add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Nvidia’s System Requirements

PureBlackFire

57 months ago

Source

A few days away from the release of The Witcher 3:Wild Hunt. With all the talk on the downgrade on graphics on the console version (Witcher 3 is made for PC). NVIDIA’s has revealed the system requirements which you can now see if you would be able to handle the game. The CPU used was a i7-5960X with 16GB of RAM:

http://acutegaming.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Screenshot_2.png

Comments

  • 57 months ago
  • 2 points

Looks like I'll be able to play on uber settings in 4k :D

  • 57 months ago
  • 2 points

For those curious.... My setup: i5 4670k @4.0ghz, 16gb ddr3 2400mhz, and Asus 280x matrix platinum on factory clocks (1100mhz gpu and 6400mhz vram).

On 1080p at full maxed settings I'm getting mid 20s in fps average. It's still actually very smooth though for that fps. Outdoors roaming I'm in mid 20s to mid 30s and indoors with alot of lights flickering around off walls and such it dips into the high teens in real time rendered cut scenes and low 20s in regular play.

I've got to do more testing with different setting to find the best 30+fps settings I can, but as I said, even at lower fps it's extremely smooth compared to most games. You notice when it hits the teens, but it's still good in the mid 20s.

So that said, I have no doubts that weaker cards are screwed and a 290 should be the minimum for solid 30+fps maxed out. Curious how the Nvidia cards manage as its likely a bit more optimized for them as it uses Nvidia hair among other things.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh, and this is some of the most complex lighting I've ever seen in a game of this type... I'm sure just turning that down a bit will be a huge performance difference... Going from hdao+ down to ssao to none did almost nothing noticeable to my fps in this resolution, so that's not the biggest resource killer like it is with most games.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Try turning hairworks off if you have it on. Not optimized for amd cards. and amd has yet to release drivers i believe ?

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Gained 5-10fps depending on scenario

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Noticed that as well.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Ya, the lighting is so good that I won't be turning it down lol. You can really tell the difference in doors just by looking at faces and how they are more natural, and the outdoors areas are so good it's impossible for me to justify changing as it still plays smooth even at the lower fps lol

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh, I just meant that the lighting settings don't seem to affect framerate between mid and high. Lighting is good in this game, but it's not my favorite use of lighting tech - that would probably have to go to Planetside or STALKER. Granted, however, that this game employs technologies that are - on a technical level - hugely more advanced than either of those games.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Check out my review ITT, I'm using 760 SLI. Thanks for your review too.

I like how this game apparently can basically use big cores or many little cores, makes no difference to Witcher 3 - everything is smooth and the bottleneck rests squarely on the GPU in either case!

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Ya, my i5 is barely stressed. The gpu is definitely the hold up... And even that is stressed different than most intense games... Metro last light runs my card much hotter while also using it to full extent, which makes me think it's not utilizing the card the same way and is bottlenecking a different part of the card... Maybe the vram is holding it back a bit somehow by technology design not capacity, I dunno. It's odd to max my card with temps still in the upper 50s. Metro gets me into the low 80s if I don't manually crank up the fans. Driver optimization I'm sure is a huge drawback as well. I'm still trying to find a way to stop the game from doing the random freeze in inventory screens. People on steam think turning vsync off helps, which is worth trying as I can't hit 60fps anyway.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

It's probably the textures. You have a 770, right? So you and I are running into the 2gb vRAM limit. This is supported by the fact that another guy in this thread was reporting much better performance than I'd normally expect out of a 280X, which leads me to believe his 3gb vRAM and wide bus were helping him a lot.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

No, i have the most powerful 280x that came out (matrix platinum). So I've got 3gb vram at 6400mhz stock

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah, and elsewhere in this thread I had already realized my hypothesis was wrong.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Will be interesting to see what my 760 SLI can do

  • 57 months ago
  • 2 points

So here were my performance results after playtesting yesterday briefly:

Ultra EVERYTHING, 1080p: 25fps Bottleneck is definitely the GPU; CPU never reached even 80% on all 7 (weird number!) of the threads I saw the game use, and that's a generous estimate. Most of the time the big single thread that seemed to be the main thread sat around 50% for me.

Optimized Settings: 1080p: 50fps Using the GeForce Experience optimized settings, which took off DoF, Nvidia hairworks, and lowered about 4 other settings (shadows, tree draw distance, land texture, and one other I can't remember) from Ultra to High, my experience went all the way up to 50fps average - doubling!

SLI stuttering was non-existent in either case, so good on Nvidia for such quick work there.

RAM usage was astonishingly low; never saw it go above 4gb.

My final tweaks saw me re-enabling the maximum tree draw distance and the depth of field, which pushed my average framerate just north of 30fps, with no noticed dips below 30fps - almost all of that hit seems to be from the tree draw distance, since enabling DoF actually seemed to increase FPS 1-2 frames on average - a phenomenon I last saw in Empire: Total War (I think the the game doesn't load HD textures past a certain nearer distance when DoF is enabled, which is smart since it's all blurred anyway). Interestingly, the menus all seem stuck at 24fps; I don't understand why.

I am willing to bet that if I disconnect my second monitor, which is tied to the same GPU, I can eke out another 5 or so FPS and maybe push land textures back to Ultra, which is something I really appreciate.

