GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

Adam Moore3 said:Honestly, none of those links you shared are worth a dime, and you really shouldn't pull the trigger on any of them. That graphics card is basically half as powerful as what you actually need... and that case looks like it belongs in a museum from the Core i7 era. Even that listing for the Corsair gear feels incredibly sketchy to me... Trying to upgrade a platform like that is just throwing money down a bottomless pit, because if you were going to pick up a processor for it, you'd have to jump straight to a quad-core, specifically something from the Core i9 series, since those are the only ones that aren't total underpowered relics (to some extent). So yeah, I wouldn't touch anything from that list... 🙂

Alright, so maybe I should just grab this new setup for now, and then eventually upgrade everything again later with a much stronger processor and a better motherboard🙂

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.

Honestly, this Corsair CX series unit is a solid deal at that price point, and picking up 2GB of DDR2 for $43 isn't a bad move either—though you'll see people on various tech forums trying to overcharge $33 for them.

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.

What would you consider the current best buy for a graphics card in the $333 range? My main priority is ensuring that
runs smoothly.

This one, or rather this one, because of that three-year warranty. It beats the NVIDIA GTX 750 2 GB

I’ve already gone ahead and picked everything up and got it all assembled, and honestly, between the EVGA Radeon and that Antec power supply, the whole thing is practically silent, which is such a massive breath of fresh air compared to my old setup... I still need to pop in some more RAM, but once that's done, I think this rig will easily carry me through the next few years...

You aren't going to see the full potential of that R7 250 x until you upgrade your CPU and move to a newer platform. Honestly, I wouldn't bother sticking with that setup for more than a few years if you're planning on playing modern games.

Timothy Kim60 said:You aren't going to see what that 250X can really do until you swap out the CPU and upgrade the whole platform, so I wouldn't bother sticking with that setup for more than a couple of years if you're planning on gaming...

Oh, I totally get that, but I'm not actually the one playing—it's mostly just the kids, and they're usually stuck on multiplayer titles or strategy games, so we'll just plan on picking up a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM once we have the extra cash available...

Here are those initial Witcher 3 benchmarks for anyone planning an upgrade just to play it.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Wi...marks-1159196/

Since this is the first true "next-gen" title, I’m mostly focused on CPU benchmarks—specifically, whether things will stay as they are, or if we’re going to see a massive jump in hardware demands and multi-threaded optimization

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...

If the minimum requirements call for an AMD Phenom II X4 940, if I recall correctly, then an AMD Phenom II X4 840 or even an AMD Athlon II X4 740 should technically cut it. I don't see any logical reason why it would struggle on one and run fine on the other. Now, the real question is how much those listed requirements actually reflect real-world performance.

As for the GPU, it's pretty much a lost cause. It isn't even listed in the specs, and looking at the benchmarks, running at max settings on a 5850 only nets about 11 fps. You might get something playable on low settings—but honestly, it's hard to say.

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... 🙂

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.

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.🙂

Why is this game such a mess when it comes to optimization?

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 🎉

So I’m just checking out some YouTube videos right now, and it looks like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 is pulling an average of about 40 FPS—that’s with everything cranked up to Ultra at 1080p resolution. What's throwing me off, though, is how little VRAM the game seems to be using... it's only sitting at around 1.8 to 1.9 GB. Isn't that a bit weird? 🙏

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.