Ger ‘Alt Of Here With These Witcher 3 System Specs

For the past decade I’ve done the financially responsible thing and bought a mid-tier PC and stuck with it till it was melting, crashing, rubble around my feet, but last year I bought something properly top-end for the first time ever. A good thing, because it means it no longer reboots as soon as I load a game. A good thing, because I have a thousand tabs open right now and Chrome needs all the memory it can get. A good thing, if The Witcher 3‘s system requirements are anything to go by, since even the minimum spec is unusually steep. The full details are below.

These details:

Minimum System Requirements

  • Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz
  • AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
  • Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660
  • AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
  • RAM 6GB
  • OS 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)
  • Direct X 11
  • HDD Space 40 GB
  • Recommended System Requirements

  • Intel CPU Core i7 3770 3,4 GHz
  • AMD CPU AMD FX-8350 4 GHz
  • Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 770
  • AMD GPU Radeon R9 290
  • RAM 8GB
  • OS 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)
  • Direct X 11
  • HDD Space 40 GB

The Witcher 3 certainly looks pretty enough to justify high demands of your PC, but such high system requirements are a recently returned phenomenon. Perhaps the new console generation really has put an end to years of stagnancy in graphics engines and we’re in for a few years of unfettered polygon growth, every game an open world full of crowds and particle effects and shaders.

163 Comments

  1. Premium User Badge

    distantlurker says:

    Graphics. We haz them.

    o_O

    • Underwhelmed says:

      Really glad I went crazy and built a new system this last winter; it crushes the recommended requirements, and that is a good feeling. Pity that feeling never lasts for more than about 6 months no matter how much money you spend, but such is life.

      • Vastial says:

        Ummm what? I last upgraded my PC 3-4 years ago and up to this year it has run everything I’ve thrown at it on high (sometimes ultra) settings, I’m still running an AMD 5870 and Intel 930 with 8 Gig of ram and a Striker motherboard. I was able to max Shadow of Mordor with no issues whatsoever….I think you’re going to be fine!

        • ferdinand says:

          I have a 970 and I can’t max out Shadow of Mordor at 1920×1080. I guess you play at 1024×768?

          • Vastial says:

            Nope! Same resolution as you! Just updated my drivers aswell and have 0 problem achieving smooth performance at maximum settings.

  2. frightlever says:

    Remember when Crytek ran into trouble because no-one thought they had the specs to run a Crysis game?

    • Cinek says:

      And in the end people run in on integrated GPUs.
      Yea, I remember. Done it myself.
      No need this time though – my PC happily fulfils minimum requirements with some power overhead on top of that :)

      • Premium User Badge

        Wisq says:

        Watching my sister play various versions of The Sims on her old laptops with crappy integrated graphics was agonising. Like, I don’t care if it’s not a reflexes game, I still couldn’t understand how she could physically tolerate framerates of ~2 to 3 FPS.

      • fish99 says:

        No one ever ran Crysis *well* on high settings on an integrated GPU.

        • Cinek says:

          Noone said anything about high details :) For me it worked in low-medium, I played through the demo like 3 times on that poor machine.

          • fish99 says:

            Well, Crysis scaled well enough that you could make it look completely awful running it on modest hardware, but doesn’t that kinda defeat the purpose in a game that’s all about breathtaking visuals?

          • nearly says:

            Nope. As someone that played on integrated when it came out, Crysis actually looks slightly below par with everything else on low and around average for the time on medium. Better if you use a certain “cel-shading” mod that basically just adds black lines around objects. Added bonus that if you could run it on low in the first place, the framerate was also bound to be decent.

    • Razumen says:

      More accurately, no one had the specs to run it at it’s maximum settings, though it ran well on more conservative ones. Of course no one wanted to play a game with “adequate” visuals, so it became infamous as a game that no one could run. Crytek kind of shot their self in the foot with their marketing, though I do praise them for future-proofing their engine and making a game that still looks great today.

      • brokeTM says:

        I want it all, I want it all. Unfortunately, you can’t always get what you want. Knowing that a specific game could look so much better If I either time-travelled. Or had shitloads of disposable income so I could just throw money at that problem… is worse than not knowing.

        I’m all for future-proofing an engine, I just don’t want to know about it.

      • Smoky_the_Bear says:

        The game was still the best looking game out even on mid to high settings. TBH anyone refusing to play the game because they couldn’t run it on ultra were shooting themselves in the foot more than Crytek did.

