Looks like no pc will max witcher 2 at launch

  • 109 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by vidiots (85 posts) -
#2 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
#3 Posted by Subjugation (4741 posts) -

Because of massive graphical fidelity or because of poor optimization?

#4 Posted by Franstone (1156 posts) -

Hopefully 2 Radeon 5870s will do the trick...

#5 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@weeman105 said:
Because of massive graphical fidelity or because of poor optimization?
Do you really think a highly-anticipated AAA PC Exclusive sequel to a successful RPG game would be poorly optimized? o_O
#6 Posted by Subjugation (4741 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic: Is there any reason it couldn't be?
#7 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@weeman105 said:
@Ahmad_Metallic: Is there any reason it couldn't be?
It's a...   highly-anticipated AAA PC Exclusive sequel to a successful RPG game? isn't that a good reason? Also made by a technologically-pioneering development team of PC enthusiasts..
#8 Posted by Aus_azn (2224 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
@weeman105 said:
Because of massive graphical fidelity or because of poor optimization?
Do you really think a highly-anticipated AAA PC Exclusive sequel to a successful RPG game would be poorly optimized? o_O
Look at the difference between Black Ops and MW2 for an example of shit optimization. Even huge conglomerates with hideous amounts of budget still produce poorly optimised games; why can't Witcher 2's devs?
#9 Edited by picklecannon (265 posts) -

Some dude already posted on some Polish forum that he could max the game no problem with 3x SLI'd 580's with uber sampling, so the very top of the line hardware can run the game @ 60 with no drops. Those benchmarks also don't have any other SLI cards being tested so it could very well run on a much lower rig. ATI cards can't do crossfire without a profile since CDPR is using their own engine this time around so I'm sure some crossfire cards can also run it @ 60 just fine, once the ATI profile comes out.

#10 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@Aus_azn said:
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
@weeman105 said:
Because of massive graphical fidelity or because of poor optimization?
Do you really think a highly-anticipated AAA PC Exclusive sequel to a successful RPG game would be poorly optimized? o_O
Look at the difference between Black Ops and MW2 for an example of shit optimization. Even huge conglomerates with hideous amounts of budget still produce poorly optimised games; why can't Witcher 2's devs?
I'm sorry did you just compare a superficial annually-milked console-based FPS franchise, running on a 5 year old engine, to an all-new triple-A PC exclusive RPG with cutting edge technology?
#11 Posted by BeachThunder (12434 posts) -
@Aus_azn said:
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
@weeman105 said:
Because of massive graphical fidelity or because of poor optimization?
Do you really think a highly-anticipated AAA PC Exclusive sequel to a successful RPG game would be poorly optimized? o_O
Look at the difference between Black Ops and MW2 for an example of shit optimization. Even huge conglomerates with hideous amounts of budget still produce poorly optimised games; why can't Witcher 2's devs?
Well, one is a PC exclusive the other is a port?

...Although, having said that, Cryostasis was a PC exclusive D:
#12 Posted by Adamsons (873 posts) -
@CaLe said:
Super-sampling isn't necessary for the game to look great and that's what is causing the big FPS hit.
This.

Things like Crysis and GTA4 still chug when super sampled, the only difference is - there is a tick box for this instead of having to use 3rd party software.
#13 Posted by Animasta (14728 posts) -
@BeachThunder said:
@Aus_azn said:
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
@weeman105 said:
Because of massive graphical fidelity or because of poor optimization?
Do you really think a highly-anticipated AAA PC Exclusive sequel to a successful RPG game would be poorly optimized? o_O
Look at the difference between Black Ops and MW2 for an example of shit optimization. Even huge conglomerates with hideous amounts of budget still produce poorly optimised games; why can't Witcher 2's devs?
Well, one is a PC exclusive the other is a port?...Although, having said that, Cryostasis was a PC exclusive D:
it was also their first game, though.
#14 Posted by cyraxible (694 posts) -

Ubersampling is described as "rendering the scene multiple times." 


