renegade_dewitt
Member
Now...where the F am I gonna get 4+ GB of DDR2 Ram....my gaming rig has been fine thus far...built it in 06-07 (old, but with upgraded internals except for the Mobo)....
-
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.
Ubisoft revises Watch Dog's PC specs (even more demanding ones, 6GB RAM minimum)
- Thread starter angular graphics
- Start date
SteveWinwood
Member
Tidus_Great
Banned
Really now my GTX460 is the minimum? and this game is running on an xbox360 as well. Couldn't they set the minimum a bit lower. Looks like it's ps4 version for me 
angular graphics
Banned
It all makes sense!
The Q8400 seems to show that the "quad core minimum" thing is bullshit when a decent dual core i3 beats it in pretty much every benchmark. That is also the Sandy Bridge version, the newest Haswell ones are two generations newer (both improved IPC by around 10%) and range from 3.4 to 3.6 Ghz in regular versions.
"Quad core minimum" sounds to be a protection from complaints from customers when their dual core (from 2006) won't run the game.
That i3 has hyper-threading, so I'm guessing this game needs four threads minimum to work. I guess it easier to say "quad core" minimum than "quad core or dual core with hyper-threading."
family_guy
Member
Ram is extremely cheap these days. Who cares?
You'll likely have to go used.
It will be incredibly annoying.
Fucking fair-weather PC gamers.
And what's with these vgchartzz-derived crappy sales estimations in a specs thread?
Most likely, the version developed by the primary team for PC/PS4/XB1 is very different from the outsourced downport.
People who fall just below one of these minimums, which stretch well into mid-tier gaming as of just recently (64-bit OS or the quad-core CPU, for example), and aren't able to play a new release without upgrades.
Complaints about 6 gigs can stuff it in my fact. This is way long overdue; PC games were absolutely hamstrung by Team 512.
Walled cities everywhere you turn, no levitate because of walled cities, because of severe lack of memory? Bethesda, you blimey cors! And the PS3 suffered worst of all. 7 years of famine are done; it's time to feast. Use the gigs. Use all of the gigs, all of the time, back and forth, forever.
Walled cities everywhere you turn, no levitate because of walled cities, because of severe lack of memory? Bethesda, you blimey cors! And the PS3 suffered worst of all. 7 years of famine are done; it's time to feast. Use the gigs. Use all of the gigs, all of the time, back and forth, forever.
Good push them higher make my PC and eyes bleed.
Just built a new PC with AMD FX-6300 and 7950 a few months back. Guess I can look forward to playing next-gen games around low to medium settings for the next few years until I upgrade my system.
On the other hand, once I do upgrade next-gen games will look GLORIOUS! For the people complaining, I understand how you feel but this is what being a PC gamer is all about and we all just have to deal with it.
On the other hand, once I do upgrade next-gen games will look GLORIOUS! For the people complaining, I understand how you feel but this is what being a PC gamer is all about and we all just have to deal with it.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
Do people remember why they liked the source engine so much?
Scalability.
I don't think demanding specs necessarily mean that a game will be more pretty.
Scalability.
I don't think demanding specs necessarily mean that a game will be more pretty.
your cpu and gpu will run games just fine for a long time. don't get caught up in the craziness here.
Well, it's a new gen. Time to upgrade. It would be weird if mid tier for last gen was still good enough for the new gen.
Dictator93
Member
/slowclap
jacksepticeye
Member
Let's just hope it actually looks good now for those requirements.
Also I hope the game is good in general but I have huge doubts
Also I hope the game is good in general but I have huge doubts
Wonderful. Let them eat RAM!
CloudyTuba
Member
That's the sound of my middle-aged computer now turning into an old geezer.
You were top of the line 6 years ago. Now you are an old man.
You were top of the line 6 years ago. Now you are an old man.
Senor Kami
Banned
I like how a year ago everyone was always like, "consoles are holding back the true power of the PC!" Then they get hit with some next gen specs and everyone cries that the consoles are holding us back-specs are gone and how it's absurd and clearly must be bad programming.
Lol at Skyrim PC SKU estimated sales, this thread delivers some good laughs.
Also people will be stop jumping to conclusion to get next-gen consoles versions as soon as comparisons will show up.
There is no way that any game will be, on next-gen console settings or even 60fps + next-gen console settings, limited by CPUs like i5 2500k. There is just no way.
Also people will be stop jumping to conclusion to get next-gen consoles versions as soon as comparisons will show up.
