What do you think the Witcher 3 will take to run ?

[Techhog]

This is with the idea that that anything under 60FPS minimum with absolute max settings (including AA) is considered choking and unplayable, right?

 

[RussianSensation]

I think TW3 will be much more demanding than Crysis3. I agree 60fps min locked with Vsync or nothing LOL.

That's what makes it very hard to answer your question. For example, many gamers could care less about 60 fps minimums in 3rd person games like Batman, Tomb Raider, AC, Witcher and aren't going to spend $800-1000 on new GPUs to hit that mark with Witcher 3 w/SSAA. These are slow paced games that run perfectly smooth at 50-60 fps average. Heck, some of those run smooth at 45 fps avg. Also, since Witcher 2 had native SSAA support, "maxing" it out is not comparable to 99% of all games. I mean imagine if you turned on SSAA in BF4 multiplayer, Crysis 3, Metro games? You'll be waiting until 2017.

If you want something like 4x SSAA and 60 fps minimum in Witcher 3, probably 2x 880s will do it, but at 2560x1600 with those settings it will take GM200s.

This is with the idea that that anything under 60FPS minimum with absolute max settings (including AA) is considered choking and unplayable, right?

Yup, the typical PC elitist point of view. Meaning that every console gamer and everyone without 780Ti Tri-SLI should quit gaming since they are doing it wrong. Next stop, angry birds at 60 fps min with SSAA or not worth playing.

 

[Carfax83]

I think a GTX 780 will be able to max out the game at 1080p easily minus ridiculously expensive forms/levels of AA and the PhysX on the highest setting.

This game is supposed to be a chock full of PhysX effects and be very impressive in the amount of environmental physics and destructibility.. Water, cloth, fog, turbulence, cloud, hair, fur, foliage, wind etcetera will all be in..

I doubt even a GTX 780 Ti will be able to max out the game @ 1080p with PhysX on the highest setting and 4x MSAA... This is probably going to be a game that will push people to get a dedicated PhysX card.

 

[Ken145]

Uber Sampling does not blur the image like FXAA. Problem was most people could not run it as it made the game so much crisper and better looking it would bring the best rigs to their knees.

Don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan of XXXsampling things, but in case of TW2 it's smooth, but definitely blurry and not crisp http://solidlystated.com/software/the-witcher-2-ubersampling-comparison/

 

[Lepton87]

If you want something like 4x SSAA and 60 fps minimum in Witcher 3, probably 2x 880s will do it, but at 2560x1600 with those settings it will take GM200s.

No way, 2x880s will struggle at 4K res at max detail but 5120x3200 effective resolution for cards that are not even designed for such extreme settings. I just don't see it, maybe 3-way SLI will be able to achieve some decent frustrates but 60 minimum? Are you high?
ps. Can 780Tis in TRI SLI mantain 60fps minimum in metro at 2560x1600 resolution with SSAA4X? Do you think 2x880 will be much faster and witcher 3 will be less demanding?

 

[cytg111]

Just wondering what you guys think. I think it will take more than whats avaiable today for GPUs to run the game smoothly maxed out.

PS4 / XBox1 level hardware ?

 

[DarkKnightDude]

We're still like 6 months out. We're hardly at the point to determine performance for a game that's not even out with video cards that aren't out either. Everyone is hoping the graphics are good, I have no doubt it'll look fantastic, just hopefully the gameplay is good too, because I honestly despised the fighting in Witcher 2.

 

[RussianSensation]

No way, 2x880s will struggle at 4K res at max detail but 5120x3200 effective resolution for cards that are not even designed for such extreme settings. I just don't see it, maybe 3-way SLI will be able to achieve some decent frustrates but 60 minimum? Are you high?
ps. Can 780Tis in TRI SLI mantain 60fps minimum in metro at 2560x1600 resolution with SSAA4X? Do you think 2x880 will be much faster and witcher 3 will be less demanding?

I apologize if I wasn't more clear. I stated that 880s in SLI, but it will take GM200s at 2560x1600 and above; meaning 880s for 1080/1200p and GM200s for 1600p and above. I didn't imply that 880s would somehow max this game out at 1600p or 4K.

I also forgot about PhysX in this game. If PhysX is widely used for animal fur/hair (wolves, bears, horses), weather effects, explosions, then it will be even tougher to get smooth gameplay with PhysX and SSAA. At the same time I do not find SSAA as a hard requirement for gaming. I think many people will be content with less intensive AA modes such as MSAA and even FXAA or TXAA for many Nv users. Since Witcher 3 isn't a multiplayer game, I think upgraders will look at other games launching before it such as AC Unity or Far Cry 4 as a combination factor. I don't think many people spend $500-1000 for a single player game unless it's Skyrim since that game has long replayability due to mods.

