The Witcher 3 official specs revealed.

Minimum System Requirements:

Intel i5-2500K 3.3GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 940
GeForce GTX 660 or Radeon HD 7870
6GB RAM
OS 64-bit Win 7/Win 8(8.1)
DX11
HDD 40 GB

Recommended System Requirements:

Intel i7-3770 3.4 GHz or AMD FX-8350 4 GHz
GeForce GTX 770 or Radeon R9 290
8GB RAM
OS 64-bit Win 7/Win 8 (8.1)
DX11
HDD 40 GB


Could be worse.


Source:

https://twitter.com/witchergame/status/552843911627292672

https://twitter.com/witchergame/status/552843718940950530

Can dual 780M SLI run this at 60fps?

 

Since SLI 780Ms with a slight OC beat a single 980, I'm sure it can.

Also, the min specs are too high. Xbox 1 is weaker, and X1 is not running the game on min graphics as far as we know.

 

Low at 720p .

 

1080p 60fps,right?

Also, this seems similar to AC Unity specs, isn't it?

 

Don't know till it comes out. All I know is that if Xbox 1 and PS4 are running 1080p 30fps "high", then recommended specs for 1080/30/high need to be a GTX 660 and an i5 2500. If the consoles are playing on "low" at 720p30fps, then min reqs should stay where they are. It's simple. If a console can do x res at x fps with their weaksauce hardware, then PCs can do the same with very slightly stronger hardware. But that "very slightly stronger" hardware is usually the "min spec" which is usually lower graphics options, lower resolution and SOMETIMES lower FPS than the consoles achieve.

 

I'm pretty borderline on the minimum specs here
My i7 940XM @ 3.5Ghz does get quite close to an i5 2500 (in cpu mark) but 7970M isn't quite up to a 7870 without a big overclock. Why!!!!

 

7970M is better than Xbox 1 and PS4 GPUs, so it should run the game fine. The GTX 660 is MUCH weaker than a 7870, and the 770 is MUCH weaker than a R9 290. They simply put stronger-than-necessary AMD cards. It's very dumb. You should technically be fine.

 

My 980M is ready. And it darn well should be. My guess is that it'll perform the same as AC Unity but look 10x better.

 

Which settings means recommended settings?

 

Like every CD Project Red game . But I'm sure Enhanced Edition patch will come later, as always.

 

That's actually pretty damn reasonable IMO. I was expecting a lot higher requirements TBH for something with the potential to be the next great hardware-killer in the legacy of Witcher 2 and Crysis before it. Hope this means CDPR optimized the game well and that it is scalable across a wide range of hardware without looking like absolute dog poo at lower settings, which is one thing Crysis (and Witcher 2 to a lesser extent) didn't do too well.

No it's not. Look up any number of recent benchmarks. They're pretty close aside from a few edge cases (CoH2), but generally 7870 is a little faster. They were dead even at release, but AMD cards never perform up to their full potential in the beginning because of poor initial drivers and the lack of the console advantage in terms of optimization for the GCN architecture up until fairly recently.

AnandTech | Bench - GPU14

Yep, this is true. It's like comparing a GK110-class card such as the 780 with 50% more theoretical horsepower against the 770.

AnandTech | Bench - GPU14

Witcher 3 is a GameWorks title. 'nuff said.

 

1 - It's not reasonable UNLESS the consoles are doing 720p, low, 30fps. Both consoles are weaker than a 7870 by a good margin, and "minimum" graphics is traditionally 720p 30fps "low" graphics for PC. The recommended requirements, however, are fairly decent assuming the consoles are not playing 1080p "high" 30fps, as "recommended" requirements for PC are just that: 1080/30 "high". If they are, then PC *MUST* be able to do just that on min spec, as min spec surpasses console power. 10% "same hardware" doesn't overcome a 20% downclock + loss of cores with 7870 --> PS4.

2 - I checked the R9 270X benches as I believe the 7870 became that, and it's usually 8-10fps better than the 660. I usually equated the 7870/R9 270X to the 660Ti is what. I used the same anandtech benches here AnandTech | Bench - GPU14 (the 270X has higher benches). But then again I guess the 7870 has less memory clock. Oh well.

3 - Even non gameworks titles often list much stronger AMD cards. The AMOUNT of times I've seen GTS 450 + AMD 5870 in min specs... hmph.

 

7870 clocks 1000/1200

270X clocks 1050/1400

Also price-wise, 270X competed with 760 and 660 Ti and 7870/270 with 660.

 

As we have pc requirements already announced but the game still delayed to May, I really think it has been delayed because of console optimisation. So for the moment, 720p/30fps on the xbox one is possible.

 

Buddy, you're making too many assumptions on what the listed minimum and recommend spec entail in terms of graphical settings as well leaving out console optimizations. Do you remember Witcher 2's Xbox 360 port? The improved lighting engine never even made its way back into the Enhanced Edition PC version. And in the last year, when have we actually seen a minimum spec that turned out to follow your "720p Low 30 FPS" definition? And you wonder why minimum specs have gone up dramatically.

Notice how there's not a ginormous power gap between minimum and recommended spec? Given what we know of current-gen console hardware, it's reasonable to deduce that minimum spec might be the console experience, somewhere around 900p highish (XB1) to 1080p highish (PS4), both 30 FPS, and recommended spec gives you 60 FPS.

 

If they're aiming for something else, that's fine... but then they need to specify. Industry standard is 720/low/30fps for min, and 1080/high (not ultra)/30 for recommended. I've actually seen a couple of specs recently specify what they meant for their min/rec specs, but it was only a few of them.

Also, Far Cry 4 and Broken Creed Unity for min spec being true .

Anyway, if things are changing they need to be listed. I did notice there wasn't a huge power jump between min and req; which is why I started saying "min was too high". Min reqs shouldn't be "med-high" graphics... they should be what's the minimum needed to have it playable at an accepted resolution most people would have. If it's too high, many people assume "hey I gotta upgrade" or "wow, i can't play this; best I buy on a console".

 

If it's "industry standard," why does nobody follow it? Anyway, you can't just say "this is industry-standard IQ & performance for minspec and this is it for recommended spec." It's on a case-by-case basis and at the discretion of the devs and whatever internal hardware testing they've done, as it has been since forever.

Minspecs for FC4 and AC Unity run them at better than 720p Low 30 FPS. If you recall, AC Unity's minspec is very high.

 

Yeah, I remember. Who knows, maybe specs changed and nobody's saying anything. I would love if 1080/30/low was minspec and they properly made sure which GPUs handle it at that spec, and 1080/60/high was recommended.

welp, either way it's just idealism I'm spouting. I'm not going to have problems with games for quite some time.

 

Per your previous posts, don't you mean 720p for minspec?

 

How many fps do you get for AC Unity max settings?

 

I'm saying I would love if the industry standard would change to that.

 

Sounds like you either had an about-face or you're contradicting yourself.

 

I'm not being clear.

I'm saying that current industry standard is:
720p/30fps/low for MIN spec
1080p/30fps/high for RECOMMENDED spec
with recommended not counting "ultra" settings.

I WANT industry standard to change to:
1080p/30fps/low for MIN spec
1080p/60fps/high (with low AA) for RECOMMENDED spec
and if ultra is far above "high" (like with Crysis 3 etc) then an "ultra" spec 1080p/60fps/ultra could be included. It has been in the past in a couple games.

If industry standard is currently broken and/or in limbo, then devs should state what settings/resolution/fps they are targeting with their specifications.

There, I think that cleared it up.

 

The thing is, there's no such thing as an "industry standard" as I explained here. Inaccurate and misleading system requirements in PC games have been the rule, not the exception, since the beginning of time. It's impossible for devs to test every possible hardware and software (esp. drivers, which are in a constant state of flux) combination out there. If every game had system requirements on the dot, all the tech and benchmarking sites would lose a big chunk of their traffic overnight.

 

After inquiring with a couple developers since Skyrim was released in 2011, I have been told a few times minimum PC spec is supposed to correspond to minimum hardware needed to run the game at 1080p low settings, no AA, 30fps.

I imagine there must be some variation, as I noticed some games release on consoles at 60fps (often combined with very low resolution).

 

Well then BLAHH. I blah at games. *goes and tries out Dirty Bomb*

 

In that same year, BF3's minspec could run it at 720p Low 30 FPS, MW3's could run it at 900p Low 30 FPS, and Witcher 2's was barely enough to launch the game. It's really all over the place.

 

Don't get me started on Witcher 2 - pre-ordered it 6 months early and several years later I still can't run the damn game at 720p without lagging and motion blur all over the place.

 

Well there's the perfect benchmark for your next PC.

Oh wait, this is a Witcher 3 thread. Which game am I talking about again?

 

Did you get a Beta Key already?

 

I had one for months, but living in Trinidad and 3rdWorldBago I couldn't play it via Nexon's launcher. Now that it's on steam I can play it just fine.

 

Minimum requirements should be 1080p-lowest settings/30 fps. We are in 2015! Even Nintendo has full HD on their consoles.

 

Any chance an 860m can run this on low? Mine is overclocked +250/+350 and I was under the impression that this should at least be comparable to an xbox one.

 

I think that satisfies the min spec for you.

 

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/list-of-rendering-resolutions.41152/#post-1114425

 

Ok... my bad. At least Windwaker has full HD

 

After I got burned with Witcher 2, I would not suggest pre-ordering this one. Regardless of the published minimum specs, I recommend to wait and see if others with your hardware are actually able to run the game after release.

Hopefully CD Projekt will offer some kind of free demo / benchmark tool. I would not be surprised if this thing is super demanding like Witcher 2 was, completely unplayable on most laptops even on the lowest possible settings.

 

You're worrying me... Still I assume 900m series can run it.

 

The existing 900M series should definitely run it, else CD Projekt RED done goofed. You should only require the PC equivalent to the Xbox One to run this game at minimum.

Haven't played ACU for long enough yet to determine average framerate. I'm waiting for more patches to fix the game before I dive in, as I got the game free from the NVIDIA promotion so happy to wait a bit longer.

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

You guys forget the disaster that was Witcher 2. I'm with MM on this one, no pre-ordering from me.

 

When you disabled that one setting (I think it was supersampling or ubersampling) didn't the witcher 2 run fine?

 

I don't think they'll make it significantly better. It's probably always gonna be as bad as it is now. I can't even get average 50 fps at 1440p with a desktop 980 without AA.

 

Its been a while but if I recall correct. that only helped after a couple of patches. Prior to that it was an unoptimized mess

 

Oh alright. I only bought it two years ago.

 

The game should have been out in 2014. And they are taking 3 more months so it should be optimised. I hope, for us and for the franchise future.

 

Well they're no Ubi, they're usually PC friendly so it wouldn't surprise me if they delayed it specifically for the PC version.

 

Yeah they're the best Though i think the delay is for consoles. Open worlds like Watchdogs or GTA V barely get 30 fps, and those are old gen games... So imagine new gen game, with a bigger world than Skyrim, with cities...

 

Yeah, that would also make a lot of sense

 

That would be great if so, but the hardware doesn't seem to compare this way exactly for CD Projekt games. Witcher 2 was perhaps more demanding than nearly every other game in the past four years until very recently.

The PC equivalent of Xbox 360 could not run Witcher 2 playable at 720p, for example.

 

Regardless, those of you with less than an i7 and 7970M/680M should worry about meeting the minimum requirements. I certainly am not gonna be playing this game on my laptop.