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

[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

A GT 640 is not even 2 years old.

still its a multimedia gpu http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-260-vs-GeForce-GT-640 also it still suporting your gpu http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&canMyGpuRunIt=Watch%20Dogs

 

[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.

still its a multimedia gpu http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-260-vs-GeForce-GT-640 also it still suporting your gpu http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&canMyGpuRunIt=Watch%20Dogs

You want to buy my GTX 260? =)

 

[criticalt3]

This is really strange, considering I'm running a stock clocked GTX 480 with an AMD Phenom 2 BE clocked at 3.2GHz, and I'm running the game on all highest/ultra settings with no problem what-so-ever, at 1600x900.

 

[neon neophyte]

as true as that may be, some of us dont like our games to play like a slide show

 

[cleeve]

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.

Well.. the FX-8350 does *not* outperform a similarly priced Core i5 in *any* game that comes to mind quickly, and it performs very closely (and often inferior to) the much cheaper Core i3.

So, once again, can't recommend it for games because it has the 'potential to maybe someday be better on average'

Your opinions are set in stone, that's fine, but this is a sector that is changing now more then ever.

Set in stone? You're missing entire chunks of our exchange, man. Specifically this entire post:


"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."

 

[cleeve]

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.

Actually, its a CPU hierarchy chart in an article that makes it pretty clear that it's about gaming, specifically.

And it reflects game performance. I think maybe you having some confusion identifying that its not a CPU productivity chart, or a CPU IPC chart, but a CPU GAMING chart. And a current one, not a hypothetical future one.

It *is* a good thing that other charts are out there, if you're not looking for a contemporary CPU *gaming* chart... which is what we offer.

 

[Sh4d0w45p]

It's not hard to add or minus a relative amount of frames for better or worse hardware. Good chance that if you're reading these articles then you actually know something about the hardware in your machine and what it compares too. I have an i5-2500K OC'd and wanted to see what ballpark it'd be in - variations in machines are huge and chances are you'll never see the same results replicated. Stock / OC'd hardware, RAM modules, the screen you use and drivers all have an impact on fps. Don't expect internet numbers to be the same as yours.

 

[InvalidError]

It *is* a good thing that other charts are out there, if you're not looking for a CPU *gaming* chart... which is what we offer.

Well, he *IS* looking for a gaming CPU chart except in his mind, meaningfully threaded games have somehow magically already become pervasive when the reality is that they are currently still exceptionally rare and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future - lower-profile game developers are not going to add threads in their games just for the heck of it with all the optimization and debugging headaches it adds if their critical code still sits comfortably on a single core or two.

 

[jasonelmore]

Man AMD Cards are showing their true colors on this game. Weak Shaders vs Nvidia's Beefy Cores.

 

[Akstation]

My Rig is running at AMD FX 8300, 16GB Ram, MSI GTX 770 with 2GB ram, which ones very smooth but the system runs very hot, after a few ( 15-30 mins ) of gameplay of Watch Dogs ( On All Medium settings ) 60c Video Card, 56c CPU, 64c Motherboard, I perfer playing it on my XBox One console, which I also got, anyway the game was a free promotion when i bought my MSI GTX770 ,, The controls are bad on pc anyway,,

 

[neon neophyte]

"the controls are bad on pc anyway"

you do realize you can use controllers on pc as well, dont you?

 

[somebodyspecial]

I counter your chart with another chart

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


So who's chart is right. lol.

"We settled on the start of the fourth mission (titled "Singapore") which begins on the US vessel Valkyrie as the team walks to an inflatable rib where they have a brief discussion and then jump in before being lowered down. Although the test takes place in the Valkyrie's launch bay, "

I guess on your chart they forgot a cpu bench needs for the cpu to be actually benched.

No gameplay at all in that scene. Which explains those pathetic bunched numbers.


I tend to trust pclabs, they use actual benchmarking.

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?

