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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Id say this is majestic, Too bad you'd need 780 ti to run this game on its maximum overpower, But all matters to the gameplay, its not a game if it has terrible gameplay, more like Interactive movie
 



You're trolling right now....this is your intention, you say someone is a troll, they respond and you say see.

I made very valid points in a post, that was taken down...was not vulgar, it was fine. So you want me to make my point but when I do and you don't like it you delete. Why go to the effort of gathering the obvious when Toms, the one who has the power of delete can just mute my point.

Toms articles are bias, the charts are bias, the staff follows the culture, subject matter experts lack the expert part, the evidence is on the website, you know the one you are on....Read various AMD articles on Toms, go compare and contrast, simple, not a hard thing to figure out, Tom's is not the only tech site guilty of it but is among the worst in the case of AMD.
 

I still don't own that CPU or the second 760 :/ The i7 wasn't in the benchmark and the GPU was only tested as single, not SLI. Either provide a good answer about the performance with those specs or avoid any silly comments <_<
 


that's so weird, it is completely playable for my friend with the exact same hardware.

which OS are u using? she is using windows 8.1 64bit

edit: oops you said very playable. disregard.
 
Extreme machines need only apply. That's pretty much what I'm getting from looking at these benchmarks. Either that or the game code needs some seriously heavy optimization. I admit, I didn't read much of the article, after jumping straight to the benchies I've got better things to do. Removed from steam wishlist.
 
Why is the FX-8350 a second tier CPU on the monthly "gaming" hierarchy chart if it outperforms an i5-3550, which is a tier one chip?

I am wondering if maybe the 8 cores are likely to make a difference more and more with these types of games (with the CPU being required to consider what all the moving pieces are doing in the open world) and if perhaps the methodology Toms uses for ranking CPUs for gaming needs should to be updated.

After all, the 8350 is by no means outside of the real of reasonable for a new build given that it runs under $200, and if it isn't being recommended over an i5-4570 which is comparably priced, why is that, when the AMD chip wins out in Tom's own gaming benchmarks of Crysis II:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-20-Crysis-II,3175.html

Just thinking out loud, really. *shrug*
 


Because in the majority of modern games, it does not perform anywhere near a Core i5. It usually performs in the neighborhood of the Core i3.

Watch Dogs is an outlier, and the Crysis II link you provided is obviously bottlenecked by the GPU so we're talking about insignificant differences within the margin of error there. In that same chart, the core i5-2500 beat the 8350 by a couple FPS out of about 120. Its limited by the graphics card.

If Watch Dogs were the only game on earth the recommendations would be different, but we have to generalize.
In the future, if more heavily-threaded games arrive, that might change too.
 
Running a rig with: 4670K @ 4.0Ghz, 2 X 270X Toxic, 16GB 2133 Ram.
I can play on ultra (1080p) at like 30 fps and hitting 40s with crossfire enabled -__-. The 14.6 update didn't really help. On monitoring GPU usage it sticks between 50-70% for each gpu, hence scaling is bad.
And DAMN the stuttering is bad. I'm considering waiting for more updates to play this game smoothly, but I can get impatient and play anyway lol.
 
Hey there all,

Chiming in here regarding our policy on the subject of unfounded allegations in regards to the reputations and editorial integrity of Tom's Hardware as put forward in some of the previous deleted comments in this thread.

Users are not permitted to make random, unfounded allegations against our staff or in an attempt to impugn our reputation without significant cause or evidence. Your opinions are not only welcome here, but encouraged, and our community is nothing if not welcoming of all contrarian and vast differences in thought and approach. However, we take our reputation as independent reviewers and integrity extraordinarily seriously here. Tom's got its start by saying the unpopular but true thing in an industry dominated by payola and pay-for-play exchanges, so any attack or assertion of bias we respond to, and our editorial and reporting staff take considerable effort to provide feedback in the article commentary to justify their findings. Unfounded, unsubstantiated statements stating that Tom's has a bias or preference one way or the other, whether it be PC or Apple, AMD or Nvidia, Intel or AMD, red or blue, Pepsi or Coke are patently untrue and will remain so as long as our editorial and community principles form the foundation of our approach.

We aren't here to pick sides. We're here to advise you without prejudice or preconception so you can pick. Our agenda is solely to present the truth of our findings, whatever they may be.

Thanks for your understanding and cooperation in this, and for your help in keeping the comments constructive and useful. :)

Warm Regards,
Joe Pishgar
Senior Community Manager, Tom's Hardware
 
The frame-rate variation is ridiculous in this game - even indoors, the fps keep jumping randomly, with variations of up to 50fps at times. On the plus side, the game doesn't seem to be dumbed down as per the norm these days.

PS: Whoever told Ubisoft that wearing a baseball cap over a trenchcoat is "cool", did them a disservice. I mean honestly, the guy looks like a homeless bum on Christmas day.
 


I think maybe the problem is your definition of "the majority of modern games" being those which aren't as processor-bound, while there's a good segment of the population who do actually play games which are more demanding on the CPU, and would thus benefit from a more nuanced evaluation. I still feel that identifying processor-bound games and using them to test is a better way to help guide buyers where gaming CPUs are concerned.

Your reply leaves me little hope that Toms will be a place to gather that information (because you're acting as if CPU has never mattered before, when it has...the only apparent difference is in what the cores are doing, but CPU choice has mattered in gaming forever), but as a reader for a long, long time, I figured I'd point out that some of us enthusiasts aren't JUST playing games where your choice of CPU is largely irrelevant.

It would be a nice addition. That's all I'm saying.
 


The only other CPU (multi-core) bound game other than Watch Dogs was Crysis 3. And Crysis 3 was a glorious benchmark tool but wasn't a great overall game. Other games that are supposed to be CPU bound are games like Dota 2(the most played game on Steam), but they are so less demanding that it doesn't matter.
 
The only problem i see with this test is an old Titan being used kinda as a 780Ti. I own a 780Ti. There two worlds apart. The 780Ti has 2880 cuda cores vs 2688 of the titan. Also the memory clock speeds are different as well. 780Ti at 7000mhz vs Titan at 6008mhz. Im not saying these results in the least bit dont help at all. But i personally believe you cant imitate something you dont have. Especially if in totally different classes. Now if this were a titan black edition. then i would have to say now we are perfect. Keep the 780Ti out of this result b/c the old titan is just out of its league in comparison. You can overclock that Titan as much as you want its never gonna be a 780Ti. But other than that amazing bench tests
 
wd_cpu_gf.png


A 8350 needs about 5ghz oc to match a stock i5 4670k in this game.
 

Most games are bound to single-threaded performance: if you use Process Explorer or similar tools to look at which of a program's threads are using CPU time, you will find out that most games have a single thread that gets significantly higher CPU usage than any other - usually a whole core.
 


I counter your chart with another chart

CPU_01.png


Shows the 8350 doing as well as the i5 and i7's, within a few FPS.


So who's chart is right. lol.
 
was using a 280x and 4670k @ 4.0ghz and frames got as low as 20ish in some high speed driving in city. and gpu usage was always hovering around 60-70% Medium/high settings in built up areas, on open highways or outskirts would reach 99% and run smoother.
 


I don't have sli but i have the same issue i played the game 2 days with no problems then.. that happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom