-COOLIO-
The Everyman
what else would you call logical cores?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Watch Dogs specs revealed - 8 core CPU recommended
- Thread starter pa22word
- Start date
what else would you call logical cores?
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
PS4 failure rate to increase in June, confirmed. Its gonna melt.
Hardware threads.
Normally I would be on board with saying it is down to poor PC optimization by Ubi, but this game had been in development using PC hardware since long before they would have even had dev kits for the new consoles. Everything points to this game being built from the ground up on the PC and ported to the consoles as their specs came out, not the other way around.
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
3770k outperforms AMD's true 8-core CPUs in a lot of multithreaded benchmarks. Wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it gives similar performance in Watch Dogs.
No, but unless you're running a hefty OC I wouldn't expect consistent framerates north of 30.
Ya think i would be better off on PS4 or PC?
Yeah, there's no way a 560ti is going to do this game any justice.
I have a 590 and I have absolutely no confidence that the game would be playable to my standards. This is Ubisoft.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
that makes less sense to me for 2 reasons:
1. in programming, threads are the workload, rather than the workers. the cores are what do the work.
2. it also makes me think of industrial strength spool.
Everyone should have realized that we were going to see heavy use of multi-threading in this generation ever since the very first leaks about the XBO and PS4. Four cores was fine for last gen and eight cores was very clearly recommended this gen.
Of course, GAF is full of PC apologists who claim that $400 PCs will play modern games better than the PS4 and revisionists who believe that the 360 was outdone by contemporary budget PCs.
Of course, GAF is full of PC apologists who claim that $400 PCs will play modern games better than the PS4 and revisionists who believe that the 360 was outdone by contemporary budget PCs.
It's an Anvil (Ubi's new middleware) thing. AC3/4 use the same engine and both have some really nasty CPU bottlenecks. Until ubi gets their heads out of their asses and spends some money to optimize the fucker properly for PC we're going to be dealing with unnecessary bottlenecks in pretty much all internal AAA Ubi games from now on.
Calling them just "cores" is confusing due to the fact that physical cores and logical cores are different things which are not equal to each other.
Doubt that.
Yeah, I would also not be surprised if i5s keep up with the AMD CPU also.
Witchfinder General
punched Wheelchair Mike
I have my 3579K OC'd to 4.4Ghz, along with a OC's 670. I'm just hoping for a stable 30fps with everything maxed.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
they're not equal, but for the most part (clock speed aside), they seem to be functionally equivalent.
perhaps we should call them cooliores to get rid of all confusion. yes, that would be good.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
I'm still running that card and it holds up the current games....watch dogs has me worried tho.
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
The way I see it is if it's a Ubisoft game... just pass. Its still going to be slow on those 8 cores... besides true 8 cores are not even out yet... yeah AMD does not count for obvious reasons!
S0cc3rpunk
Unconfirmed Member
i dont know if my laptop will run this if not xbox one it is :/
Intel® Core i7-4700MQ processor (up to 3.4GHz, 6MB Cache)
8GB memory (DDR3L, 1600MHz)
1GB NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 750M graphics
Intel® Core i7-4700MQ processor (up to 3.4GHz, 6MB Cache)
8GB memory (DDR3L, 1600MHz)
1GB NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 750M graphics
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Upgrade the specs, downgrade the game.
VisceralBowl
Member
I think you'll be fine. Not max but fine.
ichtyander
Member
Well lucky me since I bought a 8350 like three months ago. I'm lacking in the graphics department (6870, 1GB and all) but it'll be interesting to see just how much the cores will be used.
Seriously thought this was a horse armor post before I looked at the name =\
You've got your history a little skewed there champ. It's generally the console players who tend to revise history on the 360 when people keeping pointing out that mid tier GPUs are besting the the new systems. They'd have you believe that a console-pc gap like this is normal, when in reality this is the first generation we've ever had where you can buy a $250 GPU that's more powerful than any console. The mediocre CPUs on the console side only exasperate things, where now all most PC gamers need to do is a GPU and maybe a memory upgrade if they've built a rig around a CPU released sometime around 2008/9.
And while no, you it's unlikely you can build a $400 box that will outperform the PS4, you will end up saving money in the long run with as much as a $600 box (that absolutely will outperform the PS4 very significantly) vs a PS4 right now due to enforced PS+ subs for online play + prices differences over a 6 year time span.
What's most interesting though, is if the downward trend of console horsepower keeps dwindling then by next generation you absolutely will be able to build a dollar-for-dollar box that matches 9th gen console performance, and gen after next it will probably be cheaper to build a PC than to buy a console.
But I digress. Dunno why you chose to come in here and do the console warrior thing though.
If AC4 is anything to go by (recs are "Intel Core i5 2400S @ 2.5 GHz or better or AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.0 GHz", LMFAO) then yeah, I would absolutely not doubt that.
Just a couple of points before you guys all jump to conclusious.
1.) Watch_Dogs is not using the Anvil engine (they are currently on Anvil Next) as that was specifically used by the AC and PoP teams. It's using a new engine called Disrupt designed specifically for Watch Dogs. So no one knows how it performs on PC yet.
http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-disrupt-engine-multiplayer/
2.) If Yves is to be belived Watch_Dogs is being developed on PC as the lead platform due to their other messes with trying to port up not down. Though things might have changed by the time this interview was taken development was already a long way started.