Honestly I can't decide whether I like Nvidia HairWorks hair better than the default hair; Unlike TressFX in TombRaider, which was obviously superior, even without an AMD card to run it.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I agree with dof. I noticed the same thing. They implemented that exceedingly well. And my ram hasn't gone over 3gb that I noticed yet. It tends to hover around 2.5gb. Menus for me tend to be either a solid 30/31fps or 60fps depending on what menu. System menus like save and options run different than in game menus like inventory and quest.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Let me know how much hit that 2nd monitor has. Mine is a pain to get to the cables on (its a TV and space is tight behind pc and the tv). If it's significant I may have to get a toilet switch or something for mine, or do it by drivers.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Removing second screen didn't do anything really noticeable, I think. Maybe added another 1 FPS, but it was definitely within the margin of error. Then again, my second screen is currently just a 1280x1024.

The one thing it did change was that without the second monitor enabled, Windows 7 didn't ask to get rid of Aero in order to improve performance.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Mine didn't ask me about aero yet... But once it gave me crap about it running in a different color scheme... I hate that annoying message lol

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Yup. For the store menus and whatnot, they somehow stop drawing the world behind it or something, because the game stays pegged to 60fps while you're in those menus.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Though this is clearly biased [towards newer GPUs], I do quite like the format of these requirements. Much better than just simply stating 'recommended' settings.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Hoping they have some 21:9 support. Would look great on my new monitor.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm sure it will. This game was built for huge resolutions, so a standard ultra wide monitor should be supported.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Possibly. A lot of games don't have 21:9 support. Would look so lovely at 3440x1440.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Well, just over an hour till we find out :)

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I know. Waiting for it. (5.47am here atm) Remember to add the free 16 DLC's ;)

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Just got done watching game of thrones, having a smoke then time to play. I'll post some results for my 4670k and 280x build after a bit. Should be interesting to see how well all our various systems handle it

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I wonder how a r9 290x will do at 1440p.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I saw reports on a tech site that said it can't do 1440p on that card unless you hand configure a setting file or run crossfire with the crossfire disabled for some reason. The 290x was the only card that had that issue they tested.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

For those looking for other configs/benchmarks, here's what I'm experiencing on my side:

Build: i5-4570.....R9 285..... 8GB RAM

With everything set to High, except Shadows (Medium) and NVIDIA Hairworks turned off, I hover between 55-60 FPS. With Hairworks turned ON, I barely manage to get 30 FPS, with dips as low as 15 FPS. Clearly not optimized for AMD cards.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

The 285 apparently is around 780 performance in this game. Something about its architecture is good for this specific game as opposed to older version amd and Nvidia cards. Kinda like how the 900 series is far better than the 700 series of higher models

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Well, that ***** all over my vRAM theory. Why is it our 700 series cards are the bottleneck, but aren't getting hot? Is this a case of a bad driver?

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Indeed, I was kinda impressed with the performance of my R9 285 in that game. Hairworks is a FPS killer on AMD cards so it has to be turned OFF, but really suprised to be able to reach 55+ FPS with mostly everything on High. When I set Shadows to High, I take a ~5 FPS hit, so I'm fine with them on Medium.

The only issue I'm having right now (just like many others) is the numerous crashes to Desktop :( Doesn't matter if I set everything to Low, disable VSync, set to Unlimited Frames, Borderless Window, Hardware Cursor, etc... there are many critical problems in the game right now. There are times where I thought I could no longer progress the story forward. I had to restart the game 11 times last night within 15 minutes to try and [MINOR SPOILER AHEAD] complete that first Ciri scene. The first time I would hit any Wolf with my sword, the game would crash to Desktop. Same thing happened when striking the final blow on a Water Hag in a cave. Crashed 9 times in a row at the very same moment.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

My Results:

i7 4790k, GTX 970, 16Gb Ram

Set to ultra I average around 40fps while wandering the countryside, during cutscenes it drops into the mid 30s occasionally. Just fought the griffin and it was dipping into the mid 20s and getting a little choppy.

On high, I am getting a steady 45-50fps and stayed in the lower 40s/upper 30s during fights. Runs much smoother overall on high.

Beautiful game either way.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

on high I'm getting 50-60 fps. i7 4770K @ 4.7ghz, 8GB 2400mhz ram, GTX970.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Are you over clocking at all?

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

my cpu. my hpu had a bios mod but i flashed it back to stock.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

and you are getting stead 50-60 even during high action scenes? I wonder what my problem is.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

could be some of my settings are lower. after flashing to my stock gpu bios I haden't monitored fps, or even played, my brother was playing. maybe it went lower as my card boost to 1380mhz at stock. I had it running 1550mhz before.

[comment deleted]
  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

A GTX 960 for Low/Medium/High? Doesn't make sense at all. I'm pretty sure this is just a marketing ploy to sell their GTX 9xx series (they don't have anything lower than a 960 in the series).

I'm pretty confident that even something like a GTX 750Ti/R9 260X will play this game well on Low/Medium settings.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

They have the 900m series which goes lower than a gtx 960m

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

True, but I'm mostly referring to desktop GPUs. You can't really purchase mobile chips at retailers, you'd have to buy a very expensive laptop to get a decent mobile GPU.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I figured that but I thought I would add that they do indeed make 9xx series gpu's lower then a gtx 960

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm inclined to believe them a bit... That game has a ton of detail and massive scale.

[comment deleted]
  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Are you using an a8 currently?

[comment deleted]
  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

After playing, I'm not too sure it will work... But MAYBE.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

You could run this game well on 720p - probably at medium/high mixed settings. Surprisingly I don't think your CPU would be a big issue, though it might stutter a little. I wrote up a big report on my rig's performance above.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I saw a review yesterday that said a gtx770 and 280X canmax the game at 1080p without nvidia gameworks extras and 40fps+. there's a video of someone running it on high with a gtx660 and an i3. I'm just waiting to play myself and find out. :)

[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube