The Witcher 3 specs call for 6GB of RAM, quad-core CPUs

Add another game to the growing list of titles with steep RAM requirements. Like Watch Dogs, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, and Assassin's Creed Unity, CD Projekt's upcoming The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt calls for at least 6GB of RAM. 8GB is recommended for those who want the best experience.

Here are the rest of the hardware requirements, which are reasonably steep all around.

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)

DirectX 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)

DirectX 11

HDD Space 40 GB

The baseline CPUs have quad cores clocked at 3GHz or higher, while the recommended ones double the thread count—and kick the frequency up to 4GHz on the AMD side. On the GPU front, the minimum GPU specs call for $230-300 cards from just a few years ago. You'll need to spend at least $270 on a graphics card today to meet the recommended threshold.

Somewhat surprisingly, the storage requirements are just 40GB, which is barely more than Titanfall's audio payload. That's still a fair amount of storage, but it's not the 50GB+ footprint of some newer games.

While steeper specs might be a downer for folks with older rigs, it's encouraging to see developers taking advantage of potent PCs. The 37-minute gameplay video released in August suggests The Witcher 3 will put that horsepower to good use. The game is scheduled for release in May, leaving plenty of time to upgrade.

Comments closed
    • hasseb64
    • 5 years ago

    NP! Have 8GB since 2011, SB 2500K running fine too @ 4,3.
    Just need a new GPU + a high res screen.

    • dashbarron
    • 5 years ago

    I’m happy we’re seeing more games take an aggressive stance on using 64-bit resources.

    The reign of 32-bit has lasted far too long. Microsoft should have cut people off with Vista.

    • llisandro
    • 5 years ago

    Perfect timing- this happened to my GTX 570 yesterday: Forgot to reconnect fan after cleaning before installing in a new machine. Was updating drivers, heard a thunk, smelled solder. Heatsink fell off. Card was just idling at desktop, but man was it hot. Yup, I’m an idiot. This is shameful, but the pic was too crazy not to share. Moral of the story- don’t break for dinner halfway through cleaning your $$$ GPU πŸ™

    [url<]http://tinypic.com/r/hwlegx/8[/url<] [url<]http://tinypic.com/r/mm4yo7/8[/url<]

    • moose17145
    • 5 years ago

    Dang… Makes me wonder how my i7-920 would handle this then… those are some rather high CPU requirements….

    I have the chip OCed to 3.2GHz… and it tends to run at 3.33GHz most of the time because of it’s little turbo-boost trickery… but still… those are steep CPU requirements…

    Might have to get the game just to see how my system handles it.

      • NovusBogus
      • 5 years ago

      Get it, you know you want to. The Witcher series is fantastic if you like your RPGs dark, debauched, and bloody as hell.

        • chΒ΅ck
        • 5 years ago

        I bought the first 2 and played the first one for about 30 min, but never got into it.
        Is it really worth the time?
        I enjoy games like dragon age and mass effect.

          • NovusBogus
          • 5 years ago

          Yeah, it gets better after a couple of hours. The first part of the game outside the big city is overly tedious–you’ve got no money, no potions, and most importantly no combat skills essential to not getting pwned–and the plot doesn’t really get going until you get into that city. You don’t want to try and speedrun it though, explore/interact with everything. The Witcher is all about choices and consequences, and a lot of the side quests come back to you later in unexpected ways. It’s not a good vs. evil type thing either so be prepared for some oh-god-what-have-I-done moments.

          Note that Witcher 2 uses very different game mechanics–fast agile combat, turn-based alchemy, and a bit of consoleitis–but the story is engaging and interactive and the action is brutally enjoyable. I strongly suggest playing #2 on easy difficulty unless you’re seriously pro at arena fighter games, otherwise you’ll get badly frustrated by every fight being near impossible. It also lets you de-emphasize the item grind in favor of enjoying the journey, which is the series’ main selling point.

          tl, dr: if George R. Martin and Freidrich Nietzche teamed up to make Baldur’s Gate 3, it would be this.

