Watch Dogs PC "ultra" specifications revealed

[bcredeur97]

LOL you would fold the crap out of them wouldn't you?

no actually I quit folding a while back because i needed some money so I did litecoin. But @Whaler_99 still honors me with the award despite me even telling him I was quitting. I do really appreciate him

[ericlee30]

no actually I quit folding a while back because i needed some money so I did litecoin. But @Whaler_99 still honors me with the award despite me even telling him I was quitting. I do really appreciate him

Yeah @Whaler_99 Is a pretty cool guy and its really cool of him that he still lets you keep the badge

[worldwin]

Im betting that the GTX 780 is due to them using TXAA which does a huge performance hit.

[BoDyBaG2224]

The PC was the primary platform for Watch Dogs so it's actually not a port.

 

But the fact that it is available on consoles means that it had to be developed with them in mind.

 

I'm just taking this with a grain of salt, the pre-rendered stuff looks good, the actual gameplay footage I've seen looks "meh".

[cnapier39428]

Lol I have a 780ti, ftw

[dizmo]

Haha, figured most people would doubt it.

"What? They've finally managed to make use of an i7 for gaming? Don't believe it. i5 is fine."

[MasterJV]

It's probably horribly optimized. Game doesn't look that great from the footage I've seen. The i7/8350 kind of makes sense since you have control over the city and all that but 780?

[sgs2008]

Specs seem perfectly fine to me, the absolute minimum gpu I would have thought to run this at ultra 1080p and constant 60fps would have been a 770. So not much higher than what I expected.

[Sidiox]

Haha, figured most people would doubt it.

"What? They've finally managed to make use of an i7 for gaming? Don't believe it. i5 is fine."

But why i7? Most people buy good GPU's not CPU's and usually when a game needs a good CPU it is because of bad optimisation and considering that what we have seen so far from this game hasn't been too impressive people doubt if an i7 is justified.

[Rassilon]

I call bs unless they release it very unoptimized or they're playing with some crazy AA on 1080p + resolution

Yes. It's ultra

[Rassilon]

But why i7? Most people buy good GPU's not CPU's and usually when a game needs a good CPU it is because of bad optimisation and considering that what we have seen so far from this game hasn't been too impressive people doubt if an i7 is justified.

Because literally every npc is an AI that you have to calculate for.

It's next gen, get rid of any preconceived notions you might have

[Kamina]

Probably for settings that don't matter.

[qwertywarrior]

if this is true then this gamemight be unoptimized 

most if not all new games rely a lot less on the CPU

you will get the same fps on bf4 if u had a modern dual or quad core etc on ultra

[TheNinjaNextDor]

lol no.

[A/C]

At what resolution, and for what FPS? If a game requires a 4770K it's very unoptimized I think... And why a -K part why not just 4770? What are they aiming at Ultra as an enthusiast-only option?

 

I'll believe it when I see it. I call BS

[deathjester]

Damnnnn a 4770k? I really need to upgrade :C but atleast game devs are actually taking the full advantage of the the horse power pcs have

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/watch-dogs-pc-ultra-specifications-revealed/1100-6418973/

 

People always demo on hexa's at stock instead of OC I5's/I7's. They always have a high GTX card in there as well (Nvidia marketing). I am thinking the I7 being recommended is AMD marketing.

 

In the end the only way a I5 would bottleneck a 560Ti (that they "recommend") on a single player RPG (lol yeah right), is if this is the worst optimized game of all time and Ubisoft has one upped themselves and does this crap on purpose because they feel people pirate their games instead of people not wanting to use uplay rootkit, and or being ticked off about their optimization (this is the same company who told PC gamers to buy a new video card if the game ran bad and said PC optimization isn't important lol). 

 

I don't put poor optimization past Ubisoft, but as soon as you see "8 core" in the recommended? You should be thinking BS.

 

1.Consoles use 6 of 8 pseudo cores on a 1.6-1.7ghz mobile CPU that is much slower clock for clock than a desktop one. A tech article on Infamous Second Son said how it only uses 6 "cores".

2. Everyone knows the I7 is not an 8 core. AMD is still selling their "integer cores" as cores but people who look at the chips know that is BS. If you are sharing two cores on one section that isn't a core. You have to share resources and one core can be "waiting"  while the other "core" uses them. This is why the I5 is faster in games. AMD console chip is same deal. 2 "cores" on 4 sections of the die. So basically this game is using 6 "threads" at 1.6-1.7ghz, but we need an I7? LOL.

 

I will believe it when I see it. If the I5 can't play this game well? Then Ubisoft is to blame and it will come to light. Every single next gen game has run slightly better to quite a bit better on the I5 pre mantle, and mantle just closed the gap. ESO runs better on an I3 then a 8350 and that is a MMO...and not a single player RPG.

[Notional]

In the end the only way a I5 would bottleneck a 560Ti (that they "recommend") on a single player RPG (lol yeah right), is if this is the worst optimized game of all time (...)

 

 

1.Consoles use 6 of 8 pseudo cores on a 1.6-1.7ghz mobile CPU that is much slower clock for clock than a desktop one.

Except that there are no similar games like watch dogs out there. WD has fairly advanced AI for all the NPC's to a degree that has never been seen on an openworld sandbox game. AI is completely CPU bound.

Furthermore the game has a wind simulation system tied into its physics engine. That is completely bound to the CPU as well, manipulating trees, shrubbery, debris, clothes, cans on the ground etc.

All of this takes up a lot more CPU power than we are used to, and it does it parallel in multiple threads.

 

Casually concluding it's poor optimization is simply not very constructive. When a game introduces these things we have not seen in an open world sandbox game before, all being CPU bound, obviously it is going to take a lot more power to run it.

 

Also what do you mean pseudo cores? They are jaguar cores, which are no more pseudo than Intel's.

[simson0606]

yay i can finally put my 2600K and gtx 780 to work

[Guest]

Im betting that the GTX 780 is due to them using TXAA which does a huge performance hit.

I thought TXAA was more efficient than regular ol' MSAA.

 

Didn't they say that in the tech demo? And also here http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/txaa/technology

[TOMPPIX]

I thought TXAA was more efficient than regular ol' MSAA.

 

Didn't they say that in the tech demo? And also here http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/txaa/technology

[freexavier]

Damnnnn a 4770k? I really need to upgrade :C but atleast game devs are actually taking the full advantage of the the horse power pcs have

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/watch-dogs-pc-ultra-specifications-revealed/1100-6418973/

I think this requirements are for people who are gaming in 4K and want 120 FPS..

[Lukiose]

Even from the PC trailer the graphics didn't look overwhelming to be honest, i'm calling bullshit on these specs

[MzCatieB]

thats just ambitious

[MrSpeed]

why do i think it's gonna be like CoD Ghosts 6GB Ram requirement bs

 

anyway we'll wait and see

[Guest]

 

So from that I glean that in CoDBlops2 4X TXAA performs the same as 8X MSAA but will look "better" as TXAA is based on quality output at the expense of performance.  Those numbers are damn impressive from 680 at that resolution though.  I doubt my 670 could reach anywhere near that.

 

Do the 7XX series cards handle TXAA better?