I bet you that will be fixed before W3 on consoles is fixed. In any case, Rocksteady did not develop Arkham Knight on PC, if they did then you would be singing their praises too. Maybe then, I'd beg to wager that you 'd see a "750ti/i3 runs AK at comparable or better than a PS4" thread or more PC guys shouting out how it looks so much better on their rigs over consoles........In the meantime, wait till it gets patched, but Rocksteady does not deserve to be lumped up in this fiasco. It's only fair to blame those responsible only.....
Well, first of all, Arkham knight on PC is much more broken than the console versions of Witcher 3. Those drop to 20 fps on certain places in the map, Bad, but not completely unplayable. Arkham knight PC becomes unplayable because of ridiculous stuttering after playing for 20 minutes thanks to memory leaks. Also, Warner Bros just released a statement that an intermediary patch is planned to be released in August, so that will still take quite a while.
Secondly, the PC ports of arkham asylum and city by rocksteady themselves were mediocre at best, selecting the directx 11 options would destroy the framerate.
Finally, the reason why Rocksteady didn't do the port themselves was because they weren't capable enough. If they were very good at making PC versions, don't you think they would have kept the PC port inhouse? Instead, they realized they were mediocre at PC ports and decided to outsource it. Of course, Warner bros is probably to blame for picking the lowest cost option, in this case the even more incapable Iron galaxy, so they certainly share the most of the blame, but Rocksteady isn't completely blameless here. If they were better at PC ports and kept it in house, this mess wouldn't have happened.