is good but the processor bothers me a little. (I'm kind of new regarding pc settings so please help me)
Intel® Core™ i7 4700HQ Processor @2.40GHz Turbo Speed: 3.4 GHz
16 GB DDR3L RAM
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX880M 4GB
Can I run it?
Regards.
Intel® Core™ i7 4700HQ Processor @2.40GHz Turbo Speed: 3.4 GHz
16 GB DDR3L RAM
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX880M 4GB
Can I run it?
Regards.
The "hard" specs (miss these, and the game won't install or won't run) are 64-bit OS (they didn't spec Vista, but the few of us who still have working Vista installs might be OK anyway) and DirectX 11 (which excludes 64-bit XP and any cards earlier than nVidia 4xx or AMD 5xxx).
Dual cores (Core 2 Duo, AMD x2, etc.) may be heavily disadvantaged. 4-ROP and 8-ROP GPUs (nVidia anything less than x50, AMD less than x7xx) as well. Not sure how 4GB RAM will fare, but I'd expect poor loading times.
I'm cobbling together a system with a Core 2 Duo E8400, 64-bit Vista, GTS 450, 4GB RAM to see what actual playable minimums look like.
Usually, by my own little andhumble experience, minimum requirements are given as a guide to play the game without any trouble. The recomended ones are for those who want (and can get it) the hightest experience of quality which the creators can guarantee. One reason is that it is barely usual companies can test the whole possible combinations between all the hardware in the market.
Playing under lesser level than minimum ones is a risk that the user chose to afford by one's own responsability and accepting possible chrashes or failures. It really doesn't mean one could not play the game perfectly.
Playing under lesser level than minimum ones is a risk that the user chose to afford by one's own responsability and accepting possible chrashes or failures. It really doesn't mean one could not play the game perfectly.
Last edited:
Pretty much this. It'd be almost impossible even if you had the gumption, to check every card, cpu, etc on the market. Especially when it comes to some of the harder to find older units. Minimum requirements, along with in the ballpark equipment given will be able to run the game anywhere between low, and high. Recommended would equal guaranteed high, and beyond. Now this is a frustrating thing for people looking to buy the game before release because the community can't definitively say how the sucker is going to run on comparative equipment given to what is recommended. Using sites that generate auto statistics like game debate, or even doing the math yourself won't give you a definitive answer either.