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

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


I don't think he's arguing it won't run AT ALL, just that it's 2x faster min fps on Intel basically as his pic shows, pretty much i5-2500 and up. Yes you can play, but most would rather have their min fps doubled and even a little extra on top avg/max fps 😉 I won't be buying my next chip with 1/2 perf of Intel (or anywhere near that), so I'll go Intel if forced again. Meaning if nothing AMD has coming at 20nm looks promising once we hear about it.
 
A lot of these benchmarks vary the hardware and keep all settings the same, which is certainly valid, but what if the hardware were kept constant and the settings were changed? For example, if a 1GB (or even 2GB) video card stutters, is there a change that will totally alleviate that stutter? Is the game still enjoyable, or is immersion lost? How about the CPU? Will a settings tweak provide a decent experience with a Pentium or old Phenom I? I'd like to see a machine typical of what the average Steam user has tested, to see if "enjoyable" settings are possible.
 
Whoa, I can play this on max!? Running 2x 7850's oc editions in crossfire and an intel i5 3550. If that r9 270 can do it on 35 I should get like 45+ right?
 


Well, that sucks. Does the R9 295x's second gpu work then? Also when do you think they will (or if) add support.

 
Why the hell is everybody testing the 290x and not the 290, the one that people are actually buying. The cpu selection is dysmall, bunch of cpus nobody use for gaming, 2500k, 3570k, 4670k, 4770k that is what most people have.

And this game is just poorly optimized, the graphics compared to crysis 3 or far cry 3 are a joke and those games work better with far less hardware. Seems like the nvidia gameworks devkit doesn't benefit even their own customer.
 


I haven't touched Watch Dogs since the day of that post. I have played a lot more BF4 though. It's pretty good now that it's 7 months from release. It definitely didn't start that way.
 


Ironically, FC3's graphics are numbnuts in vegetation, you'll likely to see flying plants and super-strectched vegetation that makes you laugh harder
 




fps?
 
if you don't like uPlay and cloud saves and cancer. this may not be the game to buy. Take this to heart if you were planning on buying this game. Uplay from Ubisoft make sure the legitimate owners log into their online servers. There must be some way of not having to use intrusive DRM measures to play good games.
 
The title lead me to believe that a much larger variety of hardware, especially hardware that's a little bit older. I have an AMD FX 8350 with 3 radeon 6950s running in crossfire, I could care less what a damn R7 GPU performs. I was expecting an article discussing how hardware that people are more likely to have performs in this game, not a smattering of recent video cards. For instance, I know how well my crossfire setup runs compared to a single 6950, I would've at least liked to have seen a single 6950 or 7850 benchmark so the article would've been easier to approximate how well my machine will perform.
 

Most of the R7-2xx/R9-2xx lineup are just rebadged HD7xxx so there really is no need to clutter results with duplicates.

The lack of current-gen Intel CPUs would not feel so weird if the list at least included a 3770 to narrow the huge gap between 3550 and 3960X - Haswell is only incrementally better than Ivy Bridge (aside from AVX-optimized software) so no huge loss there.
 
Only utilises my xeon E3 about 30-40% on ultra with a R9-290.

update: but it hammers my R9-290. on ultra with FXAA, 60fps in quiet areas, down to 25fps in crowded areas or racing a car through the streets. Uses all 4GB Vram. The graphics aren't even that good. It's definitely an extremely poorly optimised console port. I'm glad I only paid $38 AUD.

I'm amazed they initially recommended an I7, it clearly isn't CPU intensive. My Xeon only uses 6 threads and even then only about 30-40% total usage. Sometimes the cores even down clock to 2500MHz.
 
WHAT is wrong with the writer of this article???

This is a technical look at watchdogs...Why did he have to spoiler the death of a character???

smh...
 
Hi .
I run this game on :
AMD Radeon 6850 XFX 1GB
Core i7 3820 3.6 GHz
16 GB RAM 1600 MHz
Asus P9X79
On these setting :
High quality - No AA - 2 Frame Vsync - 1600 x 900 - 3 GPU buffer frame -
I got +25 fps in crowded area .
 


This is the game that has convinced me not to ever pre-order again. These companies are really taking extreme advantage of their paying testers. Pre-order means you get to test longer than other people. With digital delivery, there's no worry about supply, so what is the point of pre-ordering anyway?

Wait six months after a game is released and that's about where it should have been on release day anymore. All of the big software companies are doing things this way these days.
 

Pre-order beta-play also means that if the game is not doing too well during preorder preview, you may end up burnt up and not wanting to have anything more to do with it by the time it is officially released and not really care to play it anymore even if they fixed most of the things that pissed you off.

It is not for everybody and the potential to get screwed certainly is considerable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom