Watch Dogs 2 PC benchmarks

[Just Monika]

Looks like a GTX 1080 for 1080p gaming soon won't be a lame joke but a sad reality.

[sazrocks]

Holy crap that game is demanding.

[DarkBlade2117]

12 hours ago, Alexzz_ said:

what? need at least a 980ti for 60fps at ultra? im glad i upgraded to a 1070 if future games are gonna be this heavy.

Ha, Made me laugh. This isn't a heavy game, this is what we call a shit port.

11 hours ago, Kloaked said:

Uhhh the Fury only comes with 4GB of VRAM.

 

When is this tired conspiracy stuff going to end?

 

Because GTA 5 doesn't have its own performance problems.

Uh, I got 30-45FPS in GTA V With a 750Ti and A6-3650 lol, at 1080p, at medium settings. GTA V is what I would consider very well optimized considered it's a port. A RX 480 should be able to maintain a minimum 50 FPS in any 1080P title at Ultra Settings.

[DarkBlade2117]

1 hour ago, Weird Face said:

Looks like a GTX 1080 for 1080p gaming soon won't be a lame joke but a sad reality.

Nah, that's called every console port for the first 2-3 months.

1 hour ago, sazrocks said:

Holy crap that game is demanding.

Just badly optimized as mentioned a few times.

[DarkBlade2117]

8 hours ago, samcool55 said:

Tbh that's even worse.

That means the 980 lost half it's value as soon as the 1060 released...

If i owned a 980 (thank god i don't) i would feel ripped off, a lot.

 

550 euros for a card that's less than 275 worth just over 2 years later (if you got it at launch)

If you got one a year ago that would mean you lose 275 euros in a year, just in depreciation of a graphics card...

We know pc components don't hold value well but that's just terrible.

 

If you can come up with an AMD equivalent between a 3XX card and a rx 4XX card, let me know

See the difference between AMD and nVidia is that AMD continues to support their cards and do what they can to optimize it. It's why R9 290 and 290x's are the same price on the used market as a GTX 970. It's why the 290/x are better than the 780/Ti and last I checked the 480 has caught up to the 1060 as at one point it was a 10% difference now it is either within a margin of error or 5% behind and is decent amount better in DX12 and Vulkan games.

For your comparison, a R9 390 was about the same as a RX 480 slightly overclocked, now at stock the 480 beats a 390 stock. And a 290 isn't to far behind.

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Ha, Made me laugh. This isn't a heavy game, this is what we call a shit port.

Uh, I got 30-45FPS in GTA V With a 750Ti and A6-3650 lol, at 1080p, at medium settings. GTA V is what I would consider very well optimized considered it's a port. A RX 480 should be able to maintain a minimum 50 FPS in any 1080P title at Ultra Settings.

no. That's what an RX 470 is designed to do. except it's designed to run at 60fps.

 

The fact that an RX 470 let alone an RX 480 can't hit 60fps or exceed it shows had bad the port is.

[Monarch]

4 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Ha, Made me laugh. This isn't a heavy game, this is what we call a shit port.

Uh, I got 30-45FPS in GTA V With a 750Ti and A6-3650 lol, at 1080p, at medium settings. GTA V is what I would consider very well optimized considered it's a port. A RX 480 should be able to maintain a minimum 50 FPS in any 1080P title at Ultra Settings.

 

Watch Dogs 2 has the latest and greatest graphics tech. GTA V has blur and low res textures. And the beauty of PC gaming is that you can optimize yourself. That's what the graphics settings are for.

[Morgan Everett]

From what I've seen so far, it looks to be demanding at the highest settings, rather than a poor port. But I'll have a look in a bit (got the game free with my 1080).

[Guest Kloaked]

6 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Uh, I got 30-45FPS in GTA V With a 750Ti and A6-3650 lol, at 1080p, at medium settings.

Well I'll be damned. Color me shocked. Absolute madness that a midrange system can run a game at medium settings.

 

6 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

GTA V is what I would consider very well optimized considered it's a port.

It still has performance problems.

 

6 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

A RX 480 should be able to maintain a minimum 50 FPS in any 1080P title at Ultra Settings.

[DarkBlade2117]

2 hours ago, Monarch said:

 

Watch Dogs 2 has the latest and greatest graphics tech. GTA V has blur and low res textures. And the beauty of PC gaming is that you can optimize yourself. That's what the graphics settings are for.

There's only so much you can do with a shit port.

I could see of the game actually looked like it required such hardware, but it doesn't. I'd much rather play GTA V, in terms of gameplay and visual. To be honest, when I seen the benchmarks I thought it was the wrong game.

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, DarkBlade2117 said:

I could see of the game actually looked like it required such hardware, but it doesn't.

Yes it does. Do you actually have the game?

[DarkBlade2117]

5 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

no. That's what an RX 470 is designed to do. except it's designed to run at 60fps.

 

The fact that an RX 470 let alone an RX 480 can't hit 60fps or exceed it shows had bad the port is.

The 470 can hit 60FPS, no doubt, but the 480 is more capable of doing it while maintaining a fairly high minimum. Again, no doubt the 470 can average out to 60.

[Guest Kloaked]

1 hour ago, Morgan Everett said:

From what I've seen so far, it looks to be demanding at the highest settings, rather than a poor port. But I'll have a look in a bit (got the game free with my 1080).

Ding ding ding. The game looks great even at High or Very High settings. Looks way better and runs better than the first.

[MEC-777]

7 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Ha, Made me laugh. This isn't a heavy game, this is what we call a shit port.

Uh, I got 30-45FPS in GTA V With a 750Ti and A6-3650 lol, at 1080p, at medium settings. GTA V is what I would consider very well optimized considered it's a port. A RX 480 should be able to maintain a minimum 50 FPS in any 1080P title at Ultra Settings.

You cannot compare two games developed years apart and that use completely different engines. 

 

And no, the RX 480 should not be able to run any game at ultra 1080p at 50fps+. Games are becoming more demanding across all resolution because of the increasing complexity of the game engines and level of detail. That's partly why we're now seeing cards aimed at 1080p gaming coming standard now with 4 to 8GB Vram instead of 2GB which used to be plenty. There's a lot more going on in modern games, especially open-world games. It shouldn't be any surprise it will require more GPU muscle, even for 1080p, moving forward. 

[Aytex]

Don't understand why you need a 980 ti for ultra....

 

I tested for a upcoming game for ubisoft (its shit btw lol) and even then with a 1060 couldn't max out the settings D:

It looked uglier than any other games out there

They definitely did something to their engine

[PlayStation 2]

7 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

See the difference between AMD and nVidia is that AMD continues to support their cards and do what they can to optimize it. It's why R9 290 and 290x's are the same price on the used market as a GTX 970. It's why the 290/x are better than the 780/Ti and last I checked the 480 has caught up to the 1060 as at one point it was a 10% difference now it is either within a margin of error or 5% behind and is decent amount better in DX12 and Vulkan games.

For your comparison, a R9 390 was about the same as a RX 480 slightly overclocked, now at stock the 480 beats a 390 stock. And a 290 isn't to far behind.

I probably shouldn't be ripping on GCN while owning a 7850, but it's because AMD is lazy in the beginning.

It took around 8-10 months for the R9 Fury X to be competently competitive with the 980 Ti. The 7850 competes with the 750 Ti while using like twice as much power, and it's all because GCN wasn't that great of an architecture for all-around power efficiency and gaming.

Nvidia cards come out the gate as a performer. AMD cards tend to take a while.

[dragosudeki]

1 hour ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

- snip -

Yes, let's use GTA V in a comparison, which is a game that took 148 days from the PS4/Xbone release to do the PC port (PC port was scheduled for Fall 2014, then rescheduled to late January, then announced as March 24, then delayed back to April 14). The GTA V port was really good, but the comparison loses credit immediately when you look at all the delays/rescheduling it took for it to finally come out. I doubt GTA V PC was in a playable state a couple weeks after the console launch.

