I have
i7 860 @ 2.8 Ghz
8GB DDR3
GTX 750 Ti FTW 2GB
1600x900 moniter (900p)
I get about 45 to 50 Fps in BF4 with max settings on 900p
I am hopping to get atleast 40 Fps on ultra at 900p with this rig as well
Yeah you shouldn't have any issues at that res.
I don't believe I ever stated cheap RAM would be better than anything...? The quote you are referring to is my assumption that others realize you need quality RAM and not something you pick up for cheap at Wal-Mart. Also, just try playing Battlefield 3 with 4GB of RAM. Try playing it with 6GB of RAM. The game will not be playable. Trust me, I've tested it. If you don't have at least 8GB of quality RAM, you won't be able to play most games on ultra settings. It should also be stated that running Windows and various other processes requires part of your RAM, so that needs to be factored into the equation.
As I stated above, RAM can substitute VRAM, which is why it's not necessary to spend a ridiculous amount of money on a GPU just to get additional VRAM. You are more than welcome to, but it's by no means required to play a game with smooth performance. As you even stated yourself, it's the speed of the GPU that matters much more than how much VRAM it has. Anyone who is investing into 4GB VRAM cards is just giving their money away as most games do not support it.
I had only responded to the part of your comment that said the amount of RAM is important. I never intended to imply you said anything else but that and disagreed with the notion that more RAM is important. Hence the link to give objective references.
That said, system RAM can not substitute for VRAM. For a detailed explanation (and more relative point that my oversimplified "it can't"), read this article. The article is a bit aged from 2012, but the core tenets are still very much the same. In fact Nvidia has shared system and GPU RAM as a major design objective for their Pascal GPU generation (the one after the current Maxwell generation), but it isn't a thing right now.
It's likely you may actually get more performance considering DAI will be less taxing than BF4 solely because of levolution, 64 players, massive destruction and vehicles, etc.
Dont think the constent spell effects are going to be more taxing ?
Dont think the constent spell effects are going to be more taxing ?
Spell effects should be relatively easy as they aren't a complex effect compared to realtime rendered effects. The thing that you'd be more afraid of is extensive set piece lighting, background vista ambient occlusion and large scale particle effects (again, background vistas mostly).
I dare say that if DAI let their level artists cut loose, DAI might be more taxing for GPUs overall, with the difference being that it should run more stable as its effects, while potentionally more demanding than say something you encounter in Bf4, are predictable constants as opposed to random effects that can occur at any given time in any given intensity (for example: background vista of a burning village vs lots of randomly occuring explosions).
Spell effects should be relatively easy as they aren't a complex effect compared to realtime rendered effects. The thing that you'd be more afraid of is extensive set piece lighting, background vista ambient occlusion and large scale particle effects (again, background vistas mostly).
I dare say that if DAI let their level artists cut loose, DAI might be more taxing for GPUs overall, with the difference being that it should run more stable as its effects, while potentionally more demanding than say something you encounter in Bf4, are predictable constants as opposed to random effects that can occur at any given time in any given intensity (for example: background vista of a burning village vs lots of randomly occuring explosions).
gotcha thanks. I didnt have a lot of money to burn for upgrades as my son started preschool this year and when I upgrade I have to upgrade my wifes comp too. We got our rigs right before SWTOR in 2010 just now updated the GPUs at the beginging of this summer with the very affordable 750 Ti (was on sale for 99 dollars at that time, when normally was 150)
gotcha thanks. I didnt have a lot of money to burn for upgrades as my son started preschool this year and when I upgrade I have to upgrade my wifes comp too. We got our rigs right before SWTOR in 2010 just now updated the GPUs at the beginging of this summer with the very affordable 750 Ti (was on sale for 99 dollars at that time, when normally was 150)
You can expect the game to run at around high settings:
Here's how your GPU holds up to the minimum GPU requirement.
And here's how it holds up to the recommended GPU requirement.
It sits square in between, so if you aren't concerned with always hitting the 60 fps mark you should be able to crank up the graphic quality a bit. That's all I can say.
Guest_E-Ro_*
I do, I'm also a part of overclock.net, so that means I know what I'm talking about right?
Maybe you were trying to say no GAME uses as much VRAM as these GPUs have? In that case, you're mostly correct. Other than gaming at 1440p or above, you're likely not going to need more than 2-3GB of VRAM.
VRAM recommendations have been getting out of hand lately, but that doesn't stop VRAM from helping out in specific games. I understand most don't need it, but very few huge games with very high texture resolutions definitely benefit, such as ArmA 3 and heavily modded Skyrim. DA:I may too since it too is large scale and has good graphics.
