If it’s not asking much, can a Blue Post by the love of Uther’s silver back hair give us the Minimum/Recommended System Requirements for this game? How on earth don’t you have that at the same time you allow people to buy the product, let alone almost 2 years and right before release?!
4 Likes
They’re here:
https://eu.battle.net/support/en/article/000191926
7 Likes
Ta’ hell?
Frist, thank you. Second, why is this not on Battle . net? o.O
Even thought I got my computer a few months ago I was still oddly worried.
1 Like
i wouldnt give a flying about the official specs, as the game is plagued with insane performance issues and stuttering, even on high end hardware.
wait for reviews, benchmarks or ppl posting their system and their performance after release. it might even change down the road, as they might have to fix it post release.
dont go out and buy any system based on the official specs. you could very well just go ahead and buy anything.
4 Likes
These will likely be fixed. Based on feedback performance has greatly improved in the last month alone.
One should buy a modern gaming system which by nature will already meet the recommended requirements. Reforged graphics are not that hard to run, just they will not run on a potato even if that potato has run classic WC3 flawlessly due to being vastly better than the old requirements.
Tight/extreme budget people should get a Ryzen 5 2600 and a last generation GPU such as a middle to high end GeForce 10 or RX 500 on some low end compatible motherboard. The 2600 might be available in the form of the 1600 AF (AF SKU only) for even better value (Zen price for Zen+ performance). The GPUs are last generation and so usually highly discounted and could potentially be brought used (if willing to take risk) for an even better deal. Memory wise 8 GB of DDR4 (2 x 4 GB) that matches the maximum memory speed of the AMD R5 2600 would work.
Low budget is Ryzen 5 3600 + GeForce 16 or RX 5000 with 16 GB of memory. This is all current generation hardware so should perform well. Most of the money should be spent towards GPU as that will likely bottleneck performance. Something like a GTX 1660 Super or RX 5000 equivalent is recommended. Memory is ideally 2 x 8 GB 3200 or 3600 Samsung B die, depending on availability and price with higher being better but not worth a large price increase.
More money just means better from the low budget. CPU can be upgraded to a 8 core 3700X. GPU could be upgraded to higher end RX 5000 or GeForce 20 (RTX) GPU. Memory is pretty much the same as it has the least price to performance impact beyond what was already recommended.
At the high budget end the Intel Core I9 9900K becomes an option for just best gaming performance. Otherwise 12 core Ryzen 9 3900X. Graphic wise one is pretty much forced to go RTX as there is no RX 5000 competitor in this range. Memory as above is still fine.
The money is not a concern tier… Intel I9 9900KS or Ryzen 9 3950X. RTX 2080 ti, possibly 2 with NVLINK. Memory pretty much the fastest and largest one can get.
1 Like
now the issue is:
generally speaking you should really buy a ryzen system right now - chances are u gonna add a radeon gpu to it.
now apparently amd cpus and/or radeon gpus have real issues with the game or rather the game having issues with the latter.
im running a threadripper 2920X @oc to 4,2 ghz allcore, 32gb of 3600 CL16 ram, a vega 56 @64 bios + OC, all water cooled with high speed nvme drives.
and wc3 reforged is unplayable for me. when i click the minimap the game hangs for roughly a second, scrolling the map produces frametimes equivalent of single digit fps numbers, even selecting a building freezes the game for a split second. its horrible.
in contrast the classic graphics spit out 300-500 fps.
alot of ppl have reported these kind of issues here and most are using a ryzen cpu. so its probably connected to ryzen rather than a radeon gpu.
all i can say is that the game with reforged graphics is unplayable on my rig and i would advise anyone against getting any amd hardware at all for wc3 reforged in the current state of the game. now does that make sense? of course not. its a ridiculous situation.
thats why i said i wouldnt buy hardware right now for reforged. the game is seriously borked for some hardware configurations. and just buying intel nvidia for reforged is kinda… yea. you really dont wanna do that if you care about anyhting else. also its not safe intel/nvidia is free of these kind of problems. its just that amd hardware seems to be involved in alot of cases.
and i also wouldnt bet on the “its gonna be fixed”. those issues exist since the beta started, and they didnt fix it until today. so yea, what are the chances of this getting completely fixed from the latest beta build to the release version only 2 weeks after?
2 Likes
yep game isnt really optimized at all even though latest patch made it somewhat “better” its still in a horrible state.
dont even bother playing reforged graphics, just stick to classic look at the moment.
