No wonder people prefer to play on consoles. It's a constant battle.
Nah. It's just as bad on the consoles these days. Nothing sucks worse than wanting to sit down and catch a movie on Netflix or play a game, and finding out you have to watch a big system update download, then install, then watch as the apps and games do the same.
Patches in general are kind of a pain in the ass.
Minimum system requirements - Windows:
OS: 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)
Processor: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3 GHz or AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
Memory: RAM 6 GB
Graphics: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660 / AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
Please mind that we only officially support full-size desktop graphics cards
Hard Drive: 35 GB of available space
DirectX: 11
My GPU is a Nvidia 660 (the minimum, according to their specs), with 2GB of RAM, and I'm absolutely stunned at how beautiful the game looks and how smooth it is. I'm playing it on the default settings that it came up with, I think I just nudged up the one slider for better terrain further back, but again, I'm still in awe at how beautiful the game looks.
OK, did not think I would be posting something on Witcher 3 but something got the better of me and I got a GoG version.
I installed it under Bootcamp Win 7/Yosemite with my MacPro specs below and using the default graphics setting it gave me It all looks good to me so far, well apart from only one thing I see and have an issue
with is when you pan around the scenery it all blurs and sort of flashes past,( This maybe just me and my old eyes though ) but with my machine specs I make the game very playable 🙂
Mac Pro 2.66 Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 6 GB RAM Yosemite - XFX Radeon HD 6870, HD-687A-ZDFC
There are some good news for AMD cards. Keep an eye for the AMD beta catalyst drivers that will be out soon (the version will be 15.5 if I'm not mistaken). AMD announced that they will handle performance issues specifically with Witcher 3 on that release.
Will I have to download it from their site, or will it be available via the Catalyst client ?
I've tested it on iMacs 6970M with 2GB RAM.
With 1650x1050, low-med setings, AA and most postprocess settings turned on.
I get 20-22. Camera motion is smooth and game seems to be playable.
If I turn everything to low I get 22-24.
I have AMD 14.301 Driver installed.
How does one install newer version when this is the latest officially supported driver for Mac by AMD and Apple?
I have no idea if the Catalyst client offers the beta drivers as an option, as I've never used it. I always download directly from the amd site.
Not discounting your experience... but it's hard to believe you are running smooth on a 2GB 600 series card. It's posted on a lot of gaming forums how bad Witcher 3 runs on Kepler cards. Looking at Witcher 3 benchmarks... and the performance I see with my 780's... it appears NVidia is favoring the Maxwell architecture, and showing a lack of love for Kepler now.
apart from only one thing I see and have an issue
with is when you pan around the scenery it all blurs and sort of flashes past,( This maybe just me and my old eyes though )
There are some good news for AMD cards. Keep an eye for the AMD beta catalyst drivers that will be out soon (the version will be 15.5 if I'm not mistaken). AMD announced that they will handle performance issues specifically with Witcher 3 on that release.
The equivalent of the PS4 console version is more or less the 'low' default settings at 30 fps.
No, it's not your eyes (yet at least 😀 ) they have a couple of "blur" options you can turn off. I can't remember what they called them, I turned them off a couple hours ago and that was that (see my posts and Renzatics posts above where we discussed some annoyances & "Witcher senses").
No it's not running at low settings. Read this below
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-face-off
Yeah, after watching those videos, I'd say the one biggest advantage of the PC version would be the one thing you'd think would be a fluff feature. The towns and refugee camps seemed so empty in comparison on the consoles, which just teem with life there.
While it looks like you run across a couple of people in a big city on the PS4, when you walk into a city on the PC, you see dozens upon dozens of people walking up and down the streets, congregating on corners, and talking among themselves. Crowds might seem like a bunch of not much, but adds so much to the atmosphere. Makes everything feel like a living, breathing place.
Moreso than the shadows, higher res textures, and all that stuff, this would be the major reason why I'd recommend the PC version over the consoles.
Yup, my bad, I broke out FRAPs and found my frame rates are in the mid-20's in the villages, and in the mid-30's in unpopulated areas.
I know I'm not getting all the details and beauty of the game, but a) it runs smoothly enough for me, and b) I don't have time to stop and admire the scenery when I'm getting my butt kicked.
Yeah, I can tell this game will definitely be better on a higher end card...in a couple of years, I may splurge...

Great pix -- basically, after reading that linked article, for the console folks, it may just be a case of "what they don't know won't hurt them."
There are plenty of people who want to play every game, and want to rush through and complete it as fast as possible, and stuff like atmosphere may not be a big deal to them. When I look at the console pix, the PS4 seems marginally better than the XBone, but I really had to strain to look.
Don't worry...we are all about that age. I remember ditching Jordis and going with Kharjo in Skyrim, because she was too much of a distraction, LOL!
And more importantly, the game pretty much plays the same.I think that's the case with all games these days. The difference between high and low isn't as great as it was in the old days,
<snip>
In the end, the game still looks about the same, high or low.
Man, I do so much wandering around in games and exploring, it's like my character has ADHD. (Squirrel!).Yeah, I'm not one of those people. There's a reason why I usually only buy about 3-4 big games a year (not counting humble bundles). I take my time with everything. And a game like TW3, where each little quest is a small story in and of itself, complete with their own unique characters, I could play it and nothing else for a full year at least.
That's the other great thing about Witcher. I don't think you can go five minutes without glimpsing at least a hint of areolas. They weren't big on undergarments back in yee olden thymes.
Can anyone help me here.
I just tried Witcher 3 on Bootcamp on my i7 3.4GHz 6970M and literally, I am getting about 2 fps!
I am running @ 1024x768 in a window with all post-processing turned off and everything else set to off or low!
It is so bad, that there is clearly something obviously wrong here!
Using 14.301 bootcamp AMD drivers from their site!
Where is the ini file located that people here are talking about?
As I said above, I have everything either switched off or on low with no post processing at all!At what graphics settings did you try it ? Make sure that especially the hairworks is turned off, makes a huge difference. Also, make sure you keep the game updated since the last 2 patches are improving the game's overall performance (as well as fixing a big number of quest-related bugs).
As I said above, I have everything either switched off or on low with no post processing at all!
Patch 1.05 in a window at lowest res!
It's something fundamental.