There is no way that any game will be, on next-gen console settings or even 60fps + next-gen console settings, limited by CPUs like i5 2500k. There is just no way.
CaptainGyro
Banned
Man these specs are getting kind of depressing. Since my pc might not be powerful enough for next gen games, it looks like I might have to actually settle for playing the current/past gen games in my enormous backlog instead of just throwing even more games on the log. Where is the fun in that?
I would have hoped that the minimum requirements for this game would be covered by what was mid-tier roughly a week ago. I know how this tends to happen, and I've been keeping up with it since my 3DFX Voodoo 2 card was the stuff of legends. It's likely that these minimum specs will be reflected in a much more impressive experience overall, and I'm happy about that. I haven't seen that in the materials promoting the game yet, so the requirement for things like a quad-core CPU feel odd, when I know how some dual-core CPUs compare to some quad-core CPUs in terms of effective power. I look at the Call of Duty Ghosts minimum specs with the same raised eyebrow (admittedly raised a bit higher, in that case).
Cannon Goose
Member
As long as it runs better than AC3 I'll be happy.
How much memory can these 64-bit executables use over a 32-bit one?
How much memory can these 64-bit executables use over a 32-bit one?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx
Windows 8 Enterprise 512 GB
Windows 8 Professional 512 GB
Windows 8 128 GB
Terbinator
Member
However much the user's edition of Windows supports.
Edit: Beaten like a naughty child.
Whatever the 64 bit limit is, I think Windows at it's maximum can go to something like 500GB on 64bit W8, that's against obviously the ~4GB limit for 32 bit.
0.
Kibbles
Member
Pretty sure that aisha Tyler video was current gen, looked baaadd.
Nabs
Member
I wonder how long it will be before games start recommending 128 gigs of RAM.
Anyway I am glad Ubisoft kept the 64 bit requirement. That was the one I was most happy to hear. Still I will have to check out this game on the PS4. My current PC will not be able to run it and I don't plan to replace it till late next year now.
Brofist
Member
2013 and PC gamers still don't know how to interpret recommended specs. (Not meaning you here obviously). Anyone will easily be able to run the game under those minimum specs and look current gen, up to a certain point of course.
I'm not. Just accepting the fact I might not be able to max out next gen games at 60 fps with my current build. I'll still be getting better graphics than PS4, and if Mantle delivers I'll be sitting pretty with my 7950.
The best thing is that with a PC I get to customise my gaming experience choosing whether I want better graphics or better frame rate in those few cases where I can't have both. Whereas on a console I'm stuck with whatever the developer decides is the "optimal experience".
At the end of the day, thanks to the XB1 and PS4 the lowest common denominator has increased 8-10 fold. Of course we're going to see more demanding requirements, and that's great because more often than not, it will mean developers are going to be taking advantage of the more powerful hardware available to PC Gamers.
lol, perfect.
Gamesadict
Member
Yikes, the upgrade I had planned for next year is coming just in time for next gen.
I upgrade every 3 years, and has worked great so far. Once more specs come out for new games I will make my choices.
I upgrade every 3 years, and has worked great so far. Once more specs come out for new games I will make my choices.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
i5 2500K @ 4.5Ghz
GTX 4GB 680 SLI
32Gb RAM
I should be fine until 2015 when I hope to upgrade to be able to Run games at 4K resolution.
GTX 4GB 680 SLI
32Gb RAM
I should be fine until 2015 when I hope to upgrade to be able to Run games at 4K resolution.
When building a new computer a couple of moths ago I asked myself what the next couple of years would look like in terms of CPU and RAM requirements. Even though the recommended build was an i5 4 threaded CPU and 8 GB of RAM, I figured the way things are going I'm going to need more than 4 threads and at minimum 8 GB of RAM. So I bought an AMD 8350 and 16 GB RAM. I'm glad it looks like I made the right choice. The 8350 is even supposed to out perform an i7 while using all cores (but only by a little bit?).
Now I just have to see how my 660 ti will fare. Thinking about going AMD for graphics too this time around and I'll be looking closely at how they hold up.
Now I just have to see how my 660 ti will fare. Thinking about going AMD for graphics too this time around and I'll be looking closely at how they hold up.
sixteen-bit
Member
Watch_Dogs more like Research_Hogs
Looks you and me both had the same though process except I decided to go with the Fx-6300 at the last minute to save myself some cash as the performance difference wasn't too great. Also, because this CPU was a stop gap until AMD roll out Steamroller CPU's, if they aren't great I'll just get the 9590.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Holy shit at those specs. Inflating much?