I honestly came here to know how many weeks I would need to download the game.

OT this game requires more horsepower than rendering a pixar movie, that's ridiculous.

No I'm saying Radeon HD 7870 has the same chip as the PS4's embedded GPU. Both have a Pitcairn based chip. A GPU is more than a chip though. The GTX 680 outperforms the HD 7870, therefore it is certain to outperform the PS4's GPU. 

You're going with an Intel 2011v3 based PC?

OT: It's nice to hear that they are the delays to improve the optimization of the game. June can't come soon enough so AMD launches its new cards and we can get a 380X or 980 for "cheap".

ok then , but still i doubt it will be the case, after all both platform are work differently, and  especially PS4 run on different api from HD 7870 or PC card, maybe they borow PC architecture but their principal of working is very different, like how some games is better on Xbox one then PS4 even PS4 have better TF. I think it's matter of developer choice and optimization.

Thanks I'll look into maybe building this sometime in the future.

Sure, but the developers of The Witcher 3 are mainly PC developers. I doubt they're going to optimize the game greatly for consoles and not optimize it for PC API's. In almost every game, a PC with an HD 7870 (as long as the processor/memory doesn't bottleneck) outperforms the PS4, and the GTX 680 outperforms the HD 7870 in almost every game. We should expect something like 1080p 30 fps Medium settings on the PS4, and something like 1080p > 30fps (although locked to 30fps) High with some medium settings on a GTX 680, and maybe some additional AA/AF over the PS4. Remember, not only must developers accomodate for the PS4's GPU, but also its very weak CPU (relative to PC's.) I'm going to assume your friend has at least an i5 (or an AMD equivalent.) 

he has 8 Gb DDR 3 RAM with i5, i guess he is not happy becuase he want to sold the card but the price already fall to cheap.

He should've waited until they gave a release date. Maybe if it isn't too expensive for him to sli (migh need a new power supply/motherboard) he can go that route and play ultra, without a huge investment in a new GPU, and build a new PC at the end of the generation. Honestly, the best time to get a PC that will be able to play this generation of games at ultra is right now. If you buy at the start of the generation, the next-gen consoles are not maxed yet, so they haven't yet limited PC graphics, and if you buy at the end of the generation you have new platforms releasing which will raise the bar. In my opinion though, ultra isn't worth the expense. It is the perfect example of the law of diminishing returns. The marginal cost to get such a marginal benefit is so much larger. But that is why they are called enthusiasts haha. I expect to play this game at high settings 1080p locked 30 fps with my r9 280x, and I'll be happy. 

Not with Windows included.  It still costs ~$600 to build something that matches a PS4 and isn't complete junk.  However you can build an $800-$1000 build that is twice as strong as a PS4 so that is where the price/preformance is really at.

No, no, just a price example. That is actually the cheapest DDR4 16GB set available here, I'll buy one that matches the rest of the hardware better.

RAM has been very expensive here for some time now. I agree with your last part though and that's pretty much what I'm waiting for; the GPU's I'm looking at currently would make up about 1/3 of the total price of the rig, so it's perfect to get them when the competition launches. Should ATi launch something that competes on noise, heat levels and performance at a lower price though, that's a double bonus and my purchase is not set in stone. I am kinda keen on getting a nVidia card for compatability and driver reasons though and would consider a slightly higher premium worth it.

I've had quite a few issues with both mu ATi cards, especially in big production titles with lots of complex shaders.