Performance

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:53 am

I'm considering buying this game after reading your reactions. However, my computer currently borders the minimum requirements. I think should have enough memory to run it, but since they've taken a Landscape LOD approach to this game I'm kinda worried it will run similar to or worse than Oblivion.

Is there anyone here with a medium/low end system who has tried to run this game? If possible, for comparison, could you give an estimate which game performs better on average graphics settings, Oblivion or The Witcher?

---

And a techy question for those who are in the know, previous Aurora games stopped supporting shader model 2.0 textures, resulting in 'plastic haircut' issues with hair models and other textures on older cards. I'm using a grandpa Radeon 9800XT which doesn't quite support the sm3.0 textures used in Oblivion (unless texture replacement mods are used) or NWN2. There are exceptions in modern games though, so that's why I'm curious about The Witcher. Half Life 2 is a 'modern' game that still uses an older shader model which doesn't have that problem (even with the recent Orange Box release).

The Witcher's Wikipedia page tells me SM2.0 is a minimum requirement, but that doesn't tell me if it actually works in the game. It 'works' in Oblivion too, it just looks like crap. So, I was wondering if anyone here who uses an older sm2.0 graphics card could tell me if all the textures are looking ok. Lack of transparency in Geralt's long white hair, smoke or water surfaces you can't see through, stuff like that.

Crenshinibon · Post by **Crenshinibon** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:57 am

Yes, I'm interested in this as well.

My computer cannot run NWN2 or Oblivion but can run Half Life 2.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:20 am

I have a pretty decent computer along the line of E6600 CPU, 4 GB RAM, GeForce 8800GTS, X-Fi Sound (I can provide correct stuff from DX file when I get home) and all that on Vista 64bit, and most of the game I can run decently on highest settings (4xAA, 16xAF, Full everything) in 1200resolution, but there are some areas which "lag" a bit when I do so, so I turned it down yesterday.

I have noticed a very high performance boost by cutting down to "medium" details, but I was surprised that the game was so resource hog as it was.

I did not notice terrible much difference in the graphics by going from high to medium though, the game still looks beautiful, so I can easily live with it.

But for how it plays on lower spec machines is impossible to say for me, sorry, but it does take its toll on resources. It seems they've been pretty fair with minimum, but a bit lax with recommended if you want full details, which I think recommended should entaile. Perhaps my computer is not optimized much, and I can push more performance out of it, but the fact that areas lagged with my specs, did surprise me.

Ferrick · Post by **Ferrick** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:20 pm

Great thread, Tricky, because you started what I was going to ask; very timely. I, too, want to play this game because it looks like finally an RPG with a complete story line and significant plot. I checked out the trailers on Gamespot and this game really impresses me.

Right now I have an Athlon 64 3200+, an X800 GTO 256 meg card with DDR3 RAM, 2 gigs of RAM, and XP Pro with SP2.

I make the minimum plus a little extra but not much. I do have an X2 3800+ cpu which should help (the thing is my single core is so beautifully stable) that I still need to install but it looks like I need another graphics card to make it wortj my while to play.

What do you guys think?

Ulfang · Post by **Ulfang** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:36 am

Well I'm running it on a P4 3.4ghz with 1 gig of ram and an Nvidia 8800 GTS on XP and it's runs well on full settings. I haven't had too many performance problems besides a pause when you first load the game. I'm not sure how my setup compares to others but my setup isn't top of the range by any stretch of the imagination.

Ferrick · Post by **Ferrick** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:06 pm

Ulfang, have you found the need to patch? I am reading that a good number of people are having serious stability issues expecially the Vista crowd though the latest patch is for both XP and Vista.

Also, I have read that the camera is not very stable in itself and that the load times really detract from the game play. Perhaps future patches will address these issues.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:38 pm

I've had no stability issues neither prior to 1.1a patch or after - with Vista 64bit.

Ferrick · Post by **Ferrick** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:12 pm

Xandax wrote:I've had no stability issues neither prior to 1.1a patch or after - with Vista 64bit.

That is quite significant because a number of people are. There is a thread at AnandTech.com under their PC Gaming forum that has been following this issue.

Ulfang · Post by **Ulfang** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:44 pm

Ferrick wrote:Ulfang, have you found the need to patch? I am reading that a good number of people are having serious stability issues expecially the Vista crowd though the latest patch is for both XP and Vista.

