Watch Dogs 2 FREE on UPlay July 12th

[OneMember]

This expains why Upisoft servers have been down this evening.

[Nayr438]

1 hour ago, lewdicrous said:

Someone in their marketing team needs to rethink their life choices.

 

Wonder if they'll do that after the stream, like "sorry guys, we had technical difficulties, here's the game"

11 minutes ago, OneMember said:

This expains why Upisoft servers have been down this evening.

Yea 500,000 people trying to login at once.

[lewdicrous]

1 minute ago, Nayr438 said:

Was about to post that.

 

They should've just wrote "we're Ubisoft, we're not known for having good servers"

[MkaiL]

Who could ve guessed that ubi servers would shit themselves 

[Paul Rudd]

Glad I already own the game and don't have to even experience what y'all are experiencing. It came with my current pre-built PC back in December of 2016. I actually got 3 keys at the time(long story) and solf off 2 of them for $40 each.

 

It's one of the worst optimized games ever created when it comes to getting really high frame rates but it's playable. The gadget system is what I like most about it, it's sorta like the Middle-Earth Shadow of Mordor system only for gadgets.

 

Frame rate is a lot better when indoors and on outside roofs and what not but the city is bad when it comes to frame rate. It's all over the place, I don't care if you have a 2080 Ti. It's also known to present issues on a hard drive but fortunately it's not too bad on my hard drive. It's one of a few games very known to benefit being installed on an SSD, Arma III being one of the other ones.

 

Best of luck to all of you trying to get the game, it seems Ubisoft is promising that you'll all get it. My guess is they're just gonna give it out for free on UPlay. Like right on the front page.

[JZStudios]

4 hours ago, Polemical said:

It's one of the worst optimized games ever created when it comes to getting really high frame rates but it's playable.

 

Frame rate is a lot better when indoors and on outside roofs and what not but the city is bad when it comes to frame rate. It's all over the place, I don't care if you have a 2080 Ti. It's also known to present issues on a hard drive but fortunately it's not too bad on my hard drive. It's one of a few games very known to benefit being installed on an SSD, Arma III being one of the other ones.

Every time I mention that Ubi games are poorly optimized there's always someone that says it runs fine on their 2080 or something. If the shit doesn't run well on console, it's not well optimized. At this point there's no real argument for consoles being underpowered when Rockstar, EA, and other first and third party studios can have things look good and run fine. I'm still amazed how shit Wildlands and Steep runs at minumum settings. People like to argue, but Steep is a barren mountain with dogshit textures on low and it runs worse than Witcher 3 on high with hairworks. This whole generation has just been abundant with a sheer lack of optimization.

[Paul Rudd]

58 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

I'm still amazed how shit Wildlands and Steep runs at minumum settings.

Wildlands runs great, you have to turn off Shadows and God Rays. Those are the two major fps hits. Draw Distance is good to set to Medium and Ambient Occlusion is good to set at SSBC as well. You also gain chunks of fps by lowering Vegetation Quality to Low and every single setting below Vegetation Quality to OFF.

 

Set Level of Detail at Very High(very important to not set this to Ultra). Set Texture Quality at Ultra(unless you are VRAM limited of course). Set Anisotropic Filtering to Ultra(x16).

 

My 6th gen i5/1070 on these settings in 1440p gets 1% lows of right around 63 fps, an average of right around 76 fps and a max of right around 86 fps. I'd say this isn't bad for such a high demanding 2017 title in 1440p.

 

When you leave on Shadows and God Rays, it hits fps by a good 20-30 fps. I'm guessing this is why it might be running poorly for you because you most likely have both or one of these on.

[lewdicrous]

 

[JZStudios]

5 hours ago, Polemical said:

Wildlands runs great

Wildlands consistently runs like shit and requires way too much VRAM. Even when you have enough VRAM it runs poorly. I don't know why I can tell you it runs like shit at minimum and then you tell me to turn settings down, like it's not already, since y'know, it's at minimum.

