Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So, I just downloaded The Witcher 2

Tags:
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 19, 2011 5:56:01 PM

And I have almost exactly what is listed under "reccomended specs" for the game on Steam and I am barely getting 15FPS on "high" settings. Now that leads me to my question. I built my computer back in '07 or '08 and I've just been upgrading hardware (i've upgraded everything except the mobo) as of right now i'm running a 260GTX graphics card, P5K-E Asus mobo, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 processor, 750W PSU, and 4GB of DDR2 @ 400mhz. I was wondering what my best coarse of action would be as far as getting FPS out of the newer games, I can run everything from last year on Ultra setting with no problems but this years stuff, as you can see, is giving me some issues. I was thinking of maybe getting 4 more gigs of RAM and a better GFX card or would my money be better spent upgrading the motherboard, CPU, and RAM? I know it's kind of a long winded question but I need to do something but I'm just not quite sure what to do.

More about : downloaded witcher

May 19, 2011 6:27:41 PM

I would say upgrade your motherboard, 400Mhz on ram is freaking slow, when today even laptops are running at 1333.
m
0
l
May 20, 2011 5:11:17 PM

Personally, I would up the MB, CPU and RAM and go with 64bit OS if you are planning on getting more than 4gigs of memory.
m
0
l
May 21, 2011 8:24:15 AM

Thanks for all the great input!
m
0
l
May 21, 2011 1:57:49 PM

k_s1234 said:
Thanks for all the great input!

Don't even bother buying a Radeon 6950 like Overclocked Toaster said. I already own one and i'm telling you that it's not going to make much of a difference. My system is as follows:

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T (2.8GHz)
Corsair XMS3 8GB DDR3-1600 Kit (2x4GB)
MSI Radeon Radeon 6950 2GB (flashed to 6970, in hope of getting better performance)
MB Asus M4A785T-M

I just finished downloading Witcher 2, i installed it and tried to run the game with all settings maxed out. Wanna know what performance I got? An average of 12-15 FPS (i used FRAPS)!!! It's a disgrace!

A little piece of advice; don't waste your money. It's definitely NOT WORTH IT!
m
0
l
May 21, 2011 5:04:20 PM

fremendog said:
Don't even bother buying a Radeon 6950 like Overclocked Toaster said. I already own one and i'm telling you that it's not going to make much of a difference. My system is as follows:

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T (2.8GHz)
Corsair XMS3 8GB DDR3-1600 Kit (2x4GB)
MSI Radeon Radeon 6950 2GB (flashed to 6970, in hope of getting better performance)
MB Asus M4A785T-M

I just finished downloading Witcher 2, i installed it and tried to run the game with all settings maxed out. Wanna know what performance I got? An average of 12-15 FPS (i used FRAPS)!!! It's a disgrace!

A little piece of advice; don't waste your money. It's definitely NOT WORTH IT!


You need to do your research The Witcher 2 on Ultra High settings even puts 580s in SLI to shame. At the moment the Uber sampling and lick of SLI support is the main cause, if you lower teh sampling and reduce a couple other setting to jsut high it should hit up to 30+ fps.
m
0
l
May 21, 2011 5:10:01 PM

fremendog said:
Don't even bother buying a Radeon 6950 like Overclocked Toaster said. I already own one and i'm telling you that it's not going to make much of a difference. My system is as follows:

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T (2.8GHz)
Corsair XMS3 8GB DDR3-1600 Kit (2x4GB)
MSI Radeon Radeon 6950 2GB (flashed to 6970, in hope of getting better performance)
MB Asus M4A785T-M

I just finished downloading Witcher 2, i installed it and tried to run the game with all settings maxed out. Wanna know what performance I got? An average of 12-15 FPS (i used FRAPS)!!! It's a disgrace!

A little piece of advice; don't waste your money. It's definitely NOT WORTH IT!


