The 260X definitely outperforms the 6850, plus the CPU is slightly better overall (though you won't notice much difference in The Witcher 3) There's also a new game patch out http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/...ty-patch-on-pc
He didn't explicitly state that everything needs to hit a constant 60 fps, though. On top of that, most games nowadays offer "Very High" or "Ultra" settings along with all those extra filters and post-processing effects. When you actually look at what "High" settings require, about 99% of titles could probably run on something like an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 from $300 (assuming you aren't being stubborn about using MSAA)
Then it’s just not your game 😬 Besides, they’ll eventually drop a DX12 patch along with other updates and new GPU drivers, which should smooth things out. It's the same pattern we saw with the other Witcher titles—they always look significantly better once you compare the launch version to the enhanced edition.
hiddenpilot4, do you happen to know which case you're running? Feel free to drop a photo if you can.
I’ve seen people on this forum upgrade their parts only to swap out a solid tower for some cheap piece of junk $33 instead—like trading in a heavy-duty Corsair chassis for something tiny. It’s basically a downgrade. These builds definitely need to be ATX format, though (which they probably are).
What’s your take? RAM is just RAM—just grab whatever is the cheapest option, as long as it's DDR3.
Regarding the case, unless it's physically broken or something, I wouldn't bother swapping yours for a case from $50 (truth be told, there isn't anything special about them). Yours might actually be better, honestly.
A 500GB HDD is definitely SATA, which works fine, but you could always toss in an SSD like instead of the HDD
Apparently, you can squeeze an extra 20+ FPS out of those high-end GPUs if you play it right.
with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
How much of a hit did enabling hair physics/Nvidia physx have? 10fps? 20fps? ---
Even more than that. Honestly, it’s all about what’s actually happening on your screen. I saw someone else running it where the drop was only about 10 FPS, but they didn't even have a horse in the frame. When I tested it with my horse AND a griffon head trophy—which is basically a massive clump of hair—it looked stunning, but the performance was just brutal. It felt like a choppy 25 FPS.
If you're rocking a beefier AMD GPU and want to use Hairworks, check this out:
Here's a trick for getting a smooth 20 FPS with Ultra settings and Hairworks enabled. In your Catalyst drivers, add the Witcher exe and set the tessellation override to 8 or max 16 for a 20 FPS boost. Basically, Ubisoft worked with NVIDIA to intentionally overdo the tessellation at 64x because NVIDIA handles it better, but even that won't save them from the absolute chaos of the engine's optimization. There's really no perceptible difference.
Regarding the NVIDIA GeForce 7 series, there is this
Man, props to NVIDIA, but their dirty tactics are hard to ignore. They'll troll AMD, and they'll even troll their own older hardware just to make sure the new stuff looks superior and moves units. To borrow a phrase from that one article, you definitely can't "accuse them of being altruistic."
Some people probably didn't apply the day one patch immediately (not sure how much that impacts things), plus many users simply have no clue how to tune their settings. For instance, HairWorks supposedly absolutely tanks performance, then they turn on AA along with every single post-processing effect and enable VSync. Looking at YouTube, you see people running mainstream cards on much higher settings; here is another example: link. Or perhaps we're looking at a discrepancy between the original executable and a cracked version . + The NVIDIA GeForce 7 series is performing way below expectations—it’s weaker than even lower-tier GPUs (whether you're looking at older AMD cards or newer NVIDIA ones) . http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages..._review,5.html (760, 780, 780Ti, Titan)
Paul Miller64 said:In my opinion, playing massive titles like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt or Grand Theft Auto V on inferior GPUs just isn't worth the hassle. I’m definitely holding out for the R9 3xx series or perhaps waiting for Pascal. By then, the Enhanced Edition should be out too.
What do you mean it's not worth it? Just take a look at this graph showing performance even below the minimum requirements—and honestly, the guy was being a bit too generous with his settings, so the FPS is actually higher than what most would see:
Grand Theft Auto V should run even smoother on that setup, and don't even get me started on how much better things would be with beefier cards like an AMD Radeon R9 280 or an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960.
Yes, it’s clearly an issue with the amount of thermal paste being used and your application technique. Honestly, instead of spreading it manually, you're better off just applying a dollop and letting the heatsink do the work—that way you avoid those pesky air bubbles. Just make sure you thoroughly clean off the old residue before you start a new application.
For those who aren't aware, all of The Witcher games have been notoriously demanding upon release, not to mention being quite buggy. It’s honestly smarter to just wait a few months to a year for the Enhanced Edition; at least that studio is reliable when it comes to pumping out patches for their titles long after launch.
