What will the system requirements be? Lets discuss!

[sinister.sinner]

Isn

Theres only 2 CPU choices, AMD & Intel, and Intel does gaming better. See the benchmarks from Gamers Nexus in the link.
AMD is better for rendering work but we are talking gaming.
We'll see what Ryzen 3 and Intel's future offerings bring. Intel has led gaming benchmarks for a VERY long time and it continues to do so.

The most important thing will be GPU of course and the answer is only Nvidia. Regarding Navi, it will be mid range, not high end. That is firmly Nvidia's domain.

To clarify, i'm not talking about minimum system requirements but requirements to run the game to its full extent.
Just like the demo, the ideal system is:
Intel CPU
Nvidia GPU
min 16gb RAM and running off a decent SSD.

Sadly if one goes for a pure gaming PC blue/green is still the way to go.
I'll upgrade next year in march/april and will go with the benchmarks by then. But I guess it will be an i7 and a flagship Ti once again.
Very stupid budget vise sure but I just can't game on midrange hardware, too much a graphics whore for that.

 

[Triffid77]

Isn
Sadly if one goes for a pure gaming PC blue/green is still the way to go.
I'll upgrade next year in march/april and will go with the benchmarks by then. But I guess it will be an i7 and a flagship Ti once again.
Very stupid budget vise sure but I just can't game on midrange hardware, too much a graphics whore for that.

Not that its necessarily bad. Someone has to hold the crown.
Competition is a good thing for all and thankfully AMD has come back from the CPU grave with Zen. If only they could compete with Nvidia in the high end GPU space.

Regarding budget, its not that bad in the grand scheme of things. Its a hobby we have and to get the best the world has to offer doesn't cost that much (relative to other hobbies).

Don't hold on to PC parts for too long. Upgrade & sell often, recouping a very good margin.
Cost of ownership is spread out and, more importantly, your equipment has stayed on par, never falling behind.

 

[Webbysaurus]

I just hope this will be compatible with Win 7 64 Ultimate. My system is outdated, five years old but it is just going to have to do for now. I build my own systems and do not buy off the shelf. Still running a Zotac GeForce GTX 980 Ti, AMD FX 8350 / 8 core @4.2 Ghz on an ASUS Crosshair V Formula A-Z motherboard, 16 GB DDR3 memory. The only change I will be making sometime soon is upgrading the memory to 32 GB. I have Win 10 available (dual boot) but hope I don't have to use it for this game, not right now anyway.

Upgrading your ram from 16gb to 32gb isn't going to improve your performance in any way, sorry to say.
16GB is still all you need for gaming and your CPU is what is holding your system back, unfortunately the FX line of CPU's from AMD were pretty underwhelming from the start and they are really showing their age these days (they aren't really true 8 cores either, they are closer to 4 cores with something similar to hyper threading or SMT to give the simple explanation) swapping out your CPU, motherboard and RAM is kinda the only upgrade path you have at this point that would make a difference, your 980Ti should still be able to get a little more performance if not held back by that CPU.

So my advice would be to either not do any upgrade as 32gb of ram would just be wasting money on that particular system, or bite the bullet and go for a Ryzen 5/7 or intel i5/i7 combo, kinda want to go for 6core or more these days and either a 6 core i5 or 6core Ryzen 5 would both be able to keep up with your GTX 980Ti or even newer cards like the RTX 2080 where your current CPU is already not able to take full advantage of a GTX 980Ti, with 16gb of DDR4 3000mhz memory, 3000 to 3200mhz seems to be the sweet spot for RAM pricing right now.

(fyi your GTX 980Ti should be able perform similarly to a GTX 1070 when paired with a more powerful processor than the FX 8350)

*edit*
Thought I would just add if you are getting the extra ram for non gaming uses then that's up to you and whatever you need it for, but for gaming upgrading your system from 16gb to 32gb isn't going to make a single difference in performance on your system.

 

[Draconifors]

My CPU doesn't even meet Witcher 3's recommended, so it definitely won't meet Cyberpunk's either.
But despite it being an obvious bottleneck even now, I expect my PC will be good enough as I don't need 60 fps.

We shall see.

 

[BarefootWarrior]

Upgrading your ram from 16gb to 32gb isn't going to improve your performance in any way, sorry to say.
16GB is still all you need for gaming and your CPU is what is holding your system back, unfortunately the FX line of CPU's from AMD were pretty underwhelming from the start and they are really showing their age these days (they aren't really true 8 cores either, they are closer to 4 cores with something similar to hyper threading or SMT to give the simple explanation) swapping out your CPU, motherboard and RAM is kinda the only upgrade path you have at this point that would make a difference, your 980Ti should still be able to get a little more performance if not held back by that CPU.

So my advice would be to either not do any upgrade as 32gb of ram would just be wasting money on that particular system, or bite the bullet and go for a Ryzen 5/7 or intel i5/i7 combo, kinda want to go for 6core or more these days and either a 6 core i5 or 6core Ryzen 5 would both be able to keep up with your GTX 980Ti or even newer cards like the RTX 2080 where your current CPU is already not able to take full advantage of a GTX 980Ti, with 16gb of DDR4 3000mhz memory, 3000 to 3200mhz seems to be the sweet spot for RAM pricing right now.

(fyi your GTX 980Ti should be able perform similarly to a GTX 1070 when paired with a more powerful processor than the FX 8350)

*edit*
Thought I would just add if you are getting the extra ram for non gaming uses then that's up to you and whatever you need it for, but for gaming upgrading your system from 16gb to 32gb isn't going to make a single difference in performance on your system.

Really good info, Thanks! The only reason I was thinking about upgrading memory to 32GB was for rendering purposes for modeling. You are quite right, I just need to upgrade the system but at the moment, it's a matter of having the money to do so and I don't. What I may do is just save up and buy component by component and eventually build a new system, just have to wait and see. I have been thinking about the Ryzen family of CPU's, I just prefer AMD despite what others say, and this system is not dedicated to gaming, I also do my graphics work with it. The GTX 980 Ti will have to work for a while, so far really haven't had any problems, the silly thing is a tank. For gaming, I have games such as GTA V, TW3, The Division and others using max settings and the 980 (for the most part) cranks out 60 FPS @ 1920 X 1080. I'm good with that for now till I replace my monitor. I have been looking at the new line of GeForce 1660 Ti, just not convinced yet. I appreciate the feed back!

 

[Guest 4323944]

That's what I want to know but it'll be hard to get an answer from them about it . You could look at the PC specs from the demo showcased but it won't be that usefull since it's nothing but a build and I doubt they had the time to tweak things around . My guess is that it will need atleast a 1060 3gb for minimum play and around 4 to 5 gb for your med to high setting playthrough . Again hard to say but I'd love to know since I'm in the middle of getting a new graphics card .

Oh and around 8 to 16 gb of ram .

 

[Dreadn0ught_Prime]

Well I think for me CPU is the most critical because my board is at its maximum. I cant use the new iseries processors. So a CPU upgrade would require a mobo upgrade and thats pretty much a whole system build at that point. I used to work in a computer store that did sales and repair and sold this guy a RTX 2080 and holy crap just the card alone the games he played like RUST went from 80fps to 140 at max settings. Just insane performance, but insane price. If the requirements are too much I'll still buy the game but I won't be able to play it. It may be awhile before I can enjoy it. I just refuse to play something of this quality on a console.

 

[Has_Neyn]

We should be all playing off SSDs already

Lol and here I am with a 1 TB Western Digital hard drive that has Windows and everything on it...

Post automatically merged: Mar 4, 2019

Very stupid budget vise sure but I just can't game on midrange hardware, too much a graphics whore for that.

Haha agreed. Though my rig is all team red, with a ryzen 3 2200g and an rx 570. Performance has been very good, with high settings and 60 fps, and you don't need to have the best parts to get the best eye candy for games. Ofc this is just personal opinion, and I see very little difference from high to ultra.

 

[vyvexthorne]

Well if the game will be playable on consoles the minimum requirements for pc can't be too awful. I would actually think it'd be in line with Witcher 3's min req.

 

[BarefootWarrior]

Well if the game will be playable on consoles the minimum requirements for pc can't be too awful. I would actually think it'd be in line with Witcher 3's min req.

Well said, god forbid that a console would ever be more powerful then a PC.

 

[sinister.sinner]

Haha agreed. Though my rig is all team red, with a ryzen 3 2200g and an rx 570. Performance has been very good, with high settings and 60 fps, and you don't need to have the best parts to get the best eye candy for games. Ofc this is just personal opinion, and I see very little difference from high to ultra.

I never claimed to be reasonable.
It depends on the setting but it's enough for me to know that I still could set something on Very High or Ultra for it to be bothering.
Luckily my 1080 Ti was ready for everything I threw at it and most of the time I could even downsample on top of it. Just the cpu is starting to get a bottleneck in my sys.

 

[Danyel_Longbow]

W/e ever it ends up being I just hope they make it AMD friendly and make it so multiple cores are used effectively...Would be very nice to see the game able to properly use 6 to 8 cores..for those wanting to crank settings to the max...for gpu dunno depends when the game comes out.

 

[termcan]

The demo was on 1080Ti, so I'm guessing a 1080 would be enough for 1080p@very high settings. My concern is will the game graphics will be hugely dependant on nvidia tech, like raytracing, hairworks etc. bc I'm hoping that navi gpu's will not be a dissapointment and I'm planning to upgrade to that.

 

[Andreas_sp]

So many crowds... i hope my i5 4670k can handle it

 

[Snowflakez]

Minimum specs for The Witcher 3:

• CPU: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz/AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
• GPU: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660/AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
• HDD Space: 40GB
• RAM: 6GB
• DirectX: 11
• OS: 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)

Obviously, Cyberpunk 2077 is far more dense. However, graphically, the game doesn't actually look outlandishly good. I think this was intentional on their part to stave off future downgrade complaints (set lower expectations and all that).

