I don't know about ubersampling but i am pretty certain that at 1080p and without it, i doubt it would go over 2.5gb and 2.5gb is already a LOT
Framebuffers and supersampling buffers are very small compared to the overall memory size and memory demand. Most of that memory is used for storing resources that are (or were recently, or may soon be) in use. Yeah, a texture pack with crazy high resolution would eat up a lot more memory. What supersampling and Ubersampling eat like a pig is processing time.
I know that some one has already asked and get an answer for that but, sorry I wasn’t tuned in this forum for quite a while.
Ok I have two nvidia 760 gt(SLI) and an old 2700k plus 16gb(8*2)ddr3 1800.
So how will this game looks/plays on minimum to recommended requirements machines .
I can't buy a new pc I can't even upgrade my current setup.
Any numbers or screenshoots ?
Ok I have two nvidia 760 gt(SLI) and an old 2700k plus 16gb(8*2)ddr3 1800.
So how will this game looks/plays on minimum to recommended requirements machines .
I can't buy a new pc I can't even upgrade my current setup.
Any numbers or screenshoots ?
Curious about opinions on my system and how it will handle TW3. My main concern is my CPU:
CPU: CORE I7-970 @ 3.2Ghz (Not Overclocked ATM, but I have ran it stable to 4.0Ghz)
GPU: Asus DirectCUII R9-290X
RAM: 12GB DDR3 @ 1333Mhz
SSD: Samsung 840 EVO 1TB
Monitor Resolution: 1900x1200
Any opinions, especially about my CPU situation, would be appreciated!
CPU: CORE I7-970 @ 3.2Ghz (Not Overclocked ATM, but I have ran it stable to 4.0Ghz)
GPU: Asus DirectCUII R9-290X
RAM: 12GB DDR3 @ 1333Mhz
SSD: Samsung 840 EVO 1TB
Monitor Resolution: 1900x1200
Any opinions, especially about my CPU situation, would be appreciated!
I do not think most quad core CPUs will be a problem. Really old ones (Conroe Core 2 Quads, original Phenoms) may be severely challenged. But if a Phenom II can make minimum spec, I don't see how a Nehalem could be a problem.
We have no good information about performance on AMD GPUs. I expect an R9 290X will perform well, but since all the reliable information is in reference to nVidia GPUs, it is hard to say what they will and won't be able to do. I have a Tahiti card, so I'm going to find out as soon as I get my hands on the game.
We have no good information about performance on AMD GPUs. I expect an R9 290X will perform well, but since all the reliable information is in reference to nVidia GPUs, it is hard to say what they will and won't be able to do. I have a Tahiti card, so I'm going to find out as soon as I get my hands on the game.
With my 8350 and 280x, am i better of getting the game on PC? or Ps4? Since they stated PS4 is similar to High settings on pc, and for some reason, the recommended are for medium-high settings on PC. Something is telling me PS4 would play better :X minus the head ache of wondering if i can run it high or higher xD
How the game will run on AMD graphics cards is a mystery.
My guess is (and its only a guess) that it won't run very well and that is based on the requirements given. They ask for a GTX 770 and an R9 290 for recommended. The 770 is a 2GB older card while the R9 290 is a 4GB newer card and much more powerful. It beats the 770 for more than 15fps in many benchmarks. So i get the feeling that nvidia will be the way to go. I hope i am wrong
My guess is (and its only a guess) that it won't run very well and that is based on the requirements given. They ask for a GTX 770 and an R9 290 for recommended. The 770 is a 2GB older card while the R9 290 is a 4GB newer card and much more powerful. It beats the 770 for more than 15fps in many benchmarks. So i get the feeling that nvidia will be the way to go. I hope i am wrong
Far Cry 4 had more lopsided recommendations (GTX 680 or R9 290x) but AMD was able to correct the performance gap with a driver update. I'm hoping they can do the same with this game.How the game will run on AMD graphics cards is a mystery.
My guess is (and its only a guess) that it won't run very well and that is based on the requirements given. They ask for a GTX 770 and an R9 290 for recommended. The 770 is a 2GB older card while the R9 290 is a 4GB newer card and much more powerful. It beats the 770 for more than 15fps in many benchmarks. So i get the feeling that nvidia will be the way to go. I hope i am wrong
Nobody can be sure about it but if I were to guess, I would say you can definitely run it. Maybe you cant max out everything at 1080p at constant 60fps but lowering a few setting should do the trick.
Unless... they use some nvidia technology that amd cards do not have and need to pass those task to the CPU....
Meh... if a 250W powered current gen console can run this game at semi-high settings. I am sure your PC can handle it
Unless... they use some nvidia technology that amd cards do not have and need to pass those task to the CPU....
Meh... if a 250W powered current gen console can run this game at semi-high settings. I am sure your PC can handle it
I don't want to be dramatic.. but I;ve read lately that you can forget about recommended specs... that even gtx980 cannot handle the game as you would imagine.
To be honest I'm 'devastated', because I normally do not play games lately at all, but I;m huge fan of the witcher series - that's why I bought new rig - just for this one game....
i54460, gtx970, ssd...12gb RAM 1600mhz... you know the price for that. And here it seems I will have to be satisfied with medium/high details. Is this true?
Actually when I said to my colleague that I want to have Ultra details, around 30-40 fps on 1080p he just laughed his ass off...
Yup, it sounds dramatic what can I say...
To be honest I'm 'devastated', because I normally do not play games lately at all, but I;m huge fan of the witcher series - that's why I bought new rig - just for this one game....
i54460, gtx970, ssd...12gb RAM 1600mhz... you know the price for that. And here it seems I will have to be satisfied with medium/high details. Is this true?
Actually when I said to my colleague that I want to have Ultra details, around 30-40 fps on 1080p he just laughed his ass off...
Yup, it sounds dramatic
what can I say...
You will be fine with that system, it's very good.I don't want to be dramatic.. but I;ve read lately that you can forget about recommended specs... that even gtx980 cannot handle the game as you would imagine.
To be honest I'm 'devastated', because I normally do not play games lately at all, but I;m huge fan of the witcher series - that's why I bought new rig - just for this one game....
i54460, gtx970, ssd...12gb RAM 1600mhz... you know the price for that. And here it seems I will have to be satisfied with medium/high details. Is this true?
Actually when I said to my colleague that I want to have Ultra details, around 30-40 fps on 1080p he just laughed his ass off...
Yup, it sounds dramatic
There is no way that the recommended specs that CDPR put out there won't be able to handle the game. In fact i think that since they were put out a long while ago, the game will run even better on release.
As Sid said above, the only real "evidence" we got right now is Gamestar's 2 day hands-on. They stated that apart from some problems in Novigrad, the rest of the game ran at 60fps with a 980. My guess based on benchmarks (both on hardware websites and from personal tests) is that if a 980 can run the game at 60fps then a 970 will be able to run it at ~50fps.
What I want to know is, since I dont have some super computer, and simply run a GTX750TI, 8gb RAM and I53470....how on earth is this game going to run on any next gen consoles when, comparatively speaking, their specs arent that much better than the PC I run? Is it simply due to poo optimization that the PC specs are so much more demanding than that of the consoles?
will support 21:9 ?
This
http://www.samsung.com/levant/consumer/computers-peripherals/monitors/led-monitor/LS34E790CNS/ZN
This
http://www.samsung.com/levant/consumer/computers-peripherals/monitors/led-monitor/LS34E790CNS/ZN
Last edited:
This easily explained.
On the one hand you have the console:
Every single console out there is running the exact same hardware and software keep this in mind this is important.
Not only that, but all drivers, the cooling simply every single piece of a console is exactly the same.
Thus the devs know exactly what they have to deal with. There is no console installed badly - it's plug-n-play.
Which - from a programmers point of view (I am an active software developer (not for CDProject to make that sure) and mod maker - just so you know that I know what I'm talking about.) is heaven.
You can dig through your code and opimize every single line, every piece of the render pipline to run as smooth as possible on the given specs, which you know won't change.
You can even play dirty little tricks to make the framrate jump, because of workarounds and optimisation that may only work with this and that particular chipset present on all consoles.
On the other hand you have the PC:
I honestly can't remember when I last bought a "ready" PC. You have thousands of thousands of possibillities to build your own PC. There are thousands of combinations of hardware alone - not even speaking of software - which is a big deal on it's own.
What if a told you a game - let's take The Witcher 2 cause we're on CDProjects forums here - does not even have to run with the same framerate (which is only a small part of the actual performance of a program) on a - from a hardware point of view identical system.
During the testing phases I often enough experience this first hand.
All dev PCs at my work are identical in terms of hardware. But you can place a high bet that the App/Programm/Game will perform worse on a graphic designer's PC than a pure coder's. Simply because of what is installed on the PCs, how messed up parts like the overall driver installment, the registry, how full the harddrive is, how fragmented...
That's only the influence the components of the PC have. Now there come in PC exclusive techniques (the PC version of TW3 is using a different AA than the consoles, because the PC's AA would be too demanding,...) into the mix, nVidia's fur, PhysX, etc. of course you can turn this stuff off but there is a bare minimum the devs want you to have without killing off the game' artistic view. This minimum is always going to be higher than on consoles. For all the aforementioned reasons.
Let's have another example:
If you would go an buy the parts to build a console (same CPU chip , same GPU chip, same memory,...)
Your self built "console" is going to perform worse than the actual console.
Why? The console has optimised drivers, optimised platines, chipsets,..., close to no OS - as opposed to a rather demanding (in comparison) Windows installment with all it's drivers. Which makes it superior to your own "console" even if you've installed it perfectly - which most people don't.
To make it short:
It's way harder to get a program optimised for a system you don't know, which is why a PC version will always be more demanding than a console version.
Still there is a difference between pure limitations of optimisation and poor optimisation - AC Unity for example is poorly optimised. Crysis was pretty good optimised, despite providing you with options you couldn't activate without melting you PC.
Edit: GuyNwah has the fast to read answer for you - mine takes time.
Last edited:
It's due to the fat that encumbers PCs. PCs have to deal with overhead from Windows and Direct3D and drivers. They have to ferry data between main memory and the GPU. But mostly it's because Direct3D and WDDM drivers have to work all the same way regardless of the underlying hardware. This makes them thick and unable to take advantage of the intended way of carrying out operations on each GPU.
"Poor optimization" is a canard that people who are offended that CDPR is delivering a game that actually works well on consoles are trying to sell you. Nothing about this game is poor or second-rate, as we all will see soon enough.
Last edited:
Hey guys again
I just read a few previous posts about the Gamestar and the gtx980 and also the gtx970. i have a gtx970 but only just recently heard about the Vram issue with the 500mb vram not being "unlocked".
So im not really wanting to return it but do you people think the witcher 3 in 1080p be pushing past 3.5Gb Vram? with everything ultra?... all im looking for is a steady +40fps with ultra
I just read a few previous posts about the Gamestar and the gtx980 and also the gtx970. i have a gtx970 but only just recently heard about the Vram issue with the 500mb vram not being "unlocked".
So im not really wanting to return it but do you people think the witcher 3 in 1080p be pushing past 3.5Gb Vram? with everything ultra?... all im looking for is a steady +40fps with ultra
Honestly if you don't sleep well with 3.5gb vram, you should return it and pay difference to get a 980 as I did.Hey guys again
I just read a few previous posts about the Gamestar and the gtx980 and also the gtx970. i have a gtx970 but only just recently heard about the Vram issue with the 500mb vram not being "unlocked".
So im not really wanting to return it but do you people think the witcher 3 in 1080p be pushing past 3.5Gb Vram? with everything ultra?... all im looking for is a steady +40fps with ultra
It's a pretty good upgrade anyway, but not that " huge " jump.
If you sleep well then it's not recommended,because the price difference doesn't worth the performance difference. I think the gtx 970 will easily run it on 50-60 fps aswell, you just switch off some settings if its reaching 3,5gb, but thats all. By the way i think that most of the upcoming and modern games " ultra " settings and 1080p are optimised for 4gb vram.