Look at the link I put up previously. The game looks pretty much the same on high and ultra high. Also ``uber-sampling`` makes the game look WORSE while stlll killing your fps big time. If you have a reasonably high end graphics card, you should be able to play the game smoothly at settings that look just as good as the maxed out settings.
m
0
l
May 21, 2011 5:47:01 PM

eternallydead said:
You need to do your research The Witcher 2 on Ultra High settings even puts 580s in SLI to shame. At the moment the Uber sampling and lick of SLI support is the main cause, if you lower teh sampling and reduce a couple other setting to jsut high it should hit up to 30+ fps.

I did my research before paying 50€ to buy the game from Steam:


Minimum requirements:
Processor: Core 2Duo 2.2 GHz or dual core AMD 2.5 GHz
RAM: 1 GB Windows XP, 2 GB Windows Vista/7
Graphics: GeForce 8800 512 MB or Radeon (HD3850 512 MB)
HDD Space: 16 GB

Recommended requirements:
Processor: Quad Core Intel or AMD
RAM: 3 GB Windows XP, 4 GB Windows Vista/7
Graphics: GeForce 260 1 GB or (HD4850 1 GB)
HDD Space: 16 GB

As you can see, my pc is well above the recommended specs. I even visited http://www.yougamers.com/gameometer/10454/, just to make sure that everything would be fine and it tells me that the game should run well on high visual settings. The resolution in which i play the game is pretty reasonable I think (1280x1024), due to my monitor being too old. The game engine uses Directx 9 so, in worst case scenario, i would expect an average framerate of 30-35 FPS, even on highest settings. And all i get is a maximum of...15 FPS (in the most intense battle scenes dropping as low as 8FPS)!!! R U KIDDIN' ME?! CD Projekt RED STUDIO should be ashamed of themselves for this! At some point, they should seriously consider releasing the TRUE system requirements. The way i see it, the minimum specifications won't be enough for a player to even navigate through the main menu. Even the infamous Metro 2033, a game which fully utilizes Directx 11, didn't manage to put such a strain on my pc (it would always give me at least 25 FPS, even on the highest of settings).


m
0
l
May 21, 2011 9:13:00 PM

I think the problem is stemming from the poorly optimized graphics. Basically they put the features for high end settings in, but didn't bother optimizing them. At least that's my thoughts on it.

By the way to compare, does witcher 2 look better on high settings than metro 2033?
m
0
l
May 21, 2011 9:33:45 PM

AntiZig said:
By the way to compare, does witcher 2 look better on high settings than metro 2033?


Absolutely not. In my opinion, Metro 2033 is still the best looking game there is.
m
0
l
May 21, 2011 11:13:49 PM

fremendog said:
Absolutely not. In my opinion, Metro 2033 is still the best looking game there is.

+1 . The only thing that witcher does better than other games is the Depth of Field effect, which in metro is WAY more consuming in DX11, which is suprising that witcher2 is in DX9.
m
0
l
May 21, 2011 11:16:46 PM

Sorry for a 2nd post in a row, but i was talking graphically, not story or style wise, so all the fans dont get yer panties in a bunch. Witcher 2 is still visually stunning for what it is though.
m
0
l
May 22, 2011 12:32:20 AM

FlintIronStagg said:
Sorry for a 2nd post in a row, but i was talking graphically, not story or style wise, so all the fans dont get yer panties in a bunch. Witcher 2 is still visually stunning for what it is though.


You 're right. Witcher 2, along with Shogun 2 and Crysis 2 are the best looking Directx 9 games to date. Unlike the latter two, however, Witcher 2 shouldn't have been released the way it is now. It's just one power hungry game, i know, but if other games follow suit in the near future, i might as well sell my PC and stick with my Xbox 360!
m
0
l
May 22, 2011 2:30:40 AM

Again guys, thanks for all of the replys. I think i'm going to pump some steroids into my GFX card and buy a better monitor, thanks again for all of the info!
m
0
l
May 22, 2011 5:03:02 AM

