It should run, but the settings are a little hard to predict. The 760's a little slower than the recommended 770. I'm thinking, medium settings at 1080p.
---------- Updated at 03:44 PM ----------
If that's what you had planned to run the game on, I'd probably agree. 540m is the low-end GF108 chip, and it's only a fraction of the performance of the "minimum" GTX 660.
Oh I see! Thanks for the reply!
I plan to get a new system , but I still wanted to know what you think of my laptop.... in terms of how well or if it can run w3 at all..
I7 3610qm 2.3 ghz
Gtx660m
8gig ram
128 gb ssd
If we can trust the lower level of requirements, you're quite under the minimum since the desktop 660 is well beyond the performance of the mobile counterpart. So you'll probably have trouble playing the game or finding reasonable performance.
@Guy N'wah is there any official statement about resolution for minimum requirements? I can't remember any. Could be still 1080p but also lower. What do you think?
Last edited:
How is this even possible??? a ps4 gpu's theorical processing power is like 2 TFLOPS, A GTX 980's is like 5 TFLOPS how comes it performes the same 30 fps? Sounds wierd for me.
Quite. Or buy a better PC as well
Ed: ah, I just saw Guy N'wah already replied to that.
With different graphics quality of course, my young padawan.
Last edited:
So you want to tell me that the graphics difference will be so huge? OR maybe the 30 fps is meant with 8x MSAA and that's why performance is 30 fps? Because if this is the case game will easily get 60+ avg fps with any post process AA..
The graphics differences will probably be subtle, it's a thing of diminishing returns. On the PC with high settings you just get a little more accurate shadows here, a few more pebbles on the road there, some more polished textures over there, and a little more visibility range from that mountain top - result: performance demand increases vastly, while, at first look, the graphics don't seem to differ that much.
Isn't it more than "a little" slower compared to 770? Not like 6-7fps slower but like 10-15. Depending on settings.
I believe that if turn off the AA or set it to x2 (I think for FULL HD this would be enough), then even high settings will be available for users that have recommended system or little less.
Ehm.. What do you want to know specifically?
don't understand your question---------- Updated at 05:41 PM ----------
There are many factors involved.. Among these, the "diminishing returns" M4xwolf said: giving further with graphical fidelity the calculation needed raise exponentially, hence the fact that for small improvements you need lots of processing power. But also che fact that consoles use their hardware much better and more efficiently than a PC and probably the fact that there is, to some extent, a bit of lack of optimization. However do not consider those values for TW3 because they will surely raise the performance before launch.
If you play in resolutions beyond 1080p, AMDs cards hold up better than their geforce counterparts. For example at 4k, the 290X is most of the times faster than the GTX980 - for ~200 orens less.
(For this price difference, you can play a very long time before the higher power draw of the 290X costs you additional money over the GTX980).
See also here, a brandnew test in 5k-glory (or madness ): http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafi.../SLI-Crossfire-GTX-970-GTX-980-R290X-1149715/
(For this price difference, you can play a very long time before the higher power draw of the 290X costs you additional money over the GTX980).
See also here, a brandnew test in 5k-glory (or madness
): http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafi.../SLI-Crossfire-GTX-970-GTX-980-R290X-1149715/
Last edited:
Ehm.. What do you want to know specifically?
right now I don't know... after reading 1000 pages I more confuse than ever.
I need to upgrade my PC , I'd wanted a 970 +i5 but reading all of you it seems that I even now upgrade my monitor too! I just wanna play peacefully, no matter about high or ultra resolutions....
Simple question really.Ehm.. What do you want to know specifically?
Basically if you want to play above 1080p, get the fastest GPU with as much VRAM as possible.
Okay, this I don't get.right now I don't know... after reading 1000 pages I more confuse than ever.
I need to upgrade my PC , I'd wanted a 970 +i5 but reading all of you it seems that I even now upgrade my monitor too! I just wanna play peacefully, no matter about high or ultra resolutions....
What have we been saying that has made you decide that an upgrade to a high resolution monitor is essential?
right now I don't know... after reading 1000 pages I more confuse than ever.
I need to upgrade my PC , I'd wanted a 970 +i5 but reading all of you it seems that I even now upgrade my monitor too! I just wanna play peacefully, no matter about high or ultra resolutions....
What monitor do you have? No need to upgrade over 1980x1020 if you don't want it specifically (and know the amount of money involved for both monitor and GPU(s) ). If you play at 1980x1020 the 970 is a good choice. But if your aim is a PC for TW3 my suggestion would be "wait"
@M4xwolf odd, the benches I saw till now were saying the opposite = 980 leads. Of course the price difference remains huge EDIT - saw some more and it seems you are right even if of course it depends much on the games
Last edited:
No, it makes be afraid I will need to do it but I cannot. I was ready for spend 800-900€ in MB +CPU +GPU. So, if I have to reach such expensive stuff you are talking about (monitor 4k included) maybe it would be more reasonable buy something cheaper and humble. Anything facing my dual core 2.3g and gtx440 will be always much better.