      • Dudeface
      • 5 years ago

      Well, based on the AMD CPU requirement, I wouldn’t be too worried. A bit of quick Googling tells me the Phenom II X4 940 was either line-ball or behind a i7-920 for games. I find my i7-930 @4.0Ghz is still plenty fast. Was going to upgrade the whole thing, but decided just upgrading to a GTX970 (from a Radeon 5870) was money far better spent!

        • moose17145
        • 5 years ago

        Yea I went back and looked at performance benchmarks again, and it looks like the 9xx series i7’s really weren’t even that far behind Sandy Bridge. And were essentially on par with Sandy in most games(within a couple percentage points either way).

        And I did the same thing. I upgraded to a r9 290 instead of rebuilding the whole rig. Seemed to be money far better spent and saved. Everyone talks about how Sandy has lasted so long, honestly I think the original core i7 9xx series has stayed just as relevant and has been out even longer. Truly I am amazed at ho long this machine has stayed relevant and able to play anything out there on maxed settings!

        Easily has been the best workhorse of a machine I have ever built! It runs multiple VMs pretty well too still!

    • stabgotham
    • 5 years ago

    So, my 2500K and GTX 560ti are no longer good enough. Ugh…there isn’t a really good upgrade path for the CPU though. Devil’s Canyon didn’t do enough.

      • ColeLT1
      • 5 years ago

      2500k is plenty good enough, especially if you overclock it. Clock for clock there is only a marginal clock for clock difference across sandy, ivy, and haswell, at the same clockspeed you are going to get the same fps. All you need is a GPU upgrade, even so, your 560ti would play the game at lower settings.

        • VincentHanna
        • 5 years ago

        That’s not 100% correct. Architecture changes do make a difference. They aren’t just die shrinks, they (intel) have increased calcs per cycle significantly and devoted die space to low-level operations since 2500k. They have also improved things like the lower level cashe, so newer definitely makes a difference(not to mention chipsets, cough, cough).

        In a sense, it’s kind of like talking about how many Megapixels a camera has. Yeah, clock speed matters, but so does the chip design, and so does the way that chip is supported. Thats why they have a tick tock cadence in the first place.

          • Chrispy_
          • 5 years ago

          The IPC (calcs per cycle) improvements of Intel architectures have very little impact on games. They’re aimed at more specific instructions and game engines tend to use very generic functions in processors (for maximum performance consistency and compatibility).

          If you look at Ivy reviews where they compare the IPC improvements over Sandy, games see almost no gain.
          If you look at Haswell reviews where they compare the IPC improvements over Ivy, games see almost no gain.

          Comparing a 4770K (Haswell) to a 2600K (Sandy) in Civ5 (one of the most CPU-intensive games on the market), the 4770K is 4% faster.

          The 4770K is also clocked at 3.5GHz, which is 3% faster than the 2600K, so the actual IPC gain across three generations in this highly CPU-intensive game is <1%

          • ColeLT1
          • 5 years ago

          I agree with you, there are cache improvements, core optimizations, more power gating, dedicated encoders and decoders added over these generations. For gaming, which is what we are talking about, the fps/frame time change will be marginal at best, if any… at the same clock for each chip from sandy to haswell.

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      Running my 2500k at 4.5GHz, not worried. That GPU spec though!

        • stabgotham
        • 5 years ago

        Yeah, mine is OC’d to 4.7, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen my current rig explicitly stated to be out-speced (GPU) or minimum-speced (CPU).

      • oldog
      • 5 years ago

      Vae victis!

      • NovusBogus
      • 5 years ago

      CPU requirement is probably crap–2500k is just a little bit behind Ivy/Haswell and there’s no way this thing is leveraging 8 threads without bottlenecking four cores–especially considering the AMD alternative is a simple 940. This sounds like a case of “eh, it worked on our AMD chip…list an Intel one with similar speed and call it a day”. Seriously, if it was going to actually require all that they’d have listed a six-core Intel chip since that’s what you would actually need.

