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

[cleeve]

Actually the majority of modern games are now multi-thread, along with NEW software. FX8350 has been remarkably resilient to time, it has improved its standing when included in benchmarks for new hardware as time has gone by. New software and new game are used to bench new hardware, FX has improved over time. For those who have put the time in finding accurate information the fx 8350 is on par with i73570k and can compete with i7 3770k especially when overclocked, it is also a superior multi-tasker. Not having it on the charts with i7 up to 3770 is an opinion that has to do with it not being what people want it to be and not seeing for what it is.

We are discussing gaming here, in particular. Not multitasking, which the FX-8350 excels at.

Based on the evidence I am going to have to disagree when it comes to this arena:

http://www.tomshardware.com/preview/preview,2-3789-8.html?key=df55ecddb9d0d7a699fe31cca7f44d39fa9e7a32
Elder Scrolls Online: FX-8530 < i3-3220

http://www.tomshardware.com/preview/preview,2-3683-10.html?key=c4519d9e645a2f01f4a0a08796e685d08733377b
Call of duty: Ghosts: FX-8350 slightly better than i3-3220, but significantly below stock Core i5-2500K

http://www.tomshardware.com/preview/preview,2-3634-10.html?key=f0a22b34f646d8a0456f251ddbd16b8b13b0d20a
Battlefield 4: FX-8350 in the middle between Core i3-3220 and stock i5-2500K

http://www.tomshardware.com/preview/preview,2-3451-8.html?key=e2d52c3793fe43d3b944f0ac3d7c2ebe8bbc7f19
Crysis 3: The FX-8350 does well here, matching a Core i5-3550 in average FPS, but the minimum falls close to Core i3-3220

http://www.tomshardware.com/preview/preview,2-3379-7.html?key=98a6de2c9b8c5f755c3442e7327b9136d3daf949
Far Cry 3: the FX-8350 does well but still falls slightly short of the i3-3200

Those are the last five latest, newest games we compared with modern engines (I excluded DOTA2 and LoL, which I wouldn't consider relevant as they all had over 100 FPS and you can run them fine with a Pentium). On average, I'd say the FX-8350 usually ends up very close to an i3-3220. I'd give the FX-8350 an edge overall, but not a big one. The Core i5 usually beats it by a significant margin. As a gamer its an obvious choice.

But lets put that into perspective. Now lets look at today's price and particulars on Newegg:

Core i3-4350: newer Haswell architecture compared to i3-3220, and a higher 3.4 GHz clock
$125

FX-8350: as tested
$190

Core i5-4570: newer Haswell architecture compared to i5-2500, 100 MHz deficit
$200

Now, with facts in hand, are you going to tell me you'd recommend a gamer to get the FX-8350 over a Core i5 for about the same price? (the 4570 was $190 last month on Newegg by the way)

And are you going to tell me you'd recommend a gamer with $125 to spend the extra $65 to get an FX-8350 for almost no practical gain? INSTEAD of getting a Core i5 for practically the same cost increase?

Lets be reasonable here. The FX-8350 is an awesome multi-threading workhorse, but a good gaming processor for the money it 'aint. Not within arms reach of the Core i5's $200 price tag.

 

[h2323]

Actually the majority of modern games are now multi-thread, along with NEW software. FX8350 has been remarkably resilient to time, it has improved its standing when included in benchmarks for new hardware as time has gone by. New software and new game are used to bench new hardware, FX has improved over time. For those who have put the time in finding accurate information the fx 8350 is on par with i73570k and can compete with i7 3770k especially when overclocked, it is also a superior multi-tasker. Not having it on the charts with i7 up to 3770 is an opinion that has to do with it not being what people want it to be and not seeing for what it is.

We are discussing gaming here, in particular. Not multitasking, which the FX-8350 excels at.

