witcher 3 @ 7680x1440/1600 sys requirements?

[chicofehr]

Wondering if anyone knows what specs your need to achieve atleast 30fps at 7680x1440/1600 on max settings. I got 3x1600 monitors but I'm in road const so i am away from home & my computer for a while. I might build new setup. My 2x7950 won't do LOL.

Edit:
7680x1600 is close to a 5K monitor is pixels!!!! So if you have a 4K monitor then that would be close enough for comparison. I'll be happy with 30fps for now. I can't afford 60fps at that resolution 😛 maybe next year.

 

[Sandstorm3000]

Titan x SLI?

 

[DasHotShot]

This is quite a high demand.

One would imagine you will need a top range card, with plenty of Vram per unit and more than one unit.

Sounds like you are a prime candidate for the bran new 980 Ti, due to be released in two weeks time.

Two of those , coupled with an i7 cpu, 16GB of Ram (8 is technically enough, however for a build like this may as well go overboard and create a small ramdisk) should be able to do that job.

However that is theoretical.

The only 100% safe option which will do 60fps+ on the required setup are 2x Titan X.

(The only reason I don't mention the new 390x is the fact AMD cards are very poorly optimized for the game)

 

[Iamsoda]

Wondering if anyone knows what specs your need to achieve atleast 30fps at 7680x1440/1600 on max settings. I got 3x1600 monitors but I'm in road const so i am away from home & my computer for a while. I might build new setup. My 2x7950 won't do LOL.

A lot?

 

[DasHotShot]

Suggestion:

Try your current setup, see what settings you get and build from there?

The new cards coming soon will drive some prices down and give you loads of options.

 

[Stryker13799]

Budget?

 

[Iamsoda]

The amd R9 3xx serious is dropping in less then a month and the GTX 980 ti isn't far off either. Wait for those. Even if you don't buy either, the price drop is worth the wait.

 

[Tom Tancredi]

Wondering if anyone knows what specs your need to achieve atleast 30fps at 7680x1440/1600 on max settings. I got 3x1600 monitors but I'm in road const so i am away from home & my computer for a while. I might build new setup. My 2x7950 won't do LOL.

Edit:
7680x1600 is close to a 5K monitor is pixels!!!! So if you have a 4K monitor then that would be close enough for comparison. I'll be happy with 30fps for now. I can't afford 60fps at that resolution 😛 maybe next year.

You know that won't matter what you try to do, you won't get 4K or 5K graphics out of W3?
Just done reading the indepth analysis, seems they 'downgraded' (as some people call it CodeRed says optimized) the graphics to be 'on par' with a PS4. There is apparently a firestorm over it by many whom like you are trying for ultimate bells and whistles sorely upset with what they 'got' instead of what was 'promised'.

Here is the whole story, comparison videos and still shots in it to see the differences, both between platforms AND between 2013 'ingame' video your familiar with and ACTUAL game play. http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/05/the-witcher-3-downgrade-controversy-sucks/

 

[DasHotShot]

Partially true, however you can still go big in some aspects. You can certainly surpass PS4 graphics.

However I have been banging the anti console drum forever now and it is a surprise it took this game to piss people off. I like how the devs put their hands up finally today and admitted they couldn't sell enough copies if they didn't aim it a toys are us boxes (consoles)

It's not like has low demands or anything though...it can put certain gpus to their knees.

 

[jessterman21]

Wait for the GTX 980 Ti to come out around Computex, and get two of those.

 

[DasHotShot]

http://wccftech.com/the-witcher-3-pc-60fps-maxed-out-titan-x/

 

[chicofehr]

Thanks for the info. I might get 2 980ti. The problem with the 380x is its only 4gb. The 980ti will most likely be 6gb. I probably should get 4 of them but I'm not rich LOL having 3 30in monitors can be a pain as you have to have the best of the best to run at the native resolution without putting everything on low settings.

 

[Iamsoda]

Eh 4 GPU sli is terrible performance turn over and so far in a lot of cases it is the same or worse then 2 way.

 

[Steve79]

I'm currently running a 7680x1440 ROG SWIFT set up with an i7 4930k over clocked to 4.4ghz, 16gb Ram and Titan X SLI and if everything is maxed it's a slide show. I've had to tinker and even on high settings WITHOUT AA it's only giving me around 27 fps.

It's pretty much unplayable at this rez if you want it to actually look good...

 

[sz0ty0l4]

Witcher 3 is very well optimised, also it does not use a big amount of vram. on maximum settings 1080p vram usage tops at 2000mb. I guess a tri-sli titan-x or tri sli 980 could push a solid 60 frames on ultra without hairworks on that resolution.

 

[dominirican3351]

For 1440p surround you will need quad sli titan x and a 5960x oc to atleast 4.5 to eliminate bottlenecking or dual 8 core xeons. http://www.twitch.tv/edgar he plays on surround 1440p and maxed out the witcher with fps never dropping below 50

 

[DasHotShot]

Witcher 3 is very well optimised, also it does not use a big amount of vram. on maximum settings 1080p vram usage tops at 2000mb. I guess a tri-sli titan-x or tri sli 980 could push a solid 60 frames on ultra without hairworks on that resolution.

Wow...you are going through the forum saying to people games like Gta 5 and Witcher 3 are well optimized. Where on earth do you get this from? Have you been hiding under a rock?

These are 2 examples of console ports which have been in the PC media and extended tech media for being VERY poorly optimized on PC and causing various problems, even at the top end of the Gfx spectrum.

People on these and other boards are complaining about problems they get using the best cards available at the moment. How does that make witcher 3 "well optimized"? They even downgraded the graphics in order for consoles to be bale to run it at 30 fps.

The game is lots of things....well optimized is NOT one of them.

 

[sz0ty0l4]

Witcher 3 is very well optimised, also it does not use a big amount of vram. on maximum settings 1080p vram usage tops at 2000mb. I guess a tri-sli titan-x or tri sli 980 could push a solid 60 frames on ultra without hairworks on that resolution.

Wow...you are going through the forum saying to people games like Gta 5 and Witcher 3 are well optimized. Where on earth do you get this from? Have you been hiding under a rock?

These are 2 examples of console ports which have been in the PC media and extended tech media for being VERY poorly optimized on PC and causing various problems, even at the top end of the Gfx spectrum.

People on these and other boards are complaining about problems they get using the best cards available at the moment. How does that make witcher 3 "well optimized"? They even downgraded the graphics in order for consoles to be bale to run it at 30 fps.

The game is lots of things....well optimized is NOT one of them.

it reaches an ultimate level of graphical fidelity on maxed settings from 2 Gb vram. I've played all latest AAA titles on ultra settings and i can tell you Witcher 3 has the best graphics so far. while other titles require 3-4gb vram on the same resolution for a lower graphical fidelity.

Despite the official system requirements it even runs fine on a dualcore pentium and a lowend hd 7850.
Witcher 3 also everything , but not a console port. they always gave the PC version the advantage. they worked closely with nvidia and i can tell the game runs like no other game on my gtx 980. I have 1 setting turned off and the game never drops below 60fps.

 

[gamerk316]

These are 2 examples of console ports which have been in the PC media and extended tech media for being VERY poorly optimized on PC and causing various problems, even at the top end of the Gfx spectrum.

I'm going to call this out. Depending on perspective, the game is actually VERY well optimized.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html

Extraordinarily CPU agnostic. Open world titles tend to be very CPU dependent (See: Skyrim), so CDPR did a very good job letting their title run on pretty much any CPU out there without affecting performance.

GPU side, the title scales to what settings you use. Which doesn't mean it's badly optimized, just that it uses a lot of features (Hairworks, advanced lighting/reflections, etc) that are VERY expensive for GPUs to performance. With Hairworks off, 1080p, my 2GB 770 GTX can handle High across the board, which is better then it can handle on "more optimized" titles I've brought recently (Evolve comes to mind). It's those super high end features that KILL performance, which is expected because they are very taxing to perform.

*Is a SW Engineer

 

[DasHotShot]

Witcher 3 is very well optimised, also it does not use a big amount of vram. on maximum settings 1080p vram usage tops at 2000mb. I guess a tri-sli titan-x or tri sli 980 could push a solid 60 frames on ultra without hairworks on that resolution.

Wow...you are going through the forum saying to people games like Gta 5 and Witcher 3 are well optimized. Where on earth do you get this from? Have you been hiding under a rock?

These are 2 examples of console ports which have been in the PC media and extended tech media for being VERY poorly optimized on PC and causing various problems, even at the top end of the Gfx spectrum.

