It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
The Witcher 3: Wild HuntAnyone able to run the game with below minimum spec computer? Please provide details.(52 posts)(52 posts)
(52 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 21, 2015
avatar
Mejis: I've got an ASUS G73 laptop from 2010, running win 7.
I do'nt know the full specs right now as I'm not at it, but googling I'm pretty sure it's:

Intel Core i7-720QM processor (1.6GHz/2.8GHz Turbo Mode, 6MB L3 cache)
GTX 460M 1.5gb vram
8gb RAM.

Firstly, this has been an phenomenal laptop for me, it served me beautifully for TW2 and many things since, always performing exceptionally well over the years. So yeah, a great portable purchase for me.

I'm aware I am under spec, but I figured I'd give TW3 a try with it anyway.

It's... pretty bad, but also quite weird.

The major crippling factors are resolution and shadows (of course).
I get 20-26 fps running around outside when in fullscreen at 1366x768 (monitor native is 1920x1080) and that's the best I can manage.
However, those fps values don't change whether I have the majority of the graphics settings at High. The only thing that lowers fps in those settings is the foliage distance and shadows. But... textures look pretty lame even on high/ultra, but I guess that's down to my resolution I'm at.
In post-processing, I can have DOF, vignette, light shafts and sharpening on without any fps hit, so that makes things look a little better.

So yeah, it feels a bit odd to me. I can cope that my system is out of date, but the fact that most of the graphics options do nothing to kill fps, whilst still not delivery much noticeable increase in quality makes me feel something is wrong.

As it stands, I can't really enjoy 20-25 fps, it ruins the immersion. I'd be happy with a stable 30fps if possible, but the texture quality looks pretty bad at 1366x768.

Any thoughts from anyone?

PS I went through the user settings.ini tweaks and tried all sorts of crazy changes, including managing to pretty much ablate all shadows (except Geralt was followed by like a weird storm-cloud block shadow everywhere) which did boost fps a bit, but it looked so awful I had to revert.
Ah, there we go, someone with a gaming laptop pc with the same problems like mine.

Exactly the same problems like yours with a machine with I7-4710MQ and NVidia GeForce GTX860M 4GB of VRam.

Same FPS, 20-25 FPS with sudden drops under 15, no matter the settings i'll use, the only stuff that improve a bit the framerate is crippling the resolution and vegetation distance (that as far as i saw i've the feeling that the trees are rendered ALWAYS, even if they are not visible, that's the only possible cause for the heavy crippling framerate...), but even at 1024x768 can't pass 40.

Simply ridiculous considering that i can max EVERYTHING in FullHD, for example GTA V almost maxed out at 45+ FPS, no problem at all.

The GPU core is a GK104, same core of the GTX770 (which is under recommended specs, not minimum), even if it has 3/4 of cores enabled, and yet the support team says that my machine is under minimum specs.

I've the feeling that this game has not even took in consideration for laptop gaming machines. Without even talking about lockups (seems multicore management, try to disable every core under processes in activity manager, i've doubled the FPS from 20 to 40+ without changing any settings, even if the game afterwards keeps freezing for thread starvation (~32 threads figthing for a single core)).

They seriously need to optimize this game, because it seems to run at 60 FPS only with exagerately configurations, which for me is not accettable. I do not want another game. It is one of the best game i've ever seen. I want it running decently on my machine (Clevo P151SM1-A).
Post edited May 21, 2015 by Rodomar705
Posted May 21, 2015
While the core in a 860M might be the same as a 770, it's certainly not the same. Not even close. They are such different cards in terms of virtually every parameter/specification that matters. Saying that they are equivalent shows a lack of understanding the basics of GPUs.

For a comparison between these two cards, follow this link:

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-860M-vs-GeForce-GTX-770
Posted May 21, 2015
avatar
light487: While the core in a 860M might be the same as a 770, it's certainly not the same. Not even close. They are such different cards in terms of virtually every parameter/specification that matters. Saying that they are equivalent shows a lack of understanding the basics of GPUs.

For a comparison between these two cards, follow this link:

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-860M-vs-GeForce-GTX-770
Ah, i'm sorry, but there are two types of GTX 860M, that is the lower tier with 2 GB of VRAM (Maxwell based, mine is Kepler based with twice the power of the first one, blame NVidia for the names...)

The variant is different, but it's a GK104, as it is the GTX 770. Less core active, yes, but the same nontheless, considering that draw 1/3 of power, and is a year younger.

Mine is this (Excluding the 2GB of VRAM, the rest of the data is correct):

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2537/geforce-gtx-860m.html

From nvidia site:

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-860m/specifications

First two rows prove what i'm saying, different Cuda core count for the same GPU.
Post edited May 21, 2015 by Rodomar705
Posted May 21, 2015
Intel i7-930 @ 2.8 GHz
Gigabyte x-58A UD3R Mobo
2 GB Sapphire Radeon 7850 graphics
6 GB Corsair RAM
2 TB WD Black HDD

Poor thing is mostly 5 years old and in need of a well earned retirement. Running nothing OC'd and the game seems to run ok at the default start up settings. Don't know if there is a good auto-tuner in there, but very happy so far.

And also highly pissed, cause I want a new PC and this was going to be my excuse to get one and now I can play the game that I thought was going to break my system! WAH! ;-)
Posted May 21, 2015
avatar
Mejis: I've got an ASUS G73 laptop from 2010, running win 7.
I do'nt know the full specs right now as I'm not at it, but googling I'm pretty sure it's:

Intel Core i7-720QM processor (1.6GHz/2.8GHz Turbo Mode, 6MB L3 cache)
GTX 460M 1.5gb vram
8gb RAM.

Firstly, this has been an phenomenal laptop for me, it served me beautifully for TW2 and many things since, always performing exceptionally well over the years. So yeah, a great portable purchase for me.

I'm aware I am under spec, but I figured I'd give TW3 a try with it anyway.

It's... pretty bad, but also quite weird.

The major crippling factors are resolution and shadows (of course).
I get 20-26 fps running around outside when in fullscreen at 1366x768 (monitor native is 1920x1080) and that's the best I can manage.
However, those fps values don't change whether I have the majority of the graphics settings at High. The only thing that lowers fps in those settings is the foliage distance and shadows. But... textures look pretty lame even on high/ultra, but I guess that's down to my resolution I'm at.
In post-processing, I can have DOF, vignette, light shafts and sharpening on without any fps hit, so that makes things look a little better.

So yeah, it feels a bit odd to me. I can cope that my system is out of date, but the fact that most of the graphics options do nothing to kill fps, whilst still not delivery much noticeable increase in quality makes me feel something is wrong.

As it stands, I can't really enjoy 20-25 fps, it ruins the immersion. I'd be happy with a stable 30fps if possible, but the texture quality looks pretty bad at 1366x768.

Any thoughts from anyone?

PS I went through the user settings.ini tweaks and tried all sorts of crazy changes, including managing to pretty much ablate all shadows (except Geralt was followed by like a weird storm-cloud block shadow everywhere) which did boost fps a bit, but it looked so awful I had to revert.
avatar
Rodomar705: Ah, there we go, someone with a gaming laptop pc with the same problems like mine.

Exactly the same problems like yours with a machine with I7-4710MQ and NVidia GeForce GTX860M 4GB of VRam.

Same FPS, 20-25 FPS with sudden drops under 15, no matter the settings i'll use, the only stuff that improve a bit the framerate is crippling the resolution and vegetation distance (that as far as i saw i've the feeling that the trees are rendered ALWAYS, even if they are not visible, that's the only possible cause for the heavy crippling framerate...), but even at 1024x768 can't pass 40.

Simply ridiculous considering that i can max EVERYTHING in FullHD, for example GTA V almost maxed out at 45+ FPS, no problem at all.

The GPU core is a GK104, same core of the GTX770 (which is under recommended specs, not minimum), even if it has 3/4 of cores enabled, and yet the support team says that my machine is under minimum specs.

I've the feeling that this game has not even took in consideration for laptop gaming machines. Without even talking about lockups (seems multicore management, try to disable every core under processes in activity manager, i've doubled the FPS from 20 to 40+ without changing any settings, even if the game afterwards keeps freezing for thread starvation (~32 threads figthing for a single core)).

They seriously need to optimize this game, because it seems to run at 60 FPS only with exagerately configurations, which for me is not accettable. I do not want another game. It is one of the best game i've ever seen. I want it running decently on my machine (Clevo P151SM1-A).
Thanks for this, somewhat glad to hear I'm not alone, even though I'm under your specs.

I keep up hope that there might be a patch that addresses some of this. I really want to get absorbed by the game, and that's just not gonna happen for me below 30fps.
Posted May 21, 2015
Real problem is the GPU. You can have a bad CPU, but if your GPU is decent, you get good fps. People, I can barely play this at 13-15 fps at ultraLow (heavy tweaking) + pre-rendered frames. My gpu is really crap, my CPU is almost decent. Yet, I get worse performance than others.
Posted May 21, 2015
avatar
shishimaru1000: Real problem is the GPU. You can have a bad CPU, but if your GPU is decent, you get good fps. People, I can barely play this at 13-15 fps at ultraLow (heavy tweaking) + pre-rendered frames. My gpu is really crap, my CPU is almost decent. Yet, I get worse performance than others.
Yes, this is true for basically any games out there. But the real problem is how much extra power you need to run this game. Usually you do not need a triple SLI system to keep up to 60 FPS on a Full HD system, one is good enough. In this game with a single GPU you can barely keep 30.

