Somewhere below the quality a minimum spec PC will run it.
-
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
Somewhere below the quality a minimum spec PC will run it.
Here's a reality check on that 8 core recommendation: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
Less than 0.3% of Steam gamers have 8 or more cores. Unless they completely messed up, 2500k/3570k/4570k etc. will be fine. And if they messed up that bad, some 8 core from AMD isn't going to be any better.
Browsing through that Steam HW survey, the memory section surprised me. Less than 40% of gamers have 8GB or more. Having only 4GB of memory is probably a real problem with Watch Dogs considering their minimum recommendation of 6GB. Surely they aren't doing another Call of Duty Ghosts and require gigabytes of memory for literally nothing.
Less than 0.3% of Steam gamers have 8 or more cores. Unless they completely messed up, 2500k/3570k/4570k etc. will be fine. And if they messed up that bad, some 8 core from AMD isn't going to be any better.
Browsing through that Steam HW survey, the memory section surprised me. Less than 40% of gamers have 8GB or more. Having only 4GB of memory is probably a real problem with Watch Dogs considering their minimum recommendation of 6GB. Surely they aren't doing another Call of Duty Ghosts and require gigabytes of memory for literally nothing.
If you've only got a 1.5GB card, you were bound to start struggling here soon anyways.
Wouldn't say you're fucked, though. You'll just have to turn down settings a bit more than others.
I wouldn't worry too much about the VRAM as you can just drop the texture quality down a bit.
Harder to get around CPU requirements.
Ricerocket
Member
What does this even mean? You're expecting this open world game to run 60fps on native monitor res (usually 1080p) $400 PC no problem so why go with consoles?
Trent Strong
Banned
I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that I'll have to turn things down what with next gen raising the bar.
GhostTrick
Banned
brain_stew
Member
Hey, well this is my first AMD chip and my situation is unique because I need a machine that can transcode multiple HD streams alongside running a high end game, so multi threaded performance is more important for me than the average gamer.
After a lot of dual core CPUs were sold over quads on bad advice last generation, I'll always err on the side of more cores where I feel it makes sense.
If your budget allows for an i7 or an i5 with an unlocked multiplier then go for that every time. If you're going for longevity on a budget then traditionally more cores with reasonable performance have fared better than fewer slightly faster cores.
There are cards (like the 5850) that are just as powerful as the Xbone GPU but only have 1 GB of video memory. You'll have to turn down texture detail a bit but otherwise most 1 GB GPUs (that were capable in their day) should be fine.
Slackbladder
Member
Well, luckily I have a i7 3770@4.4ghz. That said is that good enough for the highest settings (my 780 is good to go)? Didn't have too much trouble with AC4. We'll see.
You'll breeze through it.
Pjsprojects
Member
I just went from an older four core Intel chip to the FX AMD eight core chip and up to now I'm happy. I don't get fps drops in Titanfall set to insane at all and I have read a few comments about this being a problem on PC version.
Even with properly N threaded games the FX line can't always keep up with Intel
(lots of graphs and text before all this bit)...There's simply no way to make up for this terrible performance. Sure, some games in the future might be n-threaded to better take advantage of the FX architecture, but there aren't many games right now that do. Not only that, but coding to take advantage of those extra cores is incredibly complex. From the mouth of Lord GabeN:
'If writing in-order code [in terms of difficulty] is a one and writing out-of-order code is a four, then writing multicore code is a 10. That's going to have consequences for a lot of people in our industry. People who were marginally productive before, will now be people that you can't afford to have write engine or game code.'
But even then, one of the few games that is n-threaded is Civilization V. You'd imagine that with those 8 cores at it's disposal, the 8350 would perform well, giving credence to the "well when multiplatform games are coded for 8 cores...." argument. Turns out, that's still not the case.
In case you are wondering, that 875K that is outperforming it was released in 2010. In the words of Scott Wasson:
'Either way you cut it, the FX-8350 remains true to what we've seen in our other gaming tests: it's pretty fast in absolute terms, easily improves on the performance of prior AMD chips, and still has a long way to go to catch Sandy Bridge, let alone Ivy.'
