Gtx 970m (notebook card) will suffice?

[Notnilton]

Do you guys know if a notebook with a gtx 970m will be able to run it on ultra/high or a 980m will be required? Also does radeon has a comparable mobile gpu?

[XXIV]

Originally posted by HayvanSevici:

Originally posted by JCAP:

Want a necromancer cookie?

Dude, check the date. I based of off the first recommended specs that they announced.

sorry my bad

No problem. I'm sorry too, I was kinda aggressive there.

[πｮmrυﾔ]

Originally posted by Surprisingly Jingly Bells:

Originally posted by ksaf:

Do you guys know if a notebook with a gtx 970m will be able to run it on ultra/high or a 980m will be required? Also does radeon has a comparable mobile gpu?

At 1080p at high you'll have 50 fps on average.
I have 880M, which is few percentage lower than 970M.

actually 880m faster then 970m...

but ppl understand that some 880m and 870m are crap cause of throotle issiue and nvidia dont do anything about that so most of them editing drivers and vbios for fix that issue.. thats why some 880m cards giving perfect performance and others not

[Jack]

970m user here reporting smooth framerate with everything set to max at 1080p

Spec:

i7 4720
970m GTX 3GB DDR5
Samsung 850 Evo SSD
16GB DDR3 1600mhz



Perhaps the drivers have improved?

[iskrem]

Originally posted by HayvanSevici:

Originally posted by JCAP:

No. Using the last Reccomended specs as base, there's no notebook GPU that can run this game on ultra or high at 1080p 30 fps. Those specs were for high 1080p 30 fps.

They removed the specs so one can assume they are working to optimize it. So who knows?

wanna video ? 880m 8gb /16gb ram / 4810mq / ssd i get 35-45 high/ultra without hair (1080p)

Hey man, maybe you could help me out with my 880m, ive overclocked my gpu and cpu that did nothing :/ only at around 27-32 Fps on ultra/high and 36-40 on low... i know, terrible, but ive removed that APEX.dll file as well, did nothing, forced PhysX to use CPU, also nothing. Y PLS ;~; everything else i own runs gloriously

[Turtle]

Originally posted by JCAP:

No. Using the last Reccomended specs as base, there's no notebook GPU that can run this game on ultra or high at 1080p 30 fps. Those specs were for high 1080p 30 fps.

They removed the specs so one can assume they are working to optimize it. So who knows?

980M easily runs this at 1080p 60+ fps its pretty much the same as desktop 970

[XXIV]

Originally posted by Pikku Jänttikananen:

Originally posted by JCAP:

No. Using the last Reccomended specs as base, there's no notebook GPU that can run this game on ultra or high at 1080p 30 fps. Those specs were for high 1080p 30 fps.

They removed the specs so one can assume they are working to optimize it. So who knows?

980M easily runs this at 1080p 60+ fps its pretty much the same as desktop 970

This was based off the first reccommended system that they announced. Check the date.

[TalalTango]

I'm really surprised by most of the replies concerning the GTX970m.
I'm running the witcher 3 smoothly on 2048x1536p resolution, slightly overclocked by ASUS GPU TWEAK. I'm getting 35-40 frames captured by fraps, and that in a graphically busy place like Novigrad.
When I tone down to 1080p I get a minimum of 42 frames in busy place and a maximum that exceeds 50 frames in other locations. I would say that my average is between 45-47 which is absolutely more than acceptable to me.
Here are my setting:
Everything on Ultra except for Shadows,Visibility Range and number of background characters on High. Everything concerning hair is either low or off, I believe they're hungry gpu eaters and don't add much quality to the game when compared the amount of frames it eats.

[zacharyb]

Originally posted by BuzzardBee:

Originally posted by JCAP:

Also, directx 12 is coming this year with Windows 10. DirectX 12 supposedly has a crazy performance and completely owns DirectX 11. Nvidia is supporting the new directx, I don't know about AMD though... I would reccomend you sticking with Nvidia.

But TW3 does not support DX12 and will not.

His post was in February.

[iskrem]

Originally posted by TalalTango:

I'm really surprised by most of the replies concerning the GTX970m.
I'm running the witcher 3 smoothly on 2048x1536p resolution, slightly overclocked by ASUS GPU TWEAK. I'm getting 35-40 frames captured by fraps, and that in a graphically busy place like Novigrad.
When I tone down to 1080p I get a minimum of 42 frames in busy place and a maximum that exceeds 50 frames in other locations. I would say that my average is between 45-47 which is absolutely more than acceptable to me.
Here are my setting:
Everything on Ultra except for Shadows,Visibility Range and number of background characters on High. Everything concerning hair is either low or off, I believe they're hungry gpu eaters and don't add much quality to the game when compared the amount of frames it eats.

