Larry Ortiz5 said:Just checking YouTube right now... looks like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 is averaging around 40 FPS on Ultra settings at 1080p. It’s weird though—the game is only pulling about 1.8 to 1.9 GB of VRAM... 🙏
Seriously, looking at the link Timothy Kim60 shared, that file never even hit 2.7GB—not even when running in 4K. That’s actually pretty impressive. Even the RAM usage was sitting right around 2GB. Though, since those guys were complaining about FPS drops and stuttering, it probably could have performed a bit better. It also seems kind of weird that the people on YouTube managed to run it at Ultra 1080p on an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970, especially since the folks using an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 were barely getting by... 🤷 It’s honestly pretty weird. I'm really hoping that future drivers and patches will manage to fix at least some of this. I'm crossing my fingers... so, so much. 🍿 It’s been a long time since I’ve played a game quite like this... damn, just my luck.
Timothy Kim60 said:Here’s another benchmark, including the CPU data (assuming it’s accurate): Check out this performance breakdown for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. It’s a deep dive into how different GPUs handle the game at various settings. Definitely worth a look if you're trying to figure out what kind of hardware you need to run it smoothly.
It’s actually pretty fascinating that following Shadow of Mordor, we're getting yet another open-world title that isn't a total CPU killer. An AMD FX-4300 should be more than enough to handle it... $200 It looks premium, but that Intel Core i3-2120 is definitely going to bottleneck things—not that it matters much since performance is almost entirely dependent on your GPU anyway...
What an absolute joke... what were they thinking, putting that under the recommended specs for an i7? 🤣 Some people probably just bought them specifically to please her... 🙏
here The Intel Core i3-2120 isn't bottlenecking the Radeon R9 280 at all, but man, that CPU is absolutely murdering his graphics card...
Honestly, everyone was blindsided by that minimum Intel Core i5-2500K recommendation. Turns out the game absolutely hammers your GPU, while the CPU isn't even that much of a factor. 🤣 I honestly think this is easily the most graphically intense game I've ever played. That is, if we aren't counting Unity or those other completely unoptimized, buggy half-baked products from Ubisoft...
Larry Ortiz5 said:Why is this game so poorly optimized?
Honestly, I don't think it's an optimization issue per se. The game is just massive and incredibly complex. I mean, you can see every single blade of grass and every leaf on the trees swaying individually in the wind—it's pretty insane. I was actually blown away by the game, even if I only managed to limp through at 25 FPS 😬 So I wasn't exactly shocked, though I guess I was foolish enough to hope for more... Maybe some future driver updates will help, or maybe some extra tweaking. I found a config file with advanced settings that aren't even in the in-game menu; maybe there's something in there I can dial back to squeeze out a few more frames. Yeah, I'm that desperate 🎉
Timothy Kim60 said:Here are some more W3 benchmarks link
The 250X hits an average of 26 FPS at Ultra 1080p low settings, so dropping the resolution to 720p or 900p might make it playable. This definitely isn't going to run well on laptops.
Well... I installed it immediately today, and running everything on low at 1366x768, I'm averaging about 20-25 FPS. 🕺 I tried it on a buddy's rig with an AMD Phenom II X4 840 and a 6850; he gets roughly that same amount, around 25-30 FPS, at 1080p on the lowest settings. If you bump it up to 1680x1050, you're looking at an average of maybe 30 FPS—so, barely playable. Most people would probably give up right there, but I’d actually be willing to lower the resolution even further just to play this game because it truly looks like a masterpiece. The problem is, I have nothing left to lower and it's still unplayable. Honestly, this is the first game that has actually killed my laptop; nothing like this has happened before.🙂
You can definitely do much better than that. For $2140, you could actually get this setup instead:
1 x Asrock H81M-HDS, s1150, Intel H81, M-ATX, dual Channel 2 xDDR3 1 x Intel Core i5-4460 (3.20GHz,1MB,6MB,84 W,1150) Box 1 x DDR3 8GB (1x8GB) Corsair, 1600MHz, CL11,Value, CMV8GX3M1A160C11 1 x HDD Seagate 1TB, Serial ATA III, 7200 rpm, ST1000DM003 1 x Fortron 500W Power Supply, Hyper, PPA5005003, 12cm fan 1 x LG GH24NS DVD burner, DVD±RW, 24x DVD±R ,8x DL , 40x CD-R 1 x Zalman Z3 mid tower case. 192(W)x465(H)x430(D)mm. MB standard 1 x Sapphire R9 280 3GB OC Dual-X, 3GB GDDR5 384bit, 28nm 1 x Samsung 120 GB 850 Series Basic, Capacity 120 GB, 2.5", SATA
$2091
It ends up being cheaper and significantly better, mainly because the GPU was the weakest link in that build. $2133 Having just an R9 270 isn't enough... 😉
Look, if you're feeling lucky with your timing, why shouldn't I be? 😁 Personally, I don't see the point in throwing money at weird, overpriced upgrades just to run a single game. It’s clearly been terribly optimized, but hey, that might just be me... 🙂
Yeah, I see the benchmarks, but those are all maxed out on Ultra settings with every single bells and whistles turned on. I wasn't actually expecting to run the game like that; I’m looking for something a bit more grounded. I want to know how the game handles on budget builds. But hey, there aren't many detailed reviews out yet since the game doesn't even officially drop until tomorrow. Fingers crossed for the best... 🙂
I’m really wondering how this is actually going to run—specifically, whether they're aiming for compatibility with older rigs. I have a buddy who is a massive fan of The Witcher series; he probably replayed the second one about 17 times. He’s praying this runs, but he's sitting on an AMD Phenom II X4 840 and a Radeon HD 6850. It's basically the equivalent of a modern AMD Athlon II X4 740 paired with an AMD Radeon R7 250. I am dying to know if we can at least hit 30+ FPS on low settings with hardware like that, because most people I know who game simply don't have the cash for an Intel Core i5-2500K and a GTX 660 like those minimum requirements specify. I'm in the same boat with my G3220 and a 260X... As for my laptop, I’m hoping for the best too; I can run DA:I on medium without any issues, so hopefully, this will be playable on low...
It’s going to be tough to squeeze an AMD FX 6300 into that budget, but here is a rough idea of what you could get:
1x ASRock FM2A78M HD+ Motherboard, FM2 1x AMD Athlon x4 840 CPU (3.1GHz, 4MB, 65W, FM2+) box 1x Crucial 4GB DDR3 1600 MT/s (PC3-12800) CL11 Unbuffered UDIMM 240pin, CT51264BA160B 1x Seagate BarraCuda HDD (3.5", 1TB, 32MB, SATA III-600) 1x Micro Center PC Case (No PSU) 1x EVGA 400W Fortron power supply, 80+, active, 12 cm
Total $668
I put this together using Micro Center; their prices are killer right now. You'd probably end up paying $100$67 more if you tried to build this at Best Buy or Newegg.
Well, sure, it really depends on which game you're playing. That said, the G1840 is noticeably more powerful than the G530, so you definitely have to factor that in.
graniteharbor85 said:If you're looking at the 250 x, you'd be better off going with the Athlon that Timothy Kim60 linked. Personally, I found that the G1620 (which is basically the same as the G1840) was a total bottleneck for an HD7770—just like it would be for the 250 x.
Which games are we talking about? Honestly, I have my doubts. For instance, the G3220 + 260 x combo I'm running right now doesn't show any sign of a bottleneck. I’m talking specifically about single-player titles, which are effectively the same scenario as the G1840 + 250 x setup. The G3220 is just a slightly beefier version of the G1840, and the 260 x is just a step up from the 250 x. Following that logic, there should be a bottleneck here too, but there isn't. I'm strictly referring to single-player games; obviously, Battlefield 4 multiplayer is a whole different beast. 🙂 So, I really doubt the G1840 will bottleneck a 250 x. If the choice is between that and an Athlon, then yeah, the Athlon is definitely the superior pick and a great value, but sticking with the H81 motherboard + G1840 is still the cheaper way to go.
