The Witcher 3's PC System Requirements Revealed

[Aerosteam]

Let's see...

i7 4790K 4.0 GHz...
GeForce GTX 770...
RAM 16GB...

Whoop whoop, I've got the recommended specs.

 

[Metalrocks]

lol, looks like i can rest. i have a r9 290x. but the cpu for rec, this is something i dont have but still should be able to play the game.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Remember Kids, minimum and recommended specs are ALMOST CERTAINLY a bit exaggerated.
This might VERY well be such a case.


Yet people here take them as fact. Damn. Come on escapists, dont disappoint me...

Well, agree that they must be exaggerated if the game is to be released on XBOne & PS4, the minimum requirement at most should be something slightly more powerful than what the consoles are packing.

The problem is, do you risk a purchase when you're just under minimum?

Shame bench marks cant be downloaded instead of demo's

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

I'm stuck in the middle really.

Raedon HD 7970

AMD 8350 Black 8 Core - 4.0

8 Gig Ripjaw ram...

I don't know if I want to cram a 40 gig game on my machine, perhaps I'll save room and buy it for the PS4 instead. I still have Witcher 1 and 2 to finish anyhow.

Although I wonder...how many people actually WOULD spend all that money just to upgrade their rig to play one game? Hopefully not too many, that would be a colossal waste in my opinion.

What has been said is true though, even with the stated High and Low, some tweaking and a maybe a slight over-clock would get you running the game if you were that much in to making it work. There's always room to maneuver with your gear. You don't have to rush to break your wallet for every new thing that comes into the market.

 

[pearcinator]

My specs;

i5 4670K - 3.4GHz
GTX 770
8GB RAM

I have a feeling the i7 for recommended isn't necessary. I might just meet the recommended specs.

 

[freakonaleash]

Does anyone know how much a gtx 760 exceeds the 660?

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Damn, looks like I'm on the minimum side of things, might need to look at a whole new machine, hardly worth upgrading a CPU chip only and having a spare useless CPU unless I could sell it. Good thing there's still a few months to fit it into the budget. Think I'll have a go with what I've got and see how it does, everything (except RAM) is OC'd already as it is. The Witcher series has dictated my last few upgrades, with the console generation stretching out a while I haven't had to do much in the last 4-5 years.

i5 2500K

GTX 560Ti

8GB RAM

 

[Darxide]

Does anyone know how much a gtx 760 exceeds the 660?

About 18%.

Source [http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=882&gid2=591&compare=geforce-gtx-760-vs-geforce-gtx-660]


I meet the recommended standards pretty comfortably. I built my rig last February for about $800. I imagine a decent budget model from the current stock of components should be able to build something from scratch that will comfortably run TW3. If you only need to upgrade a component or two then there shouldn't be any troubles at all.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I just bought a gaming PC (my laptop wasn't cutting it anymore) and it will be arriving tomorrow. I am pleased to see that it either meets the recommended specs or even exceeds them (I have the GTX 970). Best of all, after shipping and tax, it still only cost me a little over 1000 dollars.

 

[Sassafrass]

I look forward to seeing how much fire I can make playing this on max settings.
I at least clear minimum so yay me.

 

[Saulkar]

My puter murders those specs.

Titan Black x 2
I7 3930k 4.2GHZ
64GB Ram

However if I am not mistaken the 3930K's individual cores are weaker then the quad core I7 so it would be interesting to see if it generates any discernible impact on performance.

 

[sovietmisaki]

Thankfully I've been upgrading my computer recently, so I should be able tho handle it without too many issues (hopefully)
current system specs:
Core i7 3770K
a pair of GTX-970's in SLI
8 GB of ram ( I should probably upgrade soon.)
I should probably buy myself a new keyboard soon too.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

What resolution is the recommended set for? I bet 4k.

 

[Strazdas]

and... i need an upgrade. barely making it to minimum requirements. though by the time im going to play it im likely going to be upgrading anyway, so not that bad.

So a three year old CPU (that 3770) is fine for rec-specs but a two year old graphics card is out of date? I've got an i7-4770K (fine) and an AMD 7970HD-Ghz (which is roughly an R9 280, below spec). Either somebody's got their spec balance all wrong or somebody's bribing them to sell more expensive graphics cards.

games are going GPU-heavy for a while now. its no wonder that GPU is the bottleneck while CPUs arent 100% utilized. Witcher is not an exception here, its the norm. if you look at game specs for the last 3 years youll see this tendency in most titles (except poor console ports).

Winter is the best time to play demanding games I find.

And im just sitting here playing a now 9 years old Company of Heroes.....

key question is...at least for me...does it actually need that many cores ?

I cant say for certain, but jusging from what material we have concerning games graphics it does look like it could actually need those requirements. Which is much better than, say, The Crew that ran abysmally on top end hardware without having significant looks.

I have the Nvidia GTX 660, and I'm looking at upcoming PC games that are demanding more. Hell, the PS4 barely meets the minimum GPU specs for the game. Has PC optimization gone completely out of fashion, or are CD Projekt's standards for recommendation just extremely high?

PS4 does not meet the minimum requirements. Real world performance puts PS4 bellow a 480gtx.