Thats insane, the 9xxM series cards are seeming to have a very long life span compared to the 7xx and 8xx performance wise. I'm sitting here like do i wanna drop textures, nah, do i wanna drop grass "but its pwetty" FINE ILL PLAY ULTRA WITH 25 FPS >:C (except medium shadows and high foliage distance) The thing is, for me, hair doesn't really affect my FPS as much as i think it should, like, on the high preset with hair AA on 4x I only lose about 4-6 FPS so that leaves me at 33-40 ish (I know i said 25 but that was to make you laugh :>) So im like, oh i can turn hair off and get this massive boost every one is talking about, So in novigrad I turned off hair, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand 36-42 FPS so like... lel *EDIT* everything set to high except shadows and foliage distance (Medium) when on roach in the wild im getting 30-35, if i do ultra w/out hair and high shadows and foliage distance i get 28-30

[trek554]

Originally posted by Jack:

970m user here reporting smooth framerate with everything set to max at 1080p

Spec:

i7 4720
970m GTX 3GB DDR5
Samsung 850 Evo SSD
16GB DDR3 1600mhz



Perhaps the drivers have improved?

lol with "everything set to max" you would not even get 30 fps on a 970m.

[Myrrdinn]

Im running a R9 m290x just fine at 1080 and easily at 30fps so not sure where the heck your getting your info but your seriously wrong.

[trek554]

Originally posted by Myrrdinn:

Im running a R9 m290x just fine at 1080 and easily at 30fps so not sure where the heck your getting your info but your seriously wrong.

if you are talking to me then you might want to get your facts straight. a 970m is a little slower than desktop 960 in Witcher 3 and reviews show the 960 getting in the mid 30s on Ultra without hairworks. so no way in hell a 970m with Ultra and full hairworks would be be able to average more than 30 fps if that.


EDIT: just in case you still want to argue then here is a 970m getting 26 fps on Ultra settings at 1920x1080. funny how that is right in line with what I originally said about not getting 30 fps.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-970M.126694.0.html

[iskrem]

Originally posted by trek554:

Originally posted by Myrrdinn:

Im running a R9 m290x just fine at 1080 and easily at 30fps so not sure where the heck your getting your info but your seriously wrong.

if you are talking to me then you might want to get your facts straight. a 970m is a little slower than desktop 960 in Witcher 3 and reviews show the 960 getting in the mid 30s on Ultra without hairworks. so no way in hell a 970m with Ultra and full hairworks would be be able to average more than 30 fps if that.


EDIT: just in case you still want to argue then here is a 970m getting 26 fps on Ultra settings at 1920x1080. funny how that is right in line with what I originally said about not getting 30 fps.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-970M.126694.0.html

trek554, I am assuming that on ultra that is with hair ON? MMmmm? yeah ok, Ive seen the 970m work wonders so uh, here > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vFqIDelZbU this is with hairworks ON and he gets 25 - 40 FPS, he brings up a counter later on in the video

[trek554]

Originally posted by Gitittle:

Originally posted by trek554:

if you are talking to me then you might want to get your facts straight. a 970m is a little slower than desktop 960 in Witcher 3 and reviews show the 960 getting in the mid 30s on Ultra without hairworks. so no way in hell a 970m with Ultra and full hairworks would be be able to average more than 30 fps if that.


EDIT: just in case you still want to argue then here is a 970m getting 26 fps on Ultra settings at 1920x1080. funny how that is right in line with what I originally said about not getting 30 fps.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-970M.126694.0.html

trek554, I am assuming that on ultra that is with hair ON? MMmmm? yeah ok, Ive seen the 970m work wonders so uh, here > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vFqIDelZbU thsi is with hairworks on and he gets 25 - 40 FPS, he brings up a counter later on in the video

and his overall average seems to be about 30-31 there at best. and did he show his actual settings being maxed including hairworks?

Ultra settings dont put the hairworks options on full max.

[iskrem]

Originally posted by trek554:

Originally posted by Gitittle:

trek554, I am assuming that on ultra that is with hair ON? MMmmm? yeah ok, Ive seen the 970m work wonders so uh, here > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vFqIDelZbU thsi is with hairworks on and he gets 25 - 40 FPS, he brings up a counter later on in the video

and his overall average seems to be about 30-31 there at best. and did he show his actual settings being maxed including hairworks?

Ultra settings dont put the hairworks options on full max.

yes he shows his settings lol k he didn't drop to 29 till he got on roach, may i repeat this is with hairworks ON? This is before there was an option to drop the AA from 8 in game soooooo yeah kthx as you can see in description patch 1.04 and the game has only gotten better performance wise