OS X witcher 3 on low specced machines

[garnerx]

They just released an update which resets any changes you might have made to the .ini file. I only noticed because the framerate looked much worse, I checked and it had reset hairworks to 8x AA.

No wonder people prefer to play on consoles. It's a constant battle.

 

[Renzatic]

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.

 

[GoldfishRT]

This game is perhaps the only thing that is really compelling me to upgrade but I wont if I don't have to.

I doubt it would run acceptably on my machine. (Low, 720p, 20+ fps at the least)

If anybody has a 6770m powered machine and wants to give it a shot I'd appreciate the info.

 

[antonis]

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.

Those system upgrades was the most frustrating thing especially in PS3 days, exactly as you described it. You buy a new shiny game, sit in front of the console and boom, a huge download system upgrade. After that, you try to install the new game, and boom #2, a huge game patch preventing you to play unless you install it first (but that's on PCs/Macs too).

I never understood why those PS3 system updates were always so big. Was it so difficult for Sony to make delta updates ?

 

[blesscheese]

Ok, I found out what their specs are, and I would say that they (based on my naive, ignorant, uninformed little opinion) fairly overstated what you need.

I'm running Witcher 3 on a 2009 Mac Pro, running Win7 Pro, with 32GB RAM, 8-cores Xeon processor -- but I don't think that really impacts the game that much...(they usually set the RAM requirements in the code, and anything above that doesn't really impact the game...and the processor doesn't seem to be as important as the GPU, in my experience).

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.

They say the min specs are:

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

Understand that mobile GPU's are really much less powerful than the real version, but if you already bought the game, go for it. If not...just wait a while for the price to come down, and give it a shot.

Thinking out loud...if I didn't have a decent GPU already, and I was going to buy one, I might consider getting a PS4...but being able to tweak more things, or access more mods really seems worth it to me.

 

[erayser]

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.

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.

 

[Washac]

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

 

[antonis]

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.

 

[Washac]

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 ?

 

[MichalM.Mac]

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?

 

[antonis]

Will I have to download it from their site, or will it be available via the Catalyst client ?

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. In that page, you'll find the latest official/stable release and a beta.

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?

There are methods described in this forum, including copy of some files from the supported drivers to the unsupported/newer ones before installing the latter. However, the results may vary from one GPU to the other.

 

[Washac]

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.

OK, thanks.

 

[blesscheese]

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.

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...

----------

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 )

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").

----------

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.

I know there was / is some controversy about the game being optimized for Nvidia cards and AMD not being happy about it.

Anyway, yeah, keep an eye out for graphics cards updates--my advice, after wasting 4 ***** hours yesterday after my Nvidia update borked my system: back up first, and then apply the update (and if you are happy with your graphics now, don't upgrade right away...).

 

[miscend]

The equivalent of the PS4 console version is more or less the 'low' default settings at 30 fps.

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

 

[Renzatic]

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").

I've noticed that antialiasing makes some things, especially distant objects, a little bit blurrier. It's subtle, but there is a difference.

AA On

AA Off

Hell, now that I'm seeing them side by side, AA doesn't really make a huge amount of difference in this game.

If you really want to keep things as sharp as possible, I'd turn it, motion blur (which gives you a fluid effect when you quickly turn the camera around), and...er...blur (which is mostly related to atmospherics) off. Strangely enough, I'd also suggest doing the same for sharpening, either setting it to low or off. Setting it above low makes things too noisy to me.

edit: and FOV/Distance blur. That'll make a HUGE difference.


----------

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, I saw a similar article a few days back. The PS4 version doesn't have quite as far a draw distance, and might not have crowd density set to ultra (which does make a HUGE amount of difference in cities), but other than that, they're near identical.

The biggest advantage the PC has here is framerate, but as far as looks go, they're both pretty evenly matched.

 

[Renzatic]

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.

Like this

And this

And this too.

And this is just a funny picture. Apparently I'm still 12.

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.

 

[blesscheese]

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.

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.

The bigger issue may be the frame rate differences between consoles as well as resolution (sounds like the PS4 may be winning that one).

And this is just a funny picture. Apparently I'm still 12.

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!

 

[erayser]

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...

I know what you mean. When I first fired up the game with default settings, it looked great and seemed playable. After I activated OSD (on screen display - like FRAP's), it was sub 30's. But this was because I play on 3 monitors NVidia Surround. On one monitor it's a lot better. I played for a while on one monitor, but I went back to 3 monitors.



If NVidia is favoring Maxwell architecture on upcoming AAA games as far as drivers, I'm updating my GPU's in a couple months. This is one reason why I build my computers... besides the enjoyment of building it.... updating components instead of buying a whole new system.

 

[Renzatic]

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."

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, when your choices were all the bells and whistles, or a blurry, chuggy mess. It's all about a gradient of finer details now. Shadows here, more grass there, some extra crispness overall. In the end, the game still looks about the same, high or low.

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[blesscheese]

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.

And more importantly, the game pretty much plays the same.

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.

Man, I do so much wandering around in games and exploring, it's like my character has ADHD. (Squirrel!).

Again, another Skyrim story...I kept on getting my butt kicked in Potema's tomb (Lydia was probably my problem, and that darn but cute dog, Vigilence). I was level 23 or so, and wanted to know, "How am I supposed to deal with the 8 or so Draugr's the 5 or so Draugr Scourges, and the 2 or 3 Draugr Death Lords...so I go to the inter webs, and somebody has a YouTube video on how they cleared Potema's tomb. So I go watch it...no joke, the guy was Level 10, and because Skyrim was leveled, he had maybe 2 Draugr Scourges max, no Death Lords, the rest just plain Draugr's...

Anyway, yeah, if you rushed through that game (and others) you definitely didn't get the same experience, game-wise, that you did if you took your time and explored more.

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.

I'm assuming you played the first Witcher? That was pretty funny, collecting the cards...I haven't played gwent yet, not sure I will...I actually really liked the dice game.

 

[antonis]

Graphic smoothness seems to be very important if you play the game on higher difficulty levels. If the fps is not steadily above 30s (at least), the animations during combat are not always that fluid (depends highly from the surrounding scenery of course), and this leads to deaths, as the mobs can kill you with a few hits that you could otherwise succeed to avoid/roll.

 

[imacken]

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?

 

[antonis]

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?

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).

 

[imacken]

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.

 

[antonis]

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.

Ops, I missed that sorry. Yes, with these settings and resolution having 2 fps is weird. On the other hand, considering how they left owners of nVidia 7xx series out in the cold at the beginning, makes me think that maybe the game favors only a bunch of specific gpus.

The file you're probably looking for is inside your user's "Documents\The Witcher 3" folder, and it has the filename user.settings.

However, make sure that you keep a backup of the original and the modified one. The former because you might break something. The latter because game patches seem to reset the file.