Looking at these benchmarks, based on the 5850/6850/250X cards, it seems like only the 260X or an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 can truly be considered the absolute bare minimum to run this game on low settings. In a way, that's actually pretty fair, considering those GPUs fall even below the official minimum requirements.
Adam Moore3 said:Well, I went ahead and installed it today. Running at 1366x768 on all low settings, I'm averaging about 20-25 FPS. 🕺 I installed the game on a buddy's rig running an AMD Phenom II X4 840 and an older graphics card. He’s getting maybe 25-30 FPS at Ultra 1080p on the lowest settings. If he drops the resolution to 1680x1050, he averages around 30 FPS—which, let's be honest, is barely playable. While most people would have given up by now, I’d actually be willing to tank the resolution even further just to experience this thing, because it looks like an absolute masterpiece. Unfortunately, I’ve already dialed everything down to the bone and it’s still unplayable. This is actually the first game that has completely crushed my laptop; I haven't run into anything this demanding until now.🙂
Here’s another benchmark—includes CPU data too (assuming it's accurate): Check out this breakdown for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt performance testing. It’s a solid deep dive if you're looking to see how different GPUs handle the heavy lifting in this game.
It’s actually pretty fascinating how, following Shadow of Mordor, we're seeing yet another open-world title that isn't incredibly demanding on the CPU. Even an AMD FX-4300 can handle this one without breaking a sweat. $200 It looks like a premium setup, but that Intel Core i3-2120 is definitely going to be a bottleneck—not that it matters much, since performance is almost entirely dependent on your graphics card anyway.
What a joke. I have no idea why they’d list an i7 as the recommended spec for this. 🤣 Some people probably just bought them specifically to please her. 🙏
In accordance with that. Right here. Look, the Intel Core i3-2120 isn't actually bottlenecking the AMD Radeon R9 280 at all, but man, that CPU is absolutely punishing any graphics card you throw at it.
Here. They even included the frame timing data—and frankly, it looks terrible across the board. Even with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, the timings are pretty inconsistent and all over the place.
Here is another set of benchmarks for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt link
With the 250X averaging just 26 fps at Ultra 1080p on low settings, you’d likely need to drop the resolution down to 720p or 900p to actually make it playable. This definitely isn't going to run smoothly on most laptops.
The power supply should be plenty. Honestly, there isn't much point even looking at Thermaltake for $217; you're better off grabbing a $200 550W Gold SuperFlower with a 5-year warranty instead.
Plus, if you're willing to spend just a little bit more, you can snag a 240GB SSD—and I mean a really solid one. http://www.amazon.com/s?k=ocz+240gb
So, what’s the actual purpose of this build? If gaming isn't even on the table, then there's absolutely no reason to be throwing an AMD Radeon R9 270 in there. 😬
I'm pretty sure that isn't caused by having extra RAM. You should probably look into your SSD, or maybe try a fresh install of the game, your OS, or your drivers if things have been acting up lately.
Besides, most serious games don't even need more than 8GB of RAM to run smoothly.
Gregory Hayes87 said:I did it solo using my finger to spread the paste—honestly, that’s probably the issue. Every time I dropped a single grain of rice's worth of paste onto the center and let the cooler's weight spread it out, it ended up scorching. I’ll have to try using that plastic spreader tool instead.
Finger spreading technique🤣
People have become obsessed with this "grain of rice" method. It used to be people talked about a pea-sized amount, or even a bean, or just a thin line. Seriously, just watch the video; it breaks down everything, including the pros and cons of the different methods.
You also have the option to undervolt the CPU while maintaining the same clock speed. For instance, a Phenom 955 can hit 3.2GHz at 1.175V in the BIOS—though, of course, that varies depending on the specific chip and the motherboard you're using. This is generally the case according to this source. But before you dive into that, definitely double-check your thermal paste application and make sure it's done right.
Your CPU temperature is way too high. It’s especially concerning if you hit those numbers within just a few minutes of booting up; ideally, if you’re running it for 24 hours straight, you shouldn't be seeing anything north of 62 degrees. Who installed the cooler for you? There's a chance it isn't seated properly, or maybe someone went overboard with the thermal paste...
The motherboard is solid enough; it really could have benefited from some active cooling, but it gets the job done. You should probably run a check on those temperatures yourself.
Try running OCCT for a stress test. Your CPU max temperature should hit about 62°C, but also keep an eye on the clock speed graph. Check if it starts throttling—dropping from 3.2GHz (or whatever your base is) down to something like 1300MHz once you put it under load.
It shouldn't be overheating just because the corner of the IHS wasn't perfectly covered in paste (check out this video); the cores are located right in the center anyway. What kind of motherboard are you running? You might be hitting thermal throttling because the board itself is junk—it probably can't handle a 125W CPU under full load.