Even at high the performance to visual fidelity is pretty poor, and once again TW3 runs better with significantly higher res textures, object density, object complexity, lighting quality, lighting distance, draw distance and shadow resolution. Once again, I can run the Witcher 3 at high ~45fps avg and Wildlands gets like 20 at minimum and looks like complete dogshit.

I get better framerate in ARMA 3 multiplayer on average than I do in Wildlands at minimum. That's fucked up. And it's not just me, my brother has a 1050 with 4gb of VRAM and it doesn't run that hot on his either.

[Paul Rudd]

8 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Wildlands consistently runs like shit and requires way too much VRAM. I can run the Witcher 3 at high ~45fps avg and Wildlands gets like 20 at minimum

The Witcher 3 only requires 2GB of VRAM while GRW requires 4GB. What you experience is understandable because CD Projekt Red games are simply better optimized than Ubisoft games. The REDengine 3 is just better than the AnvilNext 2.0.

 

I mean, Rainbow Six Siege is really the only game that runs great on the AnvilNext 2.0 and it's obviously because it's not an open world game. AC Unity, Syndicate, Origins, Odyssey, Steep and GR Breakpoint all have optimization issues and they all run on the AnvilNext 2.0. For Honor runs on it too but I can't remember how well that runs because I played it for like 20 minutes. I want to say it runs pretty well and it's again most likely because it's not an open world game.

 

The REDengine 3 is meticulously designed for open world games and exclusively on a 64-bit software platform at that.

[JZStudios]

45 minutes ago, Polemical said:

The Witcher 3 only requires 2GB of VRAM while GRW requires 4GB. What you experience is understandable because CD Projekt Red games are simply better optimized than Ubisoft games. The REDengine 3 is just better than the AnvilNext 2.0.

 

I mean, Rainbow Six Siege is really the only game that runs great on the AnvilNext 2.0 and it's obviously because it's not an open world game. AC Unity, Syndicate, Origins, Odyssey, Steep and GR Breakpoint all have optimization issues and they all run on the AnvilNext 2.0. For Honor runs on it too but I can't remember how well that runs because I played it for like 20 minutes. I want to say it runs pretty well and it's again most likely because it's not an open world game.

 

The REDengine 3 is meticulously designed for open world games and exclusively on a 64-bit software platform at that.

I didn't know the name of the engine, but I guessed they were all on the same engine. And that may be the case that REDengine is better, but when "Ubisoft open world" is practically it's own genre and it has such a massive studio and budget there's no real good reason they couldn't optimize the engine for literally the one thing that they actually do.

Have you looked at the textures on low in Wildlands? I'm not even kidding, they're worse than PS2 level and it still requires 4GB of VRAM. Steep is a bit less noticeable, but again the textures aren't good and it's literally an empty mountain yet I can't maintain 1080p60. Sometimes it won't even maintain 30, at minimum, on an empty mountain.

 

I mean seriously, look at this, it's awful. It looks noticeably worse than last gen titles (Many of which I still play because new titles are super unoptimized) and it just runs terribly.

 

 

[OneMember]

Ubisoft made website where you can claim your Watch Dogs 2 as servers where down during live steam yesterday.

 

https://register.ubisoft.com/ubisoft-forward-reward/en-GB

[Paul Rudd]

4 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Have you looked at the textures on low in Wildlands?

I can't say that I have, my GPU has 8GB of VRAM. Why don't you just upgrade your GPU? An 8GB RX 570 can be obtained for $75 to $100. You can get that same amount back by selling your current GPU.

[JZStudios]

1 hour ago, Polemical said:

I can't say that I have, my GPU has 8GB of VRAM. Why don't you just upgrade your GPU? An 8GB RX 570 can be obtained for $75 to $100. You can get that same amount back by selling your current GPU.

