In order to explore CPU scaling, I used the overclocked GeForce GTX Titan on multiple platforms and the Ultra detail preset at 1080p.


Intel and, to a lesser extent, AMD will like this: even pushing the Ultra detail preset, Watch Dogs is a CPU-bound game. Ubisoft Montreal developed the PC version in concert with its console efforts, and optimizations for those platforms seems apparent. Programming for the PlayStation's and Xbox's host processors involves getting the most out of fairly lightweight platforms. Naturally, then, well-threaded desktop CPUs benefit strongly.
When it comes to gaming, we rarely see the FX-8350 outperform a Core i3. But AMD's flagship walks away with a clear win in that match-up. Based on what we're seeing, serious fans of the game will want an FX-6000-series chip at least, but an FX-8000 or Core i5 should be much better.


Low-end CPUs suffer most, as we'd expect, when frame time variance is measured. Both the FX-8350 and Core i7 exhibit a couple of spikes too, but they demonstrate much less variance on average.
the most popular gaming cpu in the world.
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!
does the game utilize SLI or Crossfire setup on PC?
Techspot did include those and no difference between I5 and I7 not even lga2011 hexa core!
The game looks beautiful.
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.
edit: Actually someone did some nice tests for CPUS:
CPU performance with GTX 780
CPU performance with R9 290X
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.
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.