Will 7790 1GB run Witcher 3 at 720p ?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by loosingENDS (11770 posts) -

I plan to at last upgarde my GPU in order to start testing my RPG game properly, since after the A10 i had in US, now in Europe i had only my old PC with a very old GPU.

The thing is that the MB is PCI Express x16 (1.0 i guess)

Will the 7790 (PCIE 3.0) run fine there ?

I chose the 7790 because is between xbox one and PS4 in power, thus will allow me to optimize my game for the consoles

And i wonder if it will play most PC games (like Witcher 3) with effects max, at 720p/30fps ?

The card is

Sapphire VGA PCI-X 7790 1GB GDDR5

#2 Edited by evildead6789 (6309 posts) -

You will need something stronger than the A10

And something stronger than the 7790 too

Consoles are optimized for games, you will need a stronger pc to get the same results.

#3 Posted by Flubbbs (2457 posts) -

no way to know until they release the system requirements

#4 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

You will need something stronger than the A10

And something stronger than the 7790 too

Consoles are optimized for games, you will need a stronger pc to get the same results.

Isnt that crazy? and we pay more for our machines

#5 Posted by Byshop (10587 posts) -

I plan to at last upgarde my GPU in order to start testing my RPG game properly, since after the A10 i had in US, now in Europe i had only my old PC with a very old GPU.

The thing is that the MB is PCI Express x16 (1.0 i guess)

Will the 7790 (PCIE 3.0) run fine there ?

I chose the 7790 because is between xbox one and PS4 in power, thus will allow me to optimize my game for the consoles

And i wonder if it will play most PC games (like Witcher 3) with effects max, at 720p/30fps ?

The card is

Sapphire VGA PCI-X 7790 1GB GDDR5

You expect the forum to magically know how a game that hasn't been released yet will run on your system that you forgot to tell us the specs of?

Good luck with that.

-Byshop

#6 Posted by evildead6789 (6309 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_: It can do a lot more than a console too, allthough this time the difference won't be that big I think because the consoles use similar hardware as the pc.

#7 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_: It can do a lot more than a console too, allthough this time the difference won't be that big I think because the consoles use similar hardware as the pc.

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

#9 Posted by JackBauer (9 posts) -

at 720p/30fps , absolutely.

But again depends what cpu you have and how much ram.

Witcher 3 is 64 bit only.

#10 Edited by PredatorRules (6481 posts) -

Well it depends I'm running Witcher 2 on lowest graphics on 1080p and it run on 40-60 fps with HD5770 1Gb GDDR5, i5 750 and 8Gb 1333Mhz RAM

#11 Posted by darksusperia (6882 posts) -

I smell the stench of system wars in this thread.

#12 Posted by loosingENDS (11770 posts) -

You will need something stronger than the A10

And something stronger than the 7790 too

Consoles are optimized for games, you will need a stronger pc to get the same results.

The card i get will serve double purpose

The main purpose is testing the RPG game i am making in Unity3D

So i want something that will be between xbox one and PS4, the target systems

If it is a bit weaker it is ok, since optimizing for a bit weaker will leave room for even better frame rates when the game actually runs on the consoles

From what i gather the 7790 is ideal for that purpose, it is between xbox one and PS4

So the question is whether will run next gen games in 720p/30fps, games like Witcher 3 etc

#13 Edited by fend_oblivion (6071 posts) -

There is a [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csO3jH-d6Sc]video[/url] of Battlefield 4 running on 1080p ultra settings on a 7750. The dude is using an i7 though.

Even if TW3 has outrageous visuals when it releases, your card should be able to do 720p easily.

#14 Edited by -Unreal- (24446 posts) -


I chose the 7790 because is between xbox one and PS4 in power, thus will allow me to optimize my game for the consoles

And i wonder if it will play most PC games (like Witcher 3) with effects max, at 720p/30fps ?

What makes you think the consoles will run it at max settings? I think it's a good guess that they won't.

#15 Posted by loosingENDS (11770 posts) -

There is a [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csO3jH-d6Sc]video[/url] of Battlefield 4 running on 1080p ultra settings on a 7750. The dude is using an i7 though.

Even if TW3 has outrageous visuals when it releases, your card should be able to do 720p easily.

That would be nice

#16 Edited by superclocked (5676 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@evildead6789 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_: It can do a lot more than a console too, allthough this time the difference won't be that big I think because the consoles use similar hardware as the pc.

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

A 7800 GT (August 2005) will run Battlefield Bad Company 2 just fine...

#17 Posted by superclocked (5676 posts) -

@evildead6789: AMD Mantle will give similar performance per pipeline compared to consoles...

#18 Edited by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@evildead6789 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_: It can do a lot more than a console too, allthough this time the difference won't be that big I think because the consoles use similar hardware as the pc.

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

A 7800 GT (August 2005) will run Battlefield 3 just fine at lower resolutions...

benchmarks? 60+fps?

#19 Edited by superclocked (5676 posts) -

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@evildead6789 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_: It can do a lot more than a console too, allthough this time the difference won't be that big I think because the consoles use similar hardware as the pc.

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

A 7800 GT (August 2005) will run Battlefield 3 just fine at lower resolutions...

benchmarks? 60+fps?

The 360 and PS3 run BF3 at 30 frames per second. But I just looked, and the video that I saw was a 7800 gt running Battlefield Bad Company 2..

My laptop's videocard is about half the speed of the XBox 360's videocard, and it'll run BF3 at 800x600 on low settings. The framerate is pretty abysmal, though...

#20 Edited by PredatorRules (6481 posts) -

@evildead6789 said:

You will need something stronger than the A10

And something stronger than the 7790 too

Consoles are optimized for games, you will need a stronger pc to get the same results.

Isnt that crazy? and we pay more for our machines

Sometimes I think the consoles won the war because of that; Devs are going towards money and there's more money in consoles so we're stuck most of the time with old graphics instead of pushing forward the tech to the max.

But I guess we can say thanks to the optimizations in consoles now we have games with good graphics on our mobiles.

#21 Posted by mastershake575 (8316 posts) -

And i wonder if it will play most PC games (like Witcher 3) with effects max, at 720p/30fps ?

Its not the best but it will get the job done. My friend has the Dual X 7790 (paired with a phenom x4 840) and he's getting pretty much every game at very high settings at 1600x900 (which is a resolution that's 40-50% higher than yours).

720p is such a low resolution that high/very high settings isn't hard at all (even on lowend hardware). Literally going from 1080p (which is the standard/lowend) to 720p will literally double your frame rate (so you only need 20FPS on 1080p charts which is easy to get).

#22 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@evildead6789 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_: It can do a lot more than a console too, allthough this time the difference won't be that big I think because the consoles use similar hardware as the pc.

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

A 7800 GT (August 2005) will run Battlefield 3 just fine at lower resolutions...

benchmarks? 60+fps?

The 360 and PS3 run BF3 at 30 frames per second. But I just looked, and the video that I saw was a 7800 gt running Battlefield Bad Company 2..

My laptop's videocard is about half the speed of the XBox 360's videocard, and it'll run BF3 at 800x600 on low settings. The framerate is pretty abysmal, though...

30 at the most i think. But if your video card was half the speed of the xbox 360 card wouldnt that be like a geforce 4?

#23 Posted by mastershake575 (8316 posts) -

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

That comparison makes absolutely no sense (BF3 was direct X 10/11 only). The restrictions DICE made technically makes it impossible for 2005 hardware to even be compatible (almost every single game from 2011 supported direct X 9 so compare those games instead).

#24 Edited by superclocked (5676 posts) -

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@evildead6789 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_: It can do a lot more than a console too, allthough this time the difference won't be that big I think because the consoles use similar hardware as the pc.

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

A 7800 GT (August 2005) will run Battlefield 3 just fine at lower resolutions...

benchmarks? 60+fps?

The 360 and PS3 run BF3 at 30 frames per second. But I just looked, and the video that I saw was a 7800 gt running Battlefield Bad Company 2..

My laptop's videocard is about half the speed of the XBox 360's videocard, and it'll run BF3 at 800x600 on low settings. The framerate is pretty abysmal, though...

30 at the most i think. But if your video card was half the speed of the xbox 360 card wouldnt that be like a geforce 4?

Which 4 series are you referring to? The GPU in the first XBox was better than a Ti 4200, and the GTX 460 is better than what the XBox 360 is using...

#25 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@evildead6789 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_: It can do a lot more than a console too, allthough this time the difference won't be that big I think because the consoles use similar hardware as the pc.

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

A 7800 GT (August 2005) will run Battlefield 3 just fine at lower resolutions...

benchmarks? 60+fps?

The 360 and PS3 run BF3 at 30 frames per second. But I just looked, and the video that I saw was a 7800 gt running Battlefield Bad Company 2..

My laptop's videocard is about half the speed of the XBox 360's videocard, and it'll run BF3 at 800x600 on low settings. The framerate is pretty abysmal, though...

30 at the most i think. But if your video card was half the speed of the xbox 360 card wouldnt that be like a geforce 4?

Which 4 series are you referring to? The GPU in the first XBox was better than a Ti 4200, and the GTX 460 is better than what the XBox 360 is using...

You said your gpu was half the speed of the xbox 360s video card (which im thinking half of 360s is about geforce 4 4200 ti) which cannot run bf3.

#26 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

That comparison makes absolutely no sense (BF3 was direct X 10/11 only). The restrictions DICE made technically makes it impossible for 2005 hardware to even be compatible (almost every single game from 2011 supported direct X 9 so compare those games instead).

No why would you do that? same year to same year please

#27 Posted by mastershake575 (8316 posts) -

No why would you do that? same year to same year please

Why would I do what ? (that's not a complete sentence). Same year to same year what exactly ? (2011 is when BF3 came out so asking for other games in 2011 is in fact the same year).

You need to be more clear, I have no idea what your trying to tell me

#28 Posted by superclocked (5676 posts) -

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@evildead6789 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_: It can do a lot more than a console too, allthough this time the difference won't be that big I think because the consoles use similar hardware as the pc.

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

A 7800 GT (August 2005) will run Battlefield 3 just fine at lower resolutions...

benchmarks? 60+fps?

The 360 and PS3 run BF3 at 30 frames per second. But I just looked, and the video that I saw was a 7800 gt running Battlefield Bad Company 2..

My laptop's videocard is about half the speed of the XBox 360's videocard, and it'll run BF3 at 800x600 on low settings. The framerate is pretty abysmal, though...

30 at the most i think. But if your video card was half the speed of the xbox 360 card wouldnt that be like a geforce 4?

Which 4 series are you referring to? The GPU in the first XBox was better than a Ti 4200, and the GTX 460 is better than what the XBox 360 is using...

You said your gpu was half the speed of the xbox 360s video card (which im thinking half of 360s is about geforce 4 4200 ti) which cannot run bf3.

The Xenos is far more powerful and advanced than a Ti 4200 in every way. My laptop has an HD 3000, which I guesstimate to be about half as powerful as the Xenos. My desktop has a 1.1GHz 7870 XT, which is more powerful than both next gen consoles combined...

#29 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@superclocked said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@evildead6789 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_: It can do a lot more than a console too, allthough this time the difference won't be that big I think because the consoles use similar hardware as the pc.

Yeah still a big difference. Try and run BF3 on hardware from 2005

A 7800 GT (August 2005) will run Battlefield 3 just fine at lower resolutions...

benchmarks? 60+fps?

The 360 and PS3 run BF3 at 30 frames per second. But I just looked, and the video that I saw was a 7800 gt running Battlefield Bad Company 2..

My laptop's videocard is about half the speed of the XBox 360's videocard, and it'll run BF3 at 800x600 on low settings. The framerate is pretty abysmal, though...

30 at the most i think. But if your video card was half the speed of the xbox 360 card wouldnt that be like a geforce 4?

Which 4 series are you referring to? The GPU in the first XBox was better than a Ti 4200, and the GTX 460 is better than what the XBox 360 is using...

You said your gpu was half the speed of the xbox 360s video card (which im thinking half of 360s is about geforce 4 4200 ti) which cannot run bf3.

The Xenos is far more powerful and advanced than a Ti 4200 in every way. My laptop has an HD 3000, which I guesstimate to be about half as powerful as the Xenos. My desktop has a 1.1GHz 7870 XT, which is more powerful than both next gen consoles combined...

So lost now

#30 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

No why would you do that? same year to same year please

Why would I do what ? (that's not a complete sentence). Same year to same year what exactly ? (2011 is when BF3 came out so asking for other games in 2011 is in fact the same year).

You need to be more clear, I have no idea what your trying to tell me

My bad bro didnt know i was in grammar skewl. You say its not fair to try and run battlefield 3 on hardware from 2005 yet the xbox 360 DOES SO.

#31 Posted by superclocked (5676 posts) -

@mastershake575 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

No why would you do that? same year to same year please

Why would I do what ? (that's not a complete sentence). Same year to same year what exactly ? (2011 is when BF3 came out so asking for other games in 2011 is in fact the same year).

You need to be more clear, I have no idea what your trying to tell me

My bad bro didnt know i was in grammar skewl. You say its not fair to try and run battlefield 3 on hardware from 2005 yet the xbox 360 DOES SO.

The issue isn't power, it's the fact that BF3 was written to specifically use the DX10 API, which videocards from 2005 did not have the feature set for. BF3 could've been made to run on PC hardware from 2005, just as it was made to run on the RSX (PS3) and Xenos (360), but it wouldn't have been worth the investment...

#32 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@mastershake575 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

No why would you do that? same year to same year please

Why would I do what ? (that's not a complete sentence). Same year to same year what exactly ? (2011 is when BF3 came out so asking for other games in 2011 is in fact the same year).

You need to be more clear, I have no idea what your trying to tell me

My bad bro didnt know i was in grammar skewl. You say its not fair to try and run battlefield 3 on hardware from 2005 yet the xbox 360 DOES SO.

The issue isn't power, it's the fact that BF3 was written to specifically use the DX10 API, which videocards from 2005 did not have the feature set for. BF3 could've been made to run on PC hardware from 2005, just as it was made to run on the RSX (PS3) and Xenos (360), but it wouldn't have been worth the investment...

My point being hardware from 2005 cannot run bf3. doesnt matter what COULDVE been done. matters what actually is

#33 Posted by mastershake575 (8316 posts) -

My bad bro didnt know i was in grammar skewl. You say its not fair to try and run battlefield 3 on hardware from 2005 yet the xbox 360 DOES SO.

My point was you used a loophole (BF3 being DX 10 only to push video card sales) as a means to make a vague statement when every other game from 2011 works fine......... (your not making a powerful/practical statement which is my point).

#34 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2528 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

My bad bro didnt know i was in grammar skewl. You say its not fair to try and run battlefield 3 on hardware from 2005 yet the xbox 360 DOES SO.

My point was you used a loophole (BF3 being DX 10 only to push video card sales) as a means to make a vague statement when every other game from 2011 works fine......... (your not making a powerful/practical statement which is my point).

bob loblaw

#35 Posted by mastershake575 (8316 posts) -