That is not optimization at all, considering that this game runs 40+ FPS with day one patch for PS4, that have an APU (more or less an integrated GPU, even if more powerful that the typical found in computer systems, it is still integrated nontheless). I really hope that the patch with 600+ changes will address this problems, expecially for the distance vegetation drops (why render something which is not visible? It doesen't make any sense at all).
Posted May 21, 2015
GTX 560 TI
1080p, low settings
35-45 fps
Posted May 21, 2015
Core 2 Quad Q6600
8GB RAM
660 GTX

Runs (surprisingly) fine! :D

Fired it up, haven't bothered playing with any settings but I would expect it's automatically dropped to low.

Looks gorgeous
No Lag
No Crashes


Genuinely impressed by CDP! Puts dragon ages' performance to shame!
Posted May 21, 2015
My rig; i3-4130 CPU, AMD R9 270x 2Gb DDR5 1600Mhz, 8Gb GSkill Ripjaws DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24, ASRock B85M Pro4 Mobo, WD 150Gb HDD, LCD TV Monitor 1360x768 @ 60Hz.
Been playing on Ultra (xcept back charctrs high, foliage vis high) Vsync on @ 60FPS & all looked & felt good! However, just installed FRAPS to check actual FPS & found it running at around 30FPS!
CRUCIAL INFO! Disable Nvidia hair!!! Once I'd done that it's getting 41FPS lowest record on Ulttra & 46FPS lowest record on High settings. That was running Geralt back and forth past the first village Inn, with livestock, kids etc. + I checked running thru the trees & grass etc. Higher frame rates there. The oddest thing is tho, I can't perceive any noticeable visual difference on either of those settings, & I've played quite a few hours on Ultra settings with Nvidia hair on & not noticed any impedence in character & AI movement, combat etc. Also, on Ultra settings, I'm getting around 60FPS most of the time with Nvidia off!!!, especially if I'm not running.
I gather there's been crash/freeze problems for Nvidia folks, & I feel for them, but maybe they should disable their Nvidia hair, can't see any visual difference on my rig with it off or on so....
btw, wtf is Hardware Cursor? Mines off (set by the game) should I fiddle with it? :)
Post edited May 21, 2015 by URJoking
Posted May 21, 2015
A few years old Asus G75VW gaming laptop (I got these specs online):

Processor Intel Core i7-3610QM 2.3 GHz (I think it goes up to 3.3GHz, if needed)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M - 3072 MB, Core: 620 MHz, Memory: 1500 MHz, GDDR5
Memory 8192 MB, 2x 4096 MB PC3-12800 SO-DIMM DDR3-SDRAM (1600 MHz), 4 Slots, max. 16 GB

I think at least the GPU is below the minimum requirements (desktop GTX 660), as 670M (M=mobile) is probably considerably slower than desktop 660.

The little I played it yesterday, I got framerates at around 30 fps playing it at 1366x768 resolution, most graphics options at medium, but some disabled (including Hairworks). Texture quality was set to High, it could probably be even at Ultra, as that is what NVidia is suggesting for any GPUs with more than 2GB RAM (I have 3GB).

I didn't play it beyond the tutorial and the first real fight, but if the gamespeed stays at about that rest of the game, I am happy, as I expected it to run like ass even with everything at low.

The FAQ mentioned how to enable 1280x720 resolution (with a hack, for some reason the game doesn't support that by default), which might increase the framerate further, and/or allow me to enable more graphics options. I am generally fine running most games also on lower 16:9 resolutions (like 1280x720 or 1366x768).

Oh, I also initially tried running it as 1920x1080 with pretty much everything at High, and Hairworks enabled for all. Yeah, ran like ass as expected. :) I think it was running at around 5-10 fps, not fully sure. Probably Hairworks was the biggest culprit.
Post edited May 21, 2015 by timppu
Posted May 21, 2015
GTX 670 OC 2
i7-3770K 3.50GHz
16 Go Ram

High/Ultra settings.
I disabled all greedy stuff like: Hairworks, Vsync, etc.
Posted May 21, 2015
avatar
bobmartien: GTX 670 OC 2
i7-3770K 3.50GHz
16 Go Ram

High/Ultra settings.
I disabled all greedy stuff like: Hairworks, Vsync, etc.
Vsync, greedy? Maybe you can explain how please. :)
Posted May 22, 2015
avatar
bobmartien: GTX 670 OC 2
i7-3770K 3.50GHz
16 Go Ram

High/Ultra settings.
I disabled all greedy stuff like: Hairworks, Vsync, etc.
avatar
URJoking: Vsync, greedy? Maybe you can explain how please. :)
V-Sync isn't greedy like "draining FPS" but -sync has some pros and cons.
Mostly it's used to avoid "screen tearing" and caps your frame rate at 60 fps (usually).

Turn it ON/OFF. Depends of your GPU/Monitor.
And check your overall FPS.
Posted May 22, 2015
avatar
YrdenNerf: GTX 560 TI
1080p, low settings
35-45 fps
We have the same gpu but I can play very well it with a mix of low-high settings. Its on a small screen though 1366*768.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
The Witcher 3: Wild HuntAnyone able to run the game with below minimum spec computer? Please provide details.(52 posts)(52 posts)
(52 posts)