Witcher 3 - System Requirements Released

My CPU and Graphics Cards don't even meet the minimum requirements.

But well, not too sure if I need to play this game anyways.

And on the other hand…Oculus Rift is also coming out this year and in order to enjoy that one, I will buy a new rig anyways.

Just wondering if they aren't limiting the potential target group a little too much.

Seems like it's finally time to upgrade my PC. It has served me for 4 years which is acceptable.

As usual I find that the naming conventions for GPUs have changed since my latest upgrade, and since my favoured vendor wont stock the minimum GPUs (the recommended are way off my normal sweet spot in terms of GPU price when building a new PC) I wonder what these specs actually translate to.

Looking at the acceptable price range I find cards like
Sapphire Radeon R7 260X
GeForce GTX 750 2GB

Or slightly cheaper the R7 250X and the GTX 740.

Where do these cards stand compared to the minimum and recommended specs?

If they are inadequate I'd rather just postpone my upgrade. The Witcher 3 is easily my most anticipated title in years, and I wont upgrade to something that wont be able to run it.

Originally Posted by Hastar
How big was Skyrim when it came out like 25 GB in 2011?

Actually, vanilla Skyrim is only around 7GB. I think it's around 12BG with the HD pack installed.

Originally Posted by Morbus
At the minimum requirements:
A 660? Really? The game must be really badly optimized considering the recommended card is like 40% faster… Thankfully, I have a 760 myself, so no problems on that side, hopefully.

I'm not sure why you would come to that conclusion. It's likely that they've included a lot of graphics options that make that much of a difference. There was easily a 40% difference, if not more, between the lower and higher settings in TW2.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Looking at the acceptable price range I find cards like
Sapphire Radeon R7 260X
GeForce GTX 750 2GB

Or slightly cheaper the R7 250X and the GTX 740.

Where do these cards stand compared to the minimum and recommended specs?

I don't really follow AMD products anymore, but when it comes to Nvidia cards, the models that end in *50 and *40 are lower-end products. If you want to be able to play with at least a decent amount of optioned enabled, get a 760 or higher.

In that case I'll wait for the likes of the 760 to come down in price a bit. 200 euros is more than I'm prepared to pay for a graphics card:-)

Originally Posted by Archangel
Yes, that was the one. It was only option that reduced my FPS below playable.

I still don't understand how they could make next game not support people that had no problems running their last game

And I could see myself upgrade my GPU, but no chance I will be buying a new MBO and CPU as well. And I would for sure not spend another 60E on TW3 in that case.

Yeah that option was the most famous for dropping the frame rate drastically.

Well, it seems that gaming is very expensive these days. Close to be a luxury.
At least for AAA titles.
And guess this is a price that we get for next-gen titles.

Originally Posted by booboo
It seemed to be for TNO though - I did indeed download something close to 40+ GB (over 2 X 8 hours periods - I get more data 'free' from midnight to 6.30AM…) The largest game before that as Max Payne 3 (which I played for 3 hours and then uninstalled - I actually had to buy more data for that…)

TNO is a special case in so far as it's using id Tech's trademark mega-textures. The tradeoff is great visuals (which TNO undoubtedly has, right?) at decent frame rates vs. a high consumption of disk space.
In the age of the terabyte, I will very gladly accept that trade in favor of visuals and FPS .

I have never had good frame rates or textures from any ID Tech 5 game. All I get is stuttering, choppy frame rates, and audio issues on all three games made with it.

I'm glad no other publisher beside Bethesda has used the game engine.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I have never had good frame rates or textures from any ID Tech 5 game. All I get is stuttering, choppy frame rates, and audio issues on all three games made with it.

Then you have an issue that lies within your system. Don't blame the engine for that.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Then you have an issue that lies within your system. Don't blame the engine for that.

No as I can play any new game on Ultra just not with that engine. Anyway PC Gamer well documented the problems with the latest game from this year.

Link - http://www.pcgamer.com/wolfenstein-t…s-a-few-fixes/

I love the it's your computer then replies for broken engines.

PS: All three games have these problems just Google it.

What the hell here you go more links.

