-
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
Ubisoft having common sense, that's a laugh.
bearythebear
Member
So how fucked is i5 750 and 5850?
if Mantle is as real as they claim you're in a pretty good place
ColonelColon
Member
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.
ouch i thought Matnle is for every GPU AMD made in the last 3 years
then again i'm not an AMD specialist
maneil99
Member
Most Likely after Consoles, AC4 on PC launches the same day/week as Watch Dogs
November 19 in NA. A bit after the PS4.
Sure, why not? Ubisoft is fucking crazy.
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.
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.
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?
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'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.
AcceptableGhost
Member
I don't know if I would even bet on any of the console versions being flat 30, I don't think Ubisoft gives a shit about the framerate in their open world games.
These versions are basically a different game by a different developer.
ADANIEL1960
Neo Member
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?
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?
Sleeping Lesson
Member
With that hardware? WiiU version.
Witchfinder General
punched Wheelchair Mike
3570K @ 4.4Ghz
GTX670 OC
16gb
Hopefully I'll be able to run it at max.
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.
hooijdonk17
Member
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.
Witchfinder General
punched Wheelchair Mike
Yeah, but I'm happy with a locked 30fps. Sure, 60fps would be great but I'm not too concerned.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
Of course, Ubi games have a horrible track record with limiting to 30 fps. Either microstuttering is introduced or it massively increases loading times.
You're probably right, though. I'm sure that, if the 30 fps lock were to function properly, I could pull off better results on my PC. My reason for going PS4 is mostly illogical and based more on interest in a new platform though I'm actually really interested to see how it compares across ALL platforms.
Honestly between yours and his specs the only significant limitation is you only have access to 4 threads, instead of the recommended 8. Depending on how important this factor is, scaling, etc. you may not be able to "max" everything but I'm sure you'd still be able achieve results much higher than those of consoles.
If you're not in any immediate rush to play the game at release I'd recommend at least taking a look at comparisons, or seeing if any of the technical issues you fear come to light.
Terbinator
Member
If you're being economical with the truth, you could spin it as (nearly) three years, since the 7970 came out in November 2011.
Say what now? There are, flat-out, barely any CPUs any better than the 3570K in the consumer market for gaming performance at the moment and for the near-future, especially if overclocked. The 3570K is a beast, why are its owners freaking out? The 680 is also a very solid GPU. We haven't gone much past it with single-GPU cards, even in ridiculous price ranges, yet. It was Nvidia's flagship card what, last year and earlier this year and it's been rebadged into the still-beastly 770? The one all new tech demos were demoed on like the Unreal Engine 4? I understand being a bit nervous with the new console transition raising up spec requirements and all, but these components are both beasts that still far outclass what's in either console. There's no reason to be so doubtful as to the capabilities of these processors (unless you're expecting to run your games at 2560x1440 and 120 fps with max settings or something), they're still among the best hardware available on the market.
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.
hooijdonk17
Member
No, don't get me wrong - I'm perfectly aware that games developed with new systems in mind will strain PCs more - but the thing here is, current PCs actually already had a lot of headroom, and all of a sudden Watch Dogs comes out of the left with outrageous requirements - it doesn't lead me to think they've done marvelous things that will make my head explode when I have an 8 core processor and a $500 graphics card; it makes me think they did a lazy port.
On the one hand I have BF4 with Frostbite 3 that really does make my eyes pop out with regular hardware..
On the other hand I have.. this.. that demands a $1000+ PC to even run OK.
Something's not right here..
... but it doesn't. You can build a system for 600$ that fits the "recommended" specs. (Never mind minimum, which is what it "demands")
Tidus_Great
Banned
I have a GTX460 so i meet minimum GPU and a little above minimum CPU. Looks like i'm going with the Ps4 version.
Apologies for quoting myself, but it really seems to me that AC3 is using all 4 cores just fine for me:
Wolf Akela
Member
My PC is at recommended level except for the processor (i3-2100, HD5850, 8GB). It's starting to feel dated. ;_;
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.
hooijdonk17
Member
I don't want to derail the whole argument but the FX-8350 CPU by itself is around $200 without the mainboard ($100) and 8GB RAM ($75) to go with it, and that's not even real 8 core. It's not a cheap upgrade to ask for, with really nothing to differentiate itself from games with better graphics that don't demand as much (Battlefield 4).
No need to apologize, quite a few pages back
Really wondering the same thing. Not sure it's actually making efficient use of all cores, but it certainly seems to be using threading for what it's worth.
Bananajama
Banned
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.
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.
When they specifically target the i7 3930k as an Ultra requirement it sets off red flags. Not to mention that 8 core CPU's are usually for non-gaming purposes. 8 core CPUs have been shown across NUMEROUS benchmarks to offer minimal to no benefit at all.
I've seen this all too many times. I'm calling it for what it is. The ultra specs are bs. As long as you have a high end i5 or i7 (starting from 2500k) you will be fine.
cheezcake
Member
Yeh, my 570 doesn't seem to be holding up to well these days. Thinking of going with a PS4 then I'll make a new PC after 20nm GPU's and 6-8 core haswell E's are out.
This is why I love GAF. Built my first computer two years ago, and even now the specs match up with the recommended list(560 Ti).
Still, planning on getting a new vid card anyway, and with free Batman, now's the time. Wonder if going from the 560 to a 770 will bump me up to Ultra, provided the processor thing isn't as bad as they're claiming(OMG NEED 8 CORES).
Still, planning on getting a new vid card anyway, and with free Batman, now's the time. Wonder if going from the 560 to a 770 will bump me up to Ultra, provided the processor thing isn't as bad as they're claiming(OMG NEED 8 CORES).
i5-3570 (non-K)
8GB DDR3
7870XT 2GB
hooked up to a 40" TV @ 1080p.
I expect I'll be able to run this fine at High (non-Ultra) settings pretty well...unless it's a terribad port which it might well be. I'm happy with my PC and won't be upgrading it until next year at the earliest.
8GB DDR3
7870XT 2GB
hooked up to a 40" TV @ 1080p.
I expect I'll be able to run this fine at High (non-Ultra) settings pretty well...unless it's a terribad port which it might well be. I'm happy with my PC and won't be upgrading it until next year at the earliest.