How accurate are recommended specs

[Trotwood]

(Apologies for re-post, originally placed this in twwh1)

Sort of a pre-newb question. I'm laptop shopping and was wondering how spot-on the recommended specs were for being able to play the game on high/ultra.

I saw a decent (seeming) laptop with a gtx1050ti 4gig card, and an i7 7700 processor.

According to benchmark and a few other sites those two pieces of hardware seem to fall well over the recommended specs, but I admit to having fallen several years out of the loop in regards to technology and adequate comparisons.

Thanks in advance for any Insight and I apologize if this isn't the best forum for the question.

[reprodukTOOOOOOOOOOOR]

I have 1060 6gb with i7 7700hq, its good with medium-high settings 20 vs 20
Ultra units battles, but fights in snowy maps are laggy as hell...

[XXXThe69God]

I have a 1050ti 4GB and a somewhat crappy AMD A10 9700 and still manage ultra to high settings at 60fps so I imagine you should get at least 50-60fps with everything on ultra or at least high

[Decomposed]

It sounds ok, but go for a gaming desktop PC if you can afford it. They are way better than the gaming laptops even if they include the same hardware.

[Trotwood]

Thanks for all the answers! I appreciate it.

[XXXThe69God]

No problem broski hope it helped

[TheAlmightyProo]

How accurate...?

Hmmm, I'd say not very tbh... there's been a lot of posts and threads both here, in more official forums and elsewhere expressing disappointment at the requirements and optimisation or lack of.

However, in response to this and your earlier question, here's my tuppence...

I have run both Warhammer TW's on my laptop (i7 4720HQ, GTX 970m 3Gb, 16 Gb 1600MHz DDR3 RAM, 1080p) and get, best tweak of settings for quality/fps:

45 fps ultra or 56 fps high in Warhammer 1
45 fps medium in Warhammer 2 (yes, it really is that much difference, a full 34% deficit at same settings on my higher specced desktop too)

Those scores are averages with the relevant preset but with units on ultra for all, from the battle benchmark. Testing in game show that they hold up well in 20 vs 20 battles, with reasonable drops (but greater in WH2) on zooming in and massive concentrated effects and, of course, plunging when attempting larger battles. The campaign map fps holds up well but is pretty irrelevant imo... way worse battle fps would be way more unacceptable after all.

With the prospective specs you posted, and a quick search of benchmarks... the 1050ti trades blows with my GPU and the CPU has an 8% performance advantage over mine. I reckon you could manage what I run at plus maybe 5-10 fps on top.
Eminently doable, playable and not too shabby tbh.

One thing I would reccommend is that you give the HDD this laptop most likely comes with the heave ho and invest in an SSD for game storage. The likely m.2 with the OS on probably won't have room for much in the way of games that need it (I finally did this for my aging laptop after 18 months and it made a lot of difference) Imo and that of others, an SSD is a must have for this game and great for any other AAA game too, it'll save you a lot of waiting time in the long run.

[XXXThe69God]

You should play at large units sizes not ultra if you have it at ultra that can easily be 2000 more models in a battle at one time

[TheAlmightyProo]

Originally posted by TheRogueBadger:

You should play at large units sizes not ultra if you have it at ultra that can easily be 2000 more models in a battle at one time

True, though I found large unit size wasn't prohibitively draining to the fps in either game and certainly not compared to SSAO, AA and shadows for the second game (maybe a 5 fps difference on average between large/ultra unit sizes, cutting SSAO gave me more)
And yeah, I like the vast hordes more... I could never have them in TT without remortgaging the house for it.

Either way though, the game does still look good on less than ultra settings and 45 fps down to 30-ish in drops (for 20 vs 20 battles) isn't bad... after all it's an RTS/TBS hybrid... lower than 60+ fps would be a different story in a shooter etc.
I had more issues with the bugs and game not working at all for months tbh.

[Myrmidon]

Bare in mind with a game like Total War your FPS will vary considerable depending on how far zoomed in on the action you are and just how many units are actually on the field.

[Trotwood]

Originally posted by TheAlmightyProo:

How accurate...?

Hmmm, I'd say not very tbh... there's been a lot of posts and threads both here, in more official forums and elsewhere expressing disappointment at the requirements and optimisation or lack of.

However, in response to this and your earlier question, here's my tuppence...