Based on the evidence I am going to have to disagree when it comes to this arena:

http://www.tomshardware.com/preview/preview,2-3789-8.html?key=df55ecddb9d0d7a699fe31cca7f44d39fa9e7a32
Elder Scrolls Online: FX-8530 < i3-3220

http://www.tomshardware.com/preview/preview,2-3683-10.html?key=c4519d9e645a2f01f4a0a08796e685d08733377b
Call of duty: Ghosts: FX-8350 slightly better than i3-3220, but significantly below stock Core i5-2500K

http://www.tomshardware.com/preview/preview,2-3634-10.html?key=f0a22b34f646d8a0456f251ddbd16b8b13b0d20a
Battlefield 4: FX-8350 in the middle between Core i3-3220 and stock i5-2500K

http://www.tomshardware.com/preview/preview,2-3451-8.html?key=e2d52c3793fe43d3b944f0ac3d7c2ebe8bbc7f19
Crysis 3: The FX-8350 does well here, matching a Core i5-3550 in average FPS, but the minimum falls close to Core i3-3220

http://www.tomshardware.com/preview/preview,2-3379-7.html?key=98a6de2c9b8c5f755c3442e7327b9136d3daf949
Far Cry 3: the FX-8350 does well but still falls slightly short of the i3-3200

Those are the last five latest, newest games we compared with modern engines (I excluded DOTA2 and LoL, which I wouldn't consider relevant as they all had over 100 FPS and you can run them fine with a Pentium). On average, I'd say the FX-8350 usually ends up very close to an i3-3220. I'd give the FX-8350 an edge overall, but not a big one. The Core i5 usually beats it by a significant margin. As a gamer its an obvious choice.

But lets put that into perspective. Now lets look at today's price and particulars on Newegg:

Core i3-4350: newer Haswell architecture compared to i3-3220, and a higher 3.4 GHz clock
$125

FX-8350: as tested
$190

Core i5-4570: newer Haswell architecture compared to i5-2500, 100 MHz deficit
$200

Now, with facts in hand, are you going to tell me you'd recommend a gamer to get the FX-8350 over a Core i5 for about the same price? (the 4570 was $190 last month on Newegg by the way)

And are you going to tell me you'd recommend a gamer with $125 to spend the extra $65 to get an FX-8350 for almost no practical gain? INSTEAD of getting a Core i5 for practically the same increase?

Lets be reasonable here. The FX-8350 is an awesome multithreading workhorse, but a good gaming processor for the money it 'aint. Not within arms reach of the Core i5's $200 price tag.

I believe it is with the multitude of mufti-threaded applications in the pipeline (thanks to consoles) and it actually performs very well for this game, far better then any i3. Also like myself I game randomly with a ton of other stuff going on, it is an excellent choice for people that do more then just game....so everyone.

But since AM3+ is dead it can be a questionable purchase now, taking it on its merits for multi-threaded game I thing it deserves more respect, but this argument has been going for a while, some reviews, people, articles, charts recognize it most don't.

 

[cleeve]

I believe it is with the multitude of mufti-threaded applications in the pipeline (thanks to consoles) and it actually performs very well for this game, far better then any i3. Also like myself I game randomly with a ton of other stuff going on, it is an excellent choice for people that do more then just game....so everyone.

I don't disagree as far as where I think we are going. I believe that game devs are getting better at multithreading, too, but that belief can't come into play as far as recommendations go until it actually happens on a larger scale.

We're watching and waiting, and we change our recommendations to fit the times. But we're not there yet.

Keep in mind that our monthly recommendations are centered around gaming specifically, if it was a productivity article the results would be different. Having said that, the Core i5 is no slouch when it comes to day-to-day multitasking, either. You can't dismiss it out of hand at the same price point.

As far as AM3+, I'm sad to see it go, too. I hope that AMD finds a way to put a quad-BD module chip (8 cores) in the FM2+ socket, because it'd be a shame to see it go before it has a chance to come into its own in games.

