Who cares really? 8c/16t processor will last You for next 6-7 years. It will be next Nehalem in terms of efficiency.
-
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 PC specs (x64 only, Quad Core minimum, recommended 8-core and 2GB VRAM)
- Thread starter angular graphics
- Start date
Who cares really? 8c/16t processor will last You for next 6-7 years. It will be next Nehalem in terms of efficiency.
JonathanPower
Member
4 working at 4Ghz have the same theoretical performance of 8 working at 2Ghz. However, with FP intensive code Jaguar should be faster.
Haswell-E will be when I upgrade. Terrible that we have arrived at 5 year generations for PC hardware.
I do remember a somewhat recent thread with performance results which indicated that a dual-core Haswell low power i7 with a 1.8 Ghz base frequency performs about as well in -- I think it was -- Cinebench as one Jaguar module (4 cores) at 1.6 Ghz.
There are some (unrealistic) instruction mixes where a single Jaguar core is as fast as a Bulldozer module per clock. However, in many realistic instruction mixes a module will be about as fast as 2 cores, and in particular artificial ones it could be faster than 2 cores, again per clock. All while running at more than twice the clock frequency.
I wouldn't make such a broad statement, or such an inaccurate one considering that "Jaguar" is an architecture and not an implementation, and i7 is a family of architectures and not even one particular architecture.
I do remember a somewhat recent thread with performance results which indicated that a dual-core Haswell low power i7 with a 1.8 Ghz base frequency performs about as well in -- I think it was -- Cinebench as one Jaguar module (4 cores) at 1.6 Ghz.
GameSeeker
Member
I'm hoping this is the start of a good trend for PC gaming.
1) The 64-bit requirement is an excellent one. Given that the next gen platforms have 5GB+ usable for games, this should lead to 64-bit being mandatory on the PC side.
2) Using 8 cores/threads for best performance is excellent. So many existing PC games don't scale beyond 2 cores/threads due to being based on 360/PS3 code. This needs to change and hopefully this is the start.
3) Requiring DX11 and 2GB VRAM is also good. Most current PC games are written to DX9, with a few having DX11 code paths for some minor benefits. Being DX11 only will mean PC games will take advantage of the latest GPU HW.
Now Ubisoft just needs to get rid of Uplay and their games might be worth purchasing...
1) The 64-bit requirement is an excellent one. Given that the next gen platforms have 5GB+ usable for games, this should lead to 64-bit being mandatory on the PC side.
2) Using 8 cores/threads for best performance is excellent. So many existing PC games don't scale beyond 2 cores/threads due to being based on 360/PS3 code. This needs to change and hopefully this is the start.
3) Requiring DX11 and 2GB VRAM is also good. Most current PC games are written to DX9, with a few having DX11 code paths for some minor benefits. Being DX11 only will mean PC games will take advantage of the latest GPU HW.
Now Ubisoft just needs to get rid of Uplay and their games might be worth purchasing...
PC GAF can be amusing at times. After spending years (myself included) complaining about how the previous gen consoles were holding us back and underutilizing our tri-Titan powered rigs (OK, not tri-Titans in my case), we now get to hear about how next gen games are 'lazy ports' that would obviously run on a 486 with 2 MB of RAM if those devs weren't so lazy....
Personally, I'm glad to see games coming out that take advantage of 4 or more cores, more than 4GB of RAM, and that require a 64-bit OS. They're resources that are sitting around in my PC doing nothing otherwise; if they help contribute to better graphics or higher framerates, then fine with me. I wouldn't be completely surprised if Ubi was padding the requirements a bit, but I expect that the minimums are probably rooted in reality.
/s
Personally, I'm glad to see games coming out that take advantage of 4 or more cores, more than 4GB of RAM, and that require a 64-bit OS. They're resources that are sitting around in my PC doing nothing otherwise; if they help contribute to better graphics or higher framerates, then fine with me. I wouldn't be completely surprised if Ubi was padding the requirements a bit, but I expect that the minimums are probably rooted in reality.
Wag
Member
That probably isn't even enough for 4k, you'll probably need a 3rd card for decent framerate.
Unknown One
Member
I'm guessing the extreme version is the 8 core. 1000 dollars probably.
I hope those are different people. Nothing would make me happier than for games to embarrass my box and shame me into finally upgrading.
Yes, resolution is entirely GPU dependent. CPU dependent would be things like frame rate, draw distance, or the number of active actors in a scene.
Capital_Five
Member
Really need a new graphics card. I pass the requirements but I only have an i5 and a 660ti. Might be about that time.
luca_29_bg
Member
i have an i7 860 oc at 3.7 it's enough in your opinion ?
I would like to wait for haswell - E for an upgrade...
Edit: ^^^^^^ He does say any i7 at 4.6Ghz should run the game really well.
In Cinebench a quad core Jaguar at 1.5Ghz gets a score of 1.5 which is the same that a single modern Intel core will do at around 3.5Ghz. That is without hyperthreading so a dual core 3+Ghz i3 should be able to beat the eight core Jaguar in that benchmark at least.
In Cinebench a quad core Jaguar at 1.5Ghz gets a score of 1.5 which is the same that a single modern Intel core will do at around 3.5Ghz. That is without hyperthreading so a dual core 3+Ghz i3 should be able to beat the eight core Jaguar in that benchmark at least.
luca_29_bg
Member
guys but msi afterburner works with 64 bit executable ?
There is no possibility at all, regardless of instruction mix, of 8 Jaguar cores at 2 Ghz being faster than 4 Piledriver modules at 4 Ghz.
Yes.
Wag
Member
What display you using?
Exactly. My rig is pretty up to date, but the new consoles (even with their strictly midrange 'on paper' specs) are definitely making some parts of my system look a little underprepared. The 2GB of RAM in my 680s are probably going to be the biggest bottleneck, especially now that 3GB and 4GB single card configurations are becoming more common, and even early 'next gen' games like BF4 are recommending more than 2GB.
Especially when consoles uses only 6 cores and at 1.6ghz frequency in games.
You can't compare clocks across architectures like that, even if they are both x86/64 based.
Sexy.
I'm waiting for that OLED 1440p before I upgrade. Kind of is embarrassing that my smart phone has the same resolution as my monitor.
Yeah.
I don't know but I expected that we could get something better for this "cost". Maybe we are getting to the point where a new generation of hardware only gives marginal benefits in graphics quality.
They mean 8 hardware threads.
(Intel does have 8 core CPUs though. And 12 core CPUs. I use them every day!)
Those will be out in Q2 2014.
Is he? He's exaggerating but my experience this past generation is that you certainly need something much more capable than the consoles to run PC ports of their games.
TheGreyHulk
Member
this is what i'm talking about! push the bar upwards ASAP. i'm glad they're RECOMMENDING, not requiring 8 core cpus. We need to move in that direction. The next gen system have 6 threads available to them, so we should be pushing for at least 6 hardware backed threads on PC for next gen games.
nice move ubi!
nice move ubi!
TheGreyHulk
Member
maybe he means non xeon cpus. do they even provide a true 8 core/12 core CPU under the i7 consumer level badge?
No. Not until Haswell E.
JonathanPower
Member
I am talking about theoretical performance. Both Jaguar and Piledriver issue 8 flops per core.
8 core Jaguar@2Ghz.
8 flops × 2000 MHz × 8 cores = 128 GFLOPS.
4 core Piledriver@4Ghz.
8 flops × 4000 MHz × 4 cores = 128 GFLOPS.
Sheeit, I'm not comfortable with my 2GB GTX 670 either going forward, lol. 800 series, thats what I'm waiting for, R-9 290x is also looking tasty . . .
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
Dude, you have the same exact PC as me, minus the Ghz Edition of that card, I just have the regular one.
In an absolutely ideal instruction mix for Jaguar (which is not realistically possible), the theoretical FP performance is equal. So this:
makes no sense, and is what I was objecting to.
I agree and seeing that BF4 beta is 64bit only and now Watch Dogs being 64bit only ...the future looks a LOT brighter for us with good pc hardware. It's been waaaay too long sitting at this stalemate with current gen console ports that have such dated hardware. Regardless if our gaming PC's can do much more than what we will see with next gen console ports...i am just happy that we are finally moving on..its long over due!
You wouldn't want Jaguar in a desktop. At that power envelope you are much better off with a Piledriver in AMD land. Or any desktop Intel CPU of course.
... Hmm.Come to papa:
Yup, probably better to wait a year post-next gen launch before doing serious computer updates.
There is one out already but it's not worth considering, Jaguar is pretty low end stuff.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Have you seen the current gen versions?
To fair the PS3's SPU's may help but I doubt they'll use them and 360 a 3 core system isn't it?
I imagine they don't look pretty at all compared to the nextgen/PC versions