People on these and other boards are complaining about problems they get using the best cards available at the moment. How does that make witcher 3 "well optimized"? They even downgraded the graphics in order for consoles to be bale to run it at 30 fps.

The game is lots of things....well optimized is NOT one of them.

it reaches an ultimate level of graphical fidelity on maxed settings from 2 Gb vram. I've played all latest AAA titles on ultra settings and i can tell you Witcher 3 has the best graphics so far. while other titles require 3-4gb vram on the same resolution for a lower graphical fidelity.

Despite the official system requirements it even runs fine on a dualcore pentium and a lowend hd 7850.
Witcher 3 also everything , but not a console port. they always gave the PC version the advantage. they worked closely with nvidia and i can tell the game runs like no other game on my gtx 980. I have 1 setting turned off and the game never drops below 60fps.

You must have been hiding somewhere under a rock when the whole downgrade situation was unveiled. They purposefully made the game worse on PC so it would work and they could sell it on consoles...Not sure how that counts as favouring the PC at all...

http://www.pcgamer.com/cd-projekt-addresses-witcher-3-graphical-downgrade-complaints/

 

[Tom Tancredi]

These are 2 examples of console ports which have been in the PC media and extended tech media for being VERY poorly optimized on PC and causing various problems, even at the top end of the Gfx spectrum.

I'm going to call this out. Depending on perspective, the game is actually VERY well optimized.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html

Extraordinarily CPU agnostic. Open world titles tend to be very CPU dependent (See: Skyrim), so CDPR did a very good job letting their title run on pretty much any CPU out there without affecting performance.

GPU side, the title scales to what settings you use. Which doesn't mean it's badly optimized, just that it uses a lot of features (Hairworks, advanced lighting/reflections, etc) that are VERY expensive for GPUs to performance. With Hairworks off, 1080p, my 2GB 770 GTX can handle High across the board, which is better then it can handle on "more optimized" titles I've brought recently (Evolve comes to mind). It's those super high end features that KILL performance, which is expected because they are very taxing to perform.

*Is a SW Engineer

Tossing in my two cents to ALL;

As someone who has over 20 years supporting the 'End User' directly (yes the person asking for a replacement coffee cup holder that was built into their laptop!!) the problem most people are answering is from their technical understanding of the game rather than from the view of the 'End User'.

The End User 'sees' the Youtube video, the TV commercial, FLOODED at the store (pick one) with the 'in game video' constantly being replayed on screens in the store, and then looks at the glossy covered box and 'pictures' and that is all they know a 'computer should play'.

The main reason Consoles have succeeded is because when they do the same thing this it is ONLY way the game does play, because it is the same Console for all player, that is not even half close for the PC marketspace. Because JoeDumbUser who got that 'Walmart Black Friday Special 199 PC' thinks his computer should play the 'same as the commercials' because 'they can't advertise what it can't do! I can sue them for false adverts!" and that is where we have all the problems.

What is 'packaged', marketed, and sold "AS THE GAME" is the extreme systems we see W3 is 'best' on (OMG TitanX SLI!! THAT is just $2000 for the cards, not even cost to power the cards much less the rest of the computer system nor all that cooling!! OMFG!) and that is the problem. The problem is the 'lies' the companies are doing now for the games, case in point (for this discussion) is W3 (see previous link I provided above) totally changed from the 'promo game play' to actual end product. While somethings can be said about 'design changes while in development' honestly everyone can't argue they dropped down the graphics on PC SIDE to be on par with the PS4 so 'improve stability and performance' (aka the demands for a 'normal JoeDumbUser' as some are pointing too, it is well 'optimized for those 'generic' gaming systems "just like a PS4"). Honestly though this is false advertisement just as much as the total failure of the end product Aliens Colonial Marines as compared to the 'nearly done' E3 shown game footage that everyone was excited about. The same with Witcher, everyone seen (again back to my link) the 'footage' they expected and were wowed with, well to get that you need a rig like the Falcon Tiki (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2925172/review-falcon-northwests-console-sized-18-core-micro-pc-is-gloriously-overkill.html) to 'play' it like you 'seen it' and 'expect it' as shown by all these other links being tossed around using multiple Titan Xs.

In summary, the problem is marketing and packaging of expectations and overselling the product to the end users when it takes a impossible expensive systems for 'JoeDumbuser' to afford (I WANT a TIKI!!!) and should just 'settle' with their PS4 gaming experiences and shut up, is the real message here.

