Overclocking compatibale

[i_build_nanosuits]

and it's a nvidia sponsored title i think! so no mantle optimization to aliviate the cpu. it's a shame dx 11 sucks in cpu workload optimization

the retail version of the game will be lighter i'm sure, there seem to be something wrong with the cracked pirate version...

[deathjester]

Forget it Faa i found this user he use a core i7-4930K here is the CPU load, there's no way this game will run maxed out on an FX 8 core CPU or a core i5-4670K...the CPu is insane...but he also use the cracked with supposedly a mining trojan software in it probably the retail version will see somewhat lower CPU usage, let's hope it does...

http://imgur.com/a/2y2Rc

it's really beautiful though

 

Do some youtube searches in the last day or two. I5 isn't much worse than I7 and clock speed seems to matter the most. AMD 8350 isn't any better than an I5 and the fps in all the vids I watched was worse. The game is hyperthreaded but it doesn't come close to using high usage so HT doesn't mean all that much. The I7 threads will go to zero usage at times and a hexa just has threads that are completely dead and not moving.

 

The big issue with the game is it stuttering even at high on 2gb VRAM and high settings. 3 GB VRAM is required for ultra. Driving is where the game just plummets in performance. Any CPU out there that is modern can do 60 inside, I5's can do 40's outside, AMD is at like 30, and driving? All CPU's literally suck. They almost all dip under 30 fps even the 4770k. 

 

 

the retail version of the game will be lighter i'm sure, there seem to be something wrong with the cracked pirate version...

 

Yeah it was made by Ubisoft, and Nvidia withholds driver libraries. You will see a day 1 Nvidia driver that gives you 20-40 percent better lows, and AMD GPU's will prob be a week behind. Again this is all artificial and just a typical d1ck move by Nvidia, since almost every Nvidia title runs like CRAP before a day 1 patch. Wild Star is also a Nvidia title. So I am hoping to see some improvement there, cus even my 4770k blows for FPS in that game.

 

On a lesser CPU or a non OC I would lock the game at 30 fps. If driving doesn't improve much? It might be a good idea to lock any chip at 30 fps to be honest. That said, the game looks like garbage for the ram usage and the 3 GB of VRAM literally makes zero sense with what is on screen.

 

That said? Nothing we can do about it and I am glad I have been recommending the 3GB AMD GPU's the last few weeks. I would have felt horrible if I recommended the GTX 770 and it played the game worse and possibly all Ubisoft ports going forward. Too bad I have a GTX 770 , and I have one due to lite coin miners.

 

I hate you lite coin miners.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i also recommanded the r9 280 and 280x a lot recently, it was a bright move...i'm sure it will run better on the CPU side of things in the real retail version though...770 2GB should have never existed...that GPU deserved 3GB of VRAM and the 780 should be 4GB...nvidia...

[deathjester]

i also recommanded the r9 280 and 280x a lot recently, it was a bright move...i'm sure it will run better on the CPU side of things in the real retail version though...770 2GB should have never existed...that GPU deserved 3GB of VRAM and the 780 should be 4GB...nvidia...

 

Yeah for those looking for the ultimate price/performance GPU to run this (Watch Dog's).

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127789&cm_re=r9_280-_-14-127-789-_-Product

 

199.99 for a 3GB MSI r9 280 after promo code. If you are looking for ultra on this game as cheap as you can go? That would be it. Forbes did a review on the model. Runs very cool and is very close to a stock GTX 770.

 

Got to love Nvidia though. They were a PARTNER in the game and were selling Watch Dog's combos with a 2GB GTX 770 and I can only imagine they told Ubisoft not to drop this bomb until after people pre ordered (like I did) so they could clear stock on the 2 GB cards. 

 

Nvidia makes some high quality stuff, but of all the companies I hate them the most. From linux, to game driver libraries to just being scum, to stupid Titan Black cards and GPU prices going through the freaking roof. Hope AMD freakin crushes them in the future.

 

[Faa]

Do some youtube searches in the last day or two. I5 isn't much worse than I7 and clock speed seems to matter the most. AMD 8350 isn't any better than an I5 and the fps in all the vids I watched was worse. The game is hyperthreaded but it doesn't come close to using high usage so HT doesn't mean all that much. The I7 threads will go to zero usage at times and a hexa just has threads that are completely dead and not moving.