That's a fucking crazy setting, I'm okay with not being able to run this right now. Plus, people build crazy ass rigs, somebody will surely max this out and post very pretty screenshots for us to ogle. 
#15 Edited by Unchained (1090 posts) -

avg of 41 fps without super sampling is fine for me.
Pretty damn happy about that, actually. The rest of my hardware exceeds their benchmarking PC too, so I may get a little boost even beyond that. 

Years from now when I'm playing with the gtx 780 or whatever, this game will look eve better. I hated not being able to play Crysis at absolute max when it first came out, but now I kind of warmed up the the idea of games that are (at 100% max quality) beyond current capabilities. 

#16 Posted by Jangowuzhere (82 posts) -
@BeachThunder:

Made in Russia, also not AAA quality.
#17 Posted by KaosAngel (13764 posts) -
@Jangowuzhere said:
also not AAA quality.
#18 Posted by Animasta (14728 posts) -
@Jangowuzhere said:
@BeachThunder: Made in Russia, also not AAA quality.
what does AAA quality mean? if you meant it doesn't look good... well, yeah right. BITCH PLEASE

if youre talking about bugs than sure maybe
#19 Posted by Aetheldod (3736 posts) -
@Jangowuzhere:  Aren't they polish?
Also didnt they re released the Witcher with better coding after a while? It could happen again no?
#20 Posted by Beaudacious (935 posts) -

Am sorry to say but its highly likely due to bad optimization as most eastern developers have a long track record of bad optimization.

#21 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Jangowuzhere said:
@BeachThunder: Made in Russia, also not AAA quality.
Made in Poland, AAA quality.  Your post made in toilet, dickhead quality.
#22 Edited by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

Triple A PC exclusive games are poorly optimized all the time because they don't have a ceiling. I love playing on PC but I'm not delusional.

#23 Posted by BeachThunder (12434 posts) -

:( Sigh, sorry for bringing up Cryostasis. Um, nothing to see here, go back to talking about the AAA Polish game called The Witcher 2...

#24 Posted by TekZero (2691 posts) -

Looks like I have a new game to serve as a benchmark for when I get my computer...Hopefully by the end of the month. 

#25 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Maybe sli a card then, a single gpu isn't power enough. At least they are pushing the graphics, you could always turn down the AA.

#26 Posted by cyraxible (694 posts) -
@Laketown: AAA quality obviously means it doesn't have the $100 million dollar ad campaign telling you it's a AAA title.
#27 Posted by Marz (5672 posts) -

They built the game engine from scratch , it's quite possible that it's not the most optimized engine on the planet.  There's also the possibility that graphics drivers haven't been optimized for the game as well, which seems to happen more frequently for newer games.  

#28 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@Beaudacious said:
Am sorry to say but its highly likely due to bad optimization as most eastern developers have a long track record of bad optimization.
True :/


@ryanwho said:
Triple A PC exclusive games are poorly optimized all the time because they don't have a ceiling. I love playing on PC but I'm not delusional.
they.. don't have a ceiling? i don't understand


@cyraxible said:
@Laketown: AAA quality obviously means it doesn't have the $100 million dollar ad campaign telling you it's a AAA title.
Hey who's hating on my BF3 ?

#29 Edited by Unchained (1090 posts) -
@Adamsons said:

@Unchained said:

avg of 41 fps without super sampling is fine for me. Pretty damn happy about that, actually. The rest of my hardware exceeds their benchmarking PC too, so I may get a little boost even beyond that.  Years from now when I'm playing with the gtx 780 or whatever, this game will look eve better. I hated not being able to play Crysis at absolute max when it first came out, but now I kind of warmed up the the idea of games that are (at 100% max quality) beyond current capabilities. 
What are you running it on - specs / res?And what is the supersampling framerate penalty like?
i7 920 2.8ghz 
12gb ram
GTX 480 1.5gb

I'll be running it at 1920x1080 without super sampling. With supersampling I think the linked site lists me at 16-18 fps. So no supersampling for me. 
#30 Edited by Adamsons (873 posts) -
@SeriouslyNow said:

Made in Poland, AAA quality.  Your post made in toilet, dickhead quality.

He was talking about Cryostasis.

@Unchained said:
i7 920 2.8ghz 
12gb ram
GTX 480 1.5gb

I'll be running it at 1920x1080 without super sampling. With supersampling I think the linked site lists me at 16-18 fps. So no supersampling for me. 

Apologies, i misread your post, I thought you were speaking from experience, but after re-reading you mean from the benchmarks in the OP.

The hit on supersampling seems to be around 60 - 70% FPS which is heavy but not unexpected. I'm actually surprised that I will be getting upwards of 40fps maxed excluding SS, will probably try and drop a few settings though to pick it upto 50 - 60.
#31 Edited by bybeach (5001 posts) -
@ryanwho said:

Triple A PC exclusive games are poorly optimized all the time because they don't have a ceiling. I love playing on PC but I'm not delusional.


This. I have to say, out of experience this. I also don't quite understand the ceiling remark, but this 'present set-ups cannot max the game' routine goes back to Crysis, and probably before. And as it turned out Crysis, though demanding, wasn't very well optimized either. But it was a bragging point of sorts also to say that ones video game software was so demanding the hardware couldn't match.

 

I'm not disrespecting the game, just saying.

#32 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

Supersampling AA is the most demanding graphical effect I can think of off the top of my head. It's the best looking AA, but only should be used for burning extra frames.

#33 Posted by cyraxible (694 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic: No hating here, just a general sideswipe at the exorbitant amount of marketing major games get now a days.
#34 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -
@weeman105: Tesselation and AA are hugely expensive, and this game makes full use of DX11. If you look at other games that use all of the tricks of DX11 like Metro, you will see VERY similar performance. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some optimization, but a lot of it is just that DX11 cards have yet to be perfected.
#35 Posted by djaoni (338 posts) -
@Beaudacious said:
Am sorry to say but its highly likely due to bad optimization as most eastern developers have a long track record of bad optimization.
Good thing Poland is in Central Europe then. Or are you calling all of Europe "eastern"?

The game is optimized. Stop saying it isn't if you haven't played it.. You don't need to run it with the uberwhatever, it's still the best looking RPG ever without it.
#36 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Yeah metro 2033 runs like 27 frames average with the gtx 580. So this game is just as demanding it seems. Right now a single gpu isn't powerful enough, that's why I say go sli, or wait until the next gen of nvidia stuff, where i'm going to make my upgrade for the videocard or videocards.

#37 Posted by DonPixel (2628 posts) -

My PC was assembled by Chuck Norris himself...  Witcher 2 will run fine MAXED OUT!

#38 Edited by Adamsons (873 posts) -
@MordeaniisChaos said:

@weeman105: Tesselation and AA are hugely expensive, and this game makes full use of DX11. If you look at other games that use all of the tricks of DX11 like Metro, you will see VERY similar performance. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some optimization, but a lot of it is just that DX11 cards have yet to be perfected.

Doesn't it use DX9.0c?

Edit - The benches in the OP are DX9 regardless.
#39 Posted by Vitor (2832 posts) -
@CaLe said:
Super-sampling isn't necessary for the game to look great and that's what is causing the big FPS hit.
This. Their 'Ubersampling' tech is basically rendering the scene multiple times. Overkill and a barley noticeable visual difference.
#40 Posted by Adamsons (873 posts) -
@Vitor said:
@CaLe said:
Super-sampling isn't necessary for the game to look great and that's what is causing the big FPS hit.
This. Their 'Ubersampling' tech is basically rendering the scene multiple times. Overkill and a barley noticeable visual difference.
I wouldn't go as far as saying barely noticeable, it will pretty much eliminate jaggies entirely, it is overkill though indeed.
#41 Posted by niamahai (1394 posts) -
@cyraxible said:

@Laketown: AAA quality obviously means it doesn't have the $100 million dollar ad campaign telling you it's a AAA title.

This. As a consumer there is no such thing as an "AAA" game. "AAA" is a marketing lingo.
And all marketing people are scums.
#42 Posted by Jangowuzhere (82 posts) -
@SeriouslyNow:

I was referring to Cryostasis you foolish fool 
#43 Posted by Jangowuzhere (82 posts) -
@Laketown:
I am fullly aware that Witcher 2 is AAA quality. I was talking about Cryostasis.
#44 Posted by Beforet (2934 posts) -

Uh huh. I think I'll wait until my next big upgrade to pick this up. Maybe by then they'll have released another "Enhanced Edition" to fix whatever optimization problems the game may have.