But what the techspot charts show is how weak AMD is. The intel cpu can drop to 2.5ghz and still hit the 82fps. It gains nothing from going above all the way to 4.5ghz (clearly at their settings on 1080p the vid card is the problem with Intel). On the other side AMD takes 4.5ghz to hit 82fps to match Intel and improves a bit for each 50mhz. So you can run an intel chip at 2.5 vs. AMD FX8350 at 4.5 and get the same results in this game. That is what I call a cpu test 😉 Talk about showing the difference between the two architectures. Numbers like that just can't be ignored. You see this in many tests here on toms etc (neverwinter, diablo3, etc etc). Clearly the 290x isn't fast enough at 1080p to even push a 2.5ghz 4770 (or the game is just coded like crap?...who knows, AMD drivers suck in this game?).

As even FASTER cards come out you'll see Intel leave AMD even more when compared. Imagine if the card was faster here, pushing say 150fps at 1200p at techspot. We would get to see what Intel could do when going from 2.5-4.5ghz then instead of all of them hitting a gpu wall. Intel makes great cpus right now (for quite a few years) vs. AMD.

 

[somebodyspecial]

oops meant at 1200p in that first P. They were running 1920x1200 (yay, my res...LOL)

 

[neon neophyte]

kind of ridiculous that the stated requirements for ultra are an i7 or an 8 core amd when the 8 core amd cant even keep up with an i5

 

[coolcole01]

here is a video of me running it with ultra settings high textures smaa anti aliasing fx 8350 seems to be doing fine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhBUBXWlI6A&feature=youtu.be

 

[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

A GT 640 is not even 2 years old.

still its a multimedia gpu http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-260-vs-GeForce-GT-640 also it still suporting your gpu http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&canMyGpuRunIt=Watch%20Dogs

You want to buy my GTX 260? =)

No am getting gtx 770 😀

 

[neon neophyte]

here is a video of me running it with ultra settings high textures smaa anti aliasing fx 8350 seems to be doing fine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhBUBXWlI6A&feature=youtu.be

must be nice to finally have a game that runs ok with your processor =P

 

[coolcole01]

Thats funny everything runs good on this never had a problem this is actually the first to actually put up a fight maybe just lucky but always get great fps and gameplay even games that are not suppose to be good with amd

 

[neon neophyte]

skyrim:
http://i.gyazo.com/d72b9ae4869e67c2f1866cdd5a844bd5.png

*cough*

 

[coolcole01]

skyrim:
http://i.gyazo.com/d72b9ae4869e67c2f1866cdd5a844bd5.png

*cough*

never seemed to be a problem for me
ultra everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSThY-gLP1g&feature=youtu.be

 

[neon neophyte]

that is expected, the 680 was doing 107 average. it was the minimums that were brutal

heck, looks like the intel cpus with a 680 were keeping pace or beating what you just posted

 

[neieus]

I agree with coolcole01 I've never had a problem playing any game on ultra settings but you'll always have your FPS extremist out there I suppose. Also while benchmarks tell one story the user experience tells another... Now I know there will be a few exceptions and there will also be some that swear they can tell but I can honestly say from my own personal experience looking side by side I've never been able to tell the difference between the two CPU's performance wise unless I run some sort of FPS counter.

 

[coolcole01]

I think there is a lot of bias because intel is so good at what it does but hell I would have never known if it wasn't on sale the week I got the 8350. Or I would have gotten the 3570k. I actually got it with the idea I would try it then sell it. Just was really fun to oc and it found a way to always keep up. Not to long ago I started to think maybe I was wrong so I got a 3930 and the gains were so little in what I did I ended up not buying it from the guy.

 

[Denis Stoikovski]

skyrim:
http://i.gyazo.com/d72b9ae4869e67c2f1866cdd5a844bd5.png

*cough*

never seemed to be a problem for me
ultra everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSThY-gLP1g&feature=youtu.be

Lol look at my rig it runs everything on max.... come on dude -_-

 

[coolcole01]

skyrim:
http://i.gyazo.com/d72b9ae4869e67c2f1866cdd5a844bd5.png

*cough*

never seemed to be a problem for me
ultra everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSThY-gLP1g&feature=youtu.be

Lol look at my rig it runs everything on max.... come on dude -_-

I can tell you for a fact that my rig can not play watchdogs with everything maxed at 1080p@60 but it can do it at 1080p@30