-
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 for trailer confirmed; Requires i7-4770K with a GF 780 for Ultra
- Thread starter viveks86
- Start date
kriskrosbbk
Member
Am I a console gamer or this thread is really boring?
UnrealEck
Member
So what does this show? The graphics card isn't being fed by the CPU fast enough to be utilised properly? I assume that would mean that the GPU would rarely top out then too.
King Mac of Furry Frog
Member
Is this the new "Will my PC run it?" Crysis thread?
Poor optimization across the board. A 770 getting only 7fps average advantage over a 660 is disgusting.
knerlington
Banned
Don't be so sure. Tomb Raider Definitive Edition both looks and performs much better than what those specs deliver in the PC-port. I know. I have those parts. With the CPU running at 4.3GHz I might add. Just to keep going Shadow Fall arguably looks better than Crysis 3 in many ways. The only safe bet is that these parts deliver superior texture filtering and/or a higher resolution. Oh and really juicy PHYSX-features.
knerlington
Banned
Poor optimization across the board. A 770 getting only 7fps average advantage over a 660 is disgusting.
Which settings are being used there? I have a 660 Ti and with that game more or less maxed out I got ~40fps average. Also which driver version was used?
They do both a 1080p and 1440p benchmark, so only the resolution is different.
Drivers are Nvidia Driver ForceWare 331.82 and AMD Driver Catalyst 13.11 Beta v9.4.
knerlington
Banned
They do both a 1080p and 1440p benchmark, so only the resolution is different.
Drivers are Nvidia Driver ForceWare 331.82 and AMD Driver Catalyst 13.11 Beta v9.4.
Then it must have been a very population free area they tested it in.
Unless HBAO+ low makes such a difference in performance.
I did play with V-sync on on the other hand, but like in so many other games that didn't really lower the performance for me.
Sorry for the endless questions, but which CPU did they use?
Guessing that could have a big impact on it as well. I have a 2500k @ 4.3GHz.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Couldn't you say something similar for the PS4 minus the mountain due.
Paying for online sucks balls.
UnrealEck
Member
Well I ran the game and the GPU is being pretty much topped out trying to touch the frame rate limit. If it's poor utilisation I guess it must be both the graphics and CPU. If the GPU is topped out, it's not going to be using more CPU and naturally, most GPUs will be topped out when the settings are cranked. Especially in AC4 which apparantly tesselates pretty much the whole scene.
UnrealEck
Member
If you have the game installed, give it a go and check. I can't help be skeptical that a GTX 660 gets 51 FPS average at those settings.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Yeah I'm hoping the K is a typo and PC gaming hasn't gotten to the point where overclocking is a necessity.
VibratingDonkey
Member
Got spurred into finally making use of the K at the end of the model number.
Suddenly 4.5GHz. Hopefully stable. So far so good, Intel Burn Test is scary.
Suddenly 4.5GHz. Hopefully stable. So far so good, Intel Burn Test is scary.
This is the AC4 performance chart I usually reference:
http://hardwarepal.wpengine.netdna-...2013/11/Assassins-Creed-IV-cpu-benchmarks.jpg
It shows almost no difference between a Haswell i3 and an i7;
TR
E on console used a newer version of TressFX that (I think according to a certain chart) is less than half as demanding as the PC version; aside from that, the PC version runs like a dream. I think at this point, we don't have any great multi-plats to compare 1:1 because there's either something wrong with the game on console / PC, or there's different settings that cannot meaningfully be compared.I'd usually choose BF4 as a game to compare myself because it can actually make good use of PC hardware, but supposedly it's unoptimized / rushed on consoles (which I can give a bit of benefit of the doubt because we have AC4 and COD:Ghosts running horribly on PC).
http://hardwarepal.wpengine.netdna-...2013/11/Assassins-Creed-IV-cpu-benchmarks.jpg
It shows almost no difference between a Haswell i3 and an i7;
TR
E on console used a newer version of TressFX that (I think according to a certain chart) is less than half as demanding as the PC version; aside from that, the PC version runs like a dream. I think at this point, we don't have any great multi-plats to compare 1:1 because there's either something wrong with the game on console / PC, or there's different settings that cannot meaningfully be compared.I'd usually choose BF4 as a game to compare myself because it can actually make good use of PC hardware, but supposedly it's unoptimized / rushed on consoles (which I can give a bit of benefit of the doubt because we have AC4 and COD:Ghosts running horribly on PC).oh come on now
Do you guys like even know what you buy?