I wouldn't be surprised if players could get away with only slightly better hardware than this, as long as they're willing to make some tweaks inside the game and outside (config files and the like).

Remember, this still needs to run on current-gen consoles.

Personally, I'll be playing at 1080p and High. Possibly medium with hairworks/equivalent tech for 2077 and high textures/model quality. This is so I can still get 120+ FPS.

My rig is as follows:

• CPU: Intel CPU Core i7-8700K (not OC'd yet, cause I'm lazy and forgot)
• GPU: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
• RAM: 16GB
• Storage: Two SSDs; one NVMe and one SATA. Will use the NVMe for 2077.

 

[BarefootWarrior]

I just saw something interesting for all of us using Win 7 / 64 Ultimate. Microsoft (apparently) has announced that Win 7 / 64 will now be able to use DX12 for games. My understanding was that Win 7 simply was not able to use DX12. I'm not clear on all the information just yet, but for a game that uses DX12, the studio would let you download a DX12 plugin for Win 7 / 64. Anyone else heard anything on this or have further information? Could possibly be a game changer (pun intended) for requirements for this game. What was said is the game studios have to make games compatible for both DX11 and DX12 (win 10) and was taking a lot of time. If nothing else, this could be interesting.

 

[Razrback16]

The system they were playing the demo on at E3 last year I believe had a single 1080Ti and the game looked like it ran pretty solid in 1080p / 60fps so my guess would be a GTX 1080 or maybe a 980 Ti as the "Recommended" with 16GB of RAM. My hope is CDPR get SLI / Crossfire functional for those of us who run multiple GPUs. This will be a very hardware intensive game and as a result would be nice to have multi-GPU functional as I'd very much like to play in 4k / 60fps like I'm used to.

 

[Triffid77]

I just saw something interesting for all of us using Win 7 / 64 Ultimate. Microsoft (apparently) has announced that Win 7 / 64 will now be able to use DX12 for games. My understanding was that Win 7 simply was not able to use DX12. I'm not clear on all the information just yet, but for a game that uses DX12, the studio would let you download a DX12 plugin for Win 7 / 64. Anyone else heard anything on this or have further information? Could possibly be a game changer (pun intended) for requirements for this game. What was said is the game studios have to make games compatible for both DX11 and DX12 (win 10) and was taking a lot of time. If nothing else, this could be interesting.

Plan the move to Windows. Not sure if youre aware but Win10 is just given the 10 moniker so its distinct from older versions. Its now Windows, incrementally and periodically updated. There will be no 11 or 12.

Youre only delaying the inevitable by holding out. The same as people who stuck with 98se instead of the move to XP. or XP to 7.

 

[Snowflakez]

Plan the move to Windows. Not sure if youre aware but Win10 is just given the 10 moniker so its distinct from older versions. Its now Windows, incrementally and periodically updated. There will be no 11 or 12.

Youre only delaying the inevitable by holding out. The same as people who stuck with 98se instead of the move to XP. or XP to 7.

7 is still a fantastic operating system. There's no reason to move until it significantly hampers the experience. And this is coming from someone who made the switch years ago (accidentally - Microsoft was MUCH more militant about forced/tricked W10 upgrades back then).

And there's value in delaying the inevitable! I could make the obvious comparison to death, but that's a bit dramatic. It's similar to knowing a game you love is going to see a major overhaul some time in the future, but enjoying every day you can with it in its current state. Maybe you even vote in a developer-provided poll to keep the game as it is for X amount of time.

 

[Andreas_sp]

I did a rough calculation what the recomm. specs can be possible for CP 2077...
For this calculation i use the recomm. specs from Witcher 1, 2 & 3 and to project it to CP2077 recomm. specs
(note: i was using only Intel & Nvidia, all +% correlate to Witcher 1 recomm. Hardware specs)

Witcher 1
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 - 3,0 Ghz
GPU: 7800 GTX - 256 MB
RAM: 2GB
HDD: 15 GB

Witcher 2
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 9650 - 3,0 Ghz (+299%)
GPU: GTX 260 - 1GB (+1079%)
RAM: 4GB
HDD: 25 GB

Witcher 3
CPU: i7 3770 - 3,4 Ghz (+602%)
GPU: GTX 770 - 4GB (+6894%)
RAM: 8GB
HDD: 35 GB

Cyberpunk 2077
CPU: i5 8600k - 3,6 Ghz (+920%)
GPU: GTX 1660Ti - 6GB (+13293%) or GTX 1070 - 8GB (+14295%) better cos 8GB
RAM: 16 GB
HDD: 45 GB


I was using this site (effective speed)
https://www.userbenchmark.com/

Anyway, i need to upgrade my GPU this year. I wait for new AMD Radeon Navi GPU generation.. I like to run the game in 3440x1440 (UWQHD) and i hope the game support 21:9 Resolution for eyecandy on LG UltraGear 34GK950F

Problem is my CPU, hope OC to 4,2 Ghz is enough.

Cheers.