Power consumption on the last few AMD chips have been way too high.
-
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
Power consumption on the last few AMD chips have been way too high.
Projectjustice
Banned
Regardless, my FX-8350 handles everything I throw at it.
These specs has just made me decided to wait for Nvidias 8xx series. Currently using a GTX 560ti
That was kind of my point though, that the minority that want amazing gaming CPUs will help push this forward again now that 8 core CPUs will be the standard in consoles. And that's one of the only things that can do it since as we both noted most other consumer applications don't really NEED heavy power.
Yes, I was just agreeing with you. =) I was trying to think of something outside of gaming that general people would want that required heavy power, and I can't think of anything. Outside of Jarvis, and that is probably easier for Google to bring us then everyone have a mainframe at home.
JonathanPower
Member
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.
http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1667582&postcount=43
So it's not really clear to me what you are saying. If you mean that with FMA support Piledriver has a higher FP throughput than Jaguar, then you are wrong. This is how the Piledriver FPU works.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3230805&cid=41879729
A single shared FPU can do 16 flops per clock and therefore 8 flops per core, which is exactly the same throughput of Jaguar. This is with FMA.
As I said, it makes sense in the context of FP heavy code. In fact, this is why the 8 core Piledriver does not scale well in Cinebench, while an 8 core Jaguar should scale much better. Now, obviously an 8 core Piledriver is a lot more powerful than an 8 core Jaguar, but I was just talking about how the performance scales with more cores.
davonaytor
Member
Do we know what hardware they used when giving demos of this game?
Gumbie
Member
Don't know for sure but it was rumored that that first E3 demo that looked so good was running on a 680 GTX.
Cave Johnson
Member
i5-3570k (3.40Ghz)
560 Ti
8GB RAM
I don't.... know. Not confident with these specs. Doesn't the PS4 have more GPU power than this? This would.. what - make it between current & next-gen? And dat 8-core? Seriously, I bought this CPU as future proofing 2 years back.
560 Ti
8GB RAM
I don't.... know. Not confident with these specs. Doesn't the PS4 have more GPU power than this? This would.. what - make it between current & next-gen? And dat 8-core? Seriously, I bought this CPU as future proofing 2 years back.
Going by the benchmarks I saw earlier: between XB1 and PS4 actually, heh.
But since most 560 Tis were 1 GB cards (At least when I got mine) I personally would go next-gen if you can, though I guess it'd probably still beat out 360/PS3.
why is that k processor stock!
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Meanwhile, the game only uses one core.
OC that CPU.
None of the 560's variants are meant for next gen so you will need something beefier especially if you want higher settings.
DizzyCaffeine
Member
Lol...I have a i3 2100 + 7970, so I'm out. I knew this day would come eventually...but over Watch Dogs? Just...really?
And I think someone inquired about BF3's performance on a dual core. I get 50+ FPS on Ultra. No performance complaints whatsoever.
And I think someone inquired about BF3's performance on a dual core. I get 50+ FPS on Ultra. No performance complaints whatsoever.
terrdactycalsrock
Member
how will a 770 w/ 2 gigs of ram, a core I5 4570, and 8 gigs of general purpose stack up? Them recommending eight core CPUs have me nervous
It'll run like butter, wtf, that's like brand new hardware. You spent too much money to be nervous, stop. 1080p, 60fps, maxed settings, probably even get to run some of that TXAA and Tessellation they're putting in there if you want.
cheezcake
Member
Yeh I really wouldn't worry, should run great with that hardware
I can't with some of these replies.
Why are people so surprised that games made primarily for the new consoles that have 8 core CPUs will require PCs to have 8 cores to get the most out of them. This isn't rocket science.
Requirements for AAA games are not going to decrease as the generation evolves... so get used to it.
Requirements for AAA games are not going to decrease as the generation evolves... so get used to it.
Any decent quad-core should do just fine, it's just marketing for AMD. I'll just hang on to my 2500K until Intel releases these babies: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/31076...ores-ddr4-support-x99-pch-and-more/index.html
Ol No Bones
Banned
Are you telling me that at some point I might need to upgrade my CPU!?
This post right here.
This is what happens when a console warrior wanders into a PC thread.
Wow - good point. Think I might just go console-only after all!
dr_rus
Member
All Intel's modern quad cores will do just fine.
Number of cores doesn't mean anything. Any modern PC quad core CPU is much faster than 8-cores CPUs in the new consoles. There is no requirement on the number of cores, only on the processing speed.
Can you not read the specs in the OP?
Considering the topic at hand you should read up a little. People wanted more clarification from ubisoft about the 8 cores considering it's pretty generic. Not that it's surprise and considering it's being based on weak ass amd cores if it's to be believed some intel users should stop tripping balls considering what they already do in most benchmarks
I can get use to better graphics than the obvious hints that the requirements show your side won't be getting the ultra settings. Enjoy knowing during the generation as more of us upgrade games like this will only perform and look better. Keep those downgrades we have already seen in the game while some of us will probably be downsampling this game and making it our bitch in less than 3 years.
I don't know much about PC specifications, so I'm not that good with comparing and knowing what's what.
Yes you're fine for "Recommended" and very likely "Ultra" as well.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
That doesn't seem balanced at all. As if a 8-core 800 MHz processor is more efficient that a 3 GHz dual core 
You will be able to max the fucking shit out of this game.
This. Is why I didn't upgrade my i7 920 when the 4th gen procs hit.
Glad to finally see x64 only games hit.
rudieboy77
Member
It will be interesting to see the benchmarks once this game comes out. Then we will see if an 8 core runs faster than the 4 in this game.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
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.