  3. Soulstrider says:

    Well, no Witcher 3 for me in the foreseeable future, glad I don’t pre-order games.

  4. Tyrmot says:

    The CPU requirements seem a little odd as the intel/AMD alternatives are not really equivalent… An i5-2500K is way quicker than a Phenom II X4 940 so how can they be listed in the same specs?

    I think we might have to wait & see on this one.

    • Dale Winton says:

      And the i5 2500k is quicker than the FX8350

      • Seafort says:

        Erm..no it’s not :)

        • Dale Winton says:

          I have both chips , I5 sandy is faster but not by much

        • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

          You can multithread a game as much as you want but no hype will save it from the fact that games are not really much adeguate for that and at the end of the day you’ll still have one thread working harder.

          You’ll never stop wanting beefy single thread performance on games, though obviously i wouldn’t advise going below 4 cores.

          There are some games that scale really well, but even in that case with the current AMD lineup the advantages are minimal. You’re basically improving the performance of stuff that already runs well but also doing worse on the stuff that needs the most help.

        • Solidstate89 says:

          Yes it is. Especially since there’s no way in hell The Witcher 3 scales out to 8 threads.

  5. Raztaman says:

    What on Earth is going to cause the huge gap in CPUs at mid and max qualities? I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve seen an i7 listed as anywhere near recommended hardware, can’t be very optimized surely? These days it seems devs are less and less sure of system requirements so they either post higher than recommended specs or just guess and hope for the best.

    • iainl says:

      I strongly suspect an i7 is mentioned for the same reason Ubisoft and Bethesda wanted one recently – the two £350 consoleboxes that have 8-core processors, so the engine would be rather keen to see that many. Never mind that an i5 core is both clocked higher and more powerful.

    • Trent Hawkins says:

      There’s a ton of effects that you can disable to meet minimum requirements. alternatively you can turn them all on and give your video card and CPU a killer work out.

      Lots of NVIDIA HairWorks and other awesome shit.

    • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

      System requirements never make sense anyway.

      • Kaeoschassis says:

        Right. Which is why I so miss the days when nearly every game had a demo so you could figure out if it would actually run.

        • ferdinand says:

          There are special websites where you can demo the full game. This isn’t really what the developers want but I don’t think they have any right to complain when they expect you to gamble with $50 each time.
          Steam should really do something with refunds. Let me play the game for 24 hours and if I don’t like it or can’t get it to work I press a button and get my money back. Worst case someone beats the game within 24 hours but that would mean he plays 365 games per year and only games you can finish in one day.

  6. Jp1138 says:

    I still pretend to play it with my i7-920 and Radeon 5870. I hope they release a demo so we are able to test the reality of that minimum specs…

    • Continuity says:

      That gpu…..

      • kael13 says:

        I had a pair of those at one point. They’re pretty decent GPUs still, if playing at 1080p.

        I’m still waiting for a decent future GPUS to really nail the higher resolutions.

    • Cvnk says:

      Core 2 Quad Q9550 with Radeon 6850 here. Gonna keep my fingers crossed this old girl is up for one more challenge despite those minimum specs. So far it’s only let me down with the latest Assassin’s Creed (which I only have because it came with my Samsung SSD).

      • Bart Stewart says:

        I recently bought a new hard drive so that I could install a 64-bit OS on it, so that I could finally play the new 64-bit-only games coming out.

        Dragon Age: Inquisition turns out to be absolutely, completely unrunnable for me. I can’t get past the initial startup screens, much less start actually playing the game. This is on a circa-2008 machine with a dual-core E8500 and 4 GB of RAM. The problem is not the graphics; my GeForce 660 Ti is sufficiently burly. It’s that the 64-bit-only Frostbite engine is completely pegging out both cores of my CPU.

        The pre-alpha of Kingdom Come: Deliverance (also 64-bit-only) is a little better in that it will actually start, but in its case it does appear to be the graphics (maybe not optimized yet?) as anything beyond the most minimal settings turns into a slideshow.

        I haven’t tried Watch Dogs or EQ: Landmark, but as 64-bit games I wonder if they, too, would try to set my machine on fire.

        I really hate to think about having to upgrade my whole machine. I have in fact just been replaying Crysis — I’ve got every setting at High (and a couple on Ultra) and it’s as smooth as a baby’s bottom. I play a heavily modded Skyrim with every graphical setting (including draw distances) maxed, plus ENB with ambient occlusion turned on, and I regularly get 20-25 FPS, which while not exactly butter-like is playable. None of the other 32-bit games I play have the slightest complaints.

        So what is the deal with these 64-bit games?

        • ferdinand says:

          64bit only means they can use more than 2GB of memory. Those games just need at least 3 cores to run smoothly. Also 4GB of memory is just too little these days. My pc is now during gaming using almost 6GB.

    • ikazrima says:

      I raise you an HD5750 Vapor-X. Been using it since early 2010 and is still going strong :D

  7. Premium User Badge

    basilisk says:

    Well, my experience with TW2 on two different GPUs (AMD and Nvidia) indicated that the engine wasn’t particularly well optimised, and I believe this uses a newer version of the same one.

  8. sinister agent says:

    Gosh, way to screw yourself out of sales, guys.

    • omnimodis78 says:

      Why? These specs are not crazy, they’re more or less mainstream. The i7 is nonsense, as always – but everything else seems pretty much on the money with what was expected. As long as the engine is optimized, I think it will be great.

      • Premium User Badge

        Grizzly says:

        EDIT: Reply Fail

        Anyway, now I’m here… I don’t consider the i5-2500k to be ‘mainstream’, actually. It’s very much one of the tops of it class, and I simply don’t get why any “lesser” i5 would do the trick.

        Especially since the Phenom X4 is a lot less powerfull IIRC. If the requirement is just that it should have 4 threads and has AVX, why not recommend any lesser i5?

        • Siimon says:

          The i5-2500 (k) was the most sold (retail?) Intel CPU at the time it was current so there is a very large install base of it.

        • big boy barry says:

          If a 4 year old CPU that I paid £150 for in 2011 and has 3 generations ahead of it isn’t considered mainstream by gaming standards, then we truly live in troubled times.

      • Melody says:

        Well, I don’t know, I was gonna build myself a PC, spending about 600$, and following LogicalIncrements’ “very good” build with US pricing I’d barely satisfy minimum requirements. And I’d be building it *now*, as the game is coming out.

        You know, now that I think about it, it’s funny that games are riddled with sales, but those same people are expected to spend so much on hardware.

        • big boy barry says:

          Ebay mate, i5 2500k and a z68 mobo shouldn’t cost more than $200

        • Chalky says:

          The i5 was released in 2011 – what ever website is telling you that putting one of those in a brand new machine makes it “very good” is using that term extremely loosely. It makes it an average gaming system, the sort that people were buying 4 years ago.

          That’s quite some time ago, and if you want a new system to last you without component upgrades I would really recommend aiming higher.

          • big boy barry says:

            Hows he gonna build a pc with a better processor than a 2nd hand i5 for $600???. the cheapest i7s are nearly half his budget

        • padger says:

          2500k still cuts the mustard, but really there’s no reason not to go for a mid-range i7 now. You will see the benefit, especially in games like this.

          • mukuste says:

            There is a reason, and it’s called price. You can put a decent mid-range quadcore i5 in there and you will never notice the difference for gaming. I checked a lot of benchmarks on this when I was researching my new PC recently, and the bottom line is that it’s simply not worth splurging on the CPU for a gaming PC. Games simply aren’t CPU limited very hard these days.

          • Chalky says:

            Mid range is the key word there. You stick an i5 in your pc and you’re building a mid range pc that can run current games. In 4 years, you probably won’t be able to run newly released games because your processor is now 8 years old.

            That’s exactly what we’re seeing in these specs. Your 4 year old i5 can run this future game, but they’re recommending you play it on something more recent. This game will run on mid range systems.

            In short, if you’re buying something new and want it to last, don’t aim for mid range.

          • mukuste says:

            In the end, going for midrange is always by far the best price/performance proposition. Sure you can now buy something which may still hold up in four years time (in fact, I contend that even the midrange i5 will), but why spend twice or three times the amount for a maybe 15% increase in performance which NO currently existing game will take advantage of? That’s a very misguided approach to “future proofing”.

            I realize that there’s a lot of elitism in PC gaming culture about their hardware, one glance at all the epeen stroking in this comments section here will make that abundandtly clear. However, if you say goodbye to the idea of having to own “the absolute best” for the sake of your ego and instead buy based on actual performance and value, you can buy much smarter and save a lot of money.

