The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - PC System Requirements are here!

+
Recommended specs seem a bit low. Maybe those downgrade rumors are true after all. Can you guys show us some new gameplay footage so I can put these worries to rest?

Or you know, maybe they optimized the game well, please stop with this downgrade nonsense...
 
I'm skeptical of the ability of Sandy Bridge to handle high-end GPUs in SLI. It should be able to handle one, but two monster GPUs is pushing the envelope of PCI-e 2.0.

If you run into trouble with CPU load or texture loading delays and can manage an update to an Ivy Bridge (motherboards with Z77 chipsets usually can), it may help. But don't go to that expense until you find you really need it.


damn......i was afraid of that.....aaaaah balls, i think i will have to test after the game comes out than before i do the change...damn, this is irritating


anywa if i decide to ditch one card an go for mono 980 ( like i am at the moment) what are the odds of maxing out everything and still having 60+ fps? if not at 1440 at least at 1080 p? good? bad? opinions?
 
Last edited:
I am comparing it with the minimum requirements. I want to know if I can play the game.
that I cannot answer for certain. we dont know anything of the benchmarks in which a comp running on the minimum settings will perform (e.g. what fps and resolution). I am fairly certain the 765m is rated lower than a gtx 660 http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-765M-vs-GeForce-GTX-660 but that doesn't mean it can't run it on sub optimal frames.
Someone more knowledgeable than me can probably let you know though =)
 
guys im' stuch with a i7 2600 for the time beeing, ( non k) i had to change some pieces becouse reasons, BUT for the time this game is out i will have dual 980 ( have one under the belt,lot of expenses latley ) so do you think i will have problems runnig everytin on max with filters at 60 + fps? i'm willing to stop at 1080 if ha too but i was more pointing twards 1440.....so bottleneck or no? opinions?

You are likely bottleneck unfortunately :/ how much performance this will affect i do not know.it also depends on the game itself.
Too bad your CPU isnt unlocked as overclocking it would have helped alot.

A few years back i had GTX 580 SLI and there was a noticable difference in performance in some games if my CPU was overclocked.
 
Last edited:
You are likely bottleneck unfortunately :/ how much performance this will affect i do not know.it also depends on the game itself.
Too bad your CPU isnt unlocked as overclocking it would have helped alot.

A few years back i had GTX 580 SLI and there was a noticable difference in performance in some games if my CPU was overclocked.



damn...i was soo feeling this....aaaah what a drag...i was tryng to get that sweet ass pa279q monitor.. guess i'll have to investe in motherboard and processo that monay than.. it's usless if i cannot exploit it completley...damn i'm sad now...maybe il play the game a couple of months after release when i have everything
 
Hey all, seeing these system requirements is making me nervous.

My Specs are as follows:
Nvidia GeForce 765M
i7-4910QM
16GB of Ram

The laptop itself has really nice cooling (for a laptop) on top of the high quality external cooling solutions that I have bought myself. Even when running full turbo, this thing runs relatively cool.

Thanks in advance for any help.

It doesn't meet the minimum, but a 765m looks like a good risk as a sub-minimum. Its performance is well short of the "minimum" GTX 660, comparable to a desktop 750. If you're confident in the laptop's cooling, I'd say you're a candidate to try to tune the game for some reasonable level of performance.
 
It doesn't meet the minimum, but a 765m looks like a good risk as a sub-minimum. Its performance is well short of the "minimum" GTX 660, comparable to a desktop 750. If you're confident in the laptop's cooling, I'd say you're a candidate to try to tune the game for some reasonable level of performance.

That makes me happy to hear. All I am asking for is low settings, 900p to 1080p, 30 frames per second.

Why do I feel that the minimum stated card is kind of inflated? I mean, with all the other recent releases with requirements like this have been inflated.
 
That makes me happy to hear. All I am asking for is low settings, 900p to 1080p, 30 frames per second.

Why do I feel that the minimum stated card is kind of inflated? I mean, with all the other recent releases with requirements like this have been inflated.

We don't know what exactly they mean by "minimum". With TW2, "minimum" meant playable at very reasonable settings, not just barely playable. Requirements of other games have been absurdly and irresponsibly inflated compared to this one.

What I've gleaned so far is that the lowest-spec "minimum" card is a pretty fast 24-ROP card, the other mentioned cards are 32-ROP, and there are no 16-ROP cards, not even the 750Ti. I'm going too far out on a limb by speculating, but this gives the impression that the game has to do a tanker-load of pixel processing.
 
I played TW2 with a paltry ATI 4670 at 20-30 FPS. Well below ideal specs but it got me through 5 runs. I hope to build a rig that chews this game up and spits it out at 60 FPS with crazy high res. Props to Guy N'wah and everyone else answering tech questions. Just seeing that the specs were released this early has me stoked.
 
Looks like my GTX 680 will be able to handle it on some middle settings (assuming the Linux version will come out and its performance won't be drastically worse than the Windows one).
 
Last edited:
Welp, there goes my hope crashing through the window and onto the street to be pissed upon. i5 750 and 7850. Fuck me.
 
