A game that needs more than a 4670k right now is a piece of shit. That's the proc that I'll be upgrading to, and it's gluttonous-level to need more for Watch Dogs. I'm gonna try the game out with my 8320 at 4Ghz just to see how false the "recommended" specs actually are.
-
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 specs revealed - 8 core CPU recommended
- Thread starter pa22word
- Start date
A game that needs more than a 4670k right now is a piece of shit. That's the proc that I'll be upgrading to, and it's gluttonous-level to need more for Watch Dogs. I'm gonna try the game out with my 8320 at 4Ghz just to see how false the "recommended" specs actually are.
EatinOlives
Member
Watch Dogs isn't a "next gen" open world game, it's cross-gen. At a fundamental level it can't do anything wildly out of the PS3/360's capabilities because there wouldn't be last-gen versions if that were the case.
Of course, the PC version will have higher required specs because of the additional extra options, but the wind/traffic/crowd simulations will either be strictly cosmetic or not too powerful for last-gen hardware.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
not that a passmark score is anything but a grain of salt, but theoretically...
AMD fx-8350 = 9000 on passmark.
AMD 965be = 4250 to maybe 5000 OC'd.
Even an 1100t isn't going to hit anywhere near 9000 on passmark
So, I'm guessing this game is using some heavily optimized GPU computing on PS4, but maybe not so much on PC?
AMD fx-8350 = 9000 on passmark.
AMD 965be = 4250 to maybe 5000 OC'd.
Even an 1100t isn't going to hit anywhere near 9000 on passmark
So, I'm guessing this game is using some heavily optimized GPU computing on PS4, but maybe not so much on PC?
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
No it just confirms that games will be highly multithreaded because consoles have 8 cores now?
xemumanic
Member
That's what I think it is. How cheap/low end can you go on Intel before you can't do 8 threads?
Probably can't be very.
there are many games recently that were 64 bit only.
flipswitch
Member
Question for PC owners who've bought Ubi soft games in the past. Are they all un optimised or is it just a select few?
The only one that gave me trouble for a bit was Ghost Recon: Future Soldier.
They are CPU bottlenecked, mostly because of poor DX9/11 scaling. Far Cry 3 was a great game on PC, more than 1 million people bought it around launch.
They all ran fine, but achieving high framerates [above 60] was hard.
As far as recent open-world efforts are concerned, AssCreed 3 has framerate issues in cities (poor CPU utilisation) and the frontier during the winter (overly liberal use of tessellation for snow deformation); Black Flag doesn't run as well as it perhaps should but performance did feel more consistent to me until the PhysX patch (even with PhysX disabled, ApeX is still use for cloth simulation); and Far Cry 3 runs well but I had to disable multithreading for the D3D11 renderer to stop it from crashing.
maneil99
Member
4 good threads > 6-8 bad ones. With Dx12 coming the need for 8 core cpus diminishes even more as it will help the gpu offload work from the cpu.
brain_stew
Member
So it can run just fine on 6 netbook CPUs @ 1.6ghz but it requires 8 full fat desktop cores with far higher performance per thread @ well over double the clockspeed on PC?? They're calling for roughly ~5x the CPU performance they have available on consoles from PC rigs. That is a staggering increase.
Either:
This is one of the worst optimised PC ports we've ever seen.
The framerate in the console version is abysmal.
The recommended specs are actually for 60fps+ gameplay.
Sadly, I suspect it's a combination of 1 and 2 and we're all going to be left with terrible frame rates no matter where we play the game.
Either:
This is one of the worst optimised PC ports we've ever seen.
The framerate in the console version is abysmal.
The recommended specs are actually for 60fps+ gameplay.
Sadly, I suspect it's a combination of 1 and 2 and we're all going to be left with terrible frame rates no matter where we play the game.
Or it's coded to the metal. That's the only rational answer.
AC4 Black Flag is unoptimized when i read the thread of AC4 PC. It's pretty horrible that it tanks even the highest and fastest pc's around.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
OP has an error. Its not the Anvil engine. Its the Disrupt Engine
(Also, Driver)
(Also, Driver)
Exactly what I was thinking.
brain_stew
Member
In games based around engines targeting last generation engines, yes. In engines built around targeting 8 threads, I'm not so sure.
Even comparing a modern i5 to an 8 core fx chip is a false comparison. I've just picked up an 8 core fx8320 for £100 which is the same chip as an fx8350 because it has an unlocked multiplier but all I could get on the Intel side at that price point was an i3.
It's true that the i3 will outperform the fx chip in a number of current games but I wouldn't feel confident in it coping well compared to the fx with an engine optimised for 8 threads.
brain_stew
Member
UbiSoft have the option to do that on PC now as well and while we've seen that the increase in performance can be significant, it has never offered a 2x increase in performance let alone a 5x increase.