 

[tollingalong]

PS4 / XBox1 level hardware ?

Witcher 3 in PS4/Xbone are going be Witcher 2 level quality per the devs.

 

[tollingalong]

I think a GTX 780 will be able to max out the game at 1080p easily minus ridiculously expensive forms/levels of AA and the PhysX on the highest setting.

This game is supposed to be a chock full of PhysX effects and be very impressive in the amount of environmental physics and destructibility.. Water, cloth, fog, turbulence, cloud, hair, fur, foliage, wind etcetera will all be in..

I doubt even a GTX 780 Ti will be able to max out the game @ 1080p with PhysX on the highest setting and 4x MSAA... This is probably going to be a game that will push people to get a dedicated PhysX card.

I think you're right that a 780 will be fine but I think we both agree just without ubersampling.

Some info from the devs about PhysX below. PhysX effects will work on both AMD and Nvidia cards but there will be additional details on Nvidia cards. The business reasons below are answered in another interview where Nvidia blocks AMD cards from having the same level of effects.

PCGH: Some games with GPU PhysX support also support the rendering of effects on the CPU, at least in the representation of clothing or in the destruction physics. During the course cost performance, it works on powerful processors, at least in medium detail level quite well. Will it also be possible in The Witcher 3, represent the PhysX effects on the CPU?

Balázs Török: Yes. The default behavior of PhysX simulations such as APEX Destruction Cloth or even to render the effects on the CPU. So this will also work in The Witcher 3 without PhysX GPU. Indeed, it is for the developer even more work if he wants to calculate the effects of the GPU. GPU PhysX allows, in principle, simply increasing the level of detail. It can thus be shown, for example, more particles. But as standard uses PhysX as I said the CPU.

PCGH: So unlike, for example, the smoke in Assassins Creed 4, which can be activated only on Nvidia cards and even then requires a lot of power?

Balázs Török: The problem with the smoke presentation by APEX Turbulence is that the effect can be solely represented by the GPU. Turbulence is one of the modules, which can only be calculated on the GPU and it works - at least at this moment - only with Nvidia graphics cards. We are thinking about to implement it. But this decision is, to be honest, less on the programmer's side, but is more of a bussiness thing. And it is not an effect that necessarily results in an advantage for the feel or the immersion of the player.

 

[Attic]

You seem to be overstating that a lot. If a 780 Ti can't max most of the settings out pfffft. Crysis 3 is a really bad example. Rendering all that pretty grass on a CPU is ultra retarded. And the consoles are running the equivalent of High anyway.

I don't think that's even close. For Crysis 3 the consoles were running lower than the lowest PC settings and at a sub 1080P resolution AFAIK. xbox 360 running at 1152x720 and ps3 running 1024x720.

 

[Techhog]

I don't think that's even close. For Crysis 3 the consoles were running lower than the lowest PC settings and at a sub 1080P resolution AFAIK. xbox 360 running at 1152x720 and ps3 running 1024x720.

I don't see how that relevant to how the new consoles will run TW3.

 

[I/O]

PS4 / XBox1 level hardware ?

Keep wishing that's the way to game on a PC LOL.

 

[I/O]

Don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan of XXXsampling things, but in case of TW2 it's smooth, but definitely blurry and not crisp http://solidlystated.com/software/the-witcher-2-ubersampling-comparison/

Sorry mate your source is wrong and YT is to compressive to should you a really difference.

 

[Attic]

I don't see how that relevant to how the new consoles will run TW3.

, it was bad info I was correcting.

Given we're talking about a game that is possibly/likely shaping up to be more demanding than Crysis 3 then we can realistically expect "next gen" consoles to run TW3 at equivalent of Low PC settings, similar to what we saw with Crysis 3 and the current consoles of it's time albeit with consoles running drastically reduced resolutions for Crysis 3 compared to native 1080P.

A TW3 dev alluded to this PC Low equivalent for next gen consoles in an interview.

PC will definatively be the platform to get all the gooey goodness out of what TW3 has on offer, and for that looking like very high end GPU needed. Not quite sure it will be what I/O has in mind for graphics needs, but it should (thankfully) be pushing hardware.

 

[I/O]

This is with the idea that that anything under 60FPS minimum with absolute max settings (including AA) is considered choking and unplayable, right?

Who said that ?

 

[Spjut]

, it was bad info I was correcting.

Given we're talking about a game that is possibly/likely shaping up to be more demanding than Crysis 3 then we can realistically expect "next gen" consoles to run TW3 at equivalent of Low PC settings, similar to what we saw with Crysis 3 and the current consoles of it's time albeit with consoles running drastically reduced resolutions for Crysis 3 compared to native 1080P.