Check those temperatures again now that you've dialed back the RPM. Lower RPM means less cooling. You really shouldn't be letting it creep too close to 70°C.
1 x ASUS H81M-R, 1150, H81 express chipset, DDR3, 2 Slots 1 x Intel Core i5-4460 (3.20GHz,1MB,6MB,84 W,1150) Box 1 x DDR3 8GB (1x8GB) Corsair, 1600MHz, CL11,Value, CMV8GX3M1A160C11 1 x Seagate 1TB HDD, Serial ATA III, 7200 rpm, ST1000DM003 1 x Fortron 500W Power Supply, Hyper, PPA5005003, 12cm fan 1 x Zalman Z3 mid tower case. 192(W)x465(H)x430(D)mm. MB standard 1 x MSI R9 270X GAMING 2GB GDDR5 256bit
$1743 reddit.com
You could also look for a better motherboard and just a standard 270X. Or switch platforms entirely. 🙂 This is just what you get from Intel.
Larry Ortiz5 said:Exactly, you won't be playing any recent titles at Full HD because that card just isn't built for gaming. Besides, laptop GPUs and desktop ones aren't even in the same league (just so you know). If that's really the laptop you're looking to buy http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/example_link
I see the video memory on the graphics card is running at DDR3 speeds, which is pretty bad. If it had at least DDR5 speeds, things would be much better and faster. My personal take: I wouldn't buy that laptop if your main plan is to spend most of your time hooked up to an external monitor just to play games.
On the contrary, the 850m is actually a solid card for gaming. Just not for Full HD. I definitely agree with you though—if you're buying a laptop specifically to plug it into an external monitor for gaming, then no, don't do it. But the 850m is more than decent for gaming, provided you use a lower resolution, of course. That said, the difference between the DDR3 and DDR5 versions isn't even that huge in this specific case. 🙂
If you ask me, blowing cash on DDR2 RAM is a total waste of money since you’ll need to swap out the entire platform sooner rather than later anyway. As for Corsair, I'm not so sure—he just posted some random photos without even specifying which power supply he's actually using, which seems pretty sketchy to me. Honestly, I don't see the point in building something out of used parts right now, especially a PSU, just to save maybe 100-$$50 only to end up stuck on an ancient platform with a used power supply and a depleted budget. It would be much smarter to just grab something new with what he's got and then upgrade the whole setup down the road.
Exactly 😉 You’re sitting on an old platform that just isn't worth pouring money into anymore, so you're better off aiming for something new and grabbing whatever deals you can right now.
None of the stuff you linked is worth the money, and honestly, you shouldn't even touch it. That graphics card is half as powerful as what you actually need... and that case looks like it belongs in the era of the Core i7. That Corsair listing smells fishy as hell, too. Trying to upgrade that platform is just throwing money down a bottomless pit. If you were going to pick a processor for that setup, you’d have to go with something quad-core—specifically something from the Core i9 series—just so it isn't completely underwhelming. So no, don't buy anything from those links. 🙂
Fair point, the fact that there’s no HDD or case included definitely helps too, which I just realized 😬 But yeah, either way, you can put together a pretty solid build with them right now. Just gotta wait on delivery for tomorrow.
If you aren't upgrading anything for another 3 years like you said, this setup will give you the best results. Honestly, this processor probably isn't much weaker than an FX 6100; the only real difference shows up when you're pushing all 6 cores on the FX 6100. You can even easily overclock it on this board—just bump it to 3.6-3.7GHz without needing to touch the voltage if you need to.
Wait a second, am I losing my mind or what? How on earth did you manage to snag an Athlon and a 270 for $3000? Did you copy the price down wrong? 😲
You don't really have many realistic paths left here. You're either going with a CPU combo or sticking to an LGA 1150 setup with a dedicated graphics card. For about $2,700, you might be able to squeeze in an LGA 1150 platform with an Intel Core i5, but you'd likely have to settle for a cheaper motherboard and a basic case—plus, there's no guarantee an aftermarket cooler would even fit. So, basically, you're just choosing between the options already on the table.