Oh my gosh intel i5… It has passmark of 8000 score.
My cpu only scores 4000 but can run sc2 with 15fps maxium craphics and 200 units on screen.
DSG and his golden mouth! He knows stuff!
I have a PC that is several years old.
I checked the system requirements, and all seem to be good, except I’m not sure about the video/graphics.
I have a “Intel HD Graphics 4600” and not sure how that relates to what the game lists as its minimum/recommended requirements.
any help/advice is appreciated.
I have Ryzen 5 2600 and 1050Ti. Playing 1080p.
I get 50-60fps, and in 3vs3 or 4vs4 combats it drops down to 35-40fps, sometimes also 27-30 (when the screen is overwhelmed of units and/or buildings).
For this game, you really need a dedicated GPU. If you have an old PC (how old) and a bad PSU, I would go for a GTX 1650S.
NVidia is very competitive still. They price cut to match performance and offer features AMD does not have. If one wants to stream or video capture they would be mad to go with AMD over the NVENC on GeForce 16 and 20 GPUs.
Try limiting Warcraft III to running on a single core cluster chiplet. It could be trying to multi task too much, like Total War Warhammer is notorious for.
A lot of that is cache which can safely be written out to the page file. Diablo III does this as well, with people reporting memory usage at 7GB after long sessions.
Expect classic graphics only, which should perform well. If it can select Reforged graphics then it will have either low frame rates, or have to run at low settings. If it can select classic graphics may be dependent on how much video memory it can allocate from main memory.
Older integrated graphics are not something I would recommend for Reforged graphics. Only recently has Intel started to up their integrated graphics game and only on the new laptop CPUs.
Super?
i tried setting affinity in task manager to all physical cores in CCD 1 - i can still try physical and logical in ccx1, but CCD1 didnt make any difference. soooo, i dont have high hopes.
I think these requirements are made around campaign gameplay and light multiplayer meaning not 4v4 or 6v6.
Don’t tell me you expect the same performance in 6v6 as in campaign or 1v1. That’s not very realistic at all. I didn’t have internet when the game came out. How did the game run at 4v4 on those computers compared to Reforged?
On my end it works really well in 1v1, good to ok in 2v2 and in 4v4 it lags in huge battles.
How many NUMA nodes does the 2920X have? I know some of the older Threadrippers were notorious for having more than 1 despite being a single physical chip. If it does have more than 1 then it is possible that Warcraft III is allocating memory across 2 NUMA nodes which would put a lot of strain on the infinity fabric moving data across as well as add additional memory access latency.
my 2920X runs the local mode, this means no uma memory distribution.
theres still the issue with cross CCX latency, but this is something that exists on all ryzen processors. and the issue itself is also far too widely spread to narrow it down to threadripper cpus - as im probably one of three ppl running the game on a threadripper machine but there are tons of ppl that cant click the minimap without the game taking a nap.
the worst case scenario (uma mode on 1st gen threadripper) would yield about ~130ns (if i remember correctly) instead of 80ns latency - i really doubt this latency alone is enough to cripple the very capable ryzen processors (even 1st gen) into single digit fps numbers down from 100. even if ryzen did only achieve 50% of intel performance, we’d be far away from below 10 fps.
theres something selse going on - sure, the CCX, CCD latency and memory distribution doesnt help - i just think it should break the game the way its currently going on.
There are also internal bandwidth limitations inside the infinity fabric. Zen/Zen+ EPYC suffered quite badly from this and required special OS/driver optimizations to reduce cross NUMA talking. If a game can hit these limits, I do not know.
Verify the problem still exists with 1.32 (now released).
If it is still a problem it is likely an AMD GPU issue. They may have to release a optimized driver to fix it.
the stuttering issue is still there. tried 6 cores/threads of CCX1, didnt make a difference.
updated to the new driver 20.1.4 - the suttering and freezing is unchanged. avg framerate went up. if i dont move the screen and not destroy or build buildings, im getting stable 120 fps (limited) on smaller maps. but as soon as a building gets built, destroyed or i click or scroll the map i get stuttering for any of such events.
im certain its tied to asset loading.
It could be how AMD’s driver is dealing with the asset loading. Give AMD a week and then use display driver uninstaller to remove the existing driver and clean install the latest driver from AMD.
A lot of people reporting similar performance issues to yours are using AMD GPUs.