The Witcher 3 Official Thread

The first one looks heavily sharpened/photoshoped, the 2nd one looks over-compressed /blurry-colorbanding blah blah

 

Probably because we still have the memories of Witcher 2 in mind. That game was so insanely pretty back then

 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=980198

 

Sounds like 980/Gsync will be the only way to get a good experience out of this right now

 

I'd vouch for 980SLI minimum

 

Really?

 

We'll I've called this to be a PC killer since they first announced it... so I'm not suprised if it really will be one. Even though I can probably scratch beeing able to max this at 1440p (like I did with DA:I, which visually speaking looks stunning), I still hope that I can enjoy it at mostly high settings and preferably 60+ fps.

I can't imagine how the "same build" is shared between consoles and PC, with consoles having crap hardware, would cause the way more powerful PCs to aim for 30 FPS. For consoles ok, but for PC, no way... unless it's **** optimization.

 

they did not lie, the pc version on ultra will be much better then the console counterpart

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-w...-to-pc-high-ultra-settings-the-peak-in-games/

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-hands-on-my-god-its-full-of-bears/

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-hands-on-my-god-its-full-of-bears/

 

Yeah as zer0_c0ol mentioned the game being identical to consoles unless you enable Ultra has been out there for a while now.
The surprise is it needing a 980 to hit the same settings and framerate as a PS4 though so i expect the final build to be better optimised.

I get the impression it's been difficult, but it was always going compared to previous games.

 

here is the thing.. no one knows what options they used.. maybe the game was using 8x msaa and advanced physics.. we all know that it is a un optimized crap from nvidia and a resource hog... on the pc gamer link the game is on ultra

 

We do know as most journalist told us.
It was on High and AA was turned On as there was no option for specific AA options just On/Off.

I'm not convinced about the PC gamer article, he just said it looked like that on Ultra, never once mentioned what he played it on or the performance, he only mentioned bugs and that the PC one had no screen tear.

 

I'm talking about the "nvidia only" and "everyone are treated equally" parts of that quote.

 

So far the specs required far out weigh whats on display. Im betting this game is just going to do what all the other new-gen multiplat titles are doing and just soak up as much vram as there is available. The consoles sharing of ram with gpu and cpu is really messing with pc gaming.

 

For sure. Like Mordor, that thing filled up over 2gb just to play a bink video lol. Honestly though, the game will run fine, if coded well. If not, it'll run like a pig. Like we've seen with many games. Vram doesn't really matter.

 

I don't think the sharing of ram is that much of a problem, using and needing are not always the same thing.

The 2GB 690 is right up with the 980 performance wise in Dying Light, min and avg.

 

The most insightful previews so far. It's PC and PS versions.

http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...ressions-translation-very-insightful-material

 

not to mention it batters the 6gb titan

 

Thanks for posting this! I thought I was done reading and then the next post said "continued." Can't wait for this game!