First, floating point is not a useful measure of GPU performance. It's cool if you're running Folding@Home, but this isn't about that.
Second, the PC has to go through DirectX 11 and the Windows drivers. That theoretical processing power is lost in lowest-common-denominator solutions that allow DX11 to work the same way across pretty much all NVidia, AMD, and Intel GPUs.
Third, the PS4 has unified memory. The PC has to sling resources into the GPU VRAM. The PS4 can use them in place.
And finally, the PC is delivering much more content per frame, because of things like lighting that are damned expensive.
---------- Updated at 11:33 AM ----------
I did not read any mention of either resolution or frame rate in connection with either the minimum or recommended requirements. I am guessing 1080p, but I would not be surprised to find that the actual performance depends strongly on pixel count.
---------- Updated at 11:39 AM ----------
The 760 and 770 share a common output stage and memory bus. Applications that are limited by these don't have an advantage on the 770.
When texture processing or GPU computing dominates, the 760 is theoretically only 70% of the 770. But when pixel processing dominates (as it does in TW2), it's more like 95%.
Quite a suprise considering I only bought the laptop 2 years ago.... well this time around im going desktop
... I should be fine for another 2-3 years this time with a 970 or 980 ... not sure yet
So l'm looking OK with a GTX980 Super OC and 16GB RAM + SSD. My only issue at the moment looks to be my processor...again. FX4100 QC3.5GHz. Still, TW2 looks amazing so hopefully I should be able to scale down a bit from maximum and still see TW3 as intended!
you should get an i7 my friend, for that nice rig!
*Sigh* I know. I'm just trying really hard to avoid that, right now. Wife, 2 kids, mortgage, small business...so many inconvenient and inconsiderate issues getting in the way of me spending money on my gaming PC!
The FX-4100's limiting on that. I'd look into how much of an upgrade within the FX series you can absorb. People who will not be spending your money will suggest a Core i7, which also requires a new motherboard and is a $450 or more (US) proposition. If your motherboard can take an AMD FX-8, that's much less expensive (FX-8350 Black, $180 US) and still meets recommended system requirements. Even with a new motherboard, it would cost about $300 US.
Last edited:
@DragonKingReborn I'm afraid you'll be quite bottlenecked. CPU really isn't on par with the rest of the system
@Medy89 that's a wise choice.. Laptops are not really suited for gaming, they're more expensive and perform substantially worse
@wichat feel free to ask if you want further info or help
@Niebling you should be able to play between medium and high settings, depending from what performance do you want and how much CDPR can squeeze out of optimization
@Medy89 that's a wise choice.. Laptops are not really suited for gaming, they're more expensive and perform substantially worse
@wichat feel free to ask if you want further info or help
@Niebling you should be able to play between medium and high settings, depending from what performance do you want and how much CDPR can squeeze out of optimization
Last edited:
Sorry, yes I know the CPU will be my limiting factor. I will be happy if I can get it running on medium/medium-high settings with a reasonable frame rate.
Now the question I have is about the RAM. If the minimum requirement for RAM is 6GB and someone has only 8 isn't that cutting it somewhat close? Looking at my task manager is says I am using around 1.5 at idle.
I was thinking of upgrading being that I have some extra cash anyway but I am concerned because I want to enjoy the game as close to max settings as I can.
I was thinking of upgrading being that I have some extra cash anyway but I am concerned because I want to enjoy the game as close to max settings as I can.
No, because the minimum requirement is not for the game itself but for the whole system. 6GB RAM works out to about 5 for the game and 1 for Windows. (Remember that Windows uses speculative loading to preload memory with applications that get used often. That memory is easily freed when you start a large application like a 64-bit game. Windows is actually using less than a gigabyte for itself, plus a half gigabyte or so for backing store for the GPU.)
Setting the minimum at 6 and the recommended at 8 suggests the game will want 4 to 7 for itself.
Last edited:
So in your opinion 8 will be fine for this game and in overall are you of the opinion that 16 for gaming is overkill?
I watched a couple of reviews of the GTX 960, which performs very good for gaming on 1080p. Do you guys think it could handle Witcher 3 on high, provided you have a good CPU and enough RAM? I aim a bit lower than 1080p (1440p), and what I read about it, I think it's a really good choice seeing the price/performance ratio. I was wondering if it was rather worth it to wait for a TI release of this card, if there will be I mean.. or if it's better to get an SLI of this card.
i think both the 970/980 or the 290/290x( if you have right psu good airflow etc) are better choices because the 960 only has 2 gb vram atm and games nowdays already use close to 4gb so i'd suggest to get a card with 4gb. if it's true it's possible that the 960 will have a 4gb version aswell in the next month( not sure about this). However the 970 will be still more faster and it's not worth to go for dual gpu system, it's never as stable as a single gpu. I had a laptop with sli system and it was very unstable, flickering everywhere, support problems for games.. etc.
Edit: note that the 970 only uses 3,5 effectively, because 0,5 is slower bandwidth but it's still good perf/price card.
Last edited:
Did not understand myself if there will be a 960 Ti release. If I have to be honest, my first answer would be "no". Anyway if you are planning to upgrade specifically for TW3, waiting for benches before buying would certainly be wise if you can hold yourself off the game. I think you could be playing in high @1080p with that GPU.
About SLI I tend to dislike it because it's expensive and poorly implemented, since a good SLI profile is not assured and you could experience some problems like microstuttering or else. So I think it's a bad way of improving performance, suitable if you want to go "over the top" and need to play @1440p or 4k. Before go SLI imho you could put more money in a better single GPU, so in the end I think SLI is only reasonable with top GPUs (980 or 970) if a single one doesn't give you enough power.
Yeah, I won't be able to play the game for a few months after the release, since I am looking for parts for a new PC specifically for Witcher 3. I was hoping that by the time the game releases, or a few months later, the price will get a bit lower on these new GPUs.
About SLI, I was only wondering because, if I'm right they said you'd need SLI GPUs if you want to play on Ultra settings, although I guess that also meant 4k resolution, which I woulnd't want yet anyway, so might be a single 970 would be better. Will this little setback of the 970's 3.5GB memory being used fixed? People say it's still powerful enough as it is, so if the price drops, I'll go for that.
If your heaviest use is gaming, I think more than 8GB is overkill, even for this monster. But if your heaviest use is Photoshop, you probably want that 16GB anyway. And RAM is cheap.