GhostTrick
Banned
I think the problem here is that people are talking about minimal and recommanded specs. Which, then again, means nothing.
Minimum specs is 2009 CPU/GPU. Now what minimum means ? For Metal Gear Rising, it was running the game at 1080p/60FPS.
It'd be great if someday, we had actual settings/res/framerate instead of only "recommanded/minimum".
Minimum specs is 2009 CPU/GPU. Now what minimum means ? For Metal Gear Rising, it was running the game at 1080p/60FPS.
It'd be great if someday, we had actual settings/res/framerate instead of only "recommanded/minimum".
As far as i know there won't be any loading in game.
Maybe it is not right place to post this but it is hilarious XD One of the best topics on Steam Community
http://steamcommunity.com/app/243470/discussions/0/558752449602292721/
In short guy/girl is accusing Ubisoft for violating United States Bill of Rights: Amendment IV
http://steamcommunity.com/app/243470/discussions/0/558752449602292721/
In short guy/girl is accusing Ubisoft for violating United States Bill of Rights: Amendment IV
Consoles games do not even have 8 cores to work with, 2 are locked off for the OS.
The FX8350 is only a little bit faster in most heavily multi threaded loads than an i5, if games are made with only 6 heavy threads in mind it will not stand a chance.
Lets also not forget Amdahl's Law.
maneil99
Member
Saying things to make you feel better about your purchase doesnt make it true
GhostTrick
Banned
Eh, he's kinda right. Games will rely more and more on multi-threading. Back in 2009, I had a choice between a great dual core or a good quad core.
People would tell me "Quad core is no use for gaming. It's useless". Of course back then, I could get better performance with dual core, but nowadays, the same quad core back in the days would get better performance.
Which is why I'm now holding on to see games such as Watch Dogs, to see how they perform on i5 CPU.
Windom Earle
Member
Got dat 3770K @ 4,6 on lock.
Would be nice to see more games that use SMT.
Would be nice to see more games that use SMT.
brain_stew
Member
So you believe an i3 will outperform an fx8320 in Watch Dogs???
We went around this same merry go round at the start of last generation when the two hot "bang for buck" chips were the dual core E8400 and the quad core Q6600. The majority would scream from the heavens that the E8400 was the better buy because it's performance in current games was (slightly) higher but a Couple of years later it was already struggling. Meanwhile Q6600 owners like myself were sitting smug with a chip that layer an entire console generation and has only really started to require a replacement within the last year.
I'm not saying that Intel chips aren't faster because they are. I'm not saying that AMD's chips are even remotely power efficient either because their TDPs are ridiculous. However, if your budget gives you the choice between 2 cores or 8 cores then I'm going to side with 8 cores providing they're good enough for 60fps on current games already.
Trent Strong
Banned
8 gigs of RAM? Jesus.
Pjsprojects
Member
Said it before in other threads,due to both consoles running eight car AMD cpu's they are bound to optimise better for that spec on PC because lazy/cheap port efforts.
We all wanted the stakes raised on PC so I really hope with a nice eight core cpu and a good graphics card the game runs and looks a good bit better than the PS4 version.
We all wanted the stakes raised on PC so I really hope with a nice eight core cpu and a good graphics card the game runs and looks a good bit better than the PS4 version.
Can someone explain to me how intel is so far ahead in CPU tech compared to AMD? The CPU is the heart of the system, saving a few bucks on that one component at the expense of everything else but the GPU seems pointless. We don't see this kind of disparity anywhere else in the PC space.
Pjsprojects
Member
For good reason Gaf has always been mainly an Intel fan club. However things may change,lets see how the game runs on AMD tech.
My rig should run this great looking at the spec list but we will see.
I'm fucked?
If you don't think you can run this game well with those specs then please hit yourself in the head with a hammer. Hard.
It's painfully obvious some of you are new to PC gaming.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Given the minimum specs for the PC version. I really do have to wonder how the WiiU version will run.
Trent Strong
Banned
Guess my 660 doesn't have 2 gigs of "video ram" or "vram" or whatever it is, so I'm fucked.
GhostTrick
Banned
brain_stew
Member
Access to better process tech, far more resources and better/more engineers. Creating a high end x86 processor isn't something that can be done cheaply, it takes years of investment for minimal gains.
AMD have also mostly shifted their focus away from the high end onto APUs where they can offer a real advantage over Intel because of their GPU pedigree. If they had more resources then we would have already seen Steamroller in an FX chip by now but given their limited resources we won't see it in anything other than an APU until 2015.
Pro Bender
Neo Member
Rest in pieces my AMD Phenom dual-core.