1920x1080 w/ translating you get less than 20 fps with best cards on market. 
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,825004/The-Witcher-2-im-Technik-Test-Grafikkarten-und-CPU-Benchmarks-plus-Grafikvergleich/Rollenspiel-Adventure/Test/

Because of massive graphical fidelity or because of poor optimization?

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

Because of massive graphical fidelity or because of poor optimization?

@Ahmad_Metallic: Is there any reason it couldn't be?

@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

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.

@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?

@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?

Super-sampling isn't necessary for the game to look great and that's what is causing the big FPS hit.

@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:

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

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. 

also not AAA quality.

@BeachThunder: Made in Russia, also not AAA quality.

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

@BeachThunder: Made in Russia, also not AAA quality.

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.

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

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. 

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.

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.  

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

@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?

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

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. 

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.

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.

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

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.

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

@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.

Super-sampling isn't necessary for the game to look great and that's what is causing the big FPS hit.

@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.

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

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.

@HitmanAgent47:  Wow really? What settings do you use. I have a 260 and it runs perfectly fine for me.

@SeriouslyNow: I was referring to Cryostasis you foolish fool 

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.

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

Because of massive graphical fidelity or because of poor optimization?