      GPU on the other hand is pretty believable–CDPR likes to crank up the visuals.

    • torquer
    • 5 years ago

    Will Ngreedia allow it to run on my GTS 450?

      • Concupiscence
      • 5 years ago

      Yes, at three frames per second because they have conspired with every game developer around the world to make people with four year old midrange graphics cards feel bad about themselves.

      • deruberhanyok
      • 5 years ago

      ngreedia? is that a thing now?

        • thor84no
        • 5 years ago

        Of course it is. It’s so terribly clever…

        • rahulahl
        • 5 years ago

        It only makes sense if you know what its referencing to.
        In this case, it was S.T.A.L.K.E.R who spammed the article comments with posts about Ngreedia and his GTS 450 conspiracy.

    • Billstevens
    • 5 years ago

    To be fair the Witcher 2 was the game that made me upgrade my last rig from 4 gigs to 8 gigs of ram. I wasn’t able to alt-tab out of the Witcher 2 without major lag at 4 gigs. 8 gigs has been a minimum for multitasking for awhile given that most apps are happy to fill up a 32 bit address space.

    I am still tripped out that most games recommend an i7 when all testing points to the fact that an equivalent i5 has barely any performance difference. I feel like this is just a marketing push from Intel to encourage people to spring for the high end chip.

    • albundy
    • 5 years ago

    40GB install? and here i thought far cry 4 was huge at 30GB!

      • ClickClick5
      • 5 years ago

      GTA 5 for PC is a mind blowing 65GB.
      I think this is the new record setter.

        • moose17145
        • 5 years ago

        Im betting Star Citizen will be over 100GB when it’s done.

          • Farting Bob
          • 5 years ago

          But it wont be done for years, so 100GB will probably be large but not unimaginable.

          • ferdinandh
          • 5 years ago

          Why? I know GTA5 will be bloated because of all the audio and maybe stupid movies that could have been done ingame. But I thought Star Citizen will be a game. So no movies only gameplay and I am guessing it won’t have a lot of dialog or music.

            • moose17145
            • 5 years ago

            From what it is looking like the game world is supposed to be enormous, and the textures are all supposed to be native 4k. So that is going to take up a lot of space right there.

            Roberts has been pretty blunt that he wants a game that will take full advantage of all the capabilities of the PC as a gaming platform and that they will not release the game on consoles if they have to dumb the game down or cut out content in any way. Heck just the arena commander and hangar module alone are already over 20GB…

    • Orb
    • 5 years ago

    Damn those recommended specs. My PS4 will do just fine though πŸ˜‰

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 5 years ago

    Waiting for the inevitable “Enhanced Edition” that fixes all the bugs and balance issues that the game ships with.

      • Billstevens
      • 5 years ago

      There will certainly be bugs but I expect a better release than Dragon Age 3. This developer has more control over their release dates so their QA standards are higher than most. The recent delay is another good sign of this fact.

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 5 years ago

        Still, knowing that they tend to release Enhanced Editions makes me reluctant to dive in early. Doubt I’ll be ready for it anyway – working my way through Witcher 2 now, and I only got it because it was $5.

      • Meadows
      • 5 years ago

      Don’t dismiss those folks, at least they’re not like Ubisoft in the sense that their games work.

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 5 years ago

        I don’t, just saying, you know the Enhanced, GOTY edition is coming. There’s plenty of other stuff to play over the next year while this gets better AND cheaper. Insert this comment for basically any new release.

      • wierdo
      • 5 years ago

      It doesn’t look like a shoddy port so far, I doubt it’ll be an “Ubisoft” quality product. But we’ll see soon.

    • yokem55
    • 5 years ago

    What are the odds this will work with a 2gb 560 Ti? How about I just tell my wifte that it won’t and an 8GB 970 will be the bare minimum for this….

