Which console for optimum Witcher 3 experience (or PC)?

[Scholdarr]

Why do you need such FPS? Human eye can't even feel any difference at such frequencies.

Although that's highly off-topic, one last comment on that issue:

A 144hz monitor (like sidspyker wanted) is pointless if you don't want to play games at such high framerates. And it's not THAT simple with the human eye. It's a complex issue and due to our biological diversified nature not everyone has the same abilities or sensitivities. It's at least a fact that some people can see a big difference between let's say 60 FPS and 120 FPS in games - at least in some games with very fast movements (concerning both eye and brain). The difference to movies is simply motion blur. If you stop a movie you never get a sharp pitcture because every movie is based on constant motion blur. Games are usually just a fast collection of super-sharp single picture. That's why you get super-sharp screenshots without motion blur. But at the same time really fast fast movements are kind of stuttering at 30 FPS or even at 60 FPS. Many people don't notice a big difference between 60 FPS or 120 FPS. You probably don't see any difference in a game like Witcher 3 with rather slow movements (and possibly artificial motion blur enabled). But in a fast FPS or a racing game you can see differences.

 

[Sagitarii]

But considering I've heard them say that 60 fps will be very difficult to achieve at max settings in 1080p, you're looking at a $4,000 rig if you want crisp framerates.

4000$ rig, for 1080p 60fps in Witcher 3 - please. If that would be correct - PS4 would play it in 480p and Xbone in 360p.
Cut that down in half and maybe you will be right, especially if you overclock. PC gaming is not that expensive.

 

[6ad5026b]

PC's obviously going to give you the ultimate experience if you have the money to spend (or the existing rig.) But considering I've heard them say that 60 fps will be very difficult to achieve at max settings in 1080p, you're looking at a $4,000 rig if you want crisp framerates.

What have you been smoking? You can build a PC capable of handling The Witcher 3 @ 1080p for much less than half of that.

 

[Medy89]

I think it doesnt matter if you get yourself a pc or console as far as experience goes... you can enjoy w3 on either... if you only play games... get a console... you will probably be happy with it..

As devs said the experience will be the same ... graphics on pc can be above the lvl of consoles.... but not to a point where you say console looks ugly in comparison

The best eye candy is only served on pc... ask yourself how important that is for your experience and how much weight you lay on having a good high spec pc or rather a console.. if you have to choose between them


Personally i cant justify getting myself a new pc or console.. because my current laptop will probably handle medium graphic settings .. im still thinking... my resolve is probably going to break when my laptop does not do a decent job ... I couldnt take it because this game will be too awesome to be crippled by low specs...

 

[ColinJ89]

4000$ rig, for 1080p 60fps in Witcher 3 - please. If that would be correct - PS4 would play it in 480p and Xbone in 360p.
Cut that down in half and maybe you will be right, especially if you overclock. PC gaming is not that expensive.

Note the phrase "max settings." That means highest texture size, maximum anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering enabled, dynamic high resolution shadows, etc. Consoles turn a lot of that stuff off (or run it considerably lower) in order to run games released cross-platform.

Additionally, note the phrase "60 fps", which adds the additional qualifier of having a crisp framerate with all those features turned on.

The ability to do both of the above is going to be limited to high-end gaming PCs, which (building them yourself) start around $3,500. Mine ran about $4,200 for: ASUS Sabertooth X79 motherboard, Intel Core i7-4930K @ 3.4 GHz, Corsair Vengeance 32GB (4x8GB.) DDR3 1600 MHz RAM, 1x 240GB SSD, 2x 4TB HDD, 2x EVGA GeForce GTX 780 Ti w/ ACX Cooler, an OSD, 1200W PSU, tower, and liquid cooler for CPU.

Considering my CPU is no longer top of the line and you can get them more powerful (but more expensive), the upcoming launch of a 6 GB GTX 780 Ti once the Titans sell off, and the possibility of needing a larger tower and more beefy power supply to handle the upgraded hardware, I stand by the $4,000 estimate. You could trim a little bit off on the RAM depending on your motherboard.

 

[6ad5026b]

The ability to do both of the above is going to be limited to high-end gaming PCs, which (building them yourself) start around $3,500.

It's quite disingenuous of you to repeat your claim as if it were true after someone pointed out that it's incorrect. You can easily build a PC that can play this game at max settings for less than half of that.

 

[ColinJ89]

It's quite disingenuous of you to repeat your claim as if it were true after someone pointed out that it's incorrect. You can easily build a PC that can play this game at max settings for less than half of that.

It's not disingenuous, it's argument. I don't think it's possible, but I'm open to being proven wrong. If anyone claims they can build a PC that can run Witcher 3 at max settings in 1080p at 60 fps for $2,000, I'd love for them to link the specific components they'll use in that build.

As it's been pointed out, it's not entirely possible for anyone to know for certain until the game releases. I'm basing my position off my experience running Witcher 2 at max settings on my current rig (specs for which are in the post you quoted) and the temperatures, voltages, boost clock speeds, and framerates achieved during gameplay, and the assumption that W3 will be more taxing on my hardware than W2.

 

[Sagitarii]

Note the phrase "max settings." That means highest texture size, maximum anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering enabled, dynamic high resolution shadows, etc. Consoles turn a lot of that stuff off (or run it considerably lower) in order to run games released cross-platform.

Additionally, note the phrase "60 fps", which adds the additional qualifier of having a crisp framerate with all those features turned on.

The ability to do both of the above is going to be limited to high-end gaming PCs, which (building them yourself) start around $3,500. Mine ran about $4,200 for: ASUS Sabertooth X79 motherboard, Intel Core i7-4930K @ 3.4 GHz, Corsair Vengeance 32GB (4x8GB.) DDR3 1600 MHz RAM, 1x 240GB SSD, 2x 4TB HDD, 2x EVGA GeForce GTX 780 Ti w/ ACX Cooler, an OSD, 1200W PSU, tower, and liquid cooler for CPU.

Considering my CPU is no longer top of the line and you can get them more powerful (but more expensive), the upcoming launch of a 6 GB GTX 780 Ti once the Titans sell off, and the possibility of needing a larger tower and more beefy power supply to handle the upgraded hardware, I stand by the $4,000 estimate.

Yes, I mean max settings as well. Yes, I mean 60fps. Yes, a 2k $ rig would run it. You definitely won't need an SLI to max it.
The only time you need these monster rigs is 4K gaming and multi-monitor support. Or when you have more money, than sense.

As it's been pointed out, it's not entirely possible for anyone to know for certain until the game releases. I'm basing my position off my experience running Witcher 2 at max settings on my current rig (specs for which are in the post you quoted) and the temperatures, voltages, boost clock speeds, and framerates achieved during gameplay, and the assumption that W3 will be more taxing on my hardware than W2.

For reference, I played W2 on ultra, only Ubersampling turned off, had a decent 30-50 fps framerate - before overclocking.
My PC was 550$.

EDIT: Sorry for off-topping. Back on the track!

 

[tommy5761]

Look fellas the topic at hand is which is better for the OP . One of the 2 consoles available and as you can see by the post he already has a pc that was/is capable of running witcher 2 .

 

[6ad5026b]

It's not disingenuous, it's argument. I don't think it's possible, but I'm open to being proven wrong. If anyone claims they can build a PC that can run Witcher 3 at max settings in 1080p at 60 fps for $2,000, I'd love for them to link the specific components they'll use in that build.

That's what I did in the post you responded to. It's a $1,500 build, in fact.

Yes, I mean max settings as well. Yes, I mean 60fps. Yes, a 2k $ rig would run it. You definitely won't need an SLI to max it.
The only time you need these monster rigs is 4K gaming and multi-monitor support. Or when you have more money, than sense.

I don't mean to put anyone down, but the latter appears to be true for Talyn. Anything more powerful than an i5 is overkill for gaming; the benchmarks show that there is virtually no performance difference between his i7-4930k, which costs $550, and the i5-4690k, which costs $240 dollars, in CPU-intensive games like Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4. The same goes for the inane amount of RAM. I think it's safe to say that this poster doesn't know what he's talking about.

Edit:

Look fellas the topic at hand is which is better for the OP . One of the 2 consoles available and as you can see by the post he already has a pc that was/is capable of running witcher 2 .

Fair enough, but I think it's important to stop misinformation like this from spreading.

 

[ColinJ89]

That's what I did in the post you responded to. It's a $1,500 build, in fact.

I don't mean to put anyone down, but the latter appears to be true for Tayln. Anything more powerful than an i5 is overkill for gaming; the benchmarks show that there is virtually no performance difference between his i7-4930k, which costs $550, and the i5-4690k, which costs $240 dollars, in CPU-intensive games like Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4. The same goes for the inane amount of RAM. I think it's safe to say that this poster doesn't know what he's talking about.

Didn't notice the link. Touche.

Yes, my RAM is overkill. The Asus X79 supports quad channel, and at the time I couldn't find quad channel at 4GB per stick. So between 2GB per stick and 8, I went with 8 to future proof. CPU was bought for reasons other than gaming.

Back to topic.

 

[GuyNwah]

True. Poor choice of words on my part, as that wasn't my intended point. If you're looking for the maximum gameplay experience though (taking into account graphical fidelity and gameplay) PC is the way to go. Always will be. But if you don't have a PC from outer space, what I was trying to get across is that it might be a better experience on consoles. Trying to fiddle with graphical settings to get a good framerate on a less than top of the line PC can be a pain, I know from experience. I built my rig from outer space after running Witcher 2 on my old Alienware.



But why would you want to play with 5,990,400 fewer pixels? Priorities, I guess.



I'm only parroting what the news on this game has been saying for the last 6 months. True, no one but CDPR knows what the final specs are going to be to max it out, but it's not hard to guess unless they come up with some revolutionary optimization processes.

There has not actually been any news on the performance of this game on high-end computers in the last 6 months. All you are repeating is rumors. Attempting to get anybody to spend money that is not yours on computers that you cannot justify on the basis of facts and official statements is the cheapest of talk.

You seem to have conflated LGA 2011 and LGA 1150 setups in your advice. If you have a need unrelated to this game to make an LGA 2011 setup, such as running quad SLI or 8 sticks of RAM for applications that are known to require it and that you will recover its cost in commissions or royalties on work you do with it, then by all means do so. But do not pretend anything of the kind is necessary for any game now available, in development, or even proposed.

 

[gtcarlson]

I'm sure the game will be well optimized on all platforms. With that being said a computer of equivalent power to a console is roughly the same cost I would say (probably less), and depending on where you have your TV you could always hook your computer up to it if you like the size. You can also get wireless gamepads if you like to sit on the couch. Or you can go with triple monitor, 4K monitor, 3D vision/3d Vision surrond, basically anything under the sun. If you already have a reasonably capable computer and don't have a gaming console for me PC version is a no brainer.

 

[archaven]

If you are the console gamer type, it's obvious you should go for PS4 as it's 41% more powerful than XB1 (if i remember correctly). If you can afford, then seriously PC is the best (provided CDPR did not GIMP the PC version for parity across all platforms policy). Also, Steam is coming with their own SteamBox which is essentially a PC that is "console-like" to target the console audience. So at the moment you can already play PC games on Steam via the "Big Picture Mode" on your couch.

Now if GOG Galaxy if later improvised to provide "Big Picture Mode" it will be nice for gamers who buy the GOG version.

 

[gregski]

A reminder - we already have a "PC specs" thread here: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/20988-Predicted-witcher-3-system-specs-Can-I-run-it

So please move this kind of discussion over there or it will be moved.

 

[MkTama]

..PS4 as it's 41% more powerful than XB1 (if i remember correctly)

Not an XB1 fan but there's really no proof to support that. Power of consoles and moreover comparisons console/pc are not done by judging simple numbers.. Anyway PS4 seems indeed to be slightly more powerful than XB1

 

[Mitcherg]

My personal recommendation, build a good gaming PC

 

[aegiskleais]

Hello all. First post here.
Like everyone else here, I've been waiting for Witcher 3 to be released for what seems like an eternity, and am really looking forward to playing it. I read that the game will be available for several different console formats, as well as PC (I played the Witcher 1 and 2 on a PC). Now that we can finally see the end of our long wait for Witcher 3, my question is a simple one -if the cost of obtaining the hardware was not a factor, which format would you prefer for the ultimate Witcher 3 experience, and why? I make my living as a design engineer, so keeping a fairly high-end PC workstation is just part-and-parcel of my everyday existence. I have found that, with a few additions and tweaks, a good CAD workstation usually makes a great gaming rig. But I since I'm also planning to buy a new console of some sort sometime around the first of the year, I thought it worth asking here if the PS4 or Xbox1 versions for Witcher 3 are expected to be superior in any way (graphics quality, response time, controller layout better suited to the demands of this particular game, etc.)

Thanks in advance for any input or opinions.

Consoles are static hardware. Their performance is a constant, not a variable. PCs, due to their modular nature, have a variable performance. A $500 PC and a $3000 PC are both PCs, but they will have decidedly different abilities.

To me, this sounds like a context of what your preferred input method is. Do you like playing with gamepads or do you like keyboard/mouse? Is there anything that the platform you might choose can offer over other platforms? Namely, the PC's ability to support mods and tweaks? It's not simply a sake of "If you can afford PC, get it, otherwise go console." You have to be comfortable with the control scheme (or willing to battle through learning to be comfortable with it)

One of the reasons I don't play on console is because I simply do not like gamepads. Consoles are, pound for pound, good gaming machines as far as hardware goes, despite the differences at their core between what a console can do and what a PC can do; but simply on the merit that console games won't support a keyboard/mouse, I never really saw them as a viable alternative. This is largely a question of personal tastes. Everyone wants to feel like they went with a "winner" and justify to themselves they made the right choice; but it's really all about per-user preferences; not some global standard.

 

[archaven]

@Aegis_Kleais
You can use a console controller on PC if you may want to add.

 

[aegiskleais]

@Aegis_Kleais
You can use a console controller on PC if you may want to add.

Right. So 1 input method can transcend the other platform, but not the other way around (no keyboard/mouse on consoles). A gamepad (if an acceptable format for input for the player) on PC, might get them a "best of both worlds", but an input preference is, IMO, a small part of the complete package of the pros/cons that your platform of choice can do for you. Wow, what a run-on sentence I made! *takes a breath*