This is a proper one; 30 fps with 2 cores - 4 cores 60 fps - 6 cores 70 - all threads 70: www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ipzwdtGyE

Game seems to be multithreaded like bf4, a 3930K sees a minor advantage over a 2500K the 2 extra cores don't add that much of a gain. 

 

 

The big issue with the game is it stuttering even at high on 2gb VRAM and high settings. 3 GB VRAM is required for ultra. Driving is where the game just plummets in performance. Any CPU out there that is modern can do 60 inside, I5's can do 40's outside, AMD is at like 30, and driving? All CPU's literally suck. They almost all dip under 30 fps even the 4770k. 

Stutter is being caused by lack of vram that causes the hard drive being used as swapfile. Weirdly it just uses the hard drive for a few seconds the gpu loads drop down to 1% with 1 fps, probably to help out swapping -> bad code. Once thats done the gpu skyrockets but this happens like everytime you drive a half mile >.<

To fix this issue its easy; the setting textures has 3 levels: low 1024MB mid 2048MB and the highest 3GB. Just use 2GB setting for a 3GB card and use 1GB for a 2GB card. 

Anyways I'm mainly gpu limited with a single 780 but I'm held back by the cpu in SLI.

 

[deathjester]

 

This is a proper one; 30 fps with 2 cores - 4 cores 60 fps - 6 cores 70 - all threads 70: www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-ipzwdtGyE

Game seems to be multithreaded like bf4, a 3930K sees a minor advantage over a 2500K the 2 extra cores don't add that much of a gain. 

 

 

Stutter is being caused by lack of vram that causes the hard drive being used as swapfile. Weirdly it just uses the hard drive for a few seconds the gpu loads drop down to 1% with 1 fps, probably to help out swapping -> bad code. Once thats done the gpu skyrockets but this happens like everytime you drive a half mile >.<

To fix this issue its easy; the setting textures has 3 levels: low 1024MB mid 2048MB and the highest 3GB. Just use 2GB setting for a 3GB card and use 1GB for a 2GB card. 

Anyways I'm mainly gpu limited with a single 780 but I'm held back by the cpu in SLI.

 

 

 

So basically you have to play low textures on a 2 GB GPU? Dayyyyum . 

 

And the driving drops to 20's even on 4770k's are VRAM issues and you need a 4GB GPU to play ultra?

[Faa]

So basically you have to play low textures on a 2 GB GPU? Dayyyyum . 

 

And the driving drops to 20's even on 4770k's are VRAM issues and you need a 4GB GPU to play ultra?

For now yes but its just badly coded. Swapping doesnt work properly and you get such issues. Skyrim suffered from the same issue when it got released, it used all of your vram on any card doesn't matter how much you have it was always stuck to 100%. It's just one setting called "textures" you have to set to low and you can keep the others at max.

[Faceman]

Would love to see how the "all mighty" FX8350 performs for this game!

[i_build_nanosuits]

Would love to see how the "all mighty" FX8350 performs for this game!

looks fine on ultra...

 

[vitor_cut]

looks fine on ultra...

 

it looks "all mighty"

[Faceman]

it looks "all mighty"

Show me fps.  If it is not dramatically better than the i5, then this "all-mighty, future proof 8core ancient architecture" argument that nanosuits has been claiming will look really silly.

 

We have been promised multi-core optimized games for what seems like 3+ years now, and there is not a single game that runs better on the 8core dinosaur than the i5. 

 

If Watch Dogs can finally buck the trend, then I will be happy to admit I am wrong.  However, if the FX8xxx doesn't run dramatically better than the i5, I demand that nanosuits Seppuku's himself.

[i_build_nanosuits]

troll

[i_build_nanosuits]

However, if the FX8xxx doesn't run dramatically better than the i5, I demand that nanosuits Seppuku's himself.

troll

Keep in mind that the FX-8320 is priced to compete against the core i3, it's in fact cheaper than a core i3-4350...this is why i recommanded some users on a budget

to get FX-6300 or FX-8320...i've never said the FX 8 core would ''run games dramatically better than the i5''..never...at least not until the multi-thread optimised games really start to kick in

some serious optimisation for multi-core processors wich can take a while, until then it's still a very capable chip for gaming and it's all what matters.

 

Check this out:

 

http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm

Free to try, get version 8 and post your best result