PC requirements for Watch Dogs confirmed

[Altecice]

Wind simulation really? AC4 has that and ocean simulation makes zero difference.... They may seem to think but so did Dice who recommended a fx 6300 or an quad core intel for BF4, almost certain an i5 still provides a better gameplay experience. 

 

There is  no evidence to support the claim from now on, there have been released for the next gen consoles and pc that are still not optimized for consoles, look at thief not ported from consoles huge cpu difference between 8350 and i5.

How is AMD not trying to compete with an i5? What is it competing with an i3?

I will be laughing when my i5 still beats the 8350. 

 

Firstly you have to understand Ocean Simulation is not hard at all its just simple sine wave algorithm with a texture on top... been near perfected for years. not hard at all for a CPU.

 

Have you ever seen AMD actively compare a new CPU to an Intel? No they are not the same things that's like comparing an Apple to a Car. Some are better than others are there own tasks.

 

Also What GPU are you running? I'm sure as hell going to bet its Nvidia now seems that AC:BF was an NVIDIA game and was optimized for NVIDIA and NVIDIA refused to let AMD make drivers for a long time after the game came out. that's why your I5 outperformed an 8350. Now I know you are going to say "but they compared it with Nvidia GPU's as well"... That is still not the point I am getting at nor my friend above me.

 

Games of the past have not used any more than 4 cores effectively. Now consider that your I5/I7 is Hyperthreaded. This means that your CPU can "in theory" do more than one Floating Point operation at a time BUT actually they cant they have to do 4 threads and wait then do another 4 threads all while acting to the program as if they are 4 cores. today's I5/I7's are at the sweet spot of HT technology... when you up scale that further its no longer as beneficial as before.

 

 

But anyway lets not get stuck down into Hyperthreading..... the point I and my friend above are making. Is DUE to the fact the consoles are 8 cores they should in theory be optimized or easily optimized for an 8 core system Now your I5/I7 with the 4 cores that are able to do two floating point threads at the same time with a pause wont be as effective as an 8 core system that has got software written to use not only 4 threads but 8 cores.

 

4HT cores = 4 threads ..... pause .... 4 more threads

8 cores      = 8 threads ..... no pause.... .another 8 threads 

 

Now when we say that the games will start to use AMD's 8 cores better you can see how ....

IN THEORY

It will be performing better. As the software will not only use 4 of the AMD cores but 8 meanwhile an Intel system wont get the benefit of being fine with using 4 cores + HT over the raw processing power of 4 more cores that can do 8 things at a time. not 4 pause 4.

[bcredeur97]

Radeon 6950 2GB and a 3570k @ 4.3 GHz

 

 

sound good?

[gatecrasherlok]

Lets just hope these specs they quote are actually pushed and required.

[LegendKillerRG]

You guys forgot about DX12, it'll make this game's requirement spec much lower especially for CPU since the CPU is twice in price as much as GPU for requirement.

[lhikary]

does anyone knows if we can mod it

[Notional]

You guys forgot about DX12, it'll make this game's requirement spec much lower especially for CPU since the CPU is twice in price as much as GPU for requirement.

This game is not direct x 12, so what do you mean? 

[A/C]

You guys forgot about DX12, it'll make this game's requirement spec much lower especially for CPU since the CPU is twice in price as much as GPU for requirement.

 

This game is not direct x 12, so what do you mean? 

 

Yes, he seems to have forgotten the fact that the game doesn't support it

[Mindtrickz]

+1 for this.

 

This is why from now on (as the consoles are AMD 8 cores) you will start to see more and more pre optimized AMD 8 core titles coming to PC that WILL outperform intel fan boys precious I7's.... HTing wont save you from still only being quad cores.

 

I also love how people assume AMD are trying to directly compete with CPU's that are on average like $100+ more expensive than them. 

 

[deathjester]

+1 for this.

 

This is why from now on (as the consoles are AMD 8 cores) you will start to see more and more pre optimized AMD 8 core titles coming to PC that WILL outperform intel fan boys precious I7's.... HTing wont save you from still only being quad cores.

 

I also love how people assume AMD are trying to directly compete with CPU's that are on average like $100+ more expensive than them. 

 

The consoles are 1.6 and 1.7 ghz mobile CPU's. They are slow clock for clock compared to a desktop CPU. This is like comparing yugo's to airplanes.

 

Here is what is in the consoles.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7528/the-xbox-one-mini-review-hardware-analysis/2

 

Titanfall has MAJOR frame drops on the Xbox One and screen tearing and that is due to bandwidth even on a low level API. The AMD CPU in the XB1 is clocked HIGHER than PS4.  It isn't even enough to run Titanfall and not bottleneck a AMD 7770 in TFLOP performance. Are 8350's faster then a I5 in Titanfall?

 

We are not "intel fan boys". AMD's get absolutely throttled clock for clock on single core performance. We are realists. There have been MANY "next gen titles" and the 8350 is behind on all of them. The 8350 can get close with MANTLE, not DX 11.

 

Single core scores from this forum. The I3 Sandy Bridge is faster at STOCK than most HIGH OC 8350's on a 24/7 (nearing 5ghz which is NOT easy to get and requires a Sabretooth and extreme cooling, in which case you spent more than I did on my evo 212 4.5ghz 4770k, cheap z87 which throttles the 8350).

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=1

 

Multicore. 

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=0

 

Both matter in gaming and single core is heavier weighted in games. I5 is faster in all next gen games. It isn't by much, but it doesn't matter.  Both the I7 and 8350 are crappy "8 cores" and the I7 z87 doesn't even claim this. Integer cores are slow and we don't use that for GAMES, and hyperthreading is like 1-3 FPS in "8 core games" and that is above what the AMD does so who cares.

 

This will all change in a few years. The 8320 (which is damn near a I7-920 running at 4ghz) will be a brilliant chip at it's price range. Saying it will be faster than an I5 in games though? Not gonna happen. Add to that? Not all games are going to be DX 12.

 

I5 is simply the much better all around GAMING chip. The only way an 8350 would be faster in a game is if they literally did not use Intel extensions in a game. No game maker would do this when Intel is the majority of the market. They would be sabotaging the game for most of their buying player base. It isn't going to happen.

 

We are ECSTATIC AMD's will be better in the future. I think it is awesome we are getting better optimization Selling the future now, based on fairy tales, is not good though. You also may want to look at how much the I3 improved with Mantle though. AMD was not the only chip that saw benefits. The I3 damn near doubled in "8 core games".

 

The 8320 can be a decent buy if you play a lot of single player games (not cpu bound). The I5 is a better enthusiast choice. The I7 is for streaming/gaming/rendering.  All of those chips will get slaughtered in rendering by REAL 6 cores and REAL 8 cores. See the cinebench scores where the 4770k kills the AMD, and the Hexa kills the 4770k.

[LegendKillerRG]

Yes, he seems to have forgotten the fact that the game doesn't support it

what i meant is that it could...

[A/C]

:snip:

 

 

You can't please the crowd. If we're trying to be realistic and say AMD is better at this then we're intel fanboys, and if we say AMD is better at something then we're AMD fanboys. It's sad but true.