If I may give input on ryanwho's "no ceiling" comment, I think he was referring to the hardware. When developing a console game, you have a set hardware configuration that will be the same for everyone. This way you can code the game to work well with that hardware, which is what I think of when I say something like "well optimized." With PCs, however, the hardware is variable across users, so you can't code the game specifically to one set of specs without potentially causing compatibility issues with other specs. At least, that's how I saw the comment. He may have meant something completely different.

#45 Posted by Goboard (103 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47:  Wow really? What settings do you use. I have a 260 and it runs perfectly fine for me.
#46 Edited by Vitor (2832 posts) -
@Goboard said:
@HitmanAgent47:  Wow really? What settings do you use. I have a 260 and it runs perfectly fine for me.

My laptop card is basically equivalent to a 260 in terms of performance (a 285m) - GOG haven't unlocked the final section of the download yet so I haven't been able to install and run the game so far. What's your performance like? What settings you using? Was hoping to get away with High at 1920x1080 if I'm lucky... 

@Adamsons said:

@Vitor said:

@CaLe said:
Super-sampling isn't necessary for the game to look great and that's what is causing the big FPS hit.
This. Their 'Ubersampling' tech is basically rendering the scene multiple times. Overkill and a barley noticeable visual difference.
I wouldn't go as far as saying barely noticeable, it will pretty much eliminate jaggies entirely, it is overkill though indeed.
True, but when you can achieve much the same effect with the AA option, it seems foolish to take such a massive performance hit for a minor improvement.
#47 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Jangowuzhere said:
@SeriouslyNow: I was referring to Cryostasis you foolish fool 
Oh sorry Jango Shitt.
#48 Posted by Adamsons (873 posts) -
@Vitor said:
True, but when you can achieve much the same effect with the AA option, it seems foolish to take such a massive performance hit for a minor improvement.
Yeah I agree, at least for us mere mortals. If I had the spec to maintain 40 - 50 with supersampling up then I would happily drop from ~100FPS to use it. But it would obviously require an obscenely high end system.
#49 Posted by SgtGrumbles (1024 posts) -

Looking forward to the Witcher 3 that will not be visible to humans at launch.

#50 Edited by Korolev (1728 posts) -
@weeman105 said:

Because of massive graphical fidelity or because of poor optimization?


Yep - this. 

Remember, the first Crysis game wasn't hard to run because it looked nice. It was hard to run because the engine it ran on was horribly, horribly inefficient. There's rumours that the developers purposefully did that in order to make their game sound cooler (as in "hey kids, check out this game, NO PC CAN RUN IT ON MAX! Must be pretty special right?"). Crysis 2 looks almost as good as Crysis 1, and it can run on consoles, proof that the first engine was poorly, poorly, poorly optimized. 

I've seen screenshots and video of The Witcher 2. And it looks like a good game. Looks like a very good game in fact. Nice graphics too. But it doesn't look as good as say, Crysis 1. Or Crysis 2 for that matter. If my PC could handle those games, I'm pretty damn sure it can handle The Witcher 2. 

Optimization matters: New Vegas was, graphically speaking, unimpressive - yet my current computer chugged and strained to run it decently when it first came out (couple of patches later, NV runs smooth as butter). Whereas Portal 2 is a good looking game, and my old, hasn't-been-used-for-gaming-since-09, 2006 PC can run it on max settings. New Vegas was not as good looking as Portal 2, but because Obsidian's QA department was run by brain-damaged parakeets, they failed to optimize it and they actually programmed it pretty goddamn poorly. Is this the case with the Witcher 2? Metro 2033 (great game by the way) suffered from exactly this problem - Metro 2033's graphics were okay, but nothing special, yet it is apparently incredibly demanding on your system's resources because it was piss-poorly optimized.

If my computer can't handle the Witcher 2, despite having no problems at all with almost any other game this generation, I would be very surprised. 

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.