Witcher III PC requirements are here.

  • 74 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
deactivated-579f651eab962

5404

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By deactivated-579f651eab962
Member since 2003 • 5404 Posts

Link

Image - The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - PC System Requirements are here!

Minimum System Requirements

Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz

AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940 Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660

AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870

RAM 6GB

OS 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)

DirectX 11

HDD Space 40 GB

Recommended System Requirements

Intel CPU Core i7 3770 3,4 GHz

AMD CPU AMD FX-8350 4 GHz

Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 770

AMD GPU Radeon R9 290

RAM 8GB

OS 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)

DirectX 11

HDD Space 40 GB

_____

What I was expecting really.

Avatar image for thehig1
thehig1

7537

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#2 thehig1
Member since 2014 • 7537 Posts

My cpu is the recommended 8350 my gpu is 7850 in crossfire ?

If the game supports crossfire I'll be okay, if not I'm just under the minimum.

Avatar image for mjorh
mjorh

6749

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By mjorh
Member since 2011 • 6749 Posts

Damn!

Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz

AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870

RAM 8GB

That's my system , think i'd be able to run it on medium settings (1080p) ....with 40-60fps...

Avatar image for daious
Daious

2315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#4  Edited By Daious
Member since 2013 • 2315 Posts

@mjorh said:

Damn!

Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz

AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870

RAM 8GB

That's my system , think i'd be able to run it on medium settings (1080p) ....with 40-60fps...

i5-2500k is such a solid CPU. Its lasted so long.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

hmm..... Those requirements are lop sided which is misleading,

i5 2500k vs Phenom 2 X4 940, that i5 is on average 40-50% faster then that 940.

The only reason why their asking for i7 and FX 8 is most likely because it can use 8 threads. Wouldn't be surprised if 3rd gen i5's perform as well as the FX 8's.

Chances are that if your running an 2nd gen i5 or better you will be just fine.

Avatar image for PfizersaurusRex
PfizersaurusRex

1503

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 PfizersaurusRex
Member since 2012 • 1503 Posts

I didn't know Phenom II was on par with Sandy Bridge LOL.

Avatar image for attirex
attirex

2445

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 attirex
Member since 2007 • 2445 Posts

My body and dual 970s are ready.

Avatar image for Coseniath
Coseniath

3183

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Coseniath
Member since 2004 • 3183 Posts
@PfizersaurusRex said:

I didn't know Phenom II was on par with Sandy Bridge LOL.

Well if it was the X4 980, it would be better but X4 940 is nowhere near, lol...

But we can say the same about GTX770 and R9 290...

I guess they tested the game in only a few PCs...

By the way the minimum requirements smell PS4 from thousand miles away... :P

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

17779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 osan0
Member since 2004 • 17779 Posts

seems reasonable but im worried about my 780M.

so....DAMMIT CDPR optimise your game!!!! :P j/k.

Avatar image for top_lel
top_lel

886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#10  Edited By top_lel
Member since 2014 • 886 Posts

I can't fucking wait. Seems like my upgrade was worth it! I upgraded my PC only for this game.

Avatar image for FelipeInside
FelipeInside

28548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By FelipeInside
Member since 2003 • 28548 Posts

Avatar image for ribstaylor1
Ribstaylor1

2186

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#12 Ribstaylor1
Member since 2014 • 2186 Posts

Wow I hit the recommend specs to almost exact specifications. At least I know I'll be running this game rather well then.

Avatar image for gerygo
GeryGo

12803

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#13 GeryGo  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 12803 Posts

Again with the i7 crap, like you can compare it to FX83XX series.

Avatar image for egger7577
egger7577

721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By egger7577
Member since 2004 • 721 Posts

@osan0: 780M should handle the minimum requirements. Check all scores above the GTX 660 and the 780M is above.

Here

Avatar image for Legend002
Legend002

13405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 1

#15  Edited By Legend002
Member since 2007 • 13405 Posts

I don't expect to max this out with a single 970 but it'll sure look a lot better than either of the console.

*saves up for a second 970

Avatar image for Cloud_imperium
Cloud_imperium

15146

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 103

User Lists: 8

#17 Cloud_imperium
Member since 2013 • 15146 Posts

Day one purchase.

Avatar image for alucrd2009
Alucrd2009

787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#18 Alucrd2009
Member since 2007 • 787 Posts

its been almost 6 month i did the pre order ! i Cant wait .!

Avatar image for with_teeth26
with_teeth26

11511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 1

#19 with_teeth26
Member since 2007 • 11511 Posts

Time to push the OC on my 2500K. Might also pick up a 970 before this hits, I'll see how my wallet is doing.

Avatar image for johnd13
johnd13

11124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 johnd13
Member since 2011 • 11124 Posts

I already knew that I need a new GPU for the next generation of games.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@with_teeth26 said:

Time to push the OC on my 2500K. Might also pick up a 970 before this hits, I'll see how my wallet is doing.

My wallet has already a hole in it with the 970 I bought the other day

Avatar image for Arthas045
Arthas045

5800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#22 Arthas045
Member since 2005 • 5800 Posts

My PC is ready for it,but I haven't played the first two I bought yet!

Avatar image for flipin_jackass
flipin_jackass

9772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 flipin_jackass
Member since 2004 • 9772 Posts

Wow, I just barely made the minimum CPU and my GPU *just* missed it. I have a Phenom II 945 and Radeon 7850. Whatever, I'm still going to give it a go. lol

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#24  Edited By xantufrog  Moderator
Member since 2013 • 17875 Posts

How much of a bottleneck risk do you guys think a Phenom II X4 965BE would be for this? It's above the minimum rec, but not sure how short it falls from the recommended (I'll be upgrading my video card to something beefy soon, so that shouldn't be the first point of failure)

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
JangoWuzHere

19032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 JangoWuzHere
Member since 2007 • 19032 Posts

Doesn't seem well optimized if you need a 7870 as the minimum.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#26 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@JangoWuzHere said:

Doesn't seem well optimized if you need a 7870 as the minimum.

Na, the assets and scale is not using last gen or current consoles hardware as the baseline.

The fact that CD is in league with Nvidia which means that the game favor's their gpus, while AMD does not have any love, until drivers get optimized and updated once the game is released.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
JangoWuzHere

19032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By JangoWuzHere
Member since 2007 • 19032 Posts

@04dcarraher said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

Doesn't seem well optimized if you need a 7870 as the minimum.

Na, the assets and scale is not using last gen or current consoles hardware as the baseline.

The fact that CD is in league with Nvidia which means that the game favor's their gpus, while AMD does not have any love, until drivers get optimized and updated once the game is released.

If we're talking console baseline, then it should be at 7790 or 7850, and that should just be for console visuals. Some people just wanna play the game, even if it has to be on a toaster.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#28 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts
@xantufrog said:

How much of a bottleneck risk do you guys think a Phenom II X4 965BE would be for this? It's above the minimum rec, but not sure how short it falls from the recommended (I'll be upgrading my video card to something beefy soon, so that shouldn't be the first point of failure)

Your 965 is better then the 940, should be fine for 30+ fps experience. If its overclocked the better off you will be. The 940 was AMD's first gen Phenom 2 on AM2+ limited by DDR2. CD did requirements for The Witcher 2, was like 1280x720p for minimum, and 1440x900 for recommended based on the specs they listed.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@JangoWuzHere said:

@04dcarraher said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

Doesn't seem well optimized if you need a 7870 as the minimum.

Na, the assets and scale is not using last gen or current consoles hardware as the baseline.

The fact that CD is in league with Nvidia which means that the game favor's their gpus, while AMD does not have any love, until drivers get optimized and updated once the game is released.

If we're talking console baseline, then it should be at 7790 or 7850, and that should just be for console visuals. Some people just wanna play the game, even if it has to be on a toaster.

Each platform is being separately made and tailored, you shouldn't take the requirements as if their set in stone that you absolutely need that item before it can work like it should. Fact that they recommend at least a GTX 660 means that Overclocked GTX 570's (2.5gb) or even 580 series (3gb) versions could run this game just as well or slightly better. This applies to 7850's since they aren't that much slower then 7870's. Believe it or not AMD's 7000 series and Nvidia's 600 series are nearly three years old, which are over a year older then both new consoles.

If you plan on playing modern games that use modern assets time to suck it up and upgrade, This has always been like this with pc gaming progressing along and having new console generations setting new baseline in the lowest common denominator with hardware. People got too comfortable hanging onto gpus longer then before like the 8800's lasting for years until dx 11 started to bloom.

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#30 xantufrog  Moderator
Member since 2013 • 17875 Posts

@04dcarraher said:
@xantufrog said:

How much of a bottleneck risk do you guys think a Phenom II X4 965BE would be for this? It's above the minimum rec, but not sure how short it falls from the recommended (I'll be upgrading my video card to something beefy soon, so that shouldn't be the first point of failure)

Your 965 is better then the 940, should be fine for 30+ fps experience. If its overclocked the better off you will be. The 940 was AMD's first gen Phenom 2 on AM2+ limited by DDR2. CD did requirements for The Witcher 2, was like 1280x720p for minimum, and 1440x900 for recommended based on the specs they listed.

thanks! put my mind at ease a bit - not ready to completely overhaul my system

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
Member since 2010 • 4675 Posts

Goddammit. I knew i should've just gone for i7 instead of i5... oh well, time to upgrade. Then again, i'm really happy to see devs utilizing the hyperthreading more.

Just started playing Wither 2, and it looks suprisingly good being a 2011 game. All maxed and ubersampling enabled. Can't wait to see how epic Witcher 3 will look like.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#32 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@groowagon said:

Goddammit. I knew i should've just gone for i7 instead of i5... oh well, time to upgrade. Then again, i'm really happy to see devs utilizing the hyperthreading more.

Highly doubt the difference between same gen i5 vs i7 will be large enough to worry about. Fact that they state Phenom 2 X4 and FX 8350 means that any 2nd gen or later i5 will perform as well or better then the AMD recommended.

Avatar image for commander
commander

16217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#33 commander
Member since 2010 • 16217 Posts

@04dcarraher said:

@groowagon said:

Goddammit. I knew i should've just gone for i7 instead of i5... oh well, time to upgrade. Then again, i'm really happy to see devs utilizing the hyperthreading more.

Highly doubt the difference between same gen i5 vs i7 will be large enough to worry about. Fact that they state Phenom 2 X4 and FX 8350 means that any 2nd gen or later i5 will perform as well or better then the AMD recommended.

damn right, that i7 recommendation is bs, you better invest in a better gpu.

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#34 deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
Member since 2010 • 4675 Posts

@commander said:

@04dcarraher said:

@groowagon said:

Goddammit. I knew i should've just gone for i7 instead of i5... oh well, time to upgrade. Then again, i'm really happy to see devs utilizing the hyperthreading more.

Highly doubt the difference between same gen i5 vs i7 will be large enough to worry about. Fact that they state Phenom 2 X4 and FX 8350 means that any 2nd gen or later i5 will perform as well or better then the AMD recommended.

damn right, that i7 recommendation is bs, you better invest in a better gpu.

well i guess i'm safe with my current build then. it is indeed weird that new i5 wouldn't be enough if those AMDs are supposed to be fine.

Avatar image for commander
commander

16217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By commander
Member since 2010 • 16217 Posts

@groowagon said:

@commander said:

@04dcarraher said:

@groowagon said:

Goddammit. I knew i should've just gone for i7 instead of i5... oh well, time to upgrade. Then again, i'm really happy to see devs utilizing the hyperthreading more.

Highly doubt the difference between same gen i5 vs i7 will be large enough to worry about. Fact that they state Phenom 2 X4 and FX 8350 means that any 2nd gen or later i5 will perform as well or better then the AMD recommended.

damn right, that i7 recommendation is bs, you better invest in a better gpu.

well i guess i'm safe with my current build then. it is indeed weird that new i5 wouldn't be enough if those AMDs are supposed to be fine.

They recommending i7's since watchdogs and all of it was bull

Avatar image for ycdeo
ycdeo

2841

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#36 ycdeo
Member since 2004 • 2841 Posts

a game which need a i5? wow , must upgrade pc then.

Avatar image for whitey_rolls
whitey_rolls

2547

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 whitey_rolls
Member since 2006 • 2547 Posts

I can't remember is an ATI 5870 on par with an AMD 7850 or 7870?

Avatar image for Truth_Hurts_U
Truth_Hurts_U

9703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#38 Truth_Hurts_U
Member since 2006 • 9703 Posts

Going to need a dedicated PhysX card. *I got a EVGA GTX 650 (1202 MHz) I used before, nice getting extra 10-20 FPS with it.*

Still waiting on NVidia to bring out a GPU worthy of my $. Wont buy the game till then.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@Truth_Hurts_U said:

Going to need a dedicated PhysX card. *I got a EVGA GTX 650 (1202 MHz) I used before, nice getting extra 10-20 FPS with it.*

Still waiting on NVidia to bring out a GPU worthy of my $. Wont buy the game till then.

lol what? no you do not need a dedicated physx card if your gpu is fast enough. Also They will use the plain "Physx" SDK physics engine for the AMD users and people that cant handle the advanced physx. Even Farcry 4 used physx sdk without needing the the typical gpu accelerated physics

You need to know what your doing.....many aspects affect performance with dedicated physx and one of them is the cpu's ability to feed the gpus data. Unless your running low to mid ranged version of a series, higher ended gpus are able to handle physx just fine. Why are you still waiting for a gpu worth your money?

Avatar image for Truth_Hurts_U
Truth_Hurts_U

9703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By Truth_Hurts_U
Member since 2006 • 9703 Posts

@04dcarraher:

lol yes, you do... Even with my GTX 690 (which is now sold since June) putting in a dedicated PhysX card increased my frames 10-20 FPS and got rid of large FPS dips and stutter. Lot of research too went into choosing the right card. PhysX doesn't like boost mode and my card doesn't have boost. PhysX loves high clock speeds.

I love tweaking my PhysX settings too cranking them way up in the game files.

No longer will I be doing SLI again. To much hassle, 1 powerful GPU with dedicated PhysX is what I am gearing towards.

Here is some videos a guy did with a GTX 970 and a dedicated PhysX card.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9Sw47KzJA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufvjFJSXQJs

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#41  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@Truth_Hurts_U said:

@04dcarraher:

lol yes, you do... Even with my GTX 690 (which is now sold since June) putting in a dedicated PhysX card increased my frames 10-20 FPS and got rid of large FPS dips and stutter. Lot of research too went into choosing the right card. PhysX doesn't like boost mode and my card doesn't have boost. PhysX loves high clock speeds.

I love tweaking my PhysX settings too cranking them way up in the game files.

No longer will I be doing SLI again. To much hassle, 1 powerful GPU with dedicated PhysX is what I am gearing towards.

Here is some videos a guy did with a GTX 970 and a dedicated PhysX card.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9Sw47KzJA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufvjFJSXQJs

No you dont need one.... you using the GTX 690 as proof..... its a dual gpu card.... as with most dual gpu cards they all have issues of some sort, SLI'ing separate cards isnt a real issue. I too have used and tried multiple combos with Physx as well. Ive used 8800GT's in SLI disabling one just for physx work helped a great deal, then with GTX 560 with a 8800GT as a ppu helped but not a massive difference. Even with a GTX 760 and a dedicated GTX 560 for physx the difference was even smaller almost not worth it. As long as you have a single gpu that is not low-midranged it can handle physx pretty well.

With average frame rates a dedicated gpu for physx is minor, and in some cases having a dedicated physx card with high end card/s can hurt performance... Batman Origins for example with SLI Titans and Physx

SLI:48 min fps, avg 78 fps

SLI+GTX 650: 39 min fps, avg 66 fps

Titan + Titan : 61 min fps,avg 94 fps

Titan +GTX 650: 39 min fps, avg 62 fps

Titan: 38 min fps, avg 66 fps.

Those examples with the 970 with a dedicated ppu is not 100% proof because Mafia 2 is a older game is not demanding on the gpu, the gpu usage hovers around 50% the whole time with the 970 with physx. Batman AC if you look the minimum fps is lower with dedicated, but only adds 11% gain to fps average.

Avatar image for Truth_Hurts_U
Truth_Hurts_U

9703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#42 Truth_Hurts_U
Member since 2006 • 9703 Posts

@04dcarraher:

Like I said it's all based on the PhysX card you choose. Hence why I choose the GTX 650 @ 1202 MHz.