 

[h2323]

Sorry double post, But ya, really you just have to see the watchdog CPU benchmarks to see how well the 8350 can perform, even when down-clocked it performs well, this is common now. We are no longer waiting for the multi-thread games they are here. Mantle DX12 and console centered design gives the 8350 a future proof design, can run games while doing whatever else without losing much or any performance. I appreciate the bench links from Toms, I found that some other reviews have better luck with it. Today not yesterday, multithreaded performance is more important then single.

 

[cleeve]

Sorry double post, But ya, really you just have to see the watchdog CPU benchmarks to see how well the 8350 can perform, even when down-clocked it performs well, this is common now. We are no longer waiting for the multi-thread games they are here.

I don't know how you can say "this is common now"

One game does not common make. Two games does not common make. The overwhelming majority prefer IPC and Intel.

What evidence do you have of this being 'common now'?

 

[h2323]

Common means something is happening more regularly, it is becoming normal. I don't think there is any disputing that more games are and more game will have more thread utilization, the evidence is the trend.

Ya Ya everyone knows Intels IPC... lol. Heard it a thousand times, don't disagree, does anyone? The response was more cores, sucks when you don't use them right. I am fortunate enough that basically all the software I use and all the games I play are multi-threaded -COH2, like may I don't play older titles, boring. The old way of seeing things will always say you need fewer more powerful cores. The market is going to more weaker cores. AMD was just a little ahead of there time, same with their HSA and they don't have the pull Intel does. Your opinions are set in stone, that's fine, but this is a sector that is changing now more then ever.

 

[InvalidError]

We are no longer waiting for the multi-thread games they are here.

No longer waiting? How many meaningfully threaded games are out there right now? Maybe a handful - literally.

We are nowhere there yet. Threaded games are merely starting to emerge and there is no guarantee the practice will spread to 'most' games. If the game's core thread is simple enough to fit on a single CPU core along the lower-end of the system requirement range, game developers are not going to bother with the extra effort of adding more threading than absolutely necessary to their code - they may not even bother going beyond their SDK, APIs, middleware and libraries' auto-threading.

 

[chris987]

ultra preset requires 3gb vram!going with 7970 back in 2012 has proven to be the best option afterall!

Not really. At Ultra preset, R9 270 with 2GB has 33fps min and 38fps avg while R9 280 with 3GB has 31fps min and 40fps avg.

I don't see any benefit, do you?

''Also, the texture detail setting is kept at Medium across our benchmarks, ensuring graphics memory doesn't affect our results too severely. The texture detail option is separate from the game's detail presets, so it's adjustable on its own.''

so we dont really now if it actually has any benefit afterall do we?

 

[h2323]

To put it more simply the ongoing complaints about the CPU hierarchy chart is that it would be a more accurate and less maligned chart if the chart was called the core architecture hierarchy, then it would be an accurate chart. But it's not, its the CPU hierarchy chart, so it's wrong because it's laid out as if every CPU had one core. Luckily for AMD there are other charts that lay it out in terms of the entire CPU performance not the single core performance.

 

[InvalidError]

Common means something is happening more regularly, it is becoming normal.

Humm...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common

3
a : occurring or appearing frequently : familiar <a common sight>
b : of the best known or most frequently seen kind —used especially of plants and animals <the common housefly>
c : vernacular 2 <common names>
4
a : widespread, general <common knowledge>
b : characterized by a lack of privilege or special status <common people>

So, for multi-threaded games to be worthy of being called "common," they would need to become comparatively as common as mostly single-threaded games currently are - common enough that they would no longer be considered exceptions.

It is going to take a while before we see the market split 3:1 between single-threaded and multi-threaded games since we rarely see mentions of meaningfully threaded games beyond the highest-profile titles. I would not be surprised if multi-threaded games never become common.

