Watch Dogs PC Game to Require 64-bit OS

[darkavenger123]

Finally...a true 64-bit Windows game??? About time people....

 

[Novuake]

Let me just repeat this. PURE marketing. They are trying to push PC hardware sales(most likely AMD hardware).

Watch this title WILL be in the AMD Gaming bundles...

 

[ahmedomran]

an eight-core processor or 4 cores in HT?

I think it's 4 cores in HT

 

[Killingmaster]

I got something mid-end like i7-4700hq + gt 750 + 8gb ram. So when compared, my gpu is the only 'weak' thing that might be an problem 😛

 

[AvatarIII]

Wow my pc pretty much nails the recommended specs, FX-8350, 8GB RAM, 2GB DX11 GPU, Radeon HD 7870 instead of the 7850 listed in the article, but close enough.

 

[3Ball]

Its worth noting that the BF4 "beta" is running significantly better on i7s with hyperthreading than on i5s without it. I personally had to lower my CPU clock to 4ghz and re-enable HT on my i7-860 in order to make the game run smoothly. CPU usage went from 100% to 60 - 70% when making this change.

I think with the consoles having fairly weak single threaded performance, we will see a large emphasis on multithreaded game engines going forward. I think it would be a good time to start recommending 6 and 8 core (HT included) CPU going forward fellas.

I certainly have changed my next upgrade to an i7 from the originally intended i5 based on this experience. Regardless if it is a product of the "beta" or not, I believe it is a sign of things to come. This article just adds to that belief imo.

 

[Sakkura]

Actually the two CPUs have a similar parallel throughput. In the 8-core optimized, integer-heavy workload FX8350 should score on average about 90% of the 3770k (while still burning through 60% more electricity though). That means that the game is optimized to be heavily parallel. Consoles make sense - their CPUs are also 8-core, so even if (simplistically) 8 core at 1.6 GHz roughly equals to 4-core at 3.2 GHz, this is the "best case" for the console - the workload must be split evenly over the whole 8 cores, or it works very slow while using less than 8 cores. Besides, the highest end specs are likely for a 4K or 3 monitor setup, rather than the 1080p screen

Well games typically DON'T work that way. In any case, the requirements don't have to be realistic. They could recommend an 8-core CPU for a game that only benefits from 2 cores.

Also, stop that comparison of cores and clocks between console and PC CPUs. The console CPUs use Jaguar cores which offer a lot less performance per clock cycle.

 

[boytitan2]

So wait a second a FX-8350 is for recommended yet a FX-9370 can run the game on ultra when the 9370 is just a over clocked 8350 pretty much. Ya no I smell shenanigans.

 

[mobrocket]

If watchdogs is suppose to be such a badass game
why is the PS4 ver. only running at 30FPS

 

[CDdude55]

It's really a non issue now a days, it's a rarity that most, especially gaming systems run a 32 bit OS. A few years back when the memory standard was low, when a 2GB system for gaming was the standard, a 32 bit OS could address everything but obviously times changed and i see nothing wrong with such a requirement. If you run at least 4GB like most systems, you're going to be running a 64 bit OS along with that.

 

[IcePrince1991]

what??.. i might be able to finally use what my pc was built for..

 

[Djentleman]

What is it with these super high end CPUs being neccasary?

 

[sarvok]

All games need to push this. Kill off the remaining XP gamers and push the straggling 32Bit gamers who use 8GB of RAM on a 32Bit OS.

8gb on a 32bit system? No one in their right mind would have that since you can only utilize 3.5gb of the 8gb.

With Physical Address Extension a 32-bit OS can address far more than 4 GB of RAM which all major modern x86 OSes support with some actually requiring it in order to use the No-Execute bit. In the Windows world MS have been using PAE in their 32-bit kernels ever since XP SP2 when the NX bit has been enabled (required in Windows 8). The 4 GB limit on 32-bit x86 systems is now nothing more than an explicit restriction OS developers put into the kernel depending upon the licensing policy used, for example the 32-bit Standard edition of Windows Server 2008 only allows up to 4 GB while the 32-bit Enterprise edition allows up to 64 GB. It is entirely possible to patch the system kernel to remove these explicit restrictions, in fact this has already been done with the 32-bit Windows 7 kernel allowing it to use up to 64 GB of RAM. So to think that a 32-bit OS is limited to only 4 GB of RAM is nothing but a naive misconception.

I myself am using 32-bit Windows 7 with 6 GB of RAM, and it can access all 6 GB thanks to PAE being enabled and the kernel restrictions being removed. Unfortunately non-AWE (Address Windowing Extension) 32-bit applications will still be limited to 2 GB (3 GB with 4GT enabled) but the extra memory is extremely good in a multi-tasking environment. The reason I haven't switched to 64-bit is because of a driver incompatibility with my wireless network adapter and I haven't seen anything that motivates me enough to replace the adapter (or solving the driver issue), which is still in good working condition, so I can make the switch.

 

[smeezekitty]

All games need to push this. Kill off the remaining XP gamers and push the straggling 32Bit gamers who use 8GB of RAM on a 32Bit OS.

8gb on a 32bit system? No one in their right mind would have that since you can only utilize 3.5gb of the 8gb.

With Physical Address Extension a 32-bit OS can address far more than 4 GB of RAM which all major modern x86 OSes support with some actually requiring it in order to use the No-Execute bit. In the Windows world MS have been using PAE in their 32-bit kernels ever since XP SP2 when the NX bit has been enabled (required in Windows 8). The 4 GB limit on 32-bit x86 systems is now nothing more than an explicit restriction OS developers put into the kernel depending upon the licensing policy used, for example the 32-bit Standard edition of Windows Server 2008 only allows up to 4 GB while the 32-bit Enterprise edition allows up to 64 GB. It is entirely possible to patch the system kernel to remove these explicit restrictions, in fact this has already been done with the 32-bit Windows 7 kernel allowing it to use up to 64 GB of RAM. So to think that a 32-bit OS is limited to only 4 GB of RAM is nothing but a naive misconception.

I myself am using 32-bit Windows 7 with 6 GB of RAM, and it can access all 6 GB thanks to PAE being enabled and the kernel restrictions being removed. Unfortunately non-AWE (Address Windowing Extension) 32-bit applications will still be limited to 2 GB (3 GB with 4GT enabled) but the extra memory is extremely good in a multi-tasking environment. The reason I haven't switched to 64-bit is because of a driver incompatibility with my wireless network adapter and I haven't seen anything that motivates me enough to replace the adapter (or solving the driver issue), which is still in good working condition, so I can make the switch.

Its really too bad microsoft imposes these idiotic artificial restrictions. Infact when I boot Linux on my machine it can access all of my memory instead of being limited to 3 GB (4 phys - 1 GB GPU)

And software compatibility is one of the reason I still use 32 bit. 64 bit isn't what its all cracked up to be.

 

[blppt]

"So to think that a 32-bit OS is limited to only 4 GB of RAM is nothing but a naive misconception."

Short of MS patching its mainstream IA32 kernels to enable the PAE 4GB+ ability, not too many end users are going to go your route to get their 32bit kernel Windows to use that extra memory. Far less than those who already have a 64bit OS.

Plus, if it was that simple to simply enable PAE on Win32 and reliably enable 64GB addressable RAM for its mainstream users, MS would have done it years ago, rather than spending millions on assisting hundreds of vendors to rewrite their drivers for 64bit windows. Lets face it...since the mainstream Athlon 64 showed up, the mainstream has still not needed anywheres near 64GB main system RAM, so PAE would have served all of our needs for a good 10 years now, saving MS tons of money in driver support.

And while I sympathize with you wanting to hang on to that old wireless card, considering many people will have to spend $300+ alone to get a good video card upgrade (for upcoming games, 32 or 64bit), you being forced to upgrade a wireless card to use a 64bit OS suddenly doesnt seem dire.

 

[sarvok]

"So to think that a 32-bit OS is limited to only 4 GB of RAM is nothing but a naive misconception."

Short of MS patching its mainstream IA32 kernels to enable the PAE 4GB+ ability, not too many end users are going to go your route to get their 32bit kernel Windows to use that extra memory. Far less than those who already have a 64bit OS.

Obviously MS wouldn't even think of removing the explicitly coded memory limits from their kernels which also exist in their 64-bit versions (eg: Windows 7 Home Basic limited to only 8 GB compared to 192 GB for Ultimate). Of course this also isn't something the majority of end users would even attempt doing due to difficulty & obscurity of the method and ease of simply using a 64-bit OS that the developer actually supports, but my point was more so that it is possible to use more than 4 GB in a 32-bit OS rather than it being commonly done.

Plus, if it was that simple to simply enable PAE on Win32 and reliably enable 64GB addressable RAM for its mainstream users, MS would have done it years ago, rather than spending millions on assisting hundreds of vendors to rewrite their drivers for 64bit windows. Lets face it...since the mainstream Athlon 64 showed up, the mainstream has still not needed anywheres near 64GB main system RAM, so PAE would have served all of our needs for a good 10 years now, saving MS tons of money in driver support.

Well PAE is already enabled by default to use the NX bit (aka: Data Execution Protection), it's just the kernel limits usage to a maximum of 4 GB. The reason for this is licensing policies and compatibility issues, when DEP was added in XP SP2 they found in testing 4+ GB memory that some device drivers would crash/hang as they weren't programmed to handle addresses over 4 GB. This driver incompatibility isn't as big of a problem since Vista with driver certification and rise of 64-bit support, and speaking as a programmer myself the drivers wouldn't have required a huge rewrite (especially since they are still mapped below 4 GB), which would actually benefit PAE support as well. Going native 64-bit was much better than sticking to 32-bit with PAE though, especially in the server market that can easily pass 64 GB and are based on the same kernel as client systems, and provided more benefits than just increased memory limits such as more optimised 64-bit calculations.

And while I sympathize with you wanting to hang on to that old wireless card, considering many people will have to spend $300+ alone to get a good video card upgrade (for upcoming games, 32 or 64bit), you being forced to upgrade a wireless card to use a 64bit OS suddenly doesnt seem dire.

Like I said though I haven't found any real important need for a 64-bit OS, and I'm very cheap so I'm unlikely to drop any amount of money on something unless I have some important need to do so (hell I'm still using an old CRT monitor that hasn't so much failed me even once in the 10 odd years I've used it). So far the only application that has come close to giving me such a need has been Skyrim due to mods increasing its memory to the point of it crashing, but after a bit of research into the cause of the problem I quickly found the solution of enabling 4 GB Tuning to give applications a 3 GB virtual address space and for extra measure found the PAE + kernel patch method for 4+ GB of system memory. I don't really care much about real high-end gaming though, as long as I can achieve a reasonable level of graphics and performance in a game I'm happy and so far I've been able to achieve that with games I'm interested in.

 

[smeezekitty]

Like I said though I haven't found any real important need for a 64-bit OS, and I'm very cheap so I'm unlikely to drop any amount of money on something unless I have some important need to do so (hell I'm still using an old CRT monitor that hasn't so much failed me even once in the 10 odd years I've used it). So far the only application that has come close to giving me such a need has been Skyrim due to mods increasing its memory to the point of it crashing, but after a bit of research into the cause of the problem I quickly found the solution of enabling 4 GB Tuning to give applications a 3 GB virtual address space and for extra measure found the PAE + kernel patch method for 4+ GB of system memory. I don't really care much about real high-end gaming though, as long as I can achieve a reasonable level of graphics and performance in a game I'm happy and so far I've been able to achieve that with games I'm interested in.

Big +1

 

[smeezekitty]

I just tried to patch my kernel and it didn't work. Just goes into startup repair.

 

[blppt]

" The reason for this is licensing policies and compatibility issues, when DEP was added in XP SP2 they found in testing 4+ GB memory that some device drivers would crash/hang as they weren't programmed to handle addresses over 4 GB."

And there you have your reason for MS going 64bit...since there was going to have to be drivers rewritten anyways, you might as well do it once for the 64bit push, which was going to happen eventually anyways. I'm sure there are other reasons as well---the x64 ISA also provides several modern upgrades to the ancient i386 instructions from 20+ years ago among other things.

Of course, this all might have been different had IBM chosen the 68000 oh those many years ago (or, more recently, if IA64 had won out like Intel had wanted, instead of AMD's solution) instead of the patchwork mess than has been x86's evolution, but whats done is done.

 

[K-Hype]

Damn requirements are insanely high. My i5 4570 won't catch up

 

[Sakkura]

Damn requirements are insanely high. My i5 4570 won't catch up

You'll be fine with your i5-4570.