Watch Dogs PC Requirements Recommend 8 Core CPU

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Wait, are you guys complaining because game developers are finally figuring out multi threading?

It's more skepticism that Ubisoft of all companies figured it out, mainly because their last 'next gen' game ran like ass and was a poorly optimized mess.

 

[MercurySteam]

And what the title doesn't say is that the AMD FX-8350 X8 only actually has four modules and eight threads yet claims to be a octa-core and has terrible performance in single threaded programs while the i7-3770K has four cores and eight threads (eight virtual cores with Hyperthreading enabled) and will most likely outperform the FX-8350 by a mile. A if you want a 'true' 8 core CPU then the closest thing will be the Intel Extreme chips which have six cores and eight threads (12 virtual cores).

I'm thinking The Escapist should revise the title - Ubisoft is recommending the best chips from both AMD and Intel (excluding the Extreme chips) and one of them just happens to call itself an 8 core when it really isn't.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Waah waah no XP support.

That's actually my problem, it's why I can't play so many games I want to like Company of Heroes 2, ARMA 3, Assassin's Creed 4 Black Flag, and many others.

 

[Racecarlock]

All this crap and it's just GTA with hacking stuff in it.

I'd like to assume PC gamers don't list off their PC specs like that douchebag who brags about his high horsepower car all the time, so what kind of marketing is this?

....wut?

It's not marketing, it's something they actually need to know, when you play on a PC you need to keep track of its capabilities, even console gamers know that

Isn't it? Because I have seen a lot of PC users who like bragging about their hardware. I know that directly contradicts what I said before, but still. "This game has high specs and therefore it's totally next gen" is marketing, even though it's useful marketing.

 

[DoctorM]

4-8 cores, 6-8gb of RAM... and yet the video card requirements seem kind of soft.
What is that about?

 

[grigjd3]

Ok, the world realizes that "virtual cores" are basically bullshit, right? I mean, something like 95% of tasks cannot take advantage of virtual cores and the things that can take advantage of them would see a similar speed-up from a bus based coprocessor. Everyone should realize that they really just want a 4 core machine that happens to have hyperthreading. At most, they are using six "logical cores".

EDIT: Not that I am the least bit interested in this game.

 

[Vault101]

All this crap and it's just GTA with hacking stuff in it.

I'd like to assume PC gamers don't list off their PC specs like that douchebag who brags about his high horsepower car all the time, so what kind of marketing is this?

....wut?

It's not marketing, it's something they actually need to know, when you play on a PC you need to keep track of its capabilities, even console gamers know that

Isn't it? Because I have seen a lot of PC users who like bragging about their hardware. I know that directly contradicts what I said before, but still. "This game has high specs and therefore it's totally next gen" is marketing, even though it's useful marketing.

The difference between news and marketing is up to you...but when specs come out people will speculate (especially in this case given watch digs aparent graphical downgrade) , you can't help that, unless of coarse we should not mention anything to do with the PC version lest it offend some people's sensibilities

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

All this crap and it's just GTA with hacking stuff in it.

I'd like to assume PC gamers don't list off their PC specs like that douchebag who brags about his high horsepower car all the time, so what kind of marketing is this?

....wut?

It's not marketing, it's something they actually need to know, when you play on a PC you need to keep track of its capabilities, even console gamers know that

Isn't it? Because I have seen a lot of PC users who like bragging about their hardware. I know that directly contradicts what I said before, but still. "This game has high specs and therefore it's totally next gen" is marketing, even though it's useful marketing.

Well if this is marketing then Ubisoft has been taking lessons from EA and I don't mean the 'what not to do when you're a publisher' ones.

The recommended specs are very CPU intensive but simultaneously easy on the graphics card, this combined with Ubi's previous attempts at 'next gen' on PC's sucking ass is leading many PC gamers to think that they've once again dropped the ball.

If they were attempting to pull a marketing stunt then they should have taken a page out of 4A Game's Metro playbook and gone with a minimum/recommended/optimum set with optimum requirements being a Titan GPU etc.

 

[Nurb]

It's always a marketing gimmick to make excuses for poor optimization.

Anyone remember Doom 3's and Crysis' "Made for PCs that don't even exist yet" Lines?

Yea, usually just crap code.

Wait, are you guys complaining because game developers are finally figuring out multi threading?

It'd be fantastic if that were the case, but with still barely any multi-core support from most devs and this coming out of nowhere, it makes people suspicious.

If it runs amazing then kudos to them, but most people have been made cynical by BS promises in the past and expect it to run like garbage

 

[Steve the Pocket]

"We can't be bothered to optimize our game for the PC, so we're going to inflate the system requirements so that jerkass elitist gamers think it's 'true next-gen' and can smugly say 'get a job and upgrade your PC' on forums everywhere."

Everybody wins!

