Yes you're fine for "Recommended" and very likely "Ultra" as well.
You will be able to max the fucking shit out of this game.
Because the 8 cores in question are far less powerful than modern intel 4 core devices. Actually the specs seem to be implying that it wants 8 threads, not cores, since it's putting quad core multithreaded intel CPUs in the same category as oct core AMD cpus.
So how fucked is i5 750 and 5850?
if Mantle is as real as they claim you're in a pretty good place
Mantle only works with GCN graphics cards and we only know that Battlefield 4 and Frostbite 2 will support it. Anything earlier than Radeon 7000 series is incompatible.
So have they confirmed the PC release date?
So have they confirmed the PC release date?
Sure, why not? Ubisoft is fucking crazy.So the same day as AC4 PC?
....
The only problem is there are no true 8-core CPUs at the high-end level, except maybe one of AMD's highest offerings (and I can't think of any one in particular). So, in this case, if intentional, it would have to either be promoting only AMD's stuff (which are only marketed as 8-core CPUs, but aren't truly 8-core CPUs) or Ubisoft know something about upcoming Intel CPUs that we don't. I find either unlikely, honestly, but then again, it should be unlikely Ubisoft aren't familiar with the PC CPU market, shouldn't it?i7 4770k @ 4.2GHz
GTX Titan
16GB DDR3 2133MHz
BRING IT ON WATCH DOGS! I AIN'T SCARED!
Jokes aside, these specs tell me two things.
Either Watch Dogs is optimized poorly or the 8-core Ultra Specs is just a marketing ploy in which ubisoft got paid to recommend the the more expensive CPUs. It's happened before.
I'm definitely curious to see how this game runs on the PC. Assassin's Creed 3 did not offer particularly stellar performance despite its last generation roots. The CPU requirements were pretty high and achieving a locked 60 fps required some sacrifices.
I'm planning to go with the PS4 version regardless as I suspect my PC experience would be rather unstable and simply end up annoying me throughout. I can't imagine I'd be able to pull off a solid 60 fps.
And yet it can run on PS3, 360, and wii u hardware. I am confused on why they are restricting to the higher end side instead of accommodating it for all hardware.
OMG - Torn
Do you think I will be able to get it running on a PC equipped with AMD Phenom II 720 Black (4th Core unlocked) and a HD4770 (1gb ) version?
Or should i just buy a WiiU version?
Man, you have a lot of confidence in your machine. I'm running the same CPU and a 680 and I don't expect it to run all that well at all. :\ I guess we'll see.3570K @ 4.4Ghz
GTX670 OC
16gb
Hopefully I'll be able to run it at max.
Man, you have a lot of confidence in your machine. I'm running the same CPU and a 680 and I don't expect it to run all that well at all. :\ I guess we'll see.
Exactly. So, A 4 Ghz Piledriver with 4 modules has twice the theoretical throughput of an 8 core Jaguar with 2 Ghz. So I don't understand your contention that the Jaguar will somehow be "better for FP-heavy code". That's impossible.In an absolutely ideal instruction mix for both Jaguar and Piledriver, they can issue 8 flops per core. Piledriver and Jaguar both have a max theoretical throughput of 8 flops per core, according to AMD.
You know, we never see eye to eye on this but I still have to ask. With the next-gen console versions targeting 30 FPS, why not simply lock the PC version to 30 FPS if consistency is that important to you? I am almost 100% certain you'd be able to pull off significantly better IQ with that.I'm definitely curious to see how this game runs on the PC. Assassin's Creed 3 did not offer particularly stellar performance despite its last generation roots. The CPU requirements were pretty high and achieving a locked 60 fps required some sacrifices.
I'm planning to go with the PS4 version regardless as I suspect my PC experience would be rather unstable and simply end up annoying me throughout. I can't imagine I'd be able to pull off a solid 60 fps.
I'd wait for CPU benchmarks if I were you. What will probably happen is that AMD will have less of a disadvantage in the CPU space for new games than they used to.So AMD proc will have advantage for many game from now on or what?
That's quite a conclusion to jump to.Holy fuck.. My Athlon II X4 640, 8GB RAM and Radeon 7770 will probably run this game at mid settings at 1440x900 but what the fuck, that looks horribly bloated; something seems to have gone very wrong with this game's port.
In this specific case, it's more that the draw of new hardware is too strong. I prefer buying boxed games that run in a console but I haven't really been able to do much of that as console ports as of late have been just TOO awful. It's that shiny new hardware draw. That's it.You know, we never see eye to eye on this but I still have to ask. With the next-gen console versions targeting 30 FPS, why not simply lock the PC version to 30 FPS if consistency is that important to you? I am almost 100% certain you'd be able to pull off significantly better IQ with that.
So have they confirmed the delayed PC release date?
Man, you have a lot of confidence in your machine. I'm running the same CPU and a 680 and I don't expect it to run all that well at all. :\ I guess we'll see.
ouch i thought Matnle is for every GPU AMD made in the last 3 years
then again i'm not an AMD specialist
Man, you have a lot of confidence in your machine. I'm running the same CPU and a 680 and I don't expect it to run all that well at all. :\ I guess we'll see.
That's quite a conclusion to jump to.
Are you suggesting that requirements won't increase for new games designed with PS4 and XB1 in mind? This is just the beginning and Watch Dogs is a cross-gen game even. We're going to see a significant increase in system requirements with newer games after this Fall, I think.
... but it doesn't. You can build a system for 600$ that fits the "recommended" specs. (Never mind minimum, which is what it "demands")On the other hand I have.. this.. that demands a $1000+ PC to even run OK.
Edit: Provided Watch Dogs isn't an abysmal port that only uses one CPU core (like AC III), there really is nothing for worry about for any quad-core i5 or i7 desktop gamer.
I did not see that, I'm sorry. This now begs the question in my mind of "how in the hell did they manage to achieve that?" though. In any case, I still maintain that Watch Dogs will be fine. A perfect 60 fps maybe not, but still fine.Apologies for quoting myself, but it really seems to me that AC3 is using all 4 cores just fine for me:
... but it doesn't. You can build a system for 600$ that fits the "recommended" specs. (Never mind minimum, which is what it "demands")
I did not see that, I'm sorry. This now begs the question in my mind of "how in the hell did they manage to achieve that?" though.
The only problem is there are no true 8-core CPUs at the high-end level, except maybe one of AMD's highest offerings (and I can't think of any one in particular). So, in this case, if intentional, it would have to either be promoting only AMD's stuff (which are only marketed as 8-core CPUs, but aren't truly 8-core CPUs) or Ubisoft know something about upcoming Intel CPUs that we don't. I find either unlikely, honestly, but then again, it should be unlikely Ubisoft aren't familiar with the PC CPU market, shouldn't it?
That's the death knell for my PC I think...
I'll buy a new one in a few years time though once I've given the PS4 a good run and see if the Steambox is a success.