      • jessterman21
      • 5 years ago

      GTX 770 is recommended, so 2GB should do it for 1080p and High Textures. Just be ready to turn tessellation off and shadows down.

        • James296
        • 5 years ago

        fine with me, I usually have tessellation turned off anyways. I just don’t see the payoff vs. the performance hit you take and some games it quite a big hit for very little payoff.

          • jessterman21
          • 5 years ago

          Agree 100%

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 5 years ago

    Kinda glad I upgraded my DDR3 back when it was cheap a couple years ago.

    • ClickClick5
    • 5 years ago

    GTA 5 Specs are now out:

    [url<]http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/52374/gtav-pc-new-release-date-first-screens-and-system-specs[/url<]

      • Prestige Worldwide
      • 5 years ago

      And release date is pushed back by 2 months.

      Judging by the screenshots, it will be worth the wait.

    • Prestige Worldwide
    • 5 years ago

    I got time fo’ dat.

    • deruberhanyok
    • 5 years ago

    budget gamers, please keep this quad-core thing in mind when you consider the Pentium G3258 as a processor option.

    I’ve seen Dragon Age: Origins refuse to start on some dual-core processors (X2 6400+), and it’s just a matter of time until more developers are requiring quad cores like this.

    • Kretschmer
    • 5 years ago

    Man, that’s a lot of SSD space. Is this a poorly-optimized outlier, or should upgrade my 256GB SSD in 2015?

      • DancinJack
      • 5 years ago

      Why do you need it on a SSD?

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 5 years ago

        Maybe he likes really short load times.

          • Meadows
          • 5 years ago

          Something like 8 seconds instead of 20?
          Big deal. Why bother?

            • southrncomfortjm
            • 5 years ago

            Because fast. That’s why.

            Why sit around with a bottleneck like that if you got the cash? I wouldn’t sacrifice a better graphics card you want for an SSD, but if you can get the card you want, and the SSD, wtf not? And seriously, good 256GB drives are really cheap today, it can fit in any decent gaming PC budget.

            I’ve been using an SSD for gaming for 2 years and its been great. I went back to play my Xbox 360 for a bit since I had an itch for NCAA football and the loading times drove me nuts. Yes, optical media is way slower, so its not an apples to apples comparison, but I’d still rather spend the money to NOT wait than save the money and wait more than twice as long as I have to.

            • ferdinandh
            • 5 years ago

            1fps is enough for everybody

      • [+Duracell-]
      • 5 years ago

      It could be that there are actually 40GB+ of maps, models, code, sound, etc, instead of a poorly-optimized outlier (looking at you, COD:AW).

      • The Egg
      • 5 years ago

      Unless you’ve got lots of money or only a few games, I wouldn’t use an SSD for game storage. Better level load times doesn’t justify the cost, especially if you’ve got a 500GB+ library.

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 5 years ago

        Who has 500GB of games installed at one time… oh wait I do. All on SSD. You mean I’m doing this wrong?

          • The Egg
          • 5 years ago

          If you’ve got the money, more power to ya. I can think of better ways to spend $400+ than on a 1TB SSD to shave a few seconds off level load time, but that’s just me.

            • DancinJack
            • 5 years ago

            it’s not just you.

            • sweatshopking
            • 5 years ago

            I’m with you too.

            • southrncomfortjm
            • 5 years ago

            Who said anything about a 1TB drive? 256GB drives are fine for most people and those are far south of $400. Even a good 500GB drive is running sub $230 these days.

          • thor84no
          • 5 years ago

          Well, I certainly couldn’t keep my library on an SSD, it would cost way too much. I do keep some games on one, a few hundred GB, but the main bulk of Steam/GoG games takes up ~4 TB on my HDDs. No chance I’m going to buy enough SSDs to cover that, especially considering the rate of growth with these huge new games.