[ApolloFury]

20 hours ago, huilun02 said:

BF1 has  only  64 players simultaneously running around causing mayhem in sync with high tick rate servers. While looking a hell of a lot better than WD2 not looking much different from the first game.

 

DAI has been extensively improved with patches and runs better now. I'll even toss in BF4 which was a disaster at launch and yet is a polar opposite in its current state.

 

How does Arkham Knight and AC:U run today? 

On 1080p Arkham Knight and AC:U ran fine on my i7 6700K + R9 290 I finished both games in 2015 so like that is before drivers matured.

 

Arkham Knight maxed out without Gameworks = 70-90FPS (capped at 90)

AC:U maxed out without MSAA = 55-80FPS

 

I think these games favour the high speed of DDR4 because I noticed high CPU and RAM usage than most other games, I never encountered those performance issues that people reported, I guess I am lucky.

 

DAI however I get a lot of drops below 60FPS when there are a lot of grass, runs worse than games that is supposedly "the worst PC ports ever" aka Arkham Knight and AC:U.

[Zeeee]

Okay, can i school people now pls? Okay sit down my children class is going to start...

 

Everyone that said hey an rx 480 should be able to get ultra 60fps at 1080p is kind of correct for the time being. Theres a reason for this. To all the people saying wrong no why games are only gonna get more and more demanding dont you want them to get better and be more demanding on gpus!!!?

 

Well the thing is that games infact arent getting better and better. They dont. Games simply dont work like that as we know. Games only see a bump in graphical fidelity when a new console generation comes out they dont keep getting better mid gen. 

 

Now ill have people bitching saying omgerrdd you dont even know how pc works... well actually i do. Ive played so many aaa games on pc in the past 3 years since i sold my ps4 i think i would know, all or 90+% of AAA titles especially UBISOFT IN PARTICULAR who in the past have admitted they "do parity between xbox one and ps4 games and pc" as to not upset the others' fanbase (fucking faggot pieces of shit whatever thats irrelevant how i feel about them) 

 

point is games look the exact same on console vs pc THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS usually pc guys we get SOME FEATURES like oh better shadows or hey better anti aliasing but OVERALL the look of the games and textures even look almost identical with the major difference being unlocked frame rate.... thats the primary reason why pc is better not because the games look better (they dont) they just play better.

 

SO yeah this game running 1440p ultra at 48fps on a high end gtx 1070 which might i add does phenomenal in other games at the ultra 1440p settings like im talking 80-100fps but always over 60.... thats why this is unacceptable. 

 

Class dismissed.

[Guest Kloaked]

16 minutes ago, Zeeee said:

Class dismissed.

 

Games are getting better in how they look. The argument can be made that these console ports (both Watch Dogs titles are console ports) aren't advancing like most PC-first titles are, but you cannot say that they don't look any better than previous titles. You're blind and you probably don't even actually play games if you think that.

 

Sure, Watch Dogs 2 could run better. Rockstar managed to make GTA 5 a great looking PC port while running good most of the time, albeit still having the most random issues (texture flickering, certain light sources tanking your frame rate, etc).

I would argue though, that Watch Dogs 2 is a good PC port from Ubisoft and if you like the idea of Watch Dogs, Watch Dogs 2 is a must-buy so Ubisoft can get the memo on what we want; I know what we really want are PC-first-console-second titles, but I don't think we're going to get that with Ubisoft any time soon. Maybe they'll take some hints from EA's new enlightenment on that subject (did I actually just say that?).

[Zeeee]

16 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

 

Games are getting better in how they look. The argument can be made that these console ports (both Watch Dogs titles are console ports) aren't advancing like most PC-first titles are, but you cannot say that they don't look any better than previous titles. You're blind and you probably don't even actually play games if you think that.