In case CDP is taking a poll, no one in my family will be able to run this, even though we have all pre-ordered.
What I don't understand is how the PC specs can be set so high when it's supposed to be able to run on Apple products and consoles.
I don't need 60 FPS at 1080P or 20 gazillion by 16 gazillion or double screens or any of that stuff. I just want to play the last of the series.
I don't mind running minimum graphics at a reasonable frame rate at a puny 1280x1024 or even smaller, but I'm deeply offended that I might have to spend another $3000 upgrading computers in this household to do it.
 
We don't know what exactly they mean by "minimum". With TW2, "minimum" meant playable at very reasonable settings, not just barely playable. Requirements of other games have been absurdly and irresponsibly inflated compared to this one.

What I've gleaned so far is that the lowest-spec "minimum" card is a pretty fast 24-ROP card, the other mentioned cards are 32-ROP, and there are no 16-ROP cards, not even the 750Ti. I'm going too far out on a limb by speculating, but this gives the impression that the game has to do a tanker-load of pixel processing.

Your comments give me a lot of hope, though the technical language is beyond my understanding. What I am getting here is that I should be able to expect low settings at 900p or 1080p at 30 frames? 720p? Again, the screen is weird in that even sub-native resolutions it still seems really crisp.

1080p Low Settings @ 30 frames would be ideal, but I have to deal with the cards I have been dealt. Too poor to upgrade anything right now, dang college.
 
Last edited:
My only real problem is my GPU which is a R7 240 Sapphire. Will this be able to play at full resolution(1080p) at low settings?
 
My only real problem is my GPU which is a R7 240 Sapphire. Will this be able to play at full resolution(1080p) at low settings?
- if i remember right, and Guy will say if it isn't, the minimum states 7800 gen ati card and the r7 are more better than the 7800 series so you would be alright i am thinking. still just a guess
 
Last edited:
- if i remember right, and Guy will say if it isn't, the minimum states 7800 gen ati card and the r7 are more better than the 7800 series so you would be alright i am thinking. still just a guess

I'm going to have to say no, the R7 240 is not the equal of the minimum (7870) and probably not a good risk.

Just because it's newer doesn't make it better. Every generation of GPU comes in a wide range of performance, from low-end GPUs suitable only for video playback and casual gaming to the high-end ones that are little supercomputers.

R7 240: 320 shaders, 8 output processors, maybe 6 GPixel/sec throughput. You could play TW2 on it, at very modest settings. I'm not sure it will be up to TW3.

7870: Four times the size of the R7 240. 1280 shaders, 32 output processors, about 25.6 GPixel/sec throughput. It can do TW2 at good frame rate on almost any settings. Even though it is a minimum card for TW3, it should play it very well.

---------- Updated at 08:02 PM ----------

Welp, there goes my hope crashing through the window and onto the street to be pissed upon. i5 750 and 7850. Fuck me.

That's only fractionally below stated minimum. The 7850 is a cut-down 7870, maybe 80% of the bigger card.The i5 750 is better than the minimum Phenom II x4. I'd be surprised if it didn't work for you.

---------- Updated at 08:05 PM ----------

In case CDP is taking a poll, no one in my family will be able to run this, even though we have all pre-ordered.
What I don't understand is how the PC specs can be set so high when it's supposed to be able to run on Apple products and consoles.
I don't need 60 FPS at 1080P or 20 gazillion by 16 gazillion or double screens or any of that stuff. I just want to play the last of the series.
I don't mind running minimum graphics at a reasonable frame rate at a puny 1280x1024 or even smaller, but I'm deeply offended that I might have to spend another $3000 upgrading computers in this household to do it.

The PC minimum specs are only slightly higher than the consoles. And I strongly doubt that the minimums amount to "no, you can't play it". I think being fractionally below the minimums means the game will still play well at reduced settings. (Some of the requirements, like 64-bit and DX11, aren't soft, though.)

So I think taking offense or blaming CDPR for not making a game that will deliver Old Masters-quality artwork on just any PC is premature.
 
All I can hope for is that someday my grandchildren are going to play Witcher 3 on their tablets... And I'll be smiling on heaven, haha!!! But no W3 for me at the moment... damn!
 
I'm not exactly giving up yet, but here's what we have (x 2 machines)
300 W PSU (knew we'd have to upgrade these for the graphics cards anyway)
H57 Motherboard with i3 @ 3.07 Ghz
Planning to upgrade ATI Radeon - haven't decided between R7 or 7700 series
4 GB SDRAM (thought we'd have to upgrade these too)
So you see, it really is below spec in every single category, that means two completely new machines and we are already looking at getting a third tower
I understand and don't begrudge them wanting their game to look great and run the best it can. I'm just saying there are a lot of people out here who don't have the means to run those specs
 
So an i5 2500K is the minimum? My understanding is the only difference between an i5 and i7 is hyperthreading. If I overclocked my i5 2500K will I be OK even though my processor just meets the minimum spec? Or will the lack of hyper threading make a difference? I hope to upgrade my 7870 to a 970 soon. The processor is the only thing I'm concerned about.

My specs
i5 2500K
AMD 7870
Windows 7 64Bit

Edit: I forgot to add that I have 8Gb of Ram.

And thank you for my very first RedPoint fellow wolf!
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom