Call of Duty: Ghosts and Watch Dogs Need 6GB RAM, 64-bit

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
"As PC Gamer points out, over 50 percent of the Steam user-base are using 4 GB of RAM or less"

Because they didn't need it till now since the new consoles are coming and what PC gamers get are the console ports.
 


True but not all console ports are equal. When done right, a console port can take advantage of a PCs power.

Max Payne 3, out in 2012, was recommended to have 2GB or more of VRAM and needed 3GB at 1080P to max out the game with AA.

It depends on the game company and how willing they are to use the hardware PCs have.

I am sure it will get better with the new consoles but I doubt they will all require a HD7970 or GTX780 etc.
 
On the GPU front, gamers will need a Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti or an AMD Radeon HD 5870, or better.
Click to expand...

Yeah right.

First, I don't believe a game studio goes from making low-demanding DX9 games to the most graphically demanding game ever in one year.

Second, I don't care how sloppily they ported the game or how much they went out of their way to avoid testing on AMD cards during development, a 5870 is roughly twice as powerful as a 550ti. That would be like BF4 listing the minimum requirements as a gtx680 or hd7850.
 
@ greghome

maybe its better optimized for nvidia?

Watchdogs is also coming for xbox360 and ps4 so unless they're shipping a completely different game for those consoles I don' see why a PC's min req would demand 6gb of ram. Still, this is fine by me. Just more of a reason to upgrade my 5 year old PC haha.

Thumbs up if you're still rockin a Core 2 architecture!
 
AMD should have pushed to unify the underlying drivers for PC and console, then all this talk about optimized for nvidia would be rubbish since the new consoles run AMD cards. I highly doubt that the 550ti will perform as well as the 5870, this has to be a typo or they were paid by nvidia to say this to make AMD look bad.
 
Tom's need to benchmark Watchdogs on a variety of hardware for us.

I can't imagine that the game will refuse to run on a 4GB machine - there'll just be a bit (a lot?) of swapping to disk.

My trusty old overclocked Q9550 with 6GB and unlocked HD 6950 will be able to handle it no trouble, I'm sure.
Haswell was such a disappointment that I'm not going to upgrade until next year's processors.
I've never had a CPU remain so viable for so long as my Core2Quad.
 


Actually from what I've seen most Steam users play more of the Indie and older games (myself included through my machine has more than the recommended). Very few play the "latest and greatest" AAA titles. I'd be curious to see how the game breakdown on Steam looks like, I'm almost certain to be that a game like FTL outsells either of these 3 to 1.
 


you do know its not going to get any better for intel CPU's right? Haswell was not a disappointment, just the gradual increase in performance intel is aiming for, with the power savings being their most important goal right now. Next years intel will be the same and continue for the forseeable future, Intel has no plans to make shocking 50% gains in raw CPU power right now.

I have a machine with a core 2 quad and a duo in another, Yes i agree that Core 2 were LONG lasting, and Sandy/Ivy/Haswell will be long lasting as well.

 
64 bit games = no more blurry textures I hope. Tired of having to download texture mods for most games to take advantage of my 3GB of VRAM which needs main ram to swap textures. Skyrim loves to crash if you go above 3-3.5GB of main ram if you overdo it on mods. This will allow developers to put all the details they want without having to cause memory errors from lack of memory.
 
I think the GTX 780 recommendation is intended for users running 4K displays...not for 1920x1080 (which I assume is display resolution that the majority of gaming PCs are utilizing).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom