Benchmarked: How Well Does Watch Dogs Run On your PC?
Tags:
-
Gaming
-
Graphics Cards
-
CPUs
-
Software
Last response: in Reviews comments
Watch Dogs is one of the most anticipated games of 2014. So, we're testing it across a range of CPUs and graphics cards. By the end of today's story, you'll know what you need for playable performance. Spoiler: this game is surprisingly demanding!
Benchmarked: How Well Does Watch Dogs Run On your PC? : Read more
******* EDIT: More CPU Results On The Way *******
1- I'm seeing a lot of requests for more CPUs. I totally understand.
Truth be told, I would have liked to add a lot more configs for publication but we were really under the gun here to get something out as quick as possible. I just didn't have the time.
I will try to take FX-6300 and Core i5-3550 benchmarks today and add the results to the charts, though. Stay tuned.
[UPDATE May 28] FX-6300 and Core i5-3550 added to CPU benchmark charts [/UPDATE]
2- As for the simulated 780 Ti, I simply don't have a real one here, I asked Nvidia but they ignored the request. But its worlds more relevant than the $1000 Titan I have onhand. I'd rather have an extremely close approximation to the 780 Ti than nothing at all. As far as the VRAM, I was clear in the test setup that I benched the medium texture setting to keep VRAM out as a variable. The game makes it clear which texture setting should be used with the amount of VRAM you have.
3- 4k results would be nice, and we're working on sourcing monitors for our labs. Having said that, the adoption is less than a tenth of one percent. It's not an important inclusion yet, but it'll get there. We're working on it.
- Don
Benchmarked: How Well Does Watch Dogs Run On your PC? : Read more
******* EDIT: More CPU Results On The Way *******
1- I'm seeing a lot of requests for more CPUs. I totally understand.
Truth be told, I would have liked to add a lot more configs for publication but we were really under the gun here to get something out as quick as possible. I just didn't have the time.
I will try to take FX-6300 and Core i5-3550 benchmarks today and add the results to the charts, though. Stay tuned.
[UPDATE May 28] FX-6300 and Core i5-3550 added to CPU benchmark charts [/UPDATE]
2- As for the simulated 780 Ti, I simply don't have a real one here, I asked Nvidia but they ignored the request. But its worlds more relevant than the $1000 Titan I have onhand. I'd rather have an extremely close approximation to the 780 Ti than nothing at all. As far as the VRAM, I was clear in the test setup that I benched the medium texture setting to keep VRAM out as a variable. The game makes it clear which texture setting should be used with the amount of VRAM you have.
3- 4k results would be nice, and we're working on sourcing monitors for our labs. Having said that, the adoption is less than a tenth of one percent. It's not an important inclusion yet, but it'll get there. We're working on it.
- Don
More about : benchmarked watch dogs run
-
Reply to cleeve
Running on my system with ultra and highest settings and fxaa it is pretty steady at 60-70 fps with weird drops randomly almost perfectly to 30 then up to 60 almost like adaptive sync is on, Currently playing it withe the texture at high and hba0+ and smaa and its a pretty rock steady 60fps with vsync still with the random drops.
-
Reply to coolcole01
m
0
l
Related resources
- How well can I run Watch Dogs on my PC? - Forum
- How well do you think my PC be able to run Watch Dogs ? - Forum
- How well will my PC run Watch dogs? - Forum
- How Well Can My PC Run Watch Dogs? - Forum
- How Well will i be able to run Watch Dogs - Forum
edwinjr
May 28, 2014 1:15:57 AM
jonnyapps
May 28, 2014 1:32:30 AM
Patrick Tobin
May 28, 2014 2:25:39 AM
Most 780Ti cards come with 3GB of ram, the Titan has 6GB. This is an unfair comparison as the Titan has more than ample VRAM. Get a real 780Ti or do not label it as such. HardOCP just did the same tests and the 290X destroyed the 780 since the FSAA + Ultra textures started causing swapping since it was pushing past 3GB.
-
Reply to Patrick Tobin
m
24
l
tomfreak
May 28, 2014 2:35:07 AM
If u dont have 780ti, 780, just show us stock Titan speed, Why would u rather show us Titan OCed speed than showing Titan stock speed & all that without showing 290X OCed speed? Infact an OCed Titan does not represent a 780Ti, because it has 6GB VRAM. Vram is a big deal in watchdog. So ur Oced titan does not look like 780ti nor a real titan.