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/syst...orm-for-watch-dogs-says-ubisoft-ceo-29359381/
As always don't read into spec reqs too much, they're never a good yard stick the last 5 or so year.
1.) Watch_Dogs is not using the Anvil engine (they are currently on Anvil Next) as that was specifically used by the AC and PoP teams. It's using a new engine called Disrupt designed specifically for Watch Dogs. So no one knows how it performs on PC yet.
http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-disrupt-engine-multiplayer/
2.) If Yves is to be belived Watch_Dogs is being developed on PC as the lead platform due to their other messes with trying to port up not down. Though things might have changed by the time this interview was taken development was already a long way started.
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/syst...orm-for-watch-dogs-says-ubisoft-ceo-29359381/
As always don't read into spec reqs too much, they're never a good yard stick the last 5 or so year.
TC McQueen
Member
Well, I'm glad I cancelled my preorder. I'm not going to spend the amount of money they were asking for to get such a poorly optimized port, when a Japanese studio with literally no PC experience can crank out a damn fine optimized port.
Joke post?
I'm kind of surprised at the people seriously misunderstanding this.
The 8 core CPU from AMD that's recomended is only recomended because AMD makes slow CPUs and they always include a CPU recomendation from each manufacturer. In games a first generation i7 is faster then that CPU.
Also a CPU bottleneck is generally caused by having a game engine only run off of one to two cores when it could be spread out thus bottlenecking and only using 25-50% of the CPUs total power. In other words if your game engine can scale to 8 threads it is very unlikely there will be a CPU bottleneck.
At any rate I'm not even saying there isn't a CPU bottleneck. In fact I wouldn't be surprised. However if there is one it's more then likely because the engine can't scale. What this leads to is not needing a multi-CPU but one or two big cores.
It's the reason why you see dual cores outperforming 8 core AMD cpu's in many games.
TLDR Core count doesn't really matter. IPS does. It's the reason the PS4/XBO CPUs are slower then desktop CPUs several times over.
The 8 core CPU from AMD that's recomended is only recomended because AMD makes slow CPUs and they always include a CPU recomendation from each manufacturer. In games a first generation i7 is faster then that CPU.
Also a CPU bottleneck is generally caused by having a game engine only run off of one to two cores when it could be spread out thus bottlenecking and only using 25-50% of the CPUs total power. In other words if your game engine can scale to 8 threads it is very unlikely there will be a CPU bottleneck.
At any rate I'm not even saying there isn't a CPU bottleneck. In fact I wouldn't be surprised. However if there is one it's more then likely because the engine can't scale. What this leads to is not needing a multi-CPU but one or two big cores.
It's the reason why you see dual cores outperforming 8 core AMD cpu's in many games.
TLDR Core count doesn't really matter. IPS does. It's the reason the PS4/XBO CPUs are slower then desktop CPUs several times over.
VisceralBowl
Member
Clearly. Dark Souls on PC was a mess. jkjk (kinda)
I not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, really. Because at least with Anvil I know what to expect >_>
And having a PC lead doesn't really mean much anymore for the most part. Most games lead on PC nowadays and port down because it's easier to do. However, that doesn't really mean that once they started the downport to 8th/7th gen consoles that they kept working on optimization on the PC build. They might have shelved it after the downport was done and didn't start back up on optimization until the console version went gold.
TC McQueen
Member
Metal Gear Rising was a really great PC port, in spite of a few glitches.
Witchfinder General
punched Wheelchair Mike
Alright, I'm feeling a little bit better about this now. Might even pre-order if GMG offer a good price.
Before you do, just remember all the hype we got from ubi over how awesome Anvil was going to be before AC3 came out.
Honestly I'd advise against ever preordering an Ubisoft AAA game on PC. Their tech is just too fiddly on PC.
prag16
Banned
This. If a 2500k can't handle this and obliterate the console versions in the process, Ubisoft done fucked up royally.
They might be functionally equivalent from a programming point of view, but they are not hardware resource equivalent.
That is the reason that operating systems are made SMT aware, so they do not treat logical cores belonging to the same physical core the same as two physical cores and thus overload them when other physical cores are left idle.
I would love to see someones face when you called them cooliores.
Garrus Vakarian
Member
Goddamn, what is with Ubisoft and PC development, you'd think they'd have learnt something about optimizing for the platform by now. Unless they're not even trying.
You mean IPC?
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
So yea...
I'm running i5 2500k
GTX 560 Ti
16gb ram (i do alot of video/audio editing)
Do I get this on my PS4 of the PC?
I'm running i5 2500k
GTX 560 Ti
16gb ram (i do alot of video/audio editing)
Do I get this on my PS4 of the PC?
GavinUK86
Member
You say joke, I say seriously. It was either PC or PS4 for me. This confirms PS4. I have zero faith in Ubisoft PC titles. I bought the past 3 AC games on PC hoping the next one will be better optimized. Nope.
PS4.