 

Sure, Watch Dogs 2 could run better. Rockstar managed to make GTA 5 a great looking PC port while running good most of the time, albeit still having the most random issues (texture flickering, certain light sources tanking your frame rate, etc).

I would argue though, that Watch Dogs 2 is a good PC port from Ubisoft and if you like the idea of Watch Dogs, Watch Dogs 2 is a must-buy so Ubisoft can get the memo on what we want; I know what we really want are PC-first-console-second titles, but I don't think we're going to get that with Ubisoft any time soon. Maybe they'll take some hints from EA's new enlightenment on that subject (did I actually just say that?).

EXACTLY so you proved my point i dont think YOU actually play games. I think you just browse forums for games. Do you realize LIKE 99% of games are console optimized first then ported to pc. I KNOW I KNOW that there are pc made games that LOOK INSANELY GOOD yes i get it but you cant use that argument because its not REALISTIC it doesnt happen much. Tell me any recent AAA game that looks WOW SO MUCH BETTER ON PC VS CONSOLE... there isnt any. Im currently playing bf1, deus ex mankind divided and i recently played ROTR. Also tried COD AW lols torrented that shit, but anyways none of those games look significantly better than their console parts. OFCOURSE they run better thats why i game on PC but they defs are not any better looking like i said minus a couple little things that doesnt mean a lot.

 

conclusion: Hence why this port is disgusting. BF1 is a port as well but atleast it runs amazing. A gtx 970 has 2x the power of a ps4 and if its the same damn game that looks the fricken same as consoles then you bet your ass it should be double the fps. AS IT IS IN GOOD PORTS IT REALLY IS. However in this case its evident something horrible is going on.

[Guest Kloaked]

9 hours ago, Zeeee said:

EXACTLY so you proved my point i dont think YOU actually play games. I think you just browse forums for games.

I own a handful of the controversial titles that people have complained about. I have The Witcher 3, Ass Creed: Unity, both Watch Dogs games, GTA 5, etc. There have been people complaining about the performance of these titles be it on AMD or Nvidia hardware, and then complained about how they look while they all look just fine despite being "downgraded" (probably with the exception of GTA 5).

 

9 hours ago, Zeeee said:

Tell me any recent AAA game that looks WOW SO MUCH BETTER ON PC VS CONSOLE... there isnt any.

Just about every game looks better on PC if it has more complicated graphics. Overwatch probably looks the same between all platforms.

 

What you also don't realize is most console titles run at 30 fps with adaptive resolution sometimes, whereas even midrange PCs are able to run those games at higher detail levels and go up to 60fps at a constant resolution. So if you want to run the game at 30fps but also max it out to where it's even better looking than consoles than before, you're welcome to. I thought the main advantage of PC was that we could run games at higher frame rates but I guess not :^)

 

9 hours ago, Zeeee said:

conclusion: Hence why this port is disgusting. BF1 is a port as well but atleast it runs amazing. A gtx 970 has 2x the power of a ps4 and if its the same damn game that looks the fricken same as consoles then you bet your ass it should be double the fps. AS IT IS IN GOOD PORTS IT REALLY IS. However in this case its evident something horrible is going on.

BF1 is a first person shooter.

 

And again, PCs are able to do way higher frame rates and consoles can't for all titles currently.

[MEC-777]

12 hours ago, Zeeee said:

Okay, can i school people now pls? Okay sit down my children class is going to start...

 

Everyone that said hey an rx 480 should be able to get ultra 60fps at 1080p is kind of correct for the time being. Theres a reason for this. To all the people saying wrong no why games are only gonna get more and more demanding dont you want them to get better and be more demanding on gpus!!!?

 

Well the thing is that games infact arent getting better and better. They dont. Games simply dont work like that as we know. Games only see a bump in graphical fidelity when a new console generation comes out they dont keep getting better mid gen. 

 

Now ill have people bitching saying omgerrdd you dont even know how pc works... well actually i do. Ive played so many aaa games on pc in the past 3 years since i sold my ps4 i think i would know, all or 90+% of AAA titles especially UBISOFT IN PARTICULAR who in the past have admitted they "do parity between xbox one and ps4 games and pc" as to not upset the others' fanbase (fucking faggot pieces of shit whatever thats irrelevant how i feel about them) 

 

point is games look the exact same on console vs pc THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS usually pc guys we get SOME FEATURES like oh better shadows or hey better anti aliasing but OVERALL the look of the games and textures even look almost identical with the major difference being unlocked frame rate.... thats the primary reason why pc is better not because the games look better (they dont) they just play better.

 

SO yeah this game running 1440p ultra at 48fps on a high end gtx 1070 which might i add does phenomenal in other games at the ultra 1440p settings like im talking 80-100fps but always over 60.... thats why this is unacceptable. 

 

Class dismissed.

Ok where to start... From the beginning I guess.

 

No. You cannot say graphics card "xyz" should be able to play every game at 1080p ultra at 60fps+, regardless of any other factors or limitations. It is entirely game-dependent/specific. Some games are more demanding than others and that's just the reality of it. Do we want games to become more demanding? No. Are games going to become more demanding? Yes. Why? More complexity, more details, more AI, more physics, more everything. It's inevitable. Deal with it. If this were not the case, then further GPU development/advancements wouldn't be necessary and we'd still be playing games that look like Half Life 1 on GPUs from the early 2000's. To say games should not become more demanding is asking for the impossible.

 

Yes, games are certainly getting better and better. The reason we don't notice it as much in recent years is because the level of detail has somewhat plateaued. It's still increasing, but not at the rate it once was with each new game. The amount of time, money and man power required for such highly complex games is a limitation on development. Look how long it took to finalize a proper smooth-running port of GTAV. Regardless, games are getting better. Just look at the visuals of Battlefront. If you can't recognize improvements in modern games, perhaps you need glasses? 

 

Comparing consoles to PC, you're forgetting that PC is capable not only of running higher resolutions but also several times higher frame rates (30fps vs 60+). The demand and GPU horsepower to be able to do so also increases by several magnitudes. On consoles, they are running sub HD resolutions with AA filters and loads of motion-blur to cover up the weakness of their GPUs. On PC, we can run the same games at full HD+ and at 60fps+ and at higher graphics settings. The experience and visuals are significantly better on PC in most comparisons. Do I think the consoles and cross-platform parity has held back PC game development? Yes, to an extent. 

 

No, games don't look the same on console as PC at higher graphical settings. See above paragraph. In pretty much every single case, they look and play better on PC.

 

Despite what you think or believe, it could simply be that it's just a demanding game when the graphics are cranked up on PC. While you complain about getting 48fps at 1440p on ultra settings with a 1070, just remember the consoles are running it at 1080p or lower with lower graphics settings and just able to maintain 30fps. There's probably a lot more going on and being rendered in a given scene than you realize. The bottom line is; it still runs and looks better on PC. 

 

Please, stop trying to claim how the game should run. I'm assuming you didn't develop it and don't know what went into it or how complex the engine is. Be happy you game on PC and that we have the ability to experience higher resolutions, graphics settings and frame rates. If you really hate the game that much and hate Ubisoft that much, then stop buying/playing their games!

[Misanthrope]

While Zeeee's argument is ridiculous, this game is not well optimized or a good port by how it looks vs what it takes to run. We had similar or better open world games before and the game just isn't pushing any boundaries in looks to be pushing boundaries in hardware.

 

[Princess Luna]

I'm very disappointed with the results for the GTX 1060, I thought it was a safe card for the 1080p in highest settings for any game, and it's already incapable of 60fps? Does anyone feel like future drive updates might improve these marks or we won't be seen much difference in the long run?

I'm praying for FF VX come out for PC but if WD2 already is this taxing makes me worried on what kind of hardware you'll need for it. Seems like here a few months when I finally save money for the new GPU and retire the GTX 560Ti  I'll have to squeeze myself and go for the 1070...