Because if I were getting a new GPU I may as well get a 1660 and there's not much point without also getting a new CPU, which means a new mobo and ram. And Win10, which I don't like. I don't like buying things that are used or already outdated. I was planning on getting new stuff a few months ago, but then it was made a better decision to screw ourselves further by continuing to be locked down instead of letting people y'know, make money and shit.

[Paul Rudd]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

Because if I were getting a new GPU I may as well get a 1660 and there's not much point without also getting a new CPU, which means a new mobo and ram. And Win10, which I don't like. I don't like buying things that are used or already outdated. I was planning on getting new stuff a few months ago, but then it was made a better decision to screw ourselves further by continuing to be locked down instead of letting people y'know, make money and shit.

Every word, completely understandable and totally forgot about your CPU being pretty ancient as well. Although the words, "And Win10, which I don't like." I can't completely understand as I use it every single day and love it to death. But I do understand it a little bit because at this moment in time, if I had to upgrade to Windows 11, I'd be VERY hesitant to do so because I am so used to Windows 10.

 

I say stay patient on your PC upgrade unless you are heavily into high demanding PC gaming. This is my reason for sticking with my 6th gen i5 and 1070 for so long now, I play more less demanding games than I do high demanding games. I also go from game to game quite often. GRW was the highest demanding game I played for over 200 hours aside from GTA 5 and The Division. I simply haven't bought many high demanding newer games. Anno 1800 I think is the newest but it's not all that demanding because it's well optimized. And again, I'm not investing hundreds of hours into Anno 1800. Although I wish I would, I love the game. I just have so many games, it's very tough to stick to just one.

[JZStudios]

22 hours ago, Polemical said:

Every word, completely understandable and totally forgot about your CPU being pretty ancient as well. Although the words, "And Win10, which I don't like." I can't completely understand as I use it every single day and love it to death. But I do understand it a little bit because at this moment in time, if I had to upgrade to Windows 11, I'd be VERY hesitant to do so because I am so used to Windows 10.

 

I say stay patient on your PC upgrade unless you are heavily into high demanding PC gaming. This is my reason for sticking with my 6th gen i5 and 1070 for so long now, I play more less demanding games than I do high demanding games. I also go from game to game quite often. GRW was the highest demanding game I played for over 200 hours aside from GTA 5 and The Division. I simply haven't bought many high demanding newer games. Anno 1800 I think is the newest but it's not all that demanding because it's well optimized. And again, I'm not investing hundreds of hours into Anno 1800. Although I wish I would, I love the game. I just have so many games, it's very tough to stick to just one.

I don't like the new design elements for Win10 as a big one. Everything is too sharp and spaced out, while simultaneously feeling claustrophobic and hard to find what you're looking for. It's also super contrasty, so everything is basically white or black. I hate dark modes and don't know why they're so popular. Looking at white text on black fucking sucks and then moving my attention to anything else really screws with my eyes. I 100% don't have that problem with black on white.

I also don't like the forced updates and MS logging everything you do. Which I know you don't care about, so therefore it's not an issue for literally anybody for any reason ever.

 

As to my PC, it's an 8350 and GTX-960. At the time I bought it I don't think there was the 4gb version, or it was slightly more and thus not worth the price at the time.

Ironically, (I mean not really, it ran on the 360) GTAV runs pretty well. I have it set to something like medium and I get ~80fps. There's only a handful of newer games I'd want to buy, so I've also been hesitant, but it'd be nice to play the few Ubi games I have, except they hate optimizing.

[JZStudios]

In unrelated news, has anyone gotten WD2 yet? It was supposed to be added on Monday.

[Paul Rudd]

20 hours ago, JZStudios said:

As to my PC, it's an 8350 and GTX-960.

Have you considered a GTX 1650 Super for $160? I want to say going any higher will present a CPU bottleneck on that 8350 but a 1650 Super should suit that 8350 very nicely and will not only double your VRAM, it's a much newer GPU with faster GDDR6 Memory. So your frame rate should see a significant boost in performance.

 

Not bad for just $160 if you ask me. You should easily get $75-$100 for that 960 2GB(depends on the model and how much original packaging you have).

 

I think to make the upgrade will depend on your monitor really. And possibly your RAM(hopefully you have 16GB). If you're getting 80 fps in GTA 5, the 1650 Super should allow you to reach above and beyond 100 fps and/or allow you to crank up your graphic settings quite a bit.

 

What do you have that 8350 clocked at? 4.0 GHz? 4.2 GHz? 4.5 GHz?

[JZStudios]

21 hours ago, Polemical said:

Have you considered a GTX 1650 Super for $160? I want to say going any higher will present a CPU bottleneck on that 8350 but a 1650 Super should suit that 8350 very nicely and will not only double your VRAM, it's a much newer GPU with faster GDDR6 Memory. So your frame rate should see a significant boost in performance.

 

What do you have that 8350 clocked at? 4.0 GHz? 4.2 GHz? 4.5 GHz?

I think it's at 4 or 4.2. Much higher and the cooling doesn't really hold up. The 1650 is what I was looking at for a similar ~$200 range my 960 was. I don't know how well it works with an 8350 though, I've been looking at benchmarks with the R5.

[Paul Rudd]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

I think it's at 4 or 4.2. Much higher and the cooling doesn't really hold up. The 1650 is what I was looking at for a similar ~$200 range my 960 was. I don't know how well it works with an 8350 though, I've been looking at benchmarks with the R5.

I see. Well, while the 1650 may be the perfect GPU for the 8350(imo, virtually zero bottleneck), the performance of the 1650 is right smack dab between the 1060 3GB and the RX 570 4GB. While I love the 1060 3GB(especially in 1080p), the price difference between the 1650($158) and the 1650 Super($160) is just $1-$2 right now. And these are the dual fan versions of both GPU's here.

 

So it's a bit of a no-brainer to target the 1650 Super as the 1650 Super is right on par of the performance of the RX 5500 XT 4GB, which is a little better performance than the 1060 6GB.

 

And here's the kicker, with that 8350, since it's just clocked at 4.0 to 4.2(boost clock), you may or may not get much more performance out of the 1650 Super vs the 1650 but... If you were able to at least manually clock your CPU to 4.2 GHz, it may be worth the performance you get from the 1650 Super(imo) vs the 1650. And if you somehow get a better cooler(also not sure of the VRM's on your mobo) and clock it to 4.4-4.5 GHz, then you should see some noticeable performance boost in going with the 1650 Super.

 

Either way, when the difference is $1-$2, ya' gotta target the 1650 Super. At least that's what I'd do.

 

If you're looking into an entirely new mobo/CPU/GPU combo, the Ryzen 5 3600/1660 Super is the way to go right now. You could always upgrade the GPU later because the Ryzen 5 3600 is a BEAST. It can actually keep up with an RTX 2080 Ti. The thought of a Ryzen 5 1600/2600 or Ryzen 3 3100 wouldn't even cross my mind because they're so overpriced/OoS right now due to inflation. Plus going with Ryzen 1000/2000 series CPU's calls for a little faster RAM speed such as DDR4 3600 when the Ryzen 3000 series CPU's don't need any more than DDR4 3200 RAM speeds at all because the performance increase is as negligible as can be, especially in higher resolutions. Contrary to popular belief, with Ryzen 3000 series CPU's, RAM speed isn't as important as it is with Ryzen 1000/2000 CPU's.

 

Also, what I like about the Ryzen 5 3600 is that you don't need the highest end of motherboards in order for it to function perfectly fine at its stock clock speed. And even when you do choose to go with a higher end board to overclock it, on air cooling, you simply aren't going to get much overclock that's going to make much of a difference anyway because quite frankly, the Ryzen 5 3600 is not a great overclocking CPU because of how well they already designed its stock clock settings.