Pjsprojects
Member
All these charts are fine but newer games could be more optimised for eight core chips.
lets wait and see.
lets wait and see.
Civ 5 is, it can scale to use up to 12 threads.
GHG
Gold Member
Good thing that PC games scale to be playable on lower hardware then.
Recommended != minimum
And in a lot of cases minimum doesn't even mean anything.
I really don't understand what you're saying here.
I'm basically asking why a console version is a better choice here, assuming one has both a console and a moderately decent PC(but not a monster, high end one, where it would be an obvious choice). Even if you're not maxing the game out at 1080p/60fps, surely it'll still be better than on the console?
Obviously if you've got a weak PC, then yes, console versions will become more attractive, although I'd suggest it just means its time to upgrade that PC!
People need to be careful with direct comparisons to consoles.
Not necessarily because of the hardware optimization, but for the fact that PC standard is 60fps, which takes a lot more power than 30fps.
If you're just aiming for console quality(lowered settings, 30fps, possibly <1080p), then sure, you'll be fine, but 60fps will be a bit more difficult. Not impossible, but it'll require compromises.
dr_rus
Member
Why harder? You can just drop LODs down a bit.
This happens every time new generation of console arrives with multiplatform games that take advantage from new hardware. High-end PCs become "recommended" for gaming, and that type of configuration in a year or two slides down to "affordable" price range.
PC gaming space will quickly stabilize, this time even faster than normal because both MS and Sony did not target high enough like the last time.
People keep throwing around this '8 core' number, but, I mean... on the current-gen consoles, there are only 6 cores exposed to the developer and on top of this, there are actually only 2 discrete Jaguar modules in these consoles, each with 4 cores, but these cores share a variety of logic/resources.
While this technology undeniably yields greater performance than HT, it is absolutely not the same as having 8 discrete cores.
maneil99
Member
Different cases, in 2005 the Xbox had 3 Cores that were all very good, so standards raises because they had to. Now we have 6 weaker cores vs the average i5 pc which destroys it.
Actually performs well in Crysis 3. Cryengine 3 is really well optimised for 8 core CPUs.
maneil99
Member
I'd rather buy the PS4 version then have a below par experience on my 780/3570k like nearly every other ubisoft game has been, I'm fine with 30 fps on a controller, and assuming its 1080p it will likely look almost the same as the PC like AC4 barring some nvidia tech, hence why I'm not buying this on PC.
Actually performs well in Crysis 3. Cryengine 3 is really well optimised for 8 core CPUs.
Crysis3 was AMD-sponsored game, Crytek optimized game well for 8 cores.
You've got a 780 and 3570k and you're going to buy the console version?
What a travesty. C'mon man. You'll get 1080p/60fps quite easy. Don't do that to yourself.
It's part of why I said I'd rather wait on updates that would allow a computer to completely destroy consoles: at that point you may be able to brute force past terrible optimization, even though ideally any game would get a proper reworking so that an i5 2500k properly smokes the console CPUs.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
Well it if this is the future I might be considering an AMD CPU. Let's see how Watch Dogs runs on both.
Wow that's amazing. Game optimised for 8 cores runs pretty well on 8 core CPU. Pity we'll never see games optimised for 8 core ever again.
You're quite right, it's an absolute pity, and it's all the more tragic seeing as both current-gen consoles expose all 8 cores to the developers and definitely don't reserve 2 of those cores for the OS.
Petalpusher
Banned
they probably meant 8 threads capable, so any MT intel cpu, and AMD's
Shame DX12 is so far away, and Ubi is not adopting Mantle.
PC CPU bottlenecks could be solved with that, enabling vast majority of gamers [everyone with quadcores] to easily outpace draw call performance of new consoles. Current PCs are stronger than Jaguars, but DX11 is limiting them a lot.
PC CPU bottlenecks could be solved with that, enabling vast majority of gamers [everyone with quadcores] to easily outpace draw call performance of new consoles. Current PCs are stronger than Jaguars, but DX11 is limiting them a lot.
There are other settings besides resolution and FPS. Just because you have half the cores as an FX-8350 doesn't mean you are going to get half the performance. First time playing on PC?
The difference in FPS between 4670 and 4770 is literally fuck-all so I am not sure what you mean.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Frostbite favors CPUs with moar cores also. EA is going to use it in a lot of games too.