            • VincentHanna
            • 5 years ago

            Yeah, that’s really the kicker aint it. SSDs are finally almost cheap enough to justify for gaming storage, so of course they had to up the size of these new games to 50GB.+

            I’m all for more complex/detailed textures and maps, but most of the time its just the same 10gb of games with 45gb of uncompressed audio to piss off pirates. Not stop them mind you, just piss them off. Meanwhile digital distribution is also their big idea for legit sales, so there you go.

            • Delphis
            • 5 years ago

            I found that having a RAID6 server (Linux) accessible via a network share with a few spinning disks gets me the faster load times than a single regular hard drive within the gaming PC (Windows 7) itself.

            Just set Steam to install to the network drive and it’s done.

            Bonus thing is I can share the fileserver with my son’s gaming PC so games only have to download once – if we both own the same ones.

            Having a around 5TB of free space currently on the 9TB RAID makes it very useful for these large games.

          • Klimax
          • 5 years ago

          Got over 3TB. Don’t like hunting for CDs/DVDs nor redownloading. Use for this task 4TB WD Black (with ~150MB sequential read/write; good enough even for massive games, when half of those files will be cached by Windows in 16GN RAM anyway)

      • nafhan
      • 5 years ago

      GTA V needs 60GB+

      These newer games apparently need a ton of space. Get used to it πŸ™

      • ferdinandh
      • 5 years ago

      Or maybe games should offer cache folders that you can point to your ssd. A cache folder of 4GB should be sufficient to keep your game loading fast.

    • Shinare
    • 5 years ago

    “while the recommended ones double the thread count”

    I also recommend this when shopping for sheets.

    • The Egg
    • 5 years ago

    The RAM is really a non-issue. It can be easily added, and anyone with the rest of the system is gonna have 8GB already. The 2500k requirement is much more interesting. It doesn’t bother me at all if they actually make full use of it, but then they go and mention a Phenom II 940 as if the two are equal. This tells me that their rating is off, and you could probably use a Lynnfield i5.

      • jessterman21
      • 5 years ago

      i5-750 will work fine, not to mention i3s…

        • MadManOriginal
        • 5 years ago

        Maybe not i3s if it needs 4 real cores. But if it does, it will be one of the first games to genuinely do so.

    • anotherengineer
    • 5 years ago

    I knew I should have grabbed 2 or 3 16GB dual channel kits when they were around $55 bucks.

    Doh

    *checks*
    [url<]http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231627[/url<] WTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edit - hmmmm so a graphics card with 8GB of ram, would basically mean $200 of the cards price would be just the ram. Double sigh.

    • dragosmp
    • 5 years ago

    The Witcher games always had high RAM requirements. Anyone remembers the /3GB switch for WinXP 32bit? The 1st Witcher would crash quite often without it

    My hope is they don’t just say “it should work with 6GB, we recommend 8, but you’d better have 16”

    • odizzido
    • 5 years ago

    six gigs is not steep in the least to me. TBH I think games should have been using six gigs six years ago. RAM is cheap compared to other system components and an easy way to improve almost everything.

    • Welch
    • 5 years ago

    Again like with the Evolve post… 8gb of RAM isn’t insane or out of the ordinary, so 6gb is a very reasonable minimum.

    What is somewhat on the higher side is the minimum and recommended CPU. Its insane to think my i5-2500k is considered “minimum”.

    I dont think its the game developer finally taking advantage of those of us with “higher end systems” so much as I think its either terrible optimization being overcompensated with more hardware…. or a publisher posting higher reqs in hopes people will upgrade their systems to experience the game at more than 15-20 fps and complain about it.

      • auxy
      • 5 years ago

      Not particularly well said, but I agree.

      • thor84no
      • 5 years ago

      Could just be me, but other than the i7 requirement I wouldn’t consider it high end at all. Not with less than 16GB of RAM and a GPU two generations old. The fact of the matter is I wouldn’t consider my own PC high end as I’ve only upgraded the GPU in the last couple of years and it should be well above the recommended spec in everything but CPU which is an i5.

      • MrDweezil
      • 5 years ago

      Its odd to see them call out a specific k-model cpu isn’t it? Is the implication that you need to OC it?

    • Ninjitsu
    • 5 years ago

    A Phenom II x4 isn’t in the same class as a Sandy Bridge Core i5…

    …otherwise I think making a 4 year old CPU the minimum spec isn’t too bad.

      • TwistedKestrel
      • 5 years ago

      That mismatch alone makes me call bullshit on the CPU requirements

        • ColeLT1
        • 5 years ago

        Agreed, if a 3ghz Phenom II can run it, then a 3ghz C2Q can run it too, or any i5 (besides some mobile dualies).

      • iam2thecrowe
      • 5 years ago

      If it can run on a phenom x4 then it can run on an intel i3

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    So, looking at the recommended specs one would think this game can utilize more than 4 threads, right? I mean, otherwise a Core i5 or an FX-4350 would do just fine. Or is this another case of simply listing the fastest AMD chip? (And no, leave the factory OC’d 9590 out of this.)

      • auxy
      • 5 years ago

      Probably that.

      Notice the GPU requirements, too; they don’t really match up. It seems like the game was dev’d on NVIDIA+Intel hardware, and then they were like “uhh just put the fastest AMD hardware on there”, it’s slower, right?

      I’ll really be surprised if this game loads more than 3 threads and doesn’t run well on a Core i3.

        • Billstevens
        • 5 years ago

        Also the i5-2500k is notably slower than the last to gens of the i5 and i7. It seems to me to avoid confusion for intel recommend specs they simply default to the generation of chip they think will not bottle neck your performance and then simply recommend their i7 version of that generation. Every gaming company must do it since the i7 is almost always recommended…

        But really the recommended i7 is 2 generations out of date. An i5 or i7 from the last 2 generations will get better FPS than the commended. Unless they accomplished what no one else has and have actually made use of hyper threading in games…

        hyper-threading has its place but it is no substitute for cores. At least for most programs.

          • Billstevens
          • 5 years ago

          Every gen past the 2500k has been like what a 10% boost in overall thread performance. Its been something small and not too compelling. Definitely faster though.

          Other difference may include later gen chips have newer motherboards so they have the fastest PCI express slots. Newer chips draw less power. Overclocking is a bit worse on newer chips…

          Otherwise there really hasn’t been much improvement. 10% probably at most for gaming based on the graphs I’ve seen but most bench-marking sites take pretty crappy measurements so its hard to say.

          2500k and 2600k and beyond are really still top notch for gaming.

            • Airmantharp
            • 5 years ago

            When considering overclocking, which any evaluation of ‘K’-series CPUs would be without, Intel’s CPUs RAW performance in equivalent configurations has barely budged outside of non-gaming relevant cases, probably 10% from Sandy to Haswell, due to the decrease in average top stable overclocks each generation.

            Of course, that’s what makes the 4790k worth it’s price, as 4.4GHz is a given, which is otherwise a best-case for an average 4770k, and 4.4GHz puts the Devil’s Canyon CPU beyond that 10% mark.

            Still, though, we’re not talking about a lot of improvement, and a reasonably overclocked 2500k or better is still essentially ‘top of the line’.

    • Phishy714
    • 5 years ago

    Been waiting for this one for long time.
    GotY 2015

      • nico1982
      • 5 years ago

      I’d wait to actually play the game. This with any game. Got scorched plenty of times in the past πŸ™‚

        • Pez
        • 5 years ago

        This is CD Projekt Red though, not EA or Ubisoft πŸ™‚

        • ClickClick5
        • 5 years ago

        Like when Valve use to make games, they worked on day one. CDPR is the same in those regards!

          • Platedslicer
          • 5 years ago

          A track record of flawless releases doesn’t number among CDPR’s qualities. Both Witcher 1 and2 were [b<]far[/b<] from perfect at release, in terms of performance, bugs, content. What makes the company stand out is their continued support for their games.

      • Pez
      • 5 years ago

      Agreed, cannot wait for this!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This