          • mukuste says:

            And by the way, the i5-4460 was released in Q2 2014. It’s not 4 years old, so stop with that nonsense.

      • A Gentleman and a Taffer says:

        The GPUs the crazy bit, my GTX560ti handles anything, on Ultra settings at 30 fps (Metro:LL bring the only exception I can think of, but only needs so AA and shaders turned down). Witcher 3 will apparently not run at all. That’s a ridiculous claim. Personally I call BS (not sure what the devs have to gain from it, apart from publicity maybe?) my last PC always played stuff well way below supposed minimum specs.

        • Siimon says:

          Since they’re fairly close in performance (560ti & 660), the only thing I can think of why 660 is required is that so many 560ti’s are 1GB cards and leaving the minimum requirement as “Any modern video card with 2GB VRAM” is too vague.

          I take system requirements more as a general guideline than anything tho, especially since different vendors will specify different requirements eg. is 25 fps acceptable? 40fps? 60fps? For example NVIDIA has 40fps as their minimum target FPS in FC4

        • fish99 says:

          My brother just replaced his 560TI since it couldn’t handle the new Dragon Age without dropping the resolution below 1080p, even on modest settings. Dead Rising 3 was the same, he couldn’t run it in 1080p. Dunno whether that’s down to GPU power or lack of vram, but it does suggest you’ll start to run into problems.

          He upgraded to a 970 btw, and the difference was staggering even with a somewhat old I5-760.

          • A Gentleman and a Taffer says:

            Argh, don’t tempt me!

          • Zenicetus says:

            Same here, Dragon Age Inquisition was the final kick to make me upgrade from a 560ti to a GTX 970. The game was playable on the 560 (at 1600×1200) with medium settings, but it would still stutter and lag occasionally in combat. With Witcher 3 on the near horizon (or so I thought, at the time), it seemed like it was time to upgrade the card.

            DA:1 runs nice and smooth on the 970 with side benefits in Elite Dangerous and X-Plane, both of which ran fine at lower settings with the 560 but now I can ramp things up. The jump from 560ti to 970 is worth it, if you can swing it. I don’t follow GPU news that closely, but the 970 seems to be in a sweet spot for cost/benefit right now, until the next great thing comes along.

  9. Bishop149 says:

    Ouch, thus far my GTX570 hasn’t even slightly struggled with anything I’ve thrown at it (@1650*1050) . . . . a 660 is quite a jump up in terms of core speed. Lets wait and see what the endless post release hardware tests say. . . . yet another reason (as if another was needed) not to pre-order.

    • Vandelay says:

      I think this is why specs like these are coming as a surprise to so many of us. We have been playing new AAA releases at max settings without breaking a sweat. Now we are suddenly staring at our systems just scraping minimum.

      Heck, my friend is still using a 4850 and Q6600 without too much difficulty, albeit he doesn’t play much that is going to push it.

      • Trent Hawkins says:

        well, you’ve been playing console hand-me-downs up until now.

      • sandag says:

        I use the EXACT same configuration as your friend. It was bought like 7 years ago, and the biggest problem on 4850 is the no DX11 support. Also, I can’t run jack squat on it, I can barely play Endless Legend on the lowest details. I missed out on some good games this year, and it looks like it’s not stopping soon.

        Oh well, back to my indie games.

  10. iainl says:

    I’m sure I remember the WatchUnderscoreDogs and AssUnity specs being not far off that, and I think Evil Within was even worse. I’m surprised by the minimum being under 8GB of memory, in particular – I’m expecting every AAA title from now on to have “minimum” translate to “roughly what you’d find under the hood of an Xbox One”.

  11. Melody says:

    Keep in mind that minimum requirements often aren’t the *actual* minimum required to play so much as “minimum we officially support” so that if your game doesn’t work for some reason they can just tell you to upgrade without having to look at the problem.

    Unless they actually perform a check and pre-emptively lock you out of the game, like COD did with its RAM requirement, but that doesn’t sound like something CDP would do.

    • dysomniak says:

      Indeed, “minimum” system requirements can mean anything from a barely playable 20-30hz at the lowest settings to a respectable 60hz on medium. That said I exactly hit the reccos with the exception of the GPU (I’ve got 2 770s in SLI) and RAM (16GB) so I’m not worried.

  12. mustang05tim says:

    AC: Unity actually had even higher announced minimum and recommended system requirements, and that was four months ago.

    I’m good, now. Dragon Age Inquisition and Far Cry 4, and the massive failure called AC: Unity pushed me into getting a new GTX 760 video card, and I’ve had a significantly overpowered Intel CPU for some time now, as well as 8 GB of RAM. As long as the game is smaller than 5 TB of storage needed after DLC, I’m also good there. :)

    I’m happy that the consoles have consequently pushed up the requirements on PC’s. It’s been a while since a revolutionary upgrade of the PC has been needed.

    • Melody says:

      I’m sorry, I missed the part when having to spend more money on hardware just in order to stay above the minimum requirements became a good thing.

      • FriendlyFire says:

        It means that games are taking advantage of stronger hardware? With your logic, we’d still be gaming on Commodores because anything more demanding would’ve required us to upgrade our hardware.

        • Rich says:

          Scalability, we’ve heard of it.

          • fish99 says:

            Scalability will only get you so far, if you want games to advance visually, hardware has to advance too.

          • wu wei says:

            I’ve heard of nanobots too, doesn’t mean it’s possible for me to implement them.

    • Zenicetus says:

      The “console push” doesn’t always translate to onscreen benefits though. Dragon Age Inquisition is a good example. I had been running all of last year’s AAA games like Wolfenstein just fine on my 560ti at fairly high settings, then DA:I came along and the card started to struggle.

      Upgrading to a GTX 970 fixed that, but DA:1 at ultra settings actually doesn’t look that great (IMO). It just ran more smoothly. To my eyes, Skyrim with the high res texture packs still looks better than DA:1, and Skyrim ran smooth as silk on my 560ti. It’s probably down to art direction and textures they’re using, but I’m just not seeing any gee whiz visual quality in DA:1 that requires a card like the 970. Witcher 3 will probably be different, based on the trailers I’ve seen.

  13. deadfolk says:

    “Perhaps the new console generation really has put an end to years of stagnancy in graphics engines”

    Nope. It has just put an end to optimisation.

    • Razumen says:

      What you’re describing is a symptom of bad porting, which optimization is a casualty of. Obviously the improved console hardware is going to push specs upwards of what people have generally been comfortable with until now. This isn’t some sort of abandonment of optimization, of course companies have every interest to make their game playable by as many people as possible. If anything, these requirements are simply a side effect of consoles “catching up” to PC’s.

    • Zenicetus says:

      That seems to be what’s going on with Dragon Age Inquisition. It doesn’t get more spectacular on a high-end GPU, it just runs more smoothly.

  14. Premium User Badge

    Bluerps says:

    Huh. That might be the first game in five and a half years (that I’m not completely uninterested in) that I cannot play according to the minimum requirements.

  15. Herbal Space Program says:

    You can do it GTX 750, I still believe in you!

    • BreadBitten says:

      My 750 Ti has served me well so far, hoping it can go the distance for this as well.

  16. Alice O'Connor says:

    I’ve gone five years on this old PC, with its only upgrade a new graphics card three years back. I’m going to miss it. I’d grown quite comfortable with the PC having won the upgrade ratrace. I do hope this latest jump plateaus for a few years too, and relatively soon.

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      I’ve had the same PC for getting on ten years now.
      Ok, so I’ve upgraded every single component (including the case) at least twice over by now, and reinstalled/upgraded windows at least half a dozen times, but as far as I’m concerned it’s still the same computer.
      I think some of the screws are original.

      • Cinek says:

        Funny, but wrong compassion. GPU is something you upgrade quite regularly. So nothing unusual there. CPU / motherboard / other stuff is not.
        As far as I’m concerned – Stuff qualifies as the same PC until you upgrade CPU and a motherboard.

      • dysomniak says:

        Nice boat, Theseus.

      • Stellar Duck says:

        “This, milord, is my family’s axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old axe of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good axe, y’know. Pretty good.”

    • sinister agent says:

      Basically the same here. I really hope this doesn’t catch on, the end of the ridiculous hardware treadmill was the best thing that happened to PC games since the internet.

    • Horg says:

      I did one round of upgrades before the current gen consoles came out specifically for TW3. I expect to have to do one more within the life time of the consoles, maybe 3 years or so down the road once the old consoles are phased out of development, and developers start pushing the limit on the current console hardware. So, more or less like last gen, only with more RAM for everyone. I doubt we will be going back to bi-annual upgrade cycles on PC anytime soon.

