That article didn't really have anything new, or even informative to say. It just said the specs were brutal. Seeing how the minimum processor is so close to the recommended in terms of power. It stands to reason the minimum specs are probably not for the "low" setting, or even the medium. However again we will just have to wait for further clarification from CD project red, or wait for the games actual release to get an idea what can, and can't run it properly.
That article didn't really have anything new, or even informative to say. It just said the specs were brutal. Seeing how the minimum processor is so close to the recommended in terms of power. It stands to reason the minimum specs are probably not for the "low" setting, or even the medium. However again we will just have to wait for further clarification from CD project red, or wait for the games actual release to get an idea what can, and can't run it properly.
One artifact of the need to provide real first and second-line support for the game is that the tech support and sustaining engineers have to have equipment corresponding to the minimum and recommended levels. It doesn't do to say "OK, we're going to support Core 2 Quad. Oh, wait a minute, we don't have any Core 2 Quad desktops anymore."
So these levels have to be stated in terms of equipment that the engineers actually have and can use. Hell, even Sandy Bridge systems are becoming scarce, and they'll be using three-year-old computers to do support at the minimum level. Maybe they still have an old Phenom II desktop they can use.
Even so, the omission of nVidia Fermi (4xx, 5xx) and AMD VLIW (5xxx, 6xxx) GPUs is odd.
So these levels have to be stated in terms of equipment that the engineers actually have and can use. Hell, even Sandy Bridge systems are becoming scarce, and they'll be using three-year-old computers to do support at the minimum level. Maybe they still have an old Phenom II desktop they can use.
Even so, the omission of nVidia Fermi (4xx, 5xx) and AMD VLIW (5xxx, 6xxx) GPUs is odd.
Seems to me CDPR decided to make a game that combines both. And considering how good The Witcher 2 still looks, it doesn't really surprise me.
Win-Win situation for me.
Last edited:
I was surprised at first at the system requirements until I watched the 30 minute gameplay footage again and took in all the little details. TW3 will definitely be the best looking game on the market on its release. It is too bad many PC users who do not have a PS4 or XBone and have a low-mid range PC will not be able to run this game without sacrificing massive resolution and graphical fidelity. 1080p even will be asking a lot from my machine. I can run TW2 on high settings with my current setup but I am getting a new GPU NVidia 750 ti that will hopefully improve my chances at running TW3 at an acceptable quality. At least 1080p at the lowest settings I hope.
I believe that if there is even a low graphics settings TW3 will still look just as good as TW2. Honestly though I would have been happy if CDPR used TW2's red engine and created TW3 from that. TW2 graphics as many know are still the best graphics out there even today. TW3 could have used the same graphical quality as TW2 and I still would buy it and enjoy every minute.
I believe that if there is even a low graphics settings TW3 will still look just as good as TW2. Honestly though I would have been happy if CDPR used TW2's red engine and created TW3 from that. TW2 graphics as many know are still the best graphics out there even today. TW3 could have used the same graphical quality as TW2 and I still would buy it and enjoy every minute.
To all the people who are about to make a huge mistake and upgrade before the game comes out... Don't! Wait for the game to be released and then see the benchmarks and decide on a upgrade. Nobody knows anything for sure until the game is released and you don't want to spend a massive amount of money and end up with different results then you were hoping for.
I really like my 970 G1 Wind Force by Gigabyte. It OC's great, build quality is good. Is it the best? Hard to say.
Gigabyte is having some issues here and there lately... Like they are kinda noisy
I personally feel that the majority of gamers here love msi and they have their reasons, though the asus is really good too, there's a tiny difference
You can buy either with no regrets, they are both cool and silent
If people slightly prefer msi there is a reason, but isn't big deal, the difference is so irrelevant that if you prefer you can even pick the video card by aesthetic beauty
Proooobably not a great idea to put words in people's mouths. Some of us, when we say The Witcher, ALSO mean great graphics.
Also, calm down a bit, please. Enthusiasm is great! Annoyance or irritation with others less so.
Actually it wasn't. That's why we still have articles like these ones:
Revisiting Crysis's amazing FPS sandbox: how the series lost its way
Campaign For A Better Memory Of Crysis 1
All we can go on is the specs we've been given, and based on those and the analysis of what seems to be critical requirements, your card is, as Guy said, well below the minimum. So the probability that you will be able to play the game is low. If you can't upgrade, all you can do is wait until the game is released and people are able to check on different systems.
Guys this is my future build. Can anyone say if it's ok or if there is something wrong with it. I guess it could play TW3 with some ok graphics. Maybe i will need to turn off PhysX and lower some AA, Shadows etc. I wanna play the game at 1080p 60fps.
GTX 980
Intel I7 4790k
Maximus Vii Hero Z97 Motherboard
8GB Ram
500GB HD
Win 8.1
GTX 980
Intel I7 4790k
Maximus Vii Hero Z97 Motherboard
8GB Ram
500GB HD
Win 8.1
Last edited:
Tx. Yeah i think so too. It will be kinda like when i played Crysis 3 were i had to but some settings on Ultra and others on high that game was so leggy if i tried to max it out. But at that time i had a 7970.