PC optiomization gone out of fashion when it comes to Ubisoft games, but then, it was never in fashion for them. Witcher however does look like it could put that power to use actually. Witcher games have always been graphically impressive and demanding, while not as groundbreaking as the first Crysis game, they had thier fair share of "gota upgrade for that game" people.

woof. when this game drops, global warming is going to rise from all the towers running in overdrive trying to play this game

Luckily, Keplars are not going to be able to run it, and if you know how hot those run you may forget about global warming from others in comparison

Remember Kids, minimum and recommended specs are ALMOST CERTAINLY a bit exaggerated.
This might VERY well be such a case.

Depends on what your aim is. If your aim is to play the game no matter what - a 8600. gs in a laptop can technically play GTA4 (i did it!). If your aim is to play at minimum 1080p at 60fps with no framerate drops at any point (or even 144fps if you own a fancy monitor) then youll likely have to exceed the specs. What would be AWESOME to know is the machine settings they tested for those specs. did they test the game at, say, 1080p or 1440p or 4k when determining specs? without this information its not possible to know if min specs are applicable to you.

I don't get why people go for i7 though. You don't really need it for gaming. Xeon is about $20 more expensive than the i5 and it's basically an i7 without an integrated GPU which gamers don't need anyway. And it can't be overclocked. That's what puts off a lot of people. But when you think about it, it's not actually a big deal unless you want bragging rights, since all the games that require an i7 are made to run at stock speed just fine. And you're getting a server grade CPU designed to run 24/7. It's more stable than an i7. You also save money by not having to buy an aftermarket cooler. I'm going to sell my AMD FX-8350 rig and get myself a Xeon E3-1231-v3 before this thing comes out. YOLO!!!

While Xeon no doubt can play games decently, its important to remmeber that it is a serverrack CPU with nonstandard socket which means that you have to tailor your entire tower after it, meanwhile I7 will just fit in your regular run off the mill mobo and other parts no fuss.

I actually bought a I5-4670 because i5 is enough for my needs anyway. Notice the lack of K at the end of it - i dont care about overclocking anyway.

Im not sure if stability is a big factor here. it is for server machines but for a regular gamer? i havent had a problem with CPU stability in a decade.

I got 4GB of ram (soon to be 8GB) running at 1600mhz, a I5-4460 and a GTX 750 that has 1GB of memory.

could I run this game on windowed with little AA?

P.S I do have a ps4 but I prefer 60fps if possible.

If you get those 8GB of ram yes. a 750 is quite unique beast is that it isnt just a rebranded 660 that would usually be the case (nvidia rebrands like a mosnter). Its actually new and great technology. a 750 should be able to run it just fine if your not going for "Everything maxed" options.

Youll be fine unless your running large resolutions which is whre your 1gb of Vram is going to fail.

Even Shadow Of Mordor lies in its requirements. It does not need 6 GB VRAM for Ultra. It runs on 4GB RAM + 5770 too... Fairly well even, 60 fps Low 900p.

Two things why shadow of mordor doesnt lie:

Firs to all your testing at subnormal resolutions - 900p. requirements are made as a minimum for 1080p nowadays. so you got a much lower demand due to lower resolution in comparison.

secondly, Shadow of Mordor DOES use 6gb of VRAM if you use the ultra texture pack. however if your machine does not have that much VRAM it will start using regular ram for VRAM purposes to compensate for it, which is why you see it run fine on machines that dont have as much VRAM. they made a fail-safe for them and it worked.

 

[Strazdas]

Ok Strazdas.
That is impressive coding there. Why does their game look uglier the Crysis 3 or Metro though? Even on Ultra?

Also, will you explain Wolfenstein The New Order being the OpenGL equivalent of DX9 yet requiring DX11(OpenGL equivalent version)?

Also, minimum should be minimum. PC games have resolution sliders. The lowest res = minimum = what you should talk about with minimum settings.

*I still remember DooM 3 and how well it worked on 256 MB RAM

Probably because of multiple things. For one, the engines used for Crysis and Metro are amazing. They also did a lot of technological things that others rarely implement, meanwhile SOM focused on massive textures and mechanics.

Its based on LithTech Jupiter EX which i got no idea how it works.

As far as being DX9 requiring DX11 - simply was written using DX11 without using special DX11 features, however since DX9 the versions are incompatible and thus coded for DX11 cant be run on previuos versions.

but how far are we going to go? 800x600? 640x480? 360x240? 120x120? Different people find different things acceptable. I know that if i cant run it at 1080p i will just play another game. meanwhile 5 years ago i was fine playing at 640x480 when i really wanted to. this is why i said i want to know the resolution they tested it at.

I remember running settlers 2 perfectly on 8mb of ram and it was awesome.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

7870 AS A MINIMUM HOLY FUCKING DICKBALLS. I've got a 7970 and I thought I was pretty fuckin' flash.

Atleast my i5-3570k is a decent punch above the minimum. Maybe it's time to start overclocking.

Anyone know what settings they mean by "recommended"? (ultra, high, medium, etc.).

 

[silasbufu]

Wow, my GTX 660 is steadily getting to be a minimum spec card, and it's not ancient. In the near future I'll have to turn to the PS4 for the newer games and use the PC for oldies (or new games with some common sense specs).