Also, I have read that the camera is not very stable in itself and that the load times really detract from the game play. Perhaps future patches will address these issues.

I patched straight away to 1.1 (haven't downloaded 1.1a yet) and have had no stability issues although I do hear some people are. I assume the problems with the camera are in over the shoulder mode? I've not had any problems of that nature although tend to need to pause the game when being attacked so you can position the camera. It can be tricky but is managable. I don't play in the isometric view so not sure if there's a problem with that?

The load times could detract from the gameplay if you aren't a patient person. I can live with them although they can be quite long and it does cause me to avoid entering buildings unless i'm sure there's someone in there I want ti interact with. For me it's a small price to pay...

I play on XP so not sure if these stability issues are with Vista but as with all M$ windows packages I won't upgrade until there's at least two SP's

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Mine is a P4 2.8GHz, IGB RAM, Windows XP with SP2 and a Geforce 6600. The game should be able to run on my rig. I can play Bioshock on it but with most of the graphical effects turned off. Does lag in certain places, though.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:22 am

Ferrick wrote:That is quite significant because a number of people are. There is a thread at AnandTech.com under their PC Gaming forum that has been following this issue.

Yes, I've heard rumors of people who had problems (was also mentioned in a review), but during some 40 hours of play (I've restarted the game once already

) and am located somewhere in chapter 3, I've had one crash.

Running Vista Home Premium 64 bit, with the specifications mentioned in an earlier post in this thread. Might be because of my specifications I have no problems.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:59 pm

My game crashed 5 min into tutorial. I mean, the first time.

I also have multiple annoying glitches. Darn, apparently I have to scrap my GeForce 7900 and buy 8800.

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:02 am

I'm sorry, LD. It's too bad when that happens, but maybe you can still trade you copy back in?

I'm beginning to understand my computer won't have enough mojo for The Witcher. An upgrade might work, but it would be a costly one on my already strained system. And I'm not going to do that with so few interesting games out on the market today.

So thanks everyone for posting all your little bits of information. I think I know enough now.

Ferrick · Post by **Ferrick** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:50 am

Lady Dragonfly wrote:My game crashed 5 min into tutorial. I mean, the first time. I also have multiple annoying glitches. Darn, apparently I have to scrap my GeForce 7900 and buy 8800.

LD, I know those who have the 7900 and are doing fine at lower settings. How much RAM do you have and what is your CPU. Also, is your harddrive IDE or SATA?

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:02 am

Ferrick wrote:LD, I know those who have the 7900 and are doing fine at lower settings. How much RAM do you have and what is your CPU. Also, is your harddrive IDE or SATA?

Let's see... My gaming computer is AMD Athlon 64x2 dual core 4400+ 2.21 GHz 4GB of RAM (actually 3, because the system gobbled up one). I've got two harddrives, 500 GB. It is SATA. And Win XP, not Vista.

I run the witcher on the highest res.

Methinks it's time to upgrade again.

Edit: I am getting GeForce 8800 today.

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:11 am

Lady Dragonfly wrote: I run the witcher on the highest res.

Methinks it's time to upgrade again.

Try to lower the resolution (something along the lines of 1024x768). Will probably reduce the chances the game will crash. I remember World in Conflict crashed on me at random and by reducing some graphical effects and lowering the resolution, it helped.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:03 am

Yes, lowering res seems to be an obvious solution, doesn't it. Yet, I used 1024x768 for a few hours and experienced crashes just the same. Actually, visually I don't see much difference (mediocre graphics), so I may as well use lower or higher than that with the same result. Not that my game experience is ruined by a few crashes (it's ruined by a disappointment -- combat sucks, the story so far sucks, alchemy sucks, music dull, dialogues are pathetic, item storage is ridiculous etc). I am bored to death. Just to think I was waiting for this game for so long.

The point is the game runs smoothly only on the high end systems. Enjoy, if you don't mind a mediocre RPG (still much better than NWN2).
I give the game 6-7 out of 10 because I am generous.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:25 pm

OK, I started a new gaming life with GeForce 8800. However, the game crashed again (with res 1024x768).

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:12 am

I know this sounds pretty stupid but what about trying to play the game without any patches?

The patches could have created more problems than solving them, I guess...

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:05 am

It is strange - I'm into Chapter IV now and still have only had 1 crash through my entire game time. The game has failed a couple of times when I close down, but ... well, heck - even Minesweeper does that from time to time.

It is interesting what is the smoking gun in this aspect