Perhaps you misread OCN guys post, he's not saying VRAM will bottleneck your GPU, he's saying by the time the average game truly needs 4GB of VRAM, our GPUs will be the bottleneck. Which is basically false at this point, considering some of the games coming out lately. Not to say those games rightfully need 4GB+ of VRAM but we're not exactly in an era of great ports. So more VRAM will definitely help with the games of today.
I should have said for the most part they know what they are talking about, so you got me there.
Anyway, if you are using 4 gigs of vram(actually using it, not storing things that ddr3 is fast enough for) your frames are going to be so slow you'll have to turn down settings. You have any idea how much high the textures would have to be on screen at once for 4 gigs of vram to be used? Insanity.
Especially now with these joke requirements from games like SOM. 6 gigs of vram at 1080p? gtfo out of here, thats so overblown its not even funny. Anyone with one monitor at 1080p(or even lower(shivers)) has ZERO need of more then 3 gigs of vram. And they wont for some time. You dont future proof a card by buying one with tons of ram, thats a losers game.
So it looks like I'm getting a new computer for DAI :'D Even with that I probably won't be able to run the game on max settings but eeh as long as I can play and don't have to pay hundreds of euros I'm happy! 
So it looks like I'm getting a new computer for DAI :'D Even with that I probably won't be able to run the game on max settings but eeh as long as I can play and don't have to pay hundreds of euros I'm happy!
You might be surprised how cheap a good entry level gaming PC is for the performance you get.
You can go far if you are will to spend a couple hundred bucks and still keep well beneath the dreaded thousand bucks mark.
Cassandra - The Tank
Varric - The Crossbowman
Solas - The Sorcererr or Wizard I guess
AAAHHHHH!!! Why didn't the people who went out there do enough BASIC research!!!
At least she got the names right.
Edit - Just noticed I posted in the wrong thread. I saw "Hands On and PC" together and thought it was about the new Video posted today.
I3 4130 3.4
gt 740 4gb
6gb ram
windows 8.1
1920x1080 5m screen
I Thank i can run the game at 1920x1080 40-45 fps on medium settings
1920x1080 5m screen
5 meter diameter screensize at 1080p resolution?
Dude, you go big!
5 meter diameter screensize at 1080p resolution?
Dude, you go big!
lmao its just 22 inch cheapo asus screen
when i get my new rig am gonna have evga gtx 970's sli i want the dell 30 inch screen 2560x1600
http://www.newegg.co...XbC6RoCvfnw_wcB
5 meter diameter screensize at 1080p resolution?
Dude, you go big!
GO BIG OR GO HOME
lmao its just 22 inch cheapo asus screen
when i get my new rig am gonna have evga gtx 970's sli i want the dell 30 inch screen 2560x1600
You might want to look at this one:
PG278Q - 2560x1440p @ 144Hz, 27 inch, G-Sync
Or this one if it has to be an IPS panel:
PA279Q - 2560x1440p @ 60Hz, 27 inch
The former is way better for gaming and the latter a kickass IPS panel trading three inches screen size for 200 bucks less cost.
You might want to look at this one:
PG278Q - 2560x1440p @ 144Hz, 27 inch, G-Sync
Or this one if it has to be an IPS panel:
PA279Q - 2560x1440p @ 60Hz, 27 inch
The former is way better for gaming and the latter a kickass IPS panel trading three inches screen size for 200 bucks less cost.
Ok thank you am building my new rig in January
I7 5930k or i7 5960x
evga x99ftw
16gb crucial Ballistix ddr4
evga gtx 970x2
evga supernova g2 1000 watt
samsung evo 750ssd
WD 2tb
windows 8.1
Ok thank you am building my new rig in January
I7 5930k or i7 5960x
evga x99ftw
16gb crucial Ballistix ddr4
evga gtx 970x2
evga supernova g2 1000 watt
samsung evo 750ssd
WD 2tb
windows 8.1
If I were you, I'd only purchase one GTX 970. Not only would buying two be double the money, but SLI and CF just aren't supported by the majority of game developers. I found I was getting a lot better performance and less issues running one card than when I was running two.
Just my own personal experience. It's one thing to spend a lot of money for the purpose of making sure your rig is future proof. It's another when you spend way more than you need and on features that either aren't supported or aren't really necessary. I still regret buying a DX11 GPU back in early 2010 when it first was released. Most games didn't support DX11, let alone DX10, for a while and by the time they did, my card was already obsolete in terms of speed. I'd be wary of SLI, GPUs with more an 2 VRAM, and purchasing 16GB of RAM or more. Many of these things are in excess and you are gaining little benefit for investing in them.
If I were you, I'd only purchase one GTX 970. Not only would buying two be double the money, but SLI and CF just aren't supported by the majority of game developers. I found I was getting a lot better performance and less issues running one card than when I was running two.
Just my own personal experience. It's one thing to spend a lot of money for the purpose of making sure your rig is future proof. It's another when you spend way more than you need and on features that either aren't supported or aren't really necessary. I still regret buying a DX11 GPU back in early 2010 when it first was released. Most games didn't support DX11, let alone DX10, for a while and by the time they did, my card was already obsolete in terms of speed. I'd be wary of SLI, GPUs with more an 2 VRAM, and purchasing 16GB of RAM or more. Many of these things are in excess and you are gaining little benefit for investing in them.
That makes aot of Sense am building my new rig for future proofing for games like the witcher 3 wild hunt ill just get a evga GTX 980 4g SC and be done with my build
I'm so freakin' proud of myself right now. I installed a new ssd hd (1TB) by myself this afternoon and also upgraded my router to a dual band so I could take advantage of the faster download and streaming speeds at 5Ghz. It has been a very long time since I did any upgrades more complex than slotting a new video card and and/or ram. I think I now have all the HD space and download speeds I need for a couple of years. I am soooooo ready for Inquisition!!!!
My current rig:
That makes aot of Sense am building my new rig for future proofing for games like the witcher 3 wild hunt ill just get a evga GTX 980 4g SC and be done with my build
That should certainly be more than sufficient. Since most game developers are console-centric, it's generally never in your interest to try and future proof too far. I'm not even sure The Witcher 3 will necessarily need the latest hardware since it's being made for the Xbox One and Playstation 4 as well. The exception with The Witcher 2 had to do with it being PC-only initially. I don't know if that means The Witcher 3 will suffer graphically as a result on the PC (it still looks fantastic), but for the sake of time, I wouldn't be surprised.
Anyone at Bioware unofficially played it using Vista?
That should certainly be more than sufficient. Since most game developers are console-centric, it's generally never in your interest to try and future proof too far. I'm not even sure The Witcher 3 will necessarily need the latest hardware since it's being made for the Xbox One and Playstation 4 as well. The exception with The Witcher 2 had to do with it being PC-only. I don't know if that means The Witcher 3 will suffer graphically as a result on the PC (it still looks fantastic), but for the sake of time, I wouldn't be surprised.
CD Projekt would not gimp the pc build last i herd dual 780ti's could not even run the game at 30fps but that was 10 months ago
Question:
My PC met easily the recommanded specs (only the gpu is slightly below, nvdia gtx 650 instead of gts 660). But my monitor is reeeeally old, and only support up to 1024x768. Will i be able to play the game normally with it?
CD Projekt would not gimp the pc build last i herd dual 780ti's could not even run the game at 30fps but that was 10 months ago
We can hope they wouldn't, but CDPR has to make this game for three platforms simultaneously instead of just one now.
As far as needing two 780ti's to get 30fps, no way. That would more or less suggest that the visuals between the PC and console versions would be significantly different. Also, probably less than 1% of the gaming PC base actually has such a ridiculous rig to start. I'd be shocked if the recommended settings require more than a single GTX 760 quite frankly (no game on the market requires SLI or CF support and we've only seen tech demos need that much graphical power).
This isn't the same jump we saw from The Witcher to The Witcher 2. CDPR even admitted that visually speaking, The Witcher 3 is primarily just increasing the polygon count. Otherwise, it's not really making any substantial pushes beyond what we already saw with The Witcher 2, which still looks pretty good on ultra settings for the PC to date.
I'm honestly not expecting any games in the foreseeable future to really push the boundaries in regards to system requirements. Perhaps Batman: Arkham Knight might raise the bar as that game looks incredible on it's highly-modified Unreal Engine 3. Honestly though, we'll probably have to wait until Crysis 4 or Battlefield 5 before we see something truly breathtaking.
I have an AMD FX 4300 3.8GHz, a GTX 750ti w/2GB vram, 8GB ram, and 9GB dedicated to virtual memory. That being said, I know I don't quite hit the recommended specs, and I'm under no illusion that I'll be able to get good performance attempting to run at max. And honestly, that doesn't worry me. It'll play at mid or high, and it'll still look good.
Retour en haut
