I was wondering what kind of setup and eye candy levels people are playing this game with when they can pull off a steady 60FPS. It doens't have to be minimum 60FPS, more like average but it has to be most of the time and let's put the minimum around 40 to 50FPS.

I've a Q9550 and a GTX470 and sadly it was too slow for decent texture and 1080p, the rest I tweaked to relatively low or turned off.

I run a Q9550 (minor OC to 3.33 GHz) and GTX 285, and it keeps frame rate consistently in the 40's at 1920x1080 and Ultra (less Ubersampling). Since none of nVidia's recent single GPU cards can keep up with the 285, the best you should expect is probably equal to that.

If you want a consistent 60 fps, you are probably going to need a 590 or an SLI setup. The CPU is usually not limiting in this game.

I can run TW2 with everything expect Ubersampling turned on in 1080p at 60FPS however it does go at some scenes below 60FPS. (I don't know the max. FPS in 1080p because I play with V-Sync on)

However in order to achieve this I have to have CrossfireX enabled.

At 720p with a single GPU and V-Sync off the FPS can reach 120-130 FPS, with same settings; so the bigger resolution gives you a huge performance hit.

OS: Windows 7 64-bit
CPU:Core i5-2400 @ 3.1 Ghz
GPU: 2xSapphire Radeon 6950 Dirt 3 ed. / shaders unlocked / stock speeds
RAM: 16Gb DDR3 1333MHz, Corsair Vengeance
HD : 500 GB WD Caviar Green/750 GB WD Caviar Black
DISPLAY: Samsung SA3000 LED @ 1920x1080 px

As a sidenote I'd like to just add, that HDD performance is important here. I have my games on the Caviar Black and it can't stream the data fast enough for TW2(if you are running for longer stretches or open doors) which drags my FPS down. Unfortunately I can't afford an SSD(and I'm not keen to invest in them because of the limit on the number of writes/sector), but I'm sure at graphics levels like that of TW2 it surely helps.

Hmm, that does seem unusually close to my performance. I don't know exactly how much faster my card is than yours but it should be somewhat faster at least. What drivers are you running or ran when you played the game? I've the 275.33, have been very stable for almost all my games so far since they arrived.

EDIT: Lovag@ About the HDD, I had it installed on a Intel 120GB which has fairly fast read speeds, its write are slower than other SSDs and the fastest mechanical HDDs.

I've should have added the reason I thought my CPU could be a limiting factor is that I read when the game was released it was suppose to make use of four corse but maybne it doesn't and/or when I reduce from max settings to mix of medium to even low settings I gain almost no FPS boost which mean either the game has horrible increase performance/eye candy ratio because the game initially is quite demanding (even on low settings) or I am heavily CPU limited. I figured that OC (I usually run my Q9550 at 3.4GHz on new games) and some more tweaking could help but not as much as I like so I thought I might as well wait since this game's graphics is a strong factor and I don't want to skimp on either performance and graphics since both mean quite a bit to me especially in a game like this I know I will like.

The GTX 285 and the 470 are pretty close. The 285's strength is texture processing; the 470 can output pixels faster.

I use the 275.33 drivers for this game. They are indeed very stable; later drivers are all less so. I probably won't change until 290 goes WHQL and I get Skyrim.

I don't think the CPU matters much when you get above some threshold, and the Q9550's definitely above it. Core 2 Duos, Core i3's, and Quads much less than that, may not be sufficient. But memory bandwidth may be more important than the CPU anyway, as this game requires you to feed and run the GPU at a furious rate.

Oh, ok. Thanks for your input, I will wait until I upgrade then. :)