 

[ToastyMozart]

And what the title doesn't say is that the AMD FX-8350 X8 only actually has four modules and eight threads yet claims to be a octa-core and has terrible performance in single threaded programs while the i7-3770K has four cores and eight threads (eight virtual cores with Hyperthreading enabled) and will most likely outperform the FX-8350 by a mile. A if you want a 'true' 8 core CPU then the closest thing will be the Intel Extreme chips which have six cores and eight threads (12 virtual cores).

I'm thinking The Escapist should revise the title - Ubisoft is recommending the best chips from both AMD and Intel (excluding the Extreme chips) and one of them just happens to call itself an 8 core when it really isn't.

Actually, the case with the 8350 isn't that simple. There are actually 8 cores paired up into four modules by some shared low-level pipelining. It's not a completely true octacore, but it's more than just hyperthreading.

 

[ToastyMozart]

a) I'm pretty sure that most games these days are far heavier on the processor than the graphics card and by far at that.

... What?
Far from it, there are few games you couldn't run at maxed out 1920x1080x60 on a simple Phenom II x4, games are almost universally FAR more GPU dependant.

 

[Racecarlock]

All this crap and it's just GTA with hacking stuff in it.

I'd like to assume PC gamers don't list off their PC specs like that douchebag who brags about his high horsepower car all the time, so what kind of marketing is this?

....wut?

It's not marketing, it's something they actually need to know, when you play on a PC you need to keep track of its capabilities, even console gamers know that

Isn't it? Because I have seen a lot of PC users who like bragging about their hardware. I know that directly contradicts what I said before, but still. "This game has high specs and therefore it's totally next gen" is marketing, even though it's useful marketing.

Well if this is marketing then Ubisoft has been taking lessons from EA and I don't mean the 'what not to do when you're a publisher' ones.

The recommended specs are very CPU intensive but simultaneously easy on the graphics card, this combined with Ubi's previous attempts at 'next gen' on PC's sucking ass is leading many PC gamers to think that they've once again dropped the ball.

If they were attempting to pull a marketing stunt then they should have taken a page out of 4A Game's Metro playbook and gone with a minimum/recommended/optimum set with optimum requirements being a Titan GPU etc.

I might just be spouting bullshit. I just want something to discuss, you know? But there aren't a lot of topics here that interest me lately. I don't want to be banned or anything, but, shit, I'm bored.

Say what you will about games as art arguments being repetitive, at least I felt like I was talking about something important, you know? As opposed to some minimum specs for the PC version of a game that I might not even get at all, and if I do get it, it'll be on console anyways because my PC isn't exactly optimized for gaming.

I just want SOMETHING to talk about even if my reasoning ends up contrived and stupid.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

-snip-

My advice is either make your own thread or take a break from the Escapist. With the new generation of consoles slowing down AAA releases now is the perfect time to take a sabbatical without missing out on too much.

 

[BenzSmoke]

Seems like pretty high demands for something that doesn't look much better than the last 2 GTAs.

 

[Vault101]

Say what you will about games as art arguments being repetitive, at least I felt like I was talking about something important, you know? As opposed to some minimum specs for the PC version of a game that I might not even get at all, and if I do get it, it'll be on console anyways because my PC isn't exactly optimized for gaming.

I just want SOMETHING to talk about even if my reasoning ends up contrived and stupid.

so you decide to invoke a little "PC master jerks" instead?

..classy

EDIT: to add to what somone else said why not catch up on games you havent finished? or read a book...when the internet has left you bored thats a sign to step away

 

[Steven Bogos]

Phhhh, too much trouble to check and double check and hope that my non-console can run this thing smoothly.

Peace of mind takes priority, so PS4 it is for me.

Start -> Run -> dxdiag is too much trouble for kids these days? Damn.

 

[Strazdas]

Does this mean eight core CPUs will be the norm for AAA PC games this generation? If so, will you rather buy the same games on consoles instead?

No and no. First of all, this is very likely either a fake or the developers have completely forgot even basic optimization for CPU processes. Either way - not going to be a trend any time soon. Anything that processing-intensive is moved to GPU processing anyway, so its very likely this is fake. This is why the 8 weak cores solution for consoles will FAIL. noone is dumb enough to program for that.

Why would i buy it on consoles because of that? even minimum settings on that thing is still looking better than consoles. If graphic is deciding factor, a 500 dollar PC will always, always win over a console. and if game is so unoptimized that it actually needs that much processing, dont expect it to run smoothly on consoles to begin with. see, consoles aren different this generation. they are just prebuilt brand-name PCs with restricted OS and custom design that makes any IT specialist scratch his head. If it runs bad on PC it runs bad on console, always. that is, unless two different developers worked on the versions, which usually only happens to shitty ports, not multiplatform releases.

