Skip to main content

Benchmarked: How Well Does Watch Dogs Run On your PC?

Image Quality And Settings

Watch Dogs is built on the new Disrupt engine, which evolved from pieces of Assassin's Creed's AnvilNext engine (for city mechanics) and Far Cry 3's Dunia engine (for vegetation and AI). It's a good-looking game at low-quality details and much more impressive with all of the bells and whistles enabled. But it's no CryEngine when it comes to pushing the visual envelope.

The benchmarks will show that this game taxes PC hardware. Even the most entry-level settings require respectable components to run smoothly, and high frame rates can be disrupted by hiccups now and again, which is distracting. We tested using more advanced graphics processors that anything you'll find in a console, so I have to guess that the PC version isn't as finely-optimized as the eight-gen console builds have to be.

Given such a strenuous demand on hardware at the higher detail settings, I chose to test with post-process anti-aliasing. Also, I selected FXAA instead of the game's advanced SMAA setting. While SMAA improved aliasing on objects, it didn't do as good of a job with artifacts on textures, which were particularly distracting on the road when driving.

Now that we know how Watch Dogs looks, let's see how the game performs on a variety of graphics cards and processors.

  • coolcole01
    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
  • coolcole01
    definitely does not like to run up the vram
    Reply
  • edwinjr
    why no core i5 3570k in the cpu benchmark section?
    the most popular gaming cpu in the world.
    Reply
  • chimera201
    So a Core i5 is enough compared to Ubisoft's recommended system requirement of i7 3770
    Reply
  • jonnyapps
    What speed is that 8350 tested at? Seems silly not to test OC'd as anyone on here with an 8350 will have it at at least 4.6
    Reply
  • Patrick Tobin
    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
  • tomfreak
    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
  • AndrewJacksonZA
    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!
    Reply
  • Lee Yong Quan
    why doesnt you have the high detail setting? and would a 7790 1gb perform the same as 260x 2gb in medium texture? if not which is better
    Reply
  • chimera201
    We need more variety of CPUs
    Reply