 

It boggles the mind when people worry about high end boards when going with the Ryzen 5 3600 unless they do plan to upgrade it to a more core CPU such as Ryzen 7/9 for multiple other purposes, mainly multitasking and higher end video editing. That's where basic boards aren't going to do much at all. The basic boards just can't handle the higher core count due to power delivery mostly(aside from weak VRM's).

[JZStudios]

9 hours ago, Polemical said:

snip

Hmm. Maybe. I could check out the 1660 with the 8350. I kind of figured it wouldn't be worth it without just doing the whole system.

[Paul Rudd]

11 hours ago, JZStudios said:

I could check out the 1660 with the 8350.

The 1660 Super is just $20 more than the 1660 so it's the one to target between the two. However, your 8350 will bottleneck them both. Which is why I recommend the 1650 Super. Plus it's $80 cheaper.

[JZStudios]

1 hour ago, Polemical said:

The 1660 Super is just $20 more than the 1660 so it's the one to target between the two. However, your 8350 will bottleneck them both. Which is why I recommend the 1650 Super. Plus it's $80 cheaper.

I'd rather get the 1660 and later upgrade to a Ryzen platform. The rare occasions I use blender would improve drastically over keeping the 8350.

[Paul Rudd]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

I'd rather get the 1660 and later upgrade to a Ryzen platform. The rare occasions I use blender would improve drastically over keeping the 8350.

Yea, like I said though, you're gonna want to go 1660 Super over the 1660. It's worth the $20, especially in the long run.

 

The 1660 Super is practically the same performance of a 1660 Ti and is actually a little bit better performance than a 1070, just with 6GB of VRAM instead of 8GB. It's a little better performance than the 8GB 1070 because not only is it newer, it has the faster GDDR6 Memory vs the GDDR5 of the 1070.

 

The 1660(not the Super) also has GDDR5 Memory. The reason to not target the 1660 for $20 less is not only the noticeable drop in performance than the 1660 Super, but the 1660 is practically the same performance of the GTX 980 Ti and an RX 590 8GB.

 

P.S. The price difference is actually just $10 between the two a lot of the time throughout the year during random sales. Technically it is right now but I wouldn't target the current $10 more dollar dual fan 1660 Super as it is the Asus TUF GAMING OC model for $230 instead of $240 for other models. Not a model I'd want in my PC. Some people might, I wouldn't. I'd target either the Gigabyte OC for $240 or the EVGA SC ULTRA for $240. There's a reason to not go with the EVGA SC ULTRA though and that is the power limit on the card itself. You're not going to get much overclock(if any) with that power limit on the card so it's basically the card to target if you have absolutely no intention to overclock.

[JZStudios]

2 hours ago, Polemical said:

Yea, like I said though, you're gonna want to go 1660 Super over the 1660. It's worth the $20, especially in the long run.

 

The 1660 Super is practically the same performance of a 1660 Ti and is actually a little bit better performance than a 1070, just with 6GB of VRAM instead of 8GB. It's a little better performance than the 8GB 1070 because not only is it newer, it has the faster GDDR6 Memory vs the GDDR5 of the 1070.

 

The 1660(not the Super) also has GDDR5 Memory. The reason to not target the 1660 for $20 less is not only the noticeable drop in performance than the 1660 Super, but the 1660 is practically the same performance of the GTX 980 Ti and an RX 590 8GB.

 

P.S. The price difference is actually just $10 between the two a lot of the time throughout the year during random sales. Technically it is right now but I wouldn't target the current $10 more dollar dual fan 1660 Super as it is the Asus TUF GAMING OC model for $230 instead of $240 for other models. Not a model I'd want in my PC. Some people might, I wouldn't. I'd target either the Gigabyte OC for $240 or the EVGA SC ULTRA for $240. There's a reason to not go with the EVGA SC ULTRA though and that is the power limit on the card itself. You're not going to get much overclock(if any) with that power limit on the card so it's basically the card to target if you have absolutely no intention to overclock.

I thought the new gen cards didn't make a lot of difference with overclocking? What's wrong with Asus? My 960 is a Strix and I really like it.