Upgrade for Witcher 3

Dovah94

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2013
34
0
18,540
Hello everyone :)
I plan to upgrade my PC for Witcher 3. I play on 1366x768 ress.
My rig now:
CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 630 (2.80 GHz)
Ram: 4 GB DDR2 800Mhz
GPU: ATI Radeon HD 4850 1 GB

I plan to buy graph AMD 7770 1 GB DDR5 and add 2 GB ram DDR2. The thing that bother me is how ram is important for Witcher 3, many say that its a hevy GPU game, and I ask my self, is it better to get better GPU than AMD 7770 and no ram, or go for AMD 7770 and 2 GB ram more.
I hope you will give me an answer. 😉
P.S: sry for my bad engl
 
The answer is neither...your current and planned components will officially not run the game...in the real world you will be lucky to run anything other than the main menu.

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
 

Bulls*it! I saw people run this game with 4gb ram on dual core cpu and amd 5670 gpu with just 512 mb, on low, the game is super optimised so I will not take this specs for serious problem.
 
Well if you know so well, why ask?

The game is everything other than "super optimized" lol! Do you live under a rock?

Those are official specs to run the game acceptably. Anything below them you can expect it not to run well or not to run at all.

I have been helping people on this forum all day who have issues with i7 processors and Nvidia 970/980 cards. reporting low/bad performance and drops to 20FPS...

So I wish you the best of success with your "new" parts and the highest level of enjoyment on 20 fps low settings mate!
 
Well if this helps out any, I am playing it on a 1440p monitor and at best it uses up roughly 1.5 GB of VRAM from my 980. My i7-4790k uses less than 40% on 4 cores. It is well-optimized but i wouldn't go overboard with "super optimized". I have everything running at ultra with hairworks off with 45-60 fps. Your specs are a low but you might be able to at least see 30fps.
 
Get a Phenom II X4 or X6, whichever one is the fastest your motherboard will take. Double your RAM to 8GB, assuming your board can take it. And get at least an R9 270X, if not R9 280/280X or 290/290X, for your GPU.

If your motherboard can't take a Phenom II X4/X6, or can't get 8GB, then it's time to start shopping for a new build.
 


No it's not. While Witcher 3 is relatively light on the CPU, it CRUSHES GPUs. Seriously, even a 980 GTX can barely max 1080p. Game crushes harder then Crysis ever did.
 
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/513?vs=536

Granted, the lowest they had was the 4870, but that's from the same generation as the 4850.

Yes, the HD 7770 outperforms the HD 4870. No, it's not a very big performance upgrade (ranging from +10 FPS down to a measly +2 FPS). Not to mention that the 1GB of VRAM they both have is starting to become the minimum recommendation for games (i.e. don't expect high quality textures or high resolution).

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1079?vs=1043

The R9 270X consistently gets +30 FPS or more over the HD 7770, & they're on Tom's recommended GPU list (sub-$200) because they're running about $150. So that would be a worthwhile upgrade, especially if you're gaming at sub-1080p (or especially at 720p).
 
I don't see it as WRONG. (your tone maybe, but not my idea.) When talking about such lower end cards they are generally used by people who don't have a lot of money to spend on parts. As such, to suggest someone spend their hard earned cash on something that will provide only 2-10FPS more then what they already have seems to me to be wrong. If their 4850 died and they needed a card that wasn't a step back then sure, the 7770 is a great way to go. But as mentioned above, they really need to buy something that has more then 1GB of Vram, Something that will be 20%+ faster, and something that will make them happy they plunked down the cash. Is it faster? Yes, I never said it wasn't. Is it worth it? Not in my book. (Yours might have different pages, and that's ok.)
 


Game is actually pretty poorly "optimized", mostly.

Crysis 3 is optimized. Its grass effects are arguably still unmatched and will remain so for a long time to come. The same goes for many other effects. I know it is a different type of game and uses an engine focused on visuals, however this is to make a point on how many PC's can run this stunning gfx benchmark WELL, compared to GTA.

Gta 5's grass looks poor even on the highest settings and DRAINS your GPU's resources. So do many other settings.

Here is a guide on how to set up the game better...due to poor optimization on the developers end:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1909-gta-v-graphics-optimization-guide
 
Witcher 3 is well optimized. It's CPU agnostic; it really doesn't care what CPU you use. GPU wise, it's actually less taxing on High on my 2GB GTX 770 then other titles I've purchases recently. People home in on Ultra settings and wonder why they run like crap; there's a reason it's called "Ultra".

FYI: Crysis 3 took a lot of graphical shortcuts to save a lot of performance. Example: Grass shadows are greatly simplified, which frees up a TON of GPU resources [doing shadows for every blade of grass, independently, gets really expensive really fast).
 
1650x1080? That doesn't sound right -- it's neither a 4:3 nor a 16:9 ratio, but some weird number (55:36).

Plus, it's YouTube, which means it's about a step or 2 down in your ability to rely on it for "factual" information from Wikipedia.

And as pointed out earlier, neither your current GPU (HD 4850) nor your planned upgrade (HD 7770) even match the listed minimum for Witcher 3 (HD 7850).