Now your talking MASSIVE spare cuda cores.

If your GPU is running 90% ave then your going to benefit from a well selected PhysX card.

I can't wait to see GTX 770 benches on W3 with and without PhysX and with a dedicated card. Be prepared to be amazed.

Those bench prove that not all games are optimized and not all games will run PhysX full out, but in bursts.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#43 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@klunt_bumskrint:

@04dcarraher said:

hmm..... Those requirements are lop sided which is misleading,

i5 2500k vs Phenom 2 X4 940, that i5 is on average 40-50% faster then that 940.

The only reason why their asking for i7 and FX 8 is most likely because it can use 8 threads. Wouldn't be surprised if 3rd gen i5's perform as well as the FX 8's.

Chances are that if your running an 2nd gen i5 or better you will be just fine.

Yeah this baffles me as well.. Especially when the I5 2500k stock ties or sometimes surpasses the 8350 in many tests.... I keep on seeing these ridiculous releases of requirements that are leading me to believe that devs really don't know what they are doing with these things anymore..

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@Truth_Hurts_U said:

Like I said it's all based on the PhysX card you choose. Hence why I choose the GTX 650 @ 1202 MHz.

Now your talking MASSIVE spare cuda cores.

If your GPU is running 90% ave then your going to benefit from a well selected PhysX card.

I can't wait to see GTX 770 benches on W3 with and without PhysX and with a dedicated card. Be prepared to be amazed.

Those bench prove that not all games are optimized and not all games will run PhysX full out, but in bursts.

Your making too many assumptions, If they are only using physx for hair and fur we will not see any real difference. Now if they they are using full blown gpu accelerated physx for everything sure having a dedicated ppu will help. But it looks like it will only be used for hair and fur "It’s up to Nvidia to let AMD users enjoy GPU-accelerated hair and fur effects"

The Nvidia hair/fur effects in Farcry 4 didnt make any real impact of gpu performance.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#45 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23824 Posts

@sSubZerOo said:

@klunt_bumskrint:

@04dcarraher said:

hmm..... Those requirements are lop sided which is misleading,

i5 2500k vs Phenom 2 X4 940, that i5 is on average 40-50% faster then that 940.

The only reason why their asking for i7 and FX 8 is most likely because it can use 8 threads. Wouldn't be surprised if 3rd gen i5's perform as well as the FX 8's.

Chances are that if your running an 2nd gen i5 or better you will be just fine.

Yeah this baffles me as well.. Especially when the I5 2500k stock ties or sometimes surpasses the 8350 in many tests.... I keep on seeing these ridiculous releases of requirements that are leading me to believe that devs really don't know what they are doing with these things anymore..

I think they are just eye balling the requirements giving specific examples but really saying you need at least 3 ghz quad core made within the last 4 years.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#46 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@Truth_Hurts_U said:

Going to need a dedicated PhysX card. *I got a EVGA GTX 650 (1202 MHz) I used before, nice getting extra 10-20 FPS with it.*

Still waiting on NVidia to bring out a GPU worthy of my $. Wont buy the game till then.

Who the hell out there has a video card dedicated toward physX? Didn't that die out like 8 years ago?

Avatar image for deactivated-579f651eab962
deactivated-579f651eab962

5404

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#47 deactivated-579f651eab962
Member since 2003 • 5404 Posts

@sSubZerOo: It is still valid if you have a weaker Gpu

Avatar image for Truth_Hurts_U
Truth_Hurts_U

9703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#48 Truth_Hurts_U
Member since 2006 • 9703 Posts

@sSubZerOo:

Me and anyone who cares about maximum performance and likes to improve PhysX in games.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#49  Edited By deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@klunt_bumskrint said:

@sSubZerOo: It is still valid if you have a weaker Gpu

.. Then you might as well put money forward to getting a far superior single GPU solution.. After all this is for a completely OPTIONAL feature...

Avatar image for Truth_Hurts_U
Truth_Hurts_U

9703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#50 Truth_Hurts_U
Member since 2006 • 9703 Posts

This is a test I did back when I had a 970.

MLL with everything max and PhysX = 51 FPS ave.

This guy got 47 FPS with PhysX off.

http://youtu.be/uGQ8fkb8Uzo?t=5m14s