It actually IS pretty close to a i5 2500k https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
i5 2500k result 6478
FX 6300 result 6361
i5 2500k result 6478
FX 6300 result 6361
PassMark claims aren't useful benchmarks of anything. I run CPUs like this all the time. In number crunching, it's about one-third as fast.
---------- Updated at 09:35 AM ----------
PassMark claims aren't useful benchmarks of anything. I run CPUs like this all the time. In number crunching, it's about one-third as fast.
Hmm, now i wonder if i should get a 980 or wait for the 990 to come out...
Anyway, the minimum specs seem a bit high and the recommended specs seem a bit low. I do wonder what they're basing these specs on, are the minimum specs required to run the game at the lowest settings at 30fps? Is recommended for running the game at high at 40-50fps? It would be nice to have more information regarding what these mean.
Anyway, the minimum specs seem a bit high and the recommended specs seem a bit low. I do wonder what they're basing these specs on, are the minimum specs required to run the game at the lowest settings at 30fps? Is recommended for running the game at high at 40-50fps? It would be nice to have more information regarding what these mean.
I've got an i5 3570k at 3.4 but it's unlocked so can push it higher. It's paired with a gtx 970. Should this be good enough to hit "ultra?"
It should be enough for relatively high settings. If a hypothetic "ultra" setting will include supersampling as TW2 did (the notorious Ubersampling), this might be too much for anything below high end multi GPU systems.
---------- Updated at 06:44 PM ----------
It should be enough for relatively high settings. If a hypothetic "ultra" setting will include supersampling as TW2 did (the notorious Ubersampling), this might be too much for anything below high end multi GPU systems.
It's a bit dangerous to speculate about what "minimum" and "recommended" mean. The best I can do is refer back to what they meant for TW2. There, "minimum" was a level at which you could expect competent performance at reduced resolution (say, medium and 1440x900), and "recommended" was good enough for high performance at full resolution (1920x1080) and most of the eye candy (except Ubersampling).
Similarly, sub-minimum is unlikely to mean "the game won't start". (Except requirements like 64-bit OS and DX11.) What it means is you're going to have to accept some reduction in resolution, performance, or eye candy, down to, say, low or medium at 1280x720.
---------- Updated at 09:44 AM ----------
It's a bit dangerous to speculate about what "minimum" and "recommended" mean. The best I can do is refer back to what they meant for TW2. There, "minimum" was a level at which you could expect competent performance at reduced resolution (say, medium and 1440x900), and "recommended" was good enough for high performance at full resolution (1920x1080) and most of the eye candy (except Ubersampling).
Similarly, sub-minimum is unlikely to mean "the game won't start". (Except requirements like 64-bit OS and DX11.) What it means is you're going to have to accept some reduction in resolution, performance, or eye candy, down to, say, low or medium at 1280x720.
Similarly, sub-minimum is unlikely to mean "the game won't start". (Except requirements like 64-bit OS and DX11.) What it means is you're going to have to accept some reduction in resolution, performance, or eye candy, down to, say, low or medium at 1280x720.
---------- Updated at 09:44 AM ----------
It's a bit dangerous to speculate about what "minimum" and "recommended" mean. The best I can do is refer back to what they meant for TW2. There, "minimum" was a level at which you could expect competent performance at reduced resolution (say, medium and 1440x900), and "recommended" was good enough for high performance at full resolution (1920x1080) and most of the eye candy (except Ubersampling).
Similarly, sub-minimum is unlikely to mean "the game won't start". (Except requirements like 64-bit OS and DX11.) What it means is you're going to have to accept some reduction in resolution, performance, or eye candy, down to, say, low or medium at 1280x720.
Since when do GPU's require more than 2gb of vram to run a game in 1080p? When the developer of "The evil within" made a similar claim about their game they were bombarded with people saying that was a sure sign of horrible optimization. It ultimately turned out to be utter B.S, but still. But now CDPR says the same thing( if I'm reading the postings right ) and now its ok?
The large difference between the AMD and NVidia recommend GPU specs makes me think the engine might support deferred context rendering. This allows the CPU to dispatch more draw calls to the GPU in parallel, but it's driver dependent and only NVidia supports it. AMD never bothered to implement it, although it's part of DX11 but not a core requirement.
The R9 290 is about 20% faster than the GTX 770 on average, but if it's CPU bound then a GTX 770 could conceivably come very close to matching it despite being the slower card.
The R9 290 is about 20% faster than the GTX 770 on average, but if it's CPU bound then a GTX 770 could conceivably come very close to matching it despite being the slower card.
Where did you get any such information? The specifications make no statement about VRAM, only system RAM. 6 to 8 GB system RAM is neither unreasonable nor out of reach.
TW2 does careful budgeting of VRAM. I do not expect TW3 will be very different in that respect.
It's the same league as the GTX770, so it definitely should be enough (assuming the recommended hardware is enough for high settings and 60 FPS @1080p) - at least with Nvidia's gameworks effects turned off.
Last edited:
If a Phenom II x4 is OK, a Nehalem Core i5 should be OK. Actually, I'd expect a Core 2 Quad would be enough.
Vista and Windows 7 have the same DirectX 11, so I suspect Vista will actually work. Just that nobody is going to support it for you.
Hmm, probably. And their umbra thingy, hope i type it right. That thing that allows the hardware to render on what the player is looking
So I guess it's confirmed that TW3 takes advantage of more than 4 CPU threads since an i7 and FX-8350 are recommended compared to their 4 core little bros.
X99 owners should be pleased, right, @Guy N'wah ?
X99 owners should be pleased, right, @Guy N'wah ?