Rage- http://segmentnext.com/2011/10/04/ra…raphics-fixes/

Evil Within - http://gamunation.com/fixes-for-the-…gerror-codes/#

I just have no luck with that engine and have no problem with other AAA games.

Update: Okay JDR you win I'll end it here instead of wasting time debating with you.

The only technical problems I had with most bethesda games was that the mouse was "swimming" until AA (or was it V-synch?) was disabled. Don't remember if I had it with skyrim, but I am pretty sure, that I had it with Oblivion, F3 and F:NV.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Seems like it's finally time to upgrade my PC. It has served me for 4 years which is acceptable.

As usual I find that the naming conventions for GPUs have changed since my latest upgrade, and since my favoured vendor wont stock the minimum GPUs (the recommended are way off my normal sweet spot in terms of GPU price when building a new PC) I wonder what these specs actually translate to.

As it was mentioned before, for NVidia Cards the hundreds mainly show the "generation" of the cards. Higher = Newer = Better. But what is equally important is the last 2 digits. 70 and 80 are high end cards. 50 and 60 are medium cards, and the low end (e.g. 20) are cards mainly used for Office PCs and should not be used for gaming.

You can find an overview about the most recent cards from NVidia over here:
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desk…ti/performance
(You can STR+Scroll to zoom in if you can't read it)

For an overview of benchmarks of most current cards you can check this page:
http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/prax…karten_p5.html
As I had several problems with ATI Cards, I actually have no idea about those.

Yes Couch, that explains why the majority of people didn't have any issues at all.

Originally Posted by booboo
true - I'd be happy with more compression though, I don't mind a bit of blurring in my 2K x 2K textures ;-) I actually worked on 3D mesh compression some years back - but no one seems to bother with such algorithms (that I can see). It seems that only academic work in the area of rendering/vfx is taken seriously and popped into game engines

Strange, I seem to recall reading an article about the extreme tweaking of compression by game developers, almost like a art form with custom algorithms, to squeeze in as much data as they can. Of course, this may have been on systems that were kind of limited in resources, but even then. You can add more stuff if you compress.

Originally Posted by Black Rune
Yeah that option was the most famous for dropping the frame rate drastically.

Well, it seems that gaming is very expensive these days. Close to be a luxury.
At least for AAA titles.
And guess this is a price that we get for next-gen titles.

I guess I will be playing PoE and other just AA games during 2015.

Originally Posted by aries100
CD Project RED has announced the system requirements for this game - on Facebook,
it seems. The requirements for your system will be these:

Is it just me or do games these days really have delusions of grandeur) I mean, 40GB?

More information.

What does it matter when you have a 4 Terabyte HDD?

I make little money, but I'm always able to afford to upgrade my PC. Some people are just doing it wrong. Heck, you'd think the thriftiness strategy and RPG games require of us would help make us all have a ton of extra cash.

I don't understand why the minimum requirements are so high since this is going to be on consoles also which are much lower then these minimum requirements. I bet the game will run well on lower systems then the minimum requirements suggest.

People should keep in mind that the higher your graphic quality the more likely the monsters are going to look ugly and disgusting.

Especially the drowners.

I hate drowners since the first game and now you can swim in The Witcher 3…HD underwater drowners, eurk.

Originally Posted by mercy
What does it matter when you have a 4 Terabyte HDD?

Because only plebs still use spinning rust drives?

Joking aside, 40GB is quite a bit if you're on al all-SSD system. But even then, I'd just uninstall something if my SSDs were full.

Odd choice of processors for the min specs. The difference between Core i5-2500K and Phenom II X4 940 are huge.

Intel Core i5-2500K advantages

In single-threaded tasks, the processor is 99% faster.
Multi-threaded performance of the Intel Core i5-2500K microprocessor is better.
The processor performs 27% faster when running memory-intensive programs.
The CPU supports SSSE3, SSE4.1 and SSE4.2 instructions.
…

Even my seven years old i7 920 is slightly better than the Phenom II X4 940. Could be a mistake or Witcher 3 is super optimized for AMD CPUs.

Edit:
Given how the recommend CPUs compare Witcher 3 does not appear to prefer a specific CPU.