 

[ubercake]

Dear Ubisoft,

Please let the gaming community know when you get your issues worked out with the BETA releases of UPlay and Watchdogs:
http://i.imgur.com/YWRxY7n.jpg

Thanks,

Ubercake

 

[Denis Stoikovski]

How would i be with i5 3350p gtx 770 msi twin frozr 8 ram on 1440x900? ultra?

 

[coolcole01]

I love the way a benchmark question turns into fanboyism if your chip of choice is doing great be happy i assure you that you will win no awards for choosing it. And as far as the fx 8350 goes its a great chip it has done nothing but a great job in everything i use it for. It if you bought it for a dedicated gaming system and you paid more than 150 for it you picked the wrong chip it is routinely outperformed by cheaper chips. But at any level it still does a great job. I got a great deal on mine and have gotten my moneys worth that's all that matters. None of us know what the future holds but if your holding a 8320/i5 3350 or higher i guarantee you that you will be fine. Now shut up and tell us what your getting instead of trying to justify your purchases.

 

[skit75]

Will my pc handle this at 900p (1440x900)? and at how many fps on what settings?
Intel Core i5 3470
8GB RAM
GTX 650 1GB GDDR5

I have an i5 2500 w/ 4GB RAM and a HD6850, and the game runs like an absolute dog for me. Even dropping down from my normal resolution of 1600*900 to 1280*720 with everything set as low as it will go leaves chase scenes feeling awful. Will report back tomorrow after upgrading to 16GB RAM, if I see major improvement (though I'm honestly not really expecting it).

well you need everything new (just for the cpu, gpu, motherboard, and ram), you know. but if you can do that (specs) with 16gb ram, tell me 😀

I considered, too, a full platform upgrade. But my CPU still has life in it, I think, and my 6850 generally performs pretty well on my sub-1080p display. Are you suggesting that after bumping the RAM and perhaps grabbing a 760 or 770 I wouldn't be able to blaze through any game likely to release in the next couple of years?

you can still blaze with a 760. it maxes out any games at 1080p (especially sub-1080 like mine also). for future proofing (that will last almost 10 years i guess) would be a 770 unless you upgrade to a new monitor.

I would have to disagree with the idea of the GTX 770 running newly released games ten years from now. Even 5 years is a stretch. The equivalent would be trying to run Watchdogs with an ATI 9800 Pro or GeForce 6800 Ultra(both circa 2004). Good luck with that.

 

[Memnarchon]

ultra preset requires 3gb vram!going with 7970 back in 2012 has proven to be the best option afterall!

Not really. At Ultra preset, R9 270 with 2GB has 33fps min and 38fps avg while R9 280 with 3GB has 31fps min and 40fps avg.

I don't see any benefit, do you?

''Also, the texture detail setting is kept at Medium across our benchmarks, ensuring graphics memory doesn't affect our results too severely. The texture detail option is separate from the game's detail presets, so it's adjustable on its own.''

so we dont really now if it actually has any benefit afterall do we?

Well, you said about Ultra preset, not texture detail which is a separate option. I didn't understood that you wanted to say ultra/ultra...

 

[Memnarchon]

Dear Ubisoft,

Please let the gaming community know when you get your issues worked out with the BETA releases of UPlay and Watchdogs:
http://i.imgur.com/YWRxY7n.jpg

Thanks,

Ubercake

Now this is the reason that made my friend to stop playing AC games... He lost like 6 hours of progress with a small dc...

 

[neon neophyte]

2500k, the best cpu ever made.

i got mine approximately 3.5 years ago, for 180 dollars and it is still going strong. ran on the daily at 4.9ghz, i can get 5.1ghz out of it if i really want to.

 

[Denis Stoikovski]

Will my pc handle this at 900p (1440x900)? and at how many fps on what settings?
Intel Core i5 3470
8GB RAM
GTX 650 1GB GDDR5

I have an i5 2500 w/ 4GB RAM and a HD6850, and the game runs like an absolute dog for me. Even dropping down from my normal resolution of 1600*900 to 1280*720 with everything set as low as it will go leaves chase scenes feeling awful. Will report back tomorrow after upgrading to 16GB RAM, if I see major improvement (though I'm honestly not really expecting it).

well you need everything new (just for the cpu, gpu, motherboard, and ram), you know. but if you can do that (specs) with 16gb ram, tell me 😀

I considered, too, a full platform upgrade. But my CPU still has life in it, I think, and my 6850 generally performs pretty well on my sub-1080p display. Are you suggesting that after bumping the RAM and perhaps grabbing a 760 or 770 I wouldn't be able to blaze through any game likely to release in the next couple of years?

you can still blaze with a 760. it maxes out any games at 1080p (especially sub-1080 like mine also). for future proofing (that will last almost 10 years i guess) would be a 770 unless you upgrade to a new monitor.

I would have to disagree with the idea of the GTX 770 running newly released games ten years from now. Even 5 years is a stretch. The equivalent would be trying to run Watchdogs with an ATI 9800 Pro or GeForce 6800 Ultra(both circa 2004). Good luck with that.

Am getting 770 msi twin frozr just for watch dogs and ac5 will i max out games for at least 2 years?

 

[InvalidError]

I would have to disagree with the idea of the GTX 770 running newly released games ten years from now. Even 5 years is a stretch. The equivalent would be trying to run Watchdogs with an ATI 9800 Pro or GeForce 6800 Ultra(both circa 2004). Good luck with that.

Five years would not be that much of a stretch for modern GPUs: in the early days of 3D GPUs, performance more than doubled every year but now, it takes around three years to double performance at a given price point.

In a few more years, GPUs may join CPUs on the growing list of things that only get incremental yearly performance increases.

 

[skit75]

Will my pc handle this at 900p (1440x900)? and at how many fps on what settings?
Intel Core i5 3470
8GB RAM
GTX 650 1GB GDDR5

I have an i5 2500 w/ 4GB RAM and a HD6850, and the game runs like an absolute dog for me. Even dropping down from my normal resolution of 1600*900 to 1280*720 with everything set as low as it will go leaves chase scenes feeling awful. Will report back tomorrow after upgrading to 16GB RAM, if I see major improvement (though I'm honestly not really expecting it).

well you need everything new (just for the cpu, gpu, motherboard, and ram), you know. but if you can do that (specs) with 16gb ram, tell me 😀

I considered, too, a full platform upgrade. But my CPU still has life in it, I think, and my 6850 generally performs pretty well on my sub-1080p display. Are you suggesting that after bumping the RAM and perhaps grabbing a 760 or 770 I wouldn't be able to blaze through any game likely to release in the next couple of years?

you can still blaze with a 760. it maxes out any games at 1080p (especially sub-1080 like mine also). for future proofing (that will last almost 10 years i guess) would be a 770 unless you upgrade to a new monitor.

I would have to disagree with the idea of the GTX 770 running newly released games ten years from now. Even 5 years is a stretch. The equivalent would be trying to run Watchdogs with an ATI 9800 Pro or GeForce 6800 Ultra(both circa 2004). Good luck with that.

Am getting 770 msi twin frozr just for watch dogs and ac5 will i max out games for at least 2 years?

In theory, you should be able to get 60 FPS with Ultra settings for the next two years but there is no guarantee. When un-optimized games get released, less-informed people may just run out for new hardware, choosing to run the game under brute force conditions. This game with as big as the marketing and hype was, should be fixed/optimized within 4-6 months if ever, knowing Ubisoft.

