Benchmarked: How Well Does Watch Dogs Run On your PC?

[redgarl]

UHD?

 

[Denis Stoikovski]

Its pretty good optimizated i5 3350p gt 640 8 ram 1600mhz 30-40 fps medium-low 1440x900 res only the gpu overheat but its normal just wanna ask how well it will perform with msaa 4x i5 3350p gtx 770 msi twin frozr?

 

[socialassassin]

No 770 or 780?

 

[oxiide]

The closest thing to a true quad-core in this CPU benchmark is an FX-4170. You guys didn't have anything better to test with than that? Nothing at all between the FX-8350 and i7-3960X?

Okay, so maybe you don't have the hardware available in the Canadian office. So why not at least give us a couple of separate graphs for clock speed scaling and core count scaling? By your own admission, this is a CPU-intensive game, and one that (according to Ubisoft's system requirements) can use a lot of cores. The sole graph provided tells us very, very little except that the FX-8350 and i7-3960X "do okay."

 

[T-Bag]

We want the game to be benchmarked on a wide variety of CPUs. And where is R9 280X and GTX 770. And it seems like this game is poorly optimized. Well, it's from Ubisoft. What can we expect?

 

[cleeve]

I'm seeing a lot of requests for more CPUs. I totally understand.
Truth be told, I would have liked to add a lot more configs for publication but we were really under the gun here to get something out as quick as possible. I just didn't have the time.

Today I added the Core i5-3550 and FX-6300 to the benchmark charts in an update.

 

[Onus]

Thanks! Those numbers are interesting; the FX-6300 clearly beats the i3, so core count must make a pretty big difference in this game.

 

[Amdlova]

xD

 

[InvalidError]

UHD?

With high-end GPUs only managing 70ish FPS at QHD, I would expect only 30ish FPS at QHD resolutions which would not feel particularly pleasant to most enthusiasts. Multi-GPU setups would be required but either Don did not have any on-hand for this review or there might be a separate article covering that coming later.

 

[heisnburg]

im running at ultra 1080p with two sli 670s and a 3770k at 60fps, when i switch to 5760x1080 i can get about 40-50 fps on high

 

[rolli59]

Great to see the added CPU's in there and an I5 actually competing with the FX8350 with similar results proofing that the recommended system specs were over stated.

 

[Plusthinking Iq]

cant we get a test with a normal pc spec and settings, like i5 4670, 780. no aa crap and framebuffer at 1080p, probably 1gb vram usage on that.

 

[cleeve]

another Tom's article that gets different results from the rest of the tech community, and tends to have Nvidia leanings

Your comment is too general to help you with.

What do you mean by "Nvidia leaning", exactly?

What specific result are you talking about that the 'rest of the tech community' has produced conflicting data with?

 

[cleeve]

no aa crap and framebuffer at 1080p, probably 1gb vram usage on that.

FXAA is a realtime post process filter. From what i understand, it doesn't use VRAM like MSAA.

 

[ericjohn004]

This game runs like absolute POO on PC. And I have a GTX780 and a 3570k@4.7Ghz with 16GB of 2133 RAM and a 500GB EVO SSD.

It's a stuttering mess. The Vsync doesn't even work so you get tons of screen tearing too.

 

[bemused_fred]

And so this is the glorious victory of multi-core scaling that AMD fanboys promised us! Where devs would finally optimise for "MOAR CORES" and let the FX-8350 unleash its full potential and power! Its power to....match a lower-clocked ivy bridge I5. Well done I guess?

 

[Memnarchon]

Thanks for this fast response! Adding two popular budget CPUs was essential. I would like to see an LGA115x i7 though...
Anyway keep up the good work ^^.

 

[hambonee]

You do not need hyper threading to play at Ultra settings.

I have a i5-4670K with a gtx780 and 16gb ram. I run ultra at 2560x1440 and it is smooth with no lag or stuttering.

 

[Denis Stoikovski]

This game runs like absolute POO on PC. And I have a GTX780 and a 3570k@4.7Ghz with 16GB of 2133 RAM and a 500GB EVO SSD.

It's a stuttering mess. The Vsync doesn't even work so you get tons of screen tearing too.

You get low fps with this system? ffs dude this is freaking 780 and 16 ram 2133mhz lol that's the first 2133 i saw in this forum daymn i can't belive..

 

[somebodyspecial]

Thanks! Those numbers are interesting; the FX-6300 clearly beats the i3, so core count must make a pretty big difference in this game.

Agreed..Which is why this game just laughs at my dual core. C'mon Intel get the dang broadwell's out the door, my PC has been crying for long enough...LOL. 😉

 

[cleeve]

Oh god you again....Other tech sites consistency get better results from AMD hardware, I'm not linking it for you, simply go to one of the multitude of other tech sites pick an AMD product they have reviewed look at the benchmarks and see how it compares to the toms reviews.

"Oh god you again"...same old Harley.

Still stirring the pot with baseless accusations and completely unable to back it up with inconvenient stuff like facts, huh?

How's that working out for ya? 😀

 

[Memnarchon]

Other tech sites consistency get better results from AMD hardware[/b], I'm not linking it for you, simply go to one of the multitude of other tech sites pick an AMD product they have reviewed look at the benchmarks and see how it compares to the toms reviews. Toms has a negative tone with AMD products and also misrepresents them on CPU and GPU charts. This is just another example.

Where did you see this?
Guru3D has lower results than Tom's and Techspot used even factory o/c HIS AMD Radeons and the results were barely better than Tom's...

 

[somebodyspecial]

another Tom's article that gets different results from the rest of the tech community, and tends to have Nvidia leanings

Your comment is too general to help you with.

What do you mean by "Nvidia leaning", exactly?

What specific result are you talking about that the 'rest of the tech community' has produced conflicting data with?

Oh god you again....Other tech sites consistency get better results from AMD hardware, I'm not linking it for you, simply go to one of the multitude of other tech sites pick an AMD product they have reviewed look at the benchmarks and see how it compares to the toms reviews. Toms has a negative tone with AMD products and also misrepresents them on CPU and GPU charts. This is just another example.

Oh god you again? He is an editor here so basically you attacked him too, and he writes a ton of articles here. You didn't expect him to respond to you trashing their data? When you do that, you need to provide something, and saying go find it yourself is NOT sufficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement#Graham.27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement
Land in the top 3, then you've done your job. Landing in the bottom 4 (as you've done) is a complete failure to make your point. Nice try though 😉

 

[Cryio]

I'm kinda disappointed there are no benchmarks based on same CPU, different frequency, from both Intel and AMD, to see how the game scales.

Also talking both type of CPUs to see how the game properly scales with different number of cores.

 

[lp231]

Intel Xeon E5 v2 ranges from 8, 10, and 12 cores. It would be nice if Tom's can test the game with them. 😀
The E7 v2 goes up to 15 cores, but this uses a entirely different socket, unlike the E5, which uses the same socket 2011 as the Core i7 3960X