Then don't talk crap about technical stuff.

Be nice, Triss. Critics are allowed to be wrong about stuff.

I asked this before, but never got an answer. Is a Phenom II X6 1100T of sufficient beefiness that it should be ok for this game? According to Tom's Hardware chart it's one step below the 8350, so I think it'll be ok, but not sure.

Thank you for the info and +1 to you.

I suspect I will hold off purchasing until I upgrade, which will not be in the immediate future.

Yeah its enough since the low AMD cpu need for minimum requierement is Phenom II X4 940 which is about ten steps down from yours on toms chart.

Well I think AMD will probably lower prices cause they still have problems with sales. If you can get a R9 280 at least. I got an R9 270x two months ago and I see now that its lowest spec (basically a 7870 HD) for this game.

I think I'm limited to the 280's. I looked at some of the lengths for the 280x's and higher and they simply won't fit in my case.

If you are using VSYNC+Tripple Buffering (otherwise you only get 15-20-30-60 FPS as options on a 60HZ monitor!) to get you get one extra Frame Lag on everything! I agree on this part "It is a game, not a movie. You want the least the game to not be responsive.", but the thing above is the reason why a FPS-Limiter is a good way to get to this. It´s a better tradeoff to get constant (better responsiveness!) 30 FPS without that additional TriBuffLag instead of unstable 31-40 Tribuffed FPS!
But of course each frame that is missed hurts. So yes, on the long hand AdaptiveSync will be the solution. But it´s not ready yet for everybody and in the meantime FPS-Limiters are a good way to get around the problem!

I simply believe you didn´t know this as I really cannot see why anybody who knows those facts would hate optional FPS-Limiters...

Yeah the new cards are very big and certainly are a hard fit in the older cases. The new cases have that problem nicely fixed by having the hdd holding parts removable for making more space.

AdaptiveSync doesn't require a G-sync monitor, right? I've used it some time and It's supposed to temporarily turn off VSync if your GPU can't keep up. Turns out it's very rare modern games are able to run at minimum of 60FPS with a 60Hz setting so it will almost always be 59.9 and then VSync turns off, making the function meaningless. G-sync on the other hand sounds awesome, the problem is it requires a new monitor upgrade.

I spoke about AdaptiveSync (the general term for the tech behind GSYNC/FreeSync, introduced with DP1.2a), what you mean is called AdaptiveVSYNC! Yep, this is no good way to name techs, I know! :D
Adaptive Vsync is quite good at trying to get around some games that got VSYNC-Bugs, strangely Adaptive VSYNC runs quite well in those games! But nothing compared to A-SYNC, which automatically removes all VSYNC-Problems...
...it´s a dream of tech, the one we´ve been waiting for since the problem was recognized! And we´ve been told that it´s impossible to adapt refreshrate to framerate for nearly the same time. God, I´m so happy that this tech is finally realized.

(now it has only to be available on ANY monitor, ANY device, from TVs over MobileDisplays and Midrange-TFT to HighEnd-Workstation-Screens)

Yes, I bought one recently, so I don't think I'll be spending thousands of Kroner on PC-components just yet :P My current rig might run TW3 at decent settings though :D

Sounds good, nothing is OC'd though, as all the fans are stock-fans. No fancy watercooling or anything :P

Hardly. I've been trying to find a reason to really get back into PC gaming, but what my experience has essentially boiled down to is picking up the PC boxed version of a game, reading the back, finding "Steam required" or "Origin required" or "UPlay required", putting it back and buying the PS4 version instead. I don't buy digital unless it is VERY cheap, as in €5 or less.

I'm still waiting for DRM-free boxed versions of Divinity: Original Sin and Wasteland 2 - essentially the only two reasons for me to really return to PC gaming outside of playing the stuff I already have - but since those are unlikely to ever appear, those two will be bundle fodder for me 2-3 years down the line, and I have enough to play until then.

I'm not someone who goes apeshit crazy over 30fps vs. 60fps, 720p vs. 1080p, or various degrees of anti-aliasing. Sure, I can notice it in comparisons of screenshots, but when it comes to playing the games, like much of the civilised world, I rarely make a big deal out of it. I don't mod a great deal, with the exception of a few Elder Scrolls tweaks. So what is the essentially the difference for me if I game on PC? DRM. Which, to be frank, is something that I can do without given that I have the choice.

The thing is, the game being DRM-free at retail, I would have at least been willing to take that risk if my system was just a bit above the recommended specs. If the game didn't perform adequately, I could have at least re-sold it and cut my losses. The problem in my case though is that my GPU is exactly on the minimum line (an HD 7870), and my CPU is a Phenom X4 920, overclocked from 2.8GHz to 3.0GHz. I've tried overclocking to 3.2GHz, it overheats. That puts my CPU at a tack below the minimum requirements and puts into question just how conservative those requirements are.

It's good and possible that the specifications given there are for medium or high detail as opposed to ultra. If that's the case, I'd still go for the PC version and see how the PC develops from there on out. But as you say, short of CDPR releasing a demo or benchmark, it's better to wait until release to see how it runs on everyone else's machines.

Damn. Looks like it's time to cancel that year-old preorder. :(