M It would also be interesting to know if these requirements can still be called "high" as the typical gaming PC is probably quite capable by now...

according to steam hardware survey, the average person is still running on two processor cores. the reason for this is that most games arent even capable of using more than 2 cores anyway and its all about GPU power in gaming. Which is why when i built a new PC this year i chose i5 over i7, its not like im going to need that power in CPU anyway and rather spend that money on better GPU.
While the GPU they put in the recommended could be considered "that generation the gamers are about to change into new ones now" the CPU requirements are high. too high in fact. considering other requirements, unbelievably too high.

That's probably true. I mean Ubisoft isn't exactly known for constructing flawless PC ports.

well, to be honest, at least they try and their ports actually work.

Crysis 3 said 5770 as a minimum requirement...

I was playing it on medium 50+ fps ... hell even some of the effects like Water on high. That is 900p

Same with Infinite, there I played it on almost all ultra (except AA) and with Dishonored

well, crytek always knew how to optimize the hell out of thier games. they built the engine after all. i remember playing the original crysis on high on a frigging laptop with 8600m GS.
the thing is though, 900p. thats the reason probably. the specs aim for AT LEAST 1080p and i would be shocked if the developers werent running 1440p at least when playtesting thier game. going down to 900p is a huge boost to free up resources for other things on your system.

Waah waah no XP support.

XP wasnt supported in modern games for years now. Whats to talk about. XP simply cant run newer than 9.0c directX, and games moved past that.

So, my I5-3570K is a physical and logical quad core based on the fact it has only 4 threads. Yep definitely getting this on PS4 then.

so isntead of running the game fine on perhaps slightly not maximum settings, your getting it on PS4 where you will have it run on "ultra low" settings? how does that make sense?

How anyone didn't see this coming is beyond me, I've been putting FX8120-8350s into budget gaming rigs for almost a year now.
If both new consoles using 8 core CPUs doesn't make developers start utilizing multithreading nothing ever will.

You mean, like how hyperthreaded 6 logical core 360 CPUs did? oh, no, they didnt.
Also the new consoles surely wont. because there may be 8 cores, but they are slow as ass. so they will likely just offload everything into GPU even more.

Recommending a 8core 4GHz AMD CPU, when the consoles will be running a 8core 1.9Ghz AMD APU with 2 cores deddicated to the os
I think my calculator is broke, that doesnt seem to add up

its not broken. got to remmeber that in order for PC version to look like console version you need to unlock the secret setting called "ultra low graphic settings".

a) I'm pretty sure that most games these days are far heavier on the processor than the graphics card and by far at that.

thats just false. games gotten more and more GPU intensive as time went on because GPU can hnadle more calculations easier nowadays.

Waah waah no XP support.

That's actually my problem, it's why I can't play so many games I want to like Company of Heroes 2, ARMA 3, Assassin's Creed 4 Black Flag, and many others.

what is the raeson fo staying with XP? if its the preference then i can understand perfectly, if its monetary you can pick a version of win7 ultimate for 20 bucks in /r/softwareswap

Anyone remember Doom 3's and Crysis' "Made for PCs that don't even exist yet" Lines?

Yea, usually just crap code.

funny, considering even most modern machines now built still discover new ways to make crysis even more better looking. in fact Crysis run on sli 780s look better than ANYTHING else on the market. it really was built for machines that didnt exist in 2007.

I just want SOMETHING to talk about even if my reasoning ends up contrived and stupid.

So get that skype working and message me instead of getting contrived?

 

[Pipeline]

Anyone talking about how they think the PC version of Watch Dogs is going to be unoptimised is forgetting something. This game isn't been developed for consoles and then ported up to PC. In fact, "next gen" consoles didn't exist when they started work on this game. They didn't even know what the specs would be. So they started development with PC, which I think more developers should do. Also, this is an entirely different team to the Assassin's Creed team. You're not going to have the same problems.

On another note, I heard somewhere that the eight-core thing with the processor was a typo. They mean eight threads. I have an i7-3820, and it only has four physical cores (but eight threads) and it passes the recommended system requirements.

Anyway, I'm sure it's going to be fine. We just have to wait for the game to release. Can't complain about a game's issues when said game isn't even released yet.

(Note: If someone else has said what I basically said, my apologies, I just skimmed through most of the replies after reading people complaining about optimisation.)

 

[alj]

Its funny how they people who post the system requirements and the people that post threads about is clearly do not understand how this stuff works.

A CPU does not get more powerful the more cores it has unless the application a multi-threaded application, if an application is not aware of multiple cores they it will not make any difference if you have 1 or 10 cores. Its the same for clock speed, clock speed means nothing a current generation i3 clocked at 2ghz would run rings around a p4 3.2 it would not even be close.

As for the GPU requirements it all depends on the resolution, you will need well more video ran to run at 2560 x 1440 than you will running at