-
Reply to tomfreak
m
28
l
AndrewJacksonZA
May 28, 2014 2:43:19 AM
Hi Don
Please could you include tests at 4K resolution, and also please use a real 780Ti and also a 295X2? Can you not ask another lab to do it, or get one shipped to you please?
+1 also on what @Patrick Tobin said.
I can appreciate that you might've spent a lot of time on this review, and we'd really appreciate you doing the final bit of this review. I know that not a lot of gamers currently game at 4K, but I am definitely interested in it please.
Thank you!
Please could you include tests at 4K resolution, and also please use a real 780Ti and also a 295X2? Can you not ask another lab to do it, or get one shipped to you please?
+1 also on what @Patrick Tobin said.
I can appreciate that you might've spent a lot of time on this review, and we'd really appreciate you doing the final bit of this review. I know that not a lot of gamers currently game at 4K, but I am definitely interested in it please.
Thank you!
-
Reply to AndrewJacksonZA
m
8
l
Lee Yong Quan
May 28, 2014 2:45:11 AM
icepick314
May 28, 2014 3:34:39 AM
That_Guy88
May 28, 2014 3:53:58 AM
wtfxxxgp
May 28, 2014 4:06:21 AM
You guys are being a bit unnecessary regarding the inclusion of the Titan OC'd to simulate the 780Ti - he simply used what he HAD. I think the choice to use medium textures renders the 6GB VRAM vs 3GB VRAM mostly moot. This was just to give us an indication, why do people have to get so darned technical all the time? You guys should really try to wrap your head around the various scenarios to be tested and the time it takes to be done before you give the Authors grief about "limited this and limited that". The game looks good, thanks for the brief review
-
Reply to wtfxxxgp
m
2
l
Empyah
May 28, 2014 4:12:58 AM
First you put the R9 290X(CATA 14.6?) without OC against the Titan with OC,
and then the FX-8350 against a freaking i7-3960X and NO OTHER intel CPU. [edited for language]
For freak sakes i am really trying to follow you as a serios tech-site without bias,
please do not make it any freaking harder for me.
and then the FX-8350 against a freaking i7-3960X and NO OTHER intel CPU. [edited for language]
For freak sakes i am really trying to follow you as a serios tech-site without bias,
please do not make it any freaking harder for me.
-
Reply to Empyah
m
3
l
Why no core i5 4670K nor i7 4770K at benchmarks?
edit: Actually someone did some nice tests for CPUS:
CPU performance with GTX 780
CPU performance with R9 290X
edit: Actually someone did some nice tests for CPUS:
CPU performance with GTX 780
CPU performance with R9 290X
-
Reply to Memnarchon
m
5
l
I would have liked to have seen more CPUs tested, in particular three that are widely discussed and recommended in the forums, the i5-4670K (or i5-3570K), FX-6300, and 760K.
I hope there is a followup article, focusing on some specific details. These include VRAM limitations, and more tweaking to see which settings changes most affect not only raw FPS but also smoothness. It looks like some settings lead to a very distracting experience, and it would be nice to know what those are.
Edit: Thanks, Don, for adding the FX-6300 and i5-3550; those are useful numbers to have. Here is one title where the FX clearly beats the i3, so core count must matter.
I hope there is a followup article, focusing on some specific details. These include VRAM limitations, and more tweaking to see which settings changes most affect not only raw FPS but also smoothness. It looks like some settings lead to a very distracting experience, and it would be nice to know what those are.
Edit: Thanks, Don, for adding the FX-6300 and i5-3550; those are useful numbers to have. Here is one title where the FX clearly beats the i3, so core count must matter.
-
Reply to Onus
m
6
l
Take a look at the links the OP gave with 780 vs. 290x. 290x lost. Not sure what all the whining is about. 290x has more ram than a 780 right? Who cares above this res when only 2% are using over 1080p?
Claiming something wins where 98% of us NEVER play is ridiculous. You want to know who wins in 98% of users cases. Those fps are too low for me anyway, as barely breaking 30fps min is not enough. You will see dips even on AMD while playing. They're only showing a snapshot here. They dropped textures to high at hardocp (the 2nd test) and NV won. So yeah if you want to push things to where we probably wouldn't enjoy it, AMD wins. Yay. But if you play at 1080p, the links above show NV winning. I think FAR more people are worried about 1080p. Having said that, this game would laugh at my PC...ROFL.
Claiming something wins where 98% of us NEVER play is ridiculous. You want to know who wins in 98% of users cases. Those fps are too low for me anyway, as barely breaking 30fps min is not enough. You will see dips even on AMD while playing. They're only showing a snapshot here. They dropped textures to high at hardocp (the 2nd test) and NV won. So yeah if you want to push things to where we probably wouldn't enjoy it, AMD wins. Yay. But if you play at 1080p, the links above show NV winning. I think FAR more people are worried about 1080p. Having said that, this game would laugh at my PC...ROFL.
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
5
l
Interesting how Don recommends a minimum of i5 or FX6300 but did not include those in the CPU scaling benchmarks. There should be a LGA115x i7 in there too for a smooth progression from 2C4T to 6C12T - the Extreme CPU has over 3X the i3's raw performance but only manages twice the score; it would have been interesting to see a smooth progression on how much benefit it gets out of extra threads vs extra cores.
-
Reply to InvalidError
m
6
l
I must say, I much prefer Tom's video game reviews to what HardOCP does. As much as I enjoy HardOCP's PSU reviews and believe they are well-done, their video game reviews seem devoted strictly to [near] top of the line hardware running at UltraMaxOhWOW! settings that are absolutely irrelevant to the average gamer. I want to see a lot more data points than that. Yes, more would be nice, but at least here we do get enough data for some interpolation/extrapolation to alternate hardware.
-
Reply to Onus
m
9
l
how are 4 core intel processors, both with and without hyperthreading NOT on the cpu benchmarks. it has been claimed that hyperthreading is required for ultra but this wasnt even tested? for all we know the high end intel processor you did test performs no better than an i5.
considering this game is cpu bound, how is there not a more comprehensive cpu benchmarking being done? what a waste.
considering this game is cpu bound, how is there not a more comprehensive cpu benchmarking being done? what a waste.
-
Reply to neon neophyte
m
4
l
I'm on AMD, but there are a LOT of gaming rigs and gamers out there using i5 3570k/4670k and i7 3770k/4770k. I was surprised not to see these tested. That would have been some very useful information for a lot of people.
Is there any way the benchmark charts could be updated to show results for these parts?
Is there any way the benchmark charts could be updated to show results for these parts?
-
Reply to maddogfargo
m
2
l
redgarl
May 28, 2014 6:35:31 AM
The closest thing to a true quad-core in this CPU benchmark is an FX-4170. You guys didn't have anything better to test with than that? Nothing at all between the FX-8350 and i7-3960X?
Okay, so maybe you don't have the hardware available in the Canadian office. So why not at least give us a couple of separate graphs for clock speed scaling and core count scaling? By your own admission, this is a CPU-intensive game, and one that (according to Ubisoft's system requirements) can use a lot of cores. The sole graph provided tells us very, very little except that the FX-8350 and i7-3960X "do okay."
Okay, so maybe you don't have the hardware available in the Canadian office. So why not at least give us a couple of separate graphs for clock speed scaling and core count scaling? By your own admission, this is a CPU-intensive game, and one that (according to Ubisoft's system requirements) can use a lot of cores. The sole graph provided tells us very, very little except that the FX-8350 and i7-3960X "do okay."
-
Reply to oxiide
m
1
l
I'm seeing a lot of requests for more CPUs. I totally understand.
Truth be told, I would have liked to add a lot more configs for publication but we were really under the gun here to get something out as quick as possible. I just didn't have the time.
Today I added the Core i5-3550 and FX-6300 to the benchmark charts in an update.
Truth be told, I would have liked to add a lot more configs for publication but we were really under the gun here to get something out as quick as possible. I just didn't have the time.
Today I added the Core i5-3550 and FX-6300 to the benchmark charts in an update.
-
Reply to cleeve
m
7
l
redgarl said:
UHD?With high-end GPUs only managing 70ish FPS at QHD, I would expect only 30ish FPS at QHD resolutions which would not feel particularly pleasant to most enthusiasts. Multi-GPU setups would be required but either Don did not have any on-hand for this review or there might be a separate article covering that coming later.
-
Reply to InvalidError
m
0
l
Plusthinking Iq
May 28, 2014 8:22:14 AM
harly2 said:
another Tom's article that gets different results from the rest of the tech community, and tends to have Nvidia leaningsYour comment is too general to help you with.
What do you mean by "Nvidia leaning", exactly?
What specific result are you talking about that the 'rest of the tech community' has produced conflicting data with?
-
Reply to cleeve
m
3
l
bemused_fred
May 28, 2014 8:47:18 AM
hambonee
May 28, 2014 9:13:50 AM
ericjohn004 said:
This game runs like absolute POO on PC. And I have a GTX780 and a 3570k@4.7Ghz with 16GB of 2133 RAM and a 500GB EVO SSD.It's a stuttering mess. The Vsync doesn't even work so you get tons of screen tearing too.
You get low fps with this system? ffs dude this is freaking 780 and 16 ram 2133mhz lol that's the first 2133 i saw in this forum daymn i can't belive..
-
Reply to Denis Stoikovski
m
4
l
Onus said:
Thanks! Those numbers are interesting; the FX-6300 clearly beats the i3, so core count must make a pretty big difference in this game.Agreed..Which is why this game just laughs at my dual core. C'mon Intel get the dang broadwell's out the door, my PC has been crying for long enough...LOL.
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
harly2 said:
Oh god you again....Other tech sites consistency get better results from AMD hardware, I'm not linking it for you, simply go to one of the multitude of other tech sites pick an AMD product they have reviewed look at the benchmarks and see how it compares to the toms reviews.
"Oh god you again"...same old Harley.
Still stirring the pot with baseless accusations and completely unable to back it up with inconvenient stuff like facts, huh?
How's that working out for ya?
-
Reply to cleeve
m
6
l
harly2 said:
Other tech sites consistency get better results from AMD hardware, I'm not linking it for you, simply go to one of the multitude of other tech sites pick an AMD product they have reviewed look at the benchmarks and see how it compares to the toms reviews. Toms has a negative tone with AMD products and also misrepresents them on CPU and GPU charts. This is just another example.Where did you see this?
Guru3D has lower results than Tom's and Techspot used even factory o/c HIS AMD Radeons and the results were barely better than Tom's...
-
Reply to Memnarchon
m
4
l
harly2 said:
cleeve said:
harly2 said:
another Tom's article that gets different results from the rest of the tech community, and tends to have Nvidia leaningsYour comment is too general to help you with.
What do you mean by "Nvidia leaning", exactly?
What specific result are you talking about that the 'rest of the tech community' has produced conflicting data with?
Oh god you again....Other tech sites consistency get better results from AMD hardware, I'm not linking it for you, simply go to one of the multitude of other tech sites pick an AMD product they have reviewed look at the benchmarks and see how it compares to the toms reviews. Toms has a negative tone with AMD products and also misrepresents them on CPU and GPU charts. This is just another example.
Oh god you again? He is an editor here so basically you attacked him too, and he writes a ton of articles here. You didn't expect him to respond to you trashing their data? When you do that, you need to provide something, and saying go find it yourself is NOT sufficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_D...
Land in the top 3, then you've done your job. Landing in the bottom 4 (as you've done) is a complete failure to make your point. Nice try though
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
5
l
Cryio
May 28, 2014 10:00:51 AM
Related resources
- How well would this run a game like Watch_Dogs? Forum
- How we'll can I run watch dogs?? Forum
- How well could I run Watch Dogs? Forum
- How will this PC run Watch Dogs? Forum
- SolvedHow Should Watch Dogs run on this? Forum
- Watch Dogs- How well will this perform on Ultra? Forum
- Solvedhow does this guy have Watch Dogs and Read Dead Forum
- SolvedHow Will This Build run on game such as Theif and Watch_Dogs? Forum
- SolvedCould anyone with Similar specs let me know how they run Watch Dogs? Forum
- SolvedHow can I run my new game Watch Dogs with my graphic card ? Forum
- SolvedCan my PC run watch dogs ultra? Forum
- SolvedWill my PC run watch dogs and what settings? Forum
- SolvedCan my PC run Watch Dogs , BF 3/4 , Assassin Creed Black Flag ? Forum
- SolvedWould my PC run watch dogs, and at what settings? Forum
- SolvedCan my PC run Watch Dogs on ultra high settings Forum
- More resources
!