  17. jezcentral says:

    Hoorah for high rec specs!

    At least until they are more than my 4770k and GTX Titan, and then BOOOO!.

    EDIT: But seriously, what is with RPS writers at the moment? Even John is rocking an SSD that is too small to routinely put games on. If even he can’t afford to run a performance PC, then what hope do the rest of the writers have? Pull your fingers out guys, and spend big. It’s not really abject poverty if you have a decent PC and can still afford Pot Noodles. ;)

  18. BreadBitten says:

    Would appreciate it muchly if someone could confirm where my AMD FX-6300 falls in between those specs.

  19. D70CW6 says:

    O.o

    i have a 660 – should be fine at 1080p!

  20. Drunk Si says:

    I just hope Nvidia are quick about releasing an SLI profile for it

  21. Dale Winton says:

    Scratching my head a bit as to why the i5 2500k is the min rrequirements but the fx8350 is the recommended.

    • Asurmen says:

      Heavy reliance on as many threads as possible also explaining the i7?

      • Dale Winton says:

        Maybe but even on games like BF4 where it does use 6 threads the i5 2500k will still beat the fx8350. There is not much between the two chips mind you but you’d struggle to find a game that runs better on the AMD chip

  22. Moraven says:

    AMD HD 7870 – were released in March, 2012, for $350.
    R9s released in 2013 with the same power (R9 270) started at $180-$200.

    So if you put in a $350 card in 2012, $180 card in 2013/2014, you can run this.
    2011… you likely had to be in the $400+ range.

    Sandy Bridge came out in 2011.

    Looking at cross gen games of 2 years past:
    CoD Adv Warfare:
    i3-530, HD 5870, Geforce 450 (2009/2010 CPU, 2009/2010 cards)

    Battlefield 4:
    Core 2 Duo. HD 3870, GeForce 8800 (2007 and late 2006 tech).

    Consoles last 5-7 years. Hell the PS3/360 likely lasted a year to long (as we see in the up surge in console sales for PS4/One). PS4/One are 2013/2014 tech. That is the benchmark future graphical games will likely aim at.

    • Razumen says:

      Exactly, these requirements are not mind-boggling by any means. Sure consoles’ specs have increased greatly from previous generations, they still lag pretty far behind when it comes to cutting edge PC tech. Anyone complaining about this is just disappointed they can’t glide by on aging tech that should’ve been retired years ago.

      • Moraven says:

        Yep. PC realm is odd that way. You got the people who shout how they live on a $600 PC for 5+ years and still play games. Then you have those who shout how anything they can built for less than $1000 is better than consoles port outputs.

        It seems reasonable based on BF4 and CoD AW spec requirements progression.

        To be fair, a strength (and weakness) of PC is dynamic settings, which allow it to run on a wide range of hardware. I was sad when WoW no longer ran more than 10 fps on my Eee PC netbook. But it was expected as each expansion bumped the specs.

        Same thing with my Android Tablet. Nexus 7 2012, and there are games and apps coming out that can barely run on it (Hearthstone is a stutter fest, I hope they optimized it for lo-fi graphics and effects).

        Oh and all the complaints about how 360/PS3 living as long as they did dragging multiplatform games down graphically on PC… No game developer can win.

        • Cockie says:

          The Hearthstone thing is a Nexus 2012 specific bug, since it runs somewhat stuttery but very playable on a Asus Memo Pad HD7 which has less powerful hardware.

          • Moraven says:

            Good to know. The first list of supported tablets were mostly 2013/2014 units. Look forward to updates.

  23. profmcstabbins says:

    I just built a new computer and the minimum system specs are almost exactly what my old computer was running. Glad I upgraded when I did.

  24. P4p3Rc1iP says:

    Funny how I bought my current PC specifically to run the Witcher 2 in 2011, and now it’s just short of the minimum specs! Time to upgrade! :D

    • Underwhelmed says:

      If you wait and see what Just Cause 3 will require to run, you may have hit upon the perfect set of goalposts.

  25. vorador says:

    Nobody remembers how The Witcher 2 used to melt computers? I expected as much for the sequel.

    • Cinek says:

      No, not really.
      I had an issue with FPS only due to faulty nVidia drivers. As soon as they updated them – the PC I had back then (which was over 2 years old when the game was released) run Witcher 2 perfectly smooth.