A TW3 dev alluded to this PC Low equivalent for next gen consoles in an interview.

If that were to be the case, that's like asking for bankruptcy

 

[Deders]

This is with the idea that that anything under 60FPS minimum with absolute max settings (including AA) is considered choking and unplayable, right?

Who said that ?

I think TW3 will be much more demanding than Crysis3. I agree 60fps min locked with Vsync or nothing LOL.

:whiste:

 

[alcoholbob]

If that were to be the case, that's like asking for bankruptcy

Hardcore fans will always upgrade to play a game. Hell id software games back in the 90s used to drive millions of hardware upgrades by itself.

 

[Attic]

If that were to be the case, that's like asking for bankruptcy

From a Guru3D news item

Naturally, a single 780Ti is able to hit the 60fps sweet spot in its current form provided MSAA is lowered. Moreover, it is said that the PS4 version will run at 900p/30fps while the Xbox One version will run at 720p/30fps. What's also interesting is that the console versions of the game will meet the minimum graphics settings of the PC version. Gametech claimed that The Witcher 3 on consoles will look similar to The Witcher 2.

That seems inline with expectations to me, the next consoles aren't running that much graphics power inside. Consoles will still get an great looking game, but the divide between PC and next gen consoles is severe. Thankfully CD Projekt doesn't appear to be gimping TW3 on PC like what we saw Ubisoft do with Watchdogs.

We'll still need a GPU that costs alone roughly the same or more as the entire next gen console to display the extent of graphic fidelity differences here.

 

[Techhog]

, it was bad info I was correcting.

Given we're talking about a game that is possibly/likely shaping up to be more demanding than Crysis 3 then we can realistically expect "next gen" consoles to run TW3 at equivalent of Low PC settings, similar to what we saw with Crysis 3 and the current consoles of it's time albeit with consoles running drastically reduced resolutions for Crysis 3 compared to native 1080P.

A TW3 dev alluded to this PC Low equivalent for next gen consoles in an interview.

PC will definatively be the platform to get all the gooey goodness out of what TW3 has on offer, and for that looking like very high end GPU needed. Not quite sure it will be what I/O has in mind for graphics needs, but it should (thankfully) be pushing hardware.

I don't think that graphics similar to TW2 high would be lowest settings. If it is, then that's a terrible business decision, as it means that you need a high-end PC play the game at all. I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would even want something like this. And, again, the Crysis 3 example isn't relevant.

Crysis 3: 7+ years into the console generation; console GPUs are significantly weaker than modern IGPs
The Witcher 3: <2 years into the console generation; console GPUs are on the lower-mid-range of modern discrete GPUs; mainstream IGPs won't catch up to PS4 until at least a year later (GT4 doesn't count as mainstream btw)

Do you see the big difference here?

From a Guru3D news item



That seems inline with expectations to me, the next consoles aren't running that much graphics power inside. Consoles will still get an great looking game, but the divide between PC and next gen consoles is severe. Thankfully CD Projekt doesn't appear to be gimping TW3 on PC like what we saw Ubisoft do with Watchdogs.

We'll still need a GPU that costs alone roughly the same or more as the entire next gen console to display the extent of graphic fidelity differences here.

Then they're idiots.

 

[Attic]

:whiste:

I don' think he was saying with max details, merely that 60fps mins with vsync is preferable to max details at sub 60 fps if/when a choice needs to be made.

 

[Attic]

I don't think that graphics similar to TW2 high would be lowest settings. If it is, then that's a terrible business decision, as it means that you need a high-end PC play the game at all. I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would even want something like this. And, again, the Crysis 3 example isn't relevant.

Crysis 3: 7+ years into the console generation; console GPUs are significantly weaker than modern IGPs
The Witcher 3: <2 years into the console generation; console GPUs are on the lower-mid-range of modern discrete GPUs; mainstream IGPs won't catch up to PS4 until at least a year later (GT4 doesn't count as mainstream btw)

Do you see the big difference here?



Then they're idiots.

CD Projekt is one of the best in the business with how fairly and respectfully they treat customers and fans. I think it's just the unpleasant truth about the next gen consoles. I came within a sliver of ditching PC gaming for a PS4 to avoid the headaches and expense of PC gaming, but there is meaningfull tradeoffs both ways.

 

[I/O]

I don' think he was saying with max details, merely that 60fps mins with vsync is preferable to max details at sub 60 fps if/when a choice needs to be made.

This

 

[chimaxi83]

Then they're idiots.

Why? Is everyone supposed to cater to the lowest common denominator every single time? F that. CDPR is one of the few developers pushing the envelope, and people should welcome that.