IMO, right now people building a PC on the cheap are stuck in an awkward transitionary period where Intel hasn't seen fit to grace the low end with anything but dual cores and AMD is still gigagarbage with single-threaded games. I personally wouldn't buy or recommend either, and stretch for a low-end i5 at the least.
ANGRY-GAMER
Banned
The more I have seen of this title the more I see Assassins Creed with tech gadgets rather than blades.
I'm not a hater by any means but I need more convincing.
As long as they don't have a review embargo the fact that there wont be a demo wont effect me.
I'm not a hater by any means but I need more convincing.
As long as they don't have a review embargo the fact that there wont be a demo wont effect me.
brain_stew
Member
You might as well forget that a last generation/Wii U version exists. It's going to be an abomination. No one should be considering buying this game for anything other than a mid-high end PC, PS4 or Xbone. Even then, it's going to be touch and go whether it's worth bothering on a mid range PC or Xbone, anything weaker than that is a disaster waiting to happen.
For some perspective, these are the "High Performance" requirements for Far Cry 3:
Processor: Intel Core i7-2600K or AMD FX-4150 or better
RAM: 8 GB
Video Card: 1024 MB DirectX 11-compliant card with Shader Model 4.0 or higher
Frame-rates below 60 are rare for me in Far Cry 3 on an i5.
Yes, yes, Dunia engine vs Disrupt and target consoles have 6 cores now, but I doubt that watch_dogs will run much better on Smokey's machine (2600k @ 4.6) than mine (3570k @ 4.5). It is very difficult indeed to make game code completely parallel. I'll bet good money that most of the heavy lifting will be done by threads 0,1 and maybe 2.
Hell, Haswell-E may even be available by then. Can't wait to see benchmarks for this game.
Processor: Intel Core i7-2600K or AMD FX-4150 or better
RAM: 8 GB
Video Card: 1024 MB DirectX 11-compliant card with Shader Model 4.0 or higher
Frame-rates below 60 are rare for me in Far Cry 3 on an i5.
Yes, yes, Dunia engine vs Disrupt and target consoles have 6 cores now, but I doubt that watch_dogs will run much better on Smokey's machine (2600k @ 4.6) than mine (3570k @ 4.5). It is very difficult indeed to make game code completely parallel. I'll bet good money that most of the heavy lifting will be done by threads 0,1 and maybe 2.
Hell, Haswell-E may even be available by then. Can't wait to see benchmarks for this game.
I suppose just using benchmarks doesn't really tell you the whole story. If you look around you seem to find different results.
alysonwheel
Member
I picked up an 8350 for cheap last year, and when my old GTX560 died last month I got an R9 270X on special and threw it in there.
I'm happy. Hoping to make it through the first couple of years of this console generation before anything starts holding me back too badly.
I'm happy. Hoping to make it through the first couple of years of this console generation before anything starts holding me back too badly.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
How many more cores does the 4770K have over the 4670K?
derExperte
Member
So a) you have already decided without seeing benchmarks (goes for everyone else going apeshit because of specs which strangely happens in nearly all of these threads) and b) couldn't use a controller with a 30fps PC version? I find that hard to understand.
Ugh... not sure if I want to go pc or ps4 on this. I've had my i5 2500k (currently at 4.2) and my gtx 570 since early 2011 and upgraded my gpu to a r9 280x (asus dual fan) late last year when it was released. What do you guys think?
Side note, I have to say that the 2500k has to be one of the best cpus likely of all time imo.
Edit: Any word on mantle support for WD?
Side note, I have to say that the 2500k has to be one of the best cpus likely of all time imo.
Edit: Any word on mantle support for WD?
I5 2500k @ 4.4 and a 7970GE 3GB and I expect to run it with pretty high settings. @ 1080p
Da fuck? I have 4670k @4.2Ghz and a 780 and it runs AC4 fine with just about everything cranked up. So if don't think your rig can handle this game, well I don't know what tell you. maybe sell it too someone who will utilize it.
Also I see you post in a lot of these tech threads like you know what your talking about, and mostly you're dead wrong or spouting tales from your ass.