      • HothMonster says:

        Then you didn’t turn on ubersampling, I think that was what they called it, that was the setting that brought gpus to their knees.

  26. jonnychimpo says:

    Hmmm i’ve a radeon 6950 coupled with an i5 running at 4ghz. Possibly time to upgrade the GPU?

  27. noodlecake says:

    Holy fuck!

    That sucks. My most anticipated game in years happens to be the first game out that won’t actually run on my PC. I’m still a student for a year and a half too so there’s no way I can afford to dish out obscene amounts of money on a new graphics card any time during that period. Sad times indeed. :(

    • Cinek says:

      Hopefully they’ll release a demo or benchmark – test it if you’ll have a chance. Minimum requirements tend to be overblown.

    • big boy barry says:

      Cant you pick up a 2nd card cheap on ebay and go sli. I got 2 years extra out of my old 5870s doing that

  28. Maritz says:

    So what does this mean for us i5-2500 non K users? Is it just the same as a not overclocked K?

  29. lowprices says:

    I look forward to playing this in 5 years’ time when I can afford a powerful enough machine. If this is the sort of hardware I need to play AAA games from now on, then this may be the generation I lag behind on. At least it’ll give me chance to catch up on my steam backlog. :)

    • Horg says:

      A high end AMD FX6 series processor, R9 270 or low end 280, and 8 gigs of high speed RAM will set you back about £300. That should be good enough to run TW3 on medium at least, if not high / ultra for some important settings. I don’t think that’s too outrageous, and should last a few years before you need another upgrade.

      • Dale Winton says:

        Motherboard ? Windows ? Hard drives ? PSU ? He will need £500 unless you go second hand which is a bit risky if you are on a budget

        • Premium User Badge

          edna says:

          I don’t think secondhand is all that risky. Indeed, if you’re on a budget that’s when it is most likely to be worth the risk, in my opinion. Secondhand CPU, GPU and motherboards have served me well for about 10 years now. Just got to pay attention to descriptions and feedback ratings. Hard drives and RAM I generally buy new.

        • Horg says:

          Most of that will transfer between builds, maybe throw in £50 for a budget motherboard and you are good. AMD boards are pretty cheap.

      • lowprices says:

        Thanks, but I use laptops, so upgrading isn’t an option in that sense (shared house, so space is at a premium and I move around a bit). Just bought a Lenovo Z710 that runs everything from last-gen smooth as hell at 720p, probably going to be a good few years before I get anything new. I think next gen gaming will have to wait until I get a PS4 in a year or two. As I said, this seems like as good an excuse as any to catch up on a backlog caused by steam sales.

  30. cpt_freakout says:

    Really? I game on a 3 year-old laptop (yeah, yeah, you can stop laughing) with a 560M and I didn’t even have any troubles running Wolfenstein on high – TW3 looks great, but that minimum just sounds like the upgrade-train of ye olden times in PC gaming, when you needed an upgrade every six months because games would keep pushing it for little visible reason.

    Now that I think about it, the only game that has ever given me trouble in this computer was The Witcher 2. I managed to configure it right after a while, but it was kind of a pain in the ass considering I was running games that were just as good-looking or even better all those three years ago without a hitch. Maybe CDP Red is just bad at optimizing their games? :P

    • Zenicetus says:

      Wolfenstein New Order is a very well optimized game, so it’s probably not the best benchmark. It will depend on how well optimized Witcher 3 is.

  31. Premium User Badge

    edna says:

    2500K at stock = minimum spec
    2500K overclocked = recommended specs

    Easy!

    • Premium User Badge

      edna says:

      Not that I really believe the extra 30% (at best) advantage is going to make much difference in reality. How much AI can there be? Arma 3 I can understand, with loads of AI soldiers doing a lot of thinking, but surely not Witcher.

      • golem09 says:

        The capital has 2000 NPCs reacting to world events, your decisions and their daily routines.

        • MacPoedel says:

          I don’t think the user can modify the amount of residents in the city through settings, and this has nothing to do with any of the graphical settings. I’m betting the i5 2500K is more than fast enough for that, especially since the Phenom II X4 940 is also suggested as a minimum, which is almost half as fast as the 2500K.

  32. Scandalon says:

    I call BS on those minimum requirements. I hope.