 

[Denis Stoikovski]

Will my pc handle this at 900p (1440x900)? and at how many fps on what settings?
Intel Core i5 3470
8GB RAM
GTX 650 1GB GDDR5

I have an i5 2500 w/ 4GB RAM and a HD6850, and the game runs like an absolute dog for me. Even dropping down from my normal resolution of 1600*900 to 1280*720 with everything set as low as it will go leaves chase scenes feeling awful. Will report back tomorrow after upgrading to 16GB RAM, if I see major improvement (though I'm honestly not really expecting it).

well you need everything new (just for the cpu, gpu, motherboard, and ram), you know. but if you can do that (specs) with 16gb ram, tell me 😀

I considered, too, a full platform upgrade. But my CPU still has life in it, I think, and my 6850 generally performs pretty well on my sub-1080p display. Are you suggesting that after bumping the RAM and perhaps grabbing a 760 or 770 I wouldn't be able to blaze through any game likely to release in the next couple of years?

you can still blaze with a 760. it maxes out any games at 1080p (especially sub-1080 like mine also). for future proofing (that will last almost 10 years i guess) would be a 770 unless you upgrade to a new monitor.

I would have to disagree with the idea of the GTX 770 running newly released games ten years from now. Even 5 years is a stretch. The equivalent would be trying to run Watchdogs with an ATI 9800 Pro or GeForce 6800 Ultra(both circa 2004). Good luck with that.

Am getting 770 msi twin frozr just for watch dogs and ac5 will i max out games for at least 2 years?

In theory, you should be able to get 60 FPS with Ultra settings for the next two years but there is no guarantee. When un-optimized games get released, less-informed people may just run out for new hardware, choosing to run the game under brute force conditions. This game with as big as the marketing and hype was, should be fixed/optimized within 4-6 months if ever, knowing Ubisoft.

oh also forgot to mention am with 1440x900 and i5 3350p

 

[skit75]

I would have to disagree with the idea of the GTX 770 running newly released games ten years from now. Even 5 years is a stretch. The equivalent would be trying to run Watchdogs with an ATI 9800 Pro or GeForce 6800 Ultra(both circa 2004). Good luck with that.

Five years would not be that much of a stretch for modern GPUs: in the early days of 3D GPUs, performance more than doubled every year but now, it takes around three years to double performance at a given price point.

In a few more years, GPUs may join CPUs on the growing list of things that only get incremental yearly performance increases.

Ohh, I remember.... My first discreet GPU was a 3Dfx Voodoo 2.

Even 5 years ago..... I built this rig 5 years ago with a GTX 260. That isn't going to run Watchdogs, either.

 

[neon neophyte]

aye, directx12 is around the corner and could make anything with directx 11 immediately obsolete

 

[Denis Stoikovski]

I would have to disagree with the idea of the GTX 770 running newly released games ten years from now. Even 5 years is a stretch. The equivalent would be trying to run Watchdogs with an ATI 9800 Pro or GeForce 6800 Ultra(both circa 2004). Good luck with that.

Five years would not be that much of a stretch for modern GPUs: in the early days of 3D GPUs, performance more than doubled every year but now, it takes around three years to double performance at a given price point.

In a few more years, GPUs may join CPUs on the growing list of things that only get incremental yearly performance increases.

Ohh, I remember.... My first discreet GPU was a 3Dfx Voodoo 2.

Even 5 years ago..... I built this rig 5 years ago with a GTX 260. That isn't going to run Watchdogs, either.

it will 😀 i run it with gt 640 on low 30+fps

 

[skit75]

I would have to disagree with the idea of the GTX 770 running newly released games ten years from now. Even 5 years is a stretch. The equivalent would be trying to run Watchdogs with an ATI 9800 Pro or GeForce 6800 Ultra(both circa 2004). Good luck with that.

Five years would not be that much of a stretch for modern GPUs: in the early days of 3D GPUs, performance more than doubled every year but now, it takes around three years to double performance at a given price point.

In a few more years, GPUs may join CPUs on the growing list of things that only get incremental yearly performance increases.

Ohh, I remember.... My first discreet GPU was a 3Dfx Voodoo 2.

Even 5 years ago..... I built this rig 5 years ago with a GTX 260. That isn't going to run Watchdogs, either.

it will 😀 i run it with gt 640 on low 30+fps

A GT 640 is not even 2 years old.