The Witcher 2 Graphics Comparison: Minimum vs. Maximum Settings

There is an interactive graphics comparison of the just released The Witcher 2. Jump over to check the differences.

Read Full Story >>
RedDead4512d ago

What the fujk? Minimum is much better looking than I though it would be

midgard2274512d ago

hope i can run it at max though, wonder if a geforce gtx 260m is good enoough, meh probably mediuem high

nveenio4511d ago

It looks like the biggest difference is texture quality. So it will really depend on vram, probably.

RankFTW4511d ago

That card should run it at max no problem.

I'm gonna pick up a GTX 560 in a couple of weeks and will purchase The Witcher 2 then.

Phaqutomb4511d ago

you can goto canyourunit.com to see if your video card will handle it

Scrotie_McBoogerball4511d ago (Edited 4511d ago )

I'm going to run it once it's installed. Not long now. At the guys above, the 260m should handle it in lower to medium settings smoothly enough, although it's a pretty week card today, especially for dx11.

My 1100T and my new ASUS 6970 Direct CU2 should handle it all maxed out just fine :-)

Check my bio for my specs.

ravinash4511d ago

I wish they didn't use rude pic in these things.
Bit hard to explain when they pop up on my screen at work, even if I am on my lunch break.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4511d ago
Kalowest4512d ago

The game look wonderful even on low settings. They did a really good job make this game, and optimizing the engine.

JsonHenry4511d ago (Edited 4511d ago )

Game looks good even on minimum. Better than console capabilities even. With uberaliasing on this game looks superb for a DX9 game.

Without uber on and everything else set to ultra I get around 40-60fps. WITH uber on I get about 15-25.

Radeon 5870, 8gigs DDR3 1600, and Phenom quad @ 3.6ghz.

bubblebobble4511d ago

best getting a new pc if u wont this one yours proberly getting a bit old now

Scrotie_McBoogerball4511d ago

Or you could do a little OC work and get better frames.

Invest 100 bucks in cooling and never look back lol.

gillri4512d ago (Edited 4512d ago )

shame to see boobs in such low-res, best reason to upgrade

xtremegamerage4512d ago

If one boob is not bigger then the other, they are fake.

Looks decent, min is lower textures and lower shader quality.

Darkfocus4512d ago

some people are born more symmetrical then others....your blanket statement is entirely false....

Miths4512d ago

I'm downloading the game from Steam now. I'm also looking forward to seeing how my aging GTX 260 (and a quad core CPU) will cope - based on posts on the Steam forum it sounds a bit like the maximum settings are intended for future hardware, a bit like the case was with the original Crysis.

Medium settings and no AA is the very best I'm currently hoping for, certainly if I plan to run at the native 1920x1200 resolution of my monitor, and that's one setting I always prefer not to lower.

Miths4512d ago

(Extremely minor game opening spoilers below)

I just started playing, somewhat optimistically going for medium settings at 1920x1200 plus a couple of minor increases in the advanced graphics settings (much of the advanced stuff - eg. light shafts and various depth of field and blur effects - is simply flat out disabled). ~20-35 fps, mid 20s most of the time in the three different locales I've seen in the early minutes of the game.

Time to try lower settings, and perhaps even attempt a resolution change despite the slightly fuzzy image quality that usually brings with it.

It does look like a rather pretty game even at those medium settings - I hope that still goes for a lower compromise.

saladthieves4511d ago

I too have a GTX 260 with a Q8400 Intel cpu. I wonder how this game will run at say 1920x1080?

Miths4511d ago

I've played for four hours now and I've settled for lowering the resolution to 1680x1050. The graphics settings I'm running is medium with a few tweaks towards high.
My framerate is in the 30s most of the time, going up to ~40-50 now and then. Not a completely smooth experience, but perfectly playable without giving me headaches and nausea (which I tend to get with PC games that frequently dip below 30 fps).

I've also tried a 1280x800 resolution, which allows for significantly higher graphics settings at around 40-55 fps most of the time, but I don't really feel the added effects and details from the graphics settings make up for much fuzzier image I get with such a low resolution on a 1920x1200 monitor.
I wanted to try 1440x900 but it's not showing up as an option for me for some reason.

lucifon4511d ago

Make sure you turn off Ubersampling. I also recommend getting the latest Nvidia Beta Drivers, they seemed to have helped alot! Also everyone's saying to make 100% sure you have the "3D Vision" drivers uninstalled, apparently it can half your fps - seems to be a bug.

I'm running on a GTX275 with a quad core i5 and it works great on High. Your machine should be able to handle it, it's just from looking at the forums there's performance issues with the game.

xtremegamerage4512d ago

Actually dark, some people are more symmetrical, but either for women, one is slightly bigger or smaller then the other and in men, one hangs lower then the other:)

Just life.