Man, after seeing some screenshots of the Witcher 2, I was just blown away by all the color and the amazing visuals. I'm so tempted to run over to Fry's and drop $34.99 on it. (on sale right now). But I was reading some threads about this game, that say that this game will have your GPU running at a higher temperature than it has ever ran before, and that really scares the bejesus out of me, because I just built this PC like a couple of weeks ago, and I don't want to damage my GPU in any way.
m
0
l
May 22, 2011 5:14:26 AM

This game is fantastic. It blows the original out of the water... this is hands down one of the best looking games in a long time. It's better then crysis 2 by miles and some of the forest scenes are amazing. It's nice to see a developer who pushes the boundries of graphics. Knowing CD Projeck they will probably push a DX11 patch at some point in the future and they are going to be giving DLC for free soo... all looks up for the PC platform.
m
0
l
May 22, 2011 2:35:03 PM

LarryJones1 said:
Man, after seeing some screenshots of the Witcher 2, I was just blown away by all the color and the amazing visuals. I'm so tempted to run over to Fry's and drop $34.99 on it. (on sale right now). But I was reading some threads about this game, that say that this game will have your GPU running at a higher temperature than it has ever ran before, and that really scares the bejesus out of me, because I just built this PC like a couple of weeks ago, and I don't want to damage my GPU in any way.

My GPU (GTX570) runs around 95-99% at high settings with Vsync, yes very resource heavy. However, I'm not so sure that your GPU will run hotter than it normally does under full load, because, well, full load is a full load whether its Witcher2, or Crysis. If you want your GPU to not be stressed too much, just run it on medium; it still looks better than any xbox title even then.
m
0
l
May 25, 2011 1:52:12 PM

Wow, this thread is thorough. Where to begin?

I can play the game perfectly on ultra setting with everything enabled.

I cannot watch the cutscences smoothly with everything enabled.

It is difficult to compare metro2033 to this because of the environmental contrast. Underground Russia that time forgot or Fantasy lit-up forests and mountains full of rain and trees and lights? <There you go a start point for comparison. The lighting and shadowing in Metro2033 is better, but the people and textures (that one sounds impossible, but it's true) are better in W2.

Your ram is definitely slow, but modern games particularly the two I just mentioned greatly benefit with more graphics muscle. All of those lighing and shadowing and particle effects, the texturing, transparency, and lets not forget, DX11 benefits. Your computer would go faster with a new Mobo and DDR3 RAM, but in games, you need something modern and powerful.
m
0
l
May 26, 2011 11:48:56 PM

Well for one thing get a newer mobo...yours is just too low end now like another post said laptops are running higher than that for the last few years now.... and your gpu in your system is always a HUGE factor with these games but Im thinkin you get yourself at least a mid range 120-200$ on a new mobo and rebuild your rig but make sure you have the right socket for your cpu or you will have to get a new one of those. long story short your mobo is holding you back
m
0
l
May 26, 2011 11:50:13 PM

joshyboy82 said:
Wow, this thread is thorough. Where to begin?

I can play the game perfectly on ultra setting with everything enabled.

I cannot watch the cutscences smoothly with everything enabled.

It is difficult to compare metro2033 to this because of the environmental contrast. Underground Russia that time forgot or Fantasy lit-up forests and mountains full of rain and trees and lights? <There you go a start point for comparison. The lighting and shadowing in Metro2033 is better, but the people and textures (that one sounds impossible, but it's true) are better in W2.

Your ram is definitely slow, but modern games particularly the two I just mentioned greatly benefit with more graphics muscle. All of those lighing and shadowing and particle effects, the texturing, transparency, and lets not forget, DX11 benefits. Your computer would go faster with a new Mobo and DDR3 RAM, but in games, you need something modern and powerful.

Good post... this thread has got alot of attention. love seein everyone helpin out!
m
0
l
May 27, 2011 1:52:46 AM

antizig pointed that out 1st post, 400mhz is slow yeah so upg it :) 
m
0
l
!