Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Watch Dogs I5 760 @ 4.1 ghz & 280x - 8gb Ram

Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 1, 2014 9:56:46 AM

As the title suggests, I am planning to buy Watch Dogs, as the game seems to be awesome so far. My current system is consisting of a intel I5 760 clocked at 4.1 ghz and recently ive bought a 280x from Asus - Dcu2 Top. I also have 8 gigs of ram 1333mhz but i plan on upgrading to 12 or 16 sooner or later. My question would be, how well or at how much fps would i be able to play and at what settings. The game is said to be poorly optimized so far, but that is subject to change, i am wondering since a lot of people say you will need a beefy CPU in order to run the game smoothly, mostly because of the amount of NPCs in the game. But i am not recognizing any obvious bottlenecks by the CPU for example on most of the maps in BF4 on ultra i am running 65-80 fps on average, depending on the action going on. As far as i know gaming is more stressful to the GPU and you do not need such beast CPUs as one would think. But all the rumors got me wondering
June 1, 2014 10:31:20 AM

I cant say for sure but expect around 30fps at ultra.
The game is poorly optimized for amd.
m
0
l
June 1, 2014 10:57:03 AM

TheAMDBoy said:
I cant say for sure but expect around 30fps at ultra.
The game is poorly optimized for amd.


Yeah, ive heard those rumors, but i am more worried about the CPU plus the new beta drivers 14.6 are supposed to smooth out Watch dogs a bit for amd. But im more worried about the CPU than the GPU
m
0
l
Related resources
June 1, 2014 11:48:17 AM

Dont worry about the cpu.
It is still good enough ;) 
m
0
l
June 1, 2014 1:16:06 PM

TheAMDBoy said:
Dont worry about the cpu.
It is still good enough ;) 


So you dont think it will be a problem? because a lot of people are having problems and they are running better cpus...
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b Ĉ ASUS
June 1, 2014 1:23:21 PM

2013 and forward titles are doing more then "stressful to the GPU", as you pointed out the actions of the NPCs (for example) are 'independent' (your don't get the herd effect) so to process each NPCs response to not only YOU the player's actions but what other NPCs are doing (civilians don't into bad guys firing like they didn't exist) is all CPU intensive. Add to that physics (knives no longer can break down a cement wall exactly like a RPG can) and again more 'processing' then has to do with graphics. Lastly you are forgetting the 'game' doesn't just load from 'disk' directly to GPU. ALL SOFTWARE is stored (HDD, SSD), then needs to grab chunks (not the entire game) at a time to RAM, before it is passed to the CPU to 'process' and decide what to do with the code (is this for the sound card? is it for the Internet? etc.), before the GPU gets involved.

So yes these games are all demanding more then what you / I have in our rigs (I am on a Intel Core i7 740QM @ 1.73GHz) and we are talking serious upgrades, but the cost is LOW. You can score a desktop i7 Haswell with 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD, DVD, W8 for only $529 (www.slickdeals.net), swap the PSU ($90 600W pcpartpicker.com) and add a decent GPU (Nvidia 760 / AMD R9) for around $350 or so and you have a rig that will work nicely for these games and look good.
Share
June 3, 2014 12:18:45 PM

Tom Tancredi said:
2013 and forward titles are doing more then "stressful to the GPU", as you pointed out the actions of the NPCs (for example) are 'independent' (your don't get the herd effect) so to process each NPCs response to not only YOU the player's actions but what other NPCs are doing (civilians don't into bad guys firing like they didn't exist) is all CPU intensive. Add to that physics (knives no longer can break down a cement wall exactly like a RPG can) and again more 'processing' then has to do with graphics. Lastly you are forgetting the 'game' doesn't just load from 'disk' directly to GPU. ALL SOFTWARE is stored (HDD, SSD), then needs to grab chunks (not the entire game) at a time to RAM, before it is passed to the CPU to 'process' and decide what to do with the code (is this for the sound card? is it for the Internet? etc.), before the GPU gets involved.

So yes these games are all demanding more then what you / I have in our rigs (I am on a Intel Core i7 740QM @ 1.73GHz) and we are talking serious upgrades, but the cost is LOW. You can score a desktop i7 Haswell with 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD, DVD, W8 for only $529 (www.slickdeals.net), swap the PSU ($90 600W pcpartpicker.com) and add a decent GPU (Nvidia 760 / AMD R9) for around $350 or so and you have a rig that will work nicely for these games and look good.


I guess ill try it out and let you guys know how it runs. I would still like some feedback from actual owners of the game - how it runs and so on... Best would be if you guys have Amd gpu s as i would like to see the optimization :) 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b Ĉ ASUS
June 3, 2014 2:13:49 PM

LAUGHS> Just search the Forum for all the other people pissed off on systems not meeting the www.canirunit.com RECOMMENDED hardware, as you can see here http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/...
Recommended: Core i7 3770 @ 3.5Ghz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0Ghz
Recommended: DirectX 11 graphics card with 2 GB Video RAM - Nvidia Geforce GTX 560 ti or AMD Radeon HD 7850

As for 'numbers' simple google shows the problem is WD's porting to PC
http://www.maximumpc.com/ubisoft_working_patch_tame_wat...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/29/u...
and one sites extensive testing...
http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmark...
http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmark...
m
0
l
June 11, 2014 10:46:22 AM

I just got Watch Dogs, and tbh it seems pretty bad when it comes to optimization, but i was able to tweak around with the settings and got it running around 50 fps which is good enough for me. Thanks for everyone who read or tried to help
m
0
l
!