 

[Iamsoda]

These are 2 examples of console ports which have been in the PC media and extended tech media for being VERY poorly optimized on PC and causing various problems, even at the top end of the Gfx spectrum.

I'm going to call this out. Depending on perspective, the game is actually VERY well optimized.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html

Extraordinarily CPU agnostic. Open world titles tend to be very CPU dependent (See: Skyrim), so CDPR did a very good job letting their title run on pretty much any CPU out there without affecting performance.

GPU side, the title scales to what settings you use. Which doesn't mean it's badly optimized, just that it uses a lot of features (Hairworks, advanced lighting/reflections, etc) that are VERY expensive for GPUs to performance. With Hairworks off, 1080p, my 2GB 770 GTX can handle High across the board, which is better then it can handle on "more optimized" titles I've brought recently (Evolve comes to mind). It's those super high end features that KILL performance, which is expected because they are very taxing to perform.

*Is a SW Engineer

Tossing in my two cents to ALL;

As someone who has over 20 years supporting the 'End User' directly (yes the person asking for a replacement coffee cup holder that was built into their laptop!!) the problem most people are answering is from their technical understanding of the game rather than from the view of the 'End User'.

The End User 'sees' the Youtube video, the TV commercial, FLOODED at the store (pick one) with the 'in game video' constantly being replayed on screens in the store, and then looks at the glossy covered box and 'pictures' and that is all they know a 'computer should play'.

The main reason Consoles have succeeded is because when they do the same thing this it is ONLY way the game does play, because it is the same Console for all player, that is not even half close for the PC marketspace. Because JoeDumbUser who got that 'Walmart Black Friday Special 199 PC' thinks his computer should play the 'same as the commercials' because 'they can't advertise what it can't do! I can sue them for false adverts!" and that is where we have all the problems.

What is 'packaged', marketed, and sold "AS THE GAME" is the extreme systems we see W3 is 'best' on (OMG TitanX SLI!! THAT is just $2000 for the cards, not even cost to power the cards much less the rest of the computer system nor all that cooling!! OMFG!) and that is the problem. The problem is the 'lies' the companies are doing now for the games, case in point (for this discussion) is W3 (see previous link I provided above) totally changed from the 'promo game play' to actual end product. While somethings can be said about 'design changes while in development' honestly everyone can't argue they dropped down the graphics on PC SIDE to be on par with the PS4 so 'improve stability and performance' (aka the demands for a 'normal JoeDumbUser' as some are pointing too, it is well 'optimized for those 'generic' gaming systems "just like a PS4"). Honestly though this is false advertisement just as much as the total failure of the end product Aliens Colonial Marines as compared to the 'nearly done' E3 shown game footage that everyone was excited about. The same with Witcher, everyone seen (again back to my link) the 'footage' they expected and were wowed with, well to get that you need a rig like the Falcon Tiki (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2925172/review-falcon-northwests-console-sized-18-core-micro-pc-is-gloriously-overkill.html) to 'play' it like you 'seen it' and 'expect it' as shown by all these other links being tossed around using multiple Titan Xs.

In summary, the problem is marketing and packaging of expectations and overselling the product to the end users when it takes a impossible expensive systems for 'JoeDumbuser' to afford (I WANT a TIKI!!!) and should just 'settle' with their PS4 gaming experiences and shut up, is the real message here.

There's a man with a PS4. 😀

 

[DasHotShot]

Literally...I can't even....

 

[Tom Tancredi]

These are 2 examples of console ports which have been in the PC media and extended tech media for being VERY poorly optimized on PC and causing various problems, even at the top end of the Gfx spectrum.

I'm going to call this out. Depending on perspective, the game is actually VERY well optimized. <SNIP>

Tossing in my two cents to ALL;

As someone who has over 20 years supporting the 'End User' directly (yes the person asking for a replacement coffee cup holder that was built into their laptop!!) the problem most people are answering is from their technical understanding of the game rather than from the view of the 'End User'.
<SNIP>

There's a man with a PS4. 😀

Uhm no, I never console. I tried several times, but my hands can't handle the controllers, and the way they function confuses me too much as compared to K/M. Besides, my two cents is based on what "THEY" (the game makers) are doing, which if you look at the links about the issue (again see back to my 1st post on this thread) the Xbox (B)one isn't that good of a console as compared to PS4, so to compare PC vs Console keeps being PC vs PS4. When you actually read and watch the whole article you seen what PC was originally going to do in the original "in game video" then compared later to the "actual PC game released", then comparing actual PC to PS4 (see read and watch the whole thing). And you easily see at that point, the PC graphics were significantly changed to 'closer' level of a PS4 for the 'average player' (as I said above, to JoeDumbGamer enjoy your PS4 experiance) but if your a 'niche' serious PC gamer, then you will spend $4000 for a PC rig with SLI Titan X cards, and you will enjoy ULTRA level graphics probably on a 4K 65" TV etc.

Hence the statement "the game was optimized for performance" aka we dumbed it down from all the marketing overblown hyping and fake videos to a lower performance to fit on your crappy cheap ass PCs you stupid people keep bugging us Professionals to 'support'. AKA you should just buy a PS4 and shut up already is their message I am getting from the way the final product was released.

 

[Iamsoda]

These are 2 examples of console ports which have been in the PC media and extended tech media for being VERY poorly optimized on PC and causing various problems, even at the top end of the Gfx spectrum.

I'm going to call this out. Depending on perspective, the game is actually VERY well optimized. <SNIP>

Tossing in my two cents to ALL;

As someone who has over 20 years supporting the 'End User' directly (yes the person asking for a replacement coffee cup holder that was built into their laptop!!) the problem most people are answering is from their technical understanding of the game rather than from the view of the 'End User'.
<SNIP>

There's a man with a PS4. 😀

Uhm no, I never console. I tried several times, but my hands can't handle the controllers, and the way they function confuses me too much as compared to K/M. Besides, my two cents is based on what "THEY" (the game makers) are doing, which if you look at the links about the issue (again see back to my 1st post on this thread) the Xbox (B)one isn't that good of a console as compared to PS4, so to compare PC vs Console keeps being PC vs PS4. When you actually read and watch the whole article you seen what PC was originally going to do in the original "in game video" then compared later to the "actual PC game released", then comparing actual PC to PS4 (see read and watch the whole thing). And you easily see at that point, the PC graphics were significantly changed to 'closer' level of a PS4 for the 'average player' (as I said above, to JoeDumbGamer enjoy your PS4 experiance) but if your a 'niche' serious PC gamer, then you will spend $4000 for a PC rig with SLI Titan X cards, and you will enjoy ULTRA level graphics probably on a 4K 65" TV etc.

Hence the statement "the game was optimized for performance" aka we dumbed it down from all the marketing overblown hyping and fake videos to a lower performance to fit on your crappy cheap ass PCs you stupid people keep bugging us Professionals to 'support'. AKA you should just buy a PS4 and shut up already is their message I am getting from the way the final product was released.

That's funny last time I checked console gamers are still flirting with 1080p and have trouble playing it, whereas 1080p for pc gamers is the norm. Plus pc gamers are still in love with that 60fps thing vs a lot of console players are happy with 30-45fps. On top of that (excluding fresh new titles from less then 3 weeks in that case they are about the same), pc games are cheaper and have much better sales. So you can pay nothing for hardware and a lot for games (console) or vice versa (pc). I myself have paid only about $125 dollars for game and I have a pretty nice library. On the other hand those same games in console would probably triple that budget (steam sales FTW). Also that $4000 computer you need? Please maybe if you plan on playing in 4k. $1200 can smash 1080p at good fps and $2000 can smash 1440p (which console gamers can only dream off). Also don't say "a console costs $199 vs your $4000 computer". In that price frame it would include a monitor and headset. I don't see any console, headset, and tv going for $199 new.

In the end console vs pc is like AMD vs Intel; both are good in their own field. If you don't have a lot of money or you like a full living room experience (without a media pc) a console is a good option. On the other hand if you have the money, and you want the better performance, a pc is the way to go.

"Intel bumps into AMD.
Intel, ' I was at the movies last night and it was awesome.'
AMD, ' But why didn't you wait till Tuesday with $5 movies?'
Intel, 'Because I can kick my legs up and enjoy not being run over to get into the movie'"

Just about ditto for pc vs consoles.....

Consoles are very liberal: they make everyone get the same hardware, pay the same, to "get the same experience", and unload your wallet for mere games.

PC's are very conservative: they give everyone a choice of how much money they want to spend, choose how much performance you want and in what areas, and the games end up being a lot cheaper.

Do you want an investment of $2k every 5-6 years or the slow chipping away with the every third year price of a new console?