I have run both Warhammer TW's on my laptop (i7 4720HQ, GTX 970m 3Gb, 16 Gb 1600MHz DDR3 RAM, 1080p) and get, best tweak of settings for quality/fps:

45 fps ultra or 56 fps high in Warhammer 1
45 fps medium in Warhammer 2 (yes, it really is that much difference, a full 34% deficit at same settings on my higher specced desktop too)

Those scores are averages with the relevant preset but with units on ultra for all, from the battle benchmark. Testing in game show that they hold up well in 20 vs 20 battles, with reasonable drops (but greater in WH2) on zooming in and massive concentrated effects and, of course, plunging when attempting larger battles. The campaign map fps holds up well but is pretty irrelevant imo... way worse battle fps would be way more unacceptable after all.

With the prospective specs you posted, and a quick search of benchmarks... the 1050ti trades blows with my GPU and the CPU has an 8% performance advantage over mine. I reckon you could manage what I run at plus maybe 5-10 fps on top.
Eminently doable, playable and not too shabby tbh.

One thing I would reccommend is that you give the HDD this laptop most likely comes with the heave ho and invest in an SSD for game storage. The likely m.2 with the OS on probably won't have room for much in the way of games that need it (I finally did this for my aging laptop after 18 months and it made a lot of difference) Imo and that of others, an SSD is a must have for this game and great for any other AAA game too, it'll save you a lot of waiting time in the long run.

Incredible post sir, great information. I believe it does in fact have ssd, so that along with your experience gives me hope. That plus the dream of further optimization from the devs. I had no idea there was that much a difference between the two games.

[Maschinengewehr]

Way off. So much so CA posted this BS cop out a while back:

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-warhammer-ii-system-specs

[Bustin' Cider]

theyre 1 million per cent accurate, i mean they didn't pull those nmbers from nowhere. Someone was paid a wage from the game budget to lst those requrements.

[TheAlmightyProo]

Originally posted by Maschinengewehr:

Way off. So much so CA posted this BS cop out a while back:

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-warhammer-ii-system-specs

Yep. I recall having my mind blown at the need for a whole 8 Gb current gen mid range GPU being needed (to hope) for 60 fps at 1080p. Honestly, I don't see the huge improvement over Warhammer 1 that would demand so much more.

Makes me wonder what the requirements (and excuse) might be for Warhammer 3.

[Bustin' Cider]

Originally posted by TheAlmightyProo:

Originally posted by Maschinengewehr:

Way off. So much so CA posted this BS cop out a while back:

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-warhammer-ii-system-specs

Yep. I recall having my mind blown at the need for a whole 8 Gb current gen mid range GPU being needed (to hope) for 60 fps at 1080p. Honestly, I don't see the huge improvement over Warhammer 1 that would demand so much more.

Makes me wonder what the requirements (and excuse) might be for Warhammer 3.

Originally posted by TheAlmightyProo:

Originally posted by Maschinengewehr:

Way off. So much so CA posted this BS cop out a while back:

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-warhammer-ii-system-specs

Yep. I recall having my mind blown at the need for a whole 8 Gb current gen mid range GPU being needed (to hope) for 60 fps at 1080p. Honestly, I don't see the huge improvement over Warhammer 1 that would demand so much more.

Makes me wonder what the requirements (and excuse) might be for Warhammer 3.

Bcause the guy cant say the same thing he said last year, tech moves forwward dummy, so pr guy has to say you need more.

[TheAlmightyProo]

Originally posted by Sarah Lynn has no backbone:

Originally posted by TheAlmightyProo:

Yep. I recall having my mind blown at the need for a whole 8 Gb current gen mid range GPU being needed (to hope) for 60 fps at 1080p. Honestly, I don't see the huge improvement over Warhammer 1 that would demand so much more.

Makes me wonder what the requirements (and excuse) might be for Warhammer 3.

Originally posted by TheAlmightyProo:

Yep. I recall having my mind blown at the need for a whole 8 Gb current gen mid range GPU being needed (to hope) for 60 fps at 1080p. Honestly, I don't see the huge improvement over Warhammer 1 that would demand so much more.

Makes me wonder what the requirements (and excuse) might be for Warhammer 3.

Bcause the guy cant say the same thing he said last year, tech moves forwward dummy, so pr guy has to say you need more.

Ah indeed, you may be right...

But there is no way Warhammer 2 is visually or mechanics wise improved to the point of requiring a 34% deficit over its predecessor, same PC, same settings. Not even with Mortal Empires.

By trying to give us more, overegging the cake mix as it were, CA actually shot themselves in the foot... when sticking to whatever made Warhammer 1 so smooth would've more than sufficed.