  33. Nice Save says:

    What sort of resolution are they basing this on do you reckon? 1920×1080 has been the default gamer resolution for a long time, but more and more people are upgrading to 2560×1440. I’m on 2560×1600 myself, with a 1920×1200 on each side of it (I like the vertical space of 16:10).

    It’s surely only a matter of time before game developers start shifting their expectations to higher resolutions. I was far behind the curve when 1920×1080 came in, so I don’t have any knowledge of how that went. Was there a big spike in minimum requirements back then too? Or was it lost in the general mayhem of the last gen consoles coming in?

    • Horg says:

      Would be nice if developers posted the actual FPS at any given resolution and graphics settings on their hardware requirements. Some will set a minimum for barely playable, others will set the bar for 60 FPS on low settings. There is no standard, and without any performance data it’s hard to make a judgement.

      • mukuste says:

        Ok, but in a sparse or a very busy scene? On the current build or the final, optimized build by means of time travel? It’s a bit silly to ask for this, this is what benchmarks in the gaming press are for after the release.

        • Horg says:

          Release build, obviously, and only one or two data sets would be needed. People can extrapolate a rough estimation of their own hardware from that. It’s not really silly to ask for this sort of information, as the devs will have it, and the system requirements alone with no other qualification is fairly worthless.

  34. DanMan says:

    I’m squarely in the recomm. specs except for the CPU, which is a bit below minimum. Will be interesting to see how that’ll work out. I’m not worried about it running at all.

  35. Tom Servo says:

    I used to think I was cool but my specs only match the minimum. Is this game coming out on consoles, it seems like those specs are a lot beefier than the PS4/XB1.

  36. kud13 says:

    my new GPU upgrades is barely below the recommended spec.

    Time to shop for a new CPU to replace my Phenom II X4 830….

  37. poohbear says:

    Yes bring it!!!! all ready with my GTX 970, 16gb RAM, and 4790k!!!!! The recommended specs are worthy of a system built in 2013!!!! only took 2 years! maybe in 2017 we’ll see games that can tax my current system….

  38. nFec says:

    So… No Witcher 3 for me then… At least not this year.

  39. CaptainDju says:

    Well, seems I’m kinda of in between the minimum specs and the recommended ones. I still have my good ol’ i5 2500K OC’ed to 4.3GHz with 16Gb of RAM but I recently made an impulse purchase of a Gigabyte GV-N970G1 GAMING-4GD – GeForce GTX 970 4 GB.

    Wondering if the CPU will be a major bottleneck if I try to crank the graphics up, any thoughts?

  40. BobsLawnService says:

    I am aeriously hoping my new laptop with my Maxwell Nvidia 860M can hold its own even at medium settings.

  41. Al Bobo says:

    Hmm hmm… My 3570K is at 4.0Ghz now and radeon 7950 sits at 1150 Mhz. It will run, but the noise, the noise… I may need to invest in closed headphones :I

  42. plugav says:

    Witcher-Shmitcher, I’m just here to comment on how wonderfully bad the pun in the headline is. My favourite one in a while.

  43. Filnis says:

    I could run The Witcher 2 on somewhat high,excluding some of the pc melting AA options,on about 60 fps with
    my GTX 760 and a Xeon E3-1230 V3 @ 3.30 GHz.
    I still don’t really know what to think about the CPU,but I haven’t run into any problems this far and I am a 60 fps fetishist.

    Edit:So I really am hoping for the best.(A.k.a. I can run it.Somewhat.)

  44. hpstg says:

    Since when is a GTX 770 the same as an R9 290? That should have been an R9 280x.

    Let me guess, GameWorks, yay!

  45. feverberries says:

    Ouch! Well, i was hoping this to be the first true “next-gen” game so i can finally see what my build is capable of, and there are the cold requirements. Looks like it really is one then.

    But dayyymmmm that i7 requirement. I’m glad to see it being more utilized, but i just went for i5 since i thought i7 is not that much of an improvement in gaming… i was so wrong. Well, time to upgrade my brand new rig then.

    • mukuste says:

      The i7 isn’t a requirement, it’s only in the recommended specs. And to be honest I call bs on that. If I were you I’d wait for the benchmarks before you blindly upgrade based on some preliminary system requirements. And even if you can “only” play it on Very High instead of Ultra… is that really the end of the world?

  46. postrook says:

    the days of quake 2 have returned