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I figured that Ubi will never have sandbox games that can keep a solid 60 on the PC as long as they're 30fps on the consoles. So I got a GSync monitor.
Are you on drugs?
Lethtonium
Neo Member
I seriously laughed at this. I hope this was sarcasm.
With my i7 4770k and a GTX 780, I'll take my ultra graphics, thanks.
I think a lot of people don't have a clue. I see so many posts asking if their fucking super computer will run the game just because it doesn't perfectly match the system requirements.
It doesn't take a god damn computer engineer to figure out how the hardware that you purchased compares to other hardware of the same class.
smfh
You might want to consider a fourth one, just in case.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Ubisoft's history of wonky PC ports is definitely coloring my view here. To be clear, I have no issue turning settings down to maintain framerate in demanding games; I play Battlefield 4 without HBAO currently on my 660 and know it looks better than the console versions by a country mile.
It's just that Ubisoft has a track record with these monstrous ports not really working like they probably should. Ghost Recon: Future Soldier's high end DX11 mode still haunts me, and AC4's PC version was a huge hassle compared to the pretty good looking and rock-solid 30fps PS4 version. I'm not a believer in diminishing returns when it comes to PC hardware, but Ubisoft ports in particular are the exception to that rule.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
I think most people in this thread asking are showing off.
UnrealEck
Member
What if their GPU was working full load and lowering settings improved the performance whilst still loading the GPU? That's what I see when playing AC4. I don't think that test paints the whole picture. Plus the frame rate is capped at 60 (62 really) so it's hard to lower the settings a lot to see the CPU doing work.
780 Ti's are so 2013. Get a couple of those new Titan Z's if you want 24 FPS cinematic experiences.
PixelJunkie
Member
http://www.hardwarepal.com/assassins-creed-4-black-flag-benchmark-cpu-gpu/
The game doesn't give a fuck how much money you spent on your rig.
AC4 was pretty bad. I have a i7-4930k and a pair of overclocked 780 TIs in SLI and the would still chug at times @ 2560x1600.
AC4 was harder to run at stable frames than Metro Last Light or Crysis 3.
I certainly hope Watchdogs is a little better than AC4.
You know what, you might as well just throw the PC out the window and buy the PS4 version.
Bonfires Down
Member
Nope, better wait for the 880ti and get four of those.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Well it's true. If you don't understand the nuances of graphics settings, or you can't be bothered to fiddle with them, you can play games on consoles. Personally I want to have complete control over tailoring the settings, that's one of the myriad reasons I play games on PC.
Atraveller
Banned
With laptop chips?
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
That's a bad opinion right there.
wandering goat
Member
I have a GTX780, but an older i5-760, though I do have it overclocked at 4 GHz. I honestly don't know how demanding the newer games will be on the CPU, but I feel like I haven't really been CPU limited yet, at least for achieving 60 fps at 1080p.
Ryoohki360
Neo Member
I7 3770K No OC
780 OC Gigabyte Rev2 + 100 on Core + 500 on Memory
2560x1440
Max setting, 2xtXAA (2x MSAA look horrible...), no PHYSX
Run trought an island, kill some dude, run in the ocean with the boat
Min Max AVG
34, 61, 46.637
Run trought NASSAU on roofs + run in the jungle area near it
35, 57, 42.768
this is with the latest Beta.
780 OC Gigabyte Rev2 + 100 on Core + 500 on Memory
2560x1440
Max setting, 2xtXAA (2x MSAA look horrible...), no PHYSX
Run trought an island, kill some dude, run in the ocean with the boat
Min Max AVG
34, 61, 46.637
Run trought NASSAU on roofs + run in the jungle area near it
35, 57, 42.768
this is with the latest Beta.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Given your username, I'll defer to your expertise on this one.
Sutton Dagger
Member
The 780m is pretty much a downclocked desktop 680, you'll run it better than the consoles but the res of the iMac could be an issue. You'll be able to lock it at 30fps with much better IQ than the consoles, I'd get it on PC.
Betta Lines
Member
The CPU in that iMac is a desktop chip - a 4771, clocked slightly higher than a stock 4770K. The problem is the 780m, which has a very misleading name and not at all comparable to the desktop 780. However it's decent and more capable than the recommended 560Ti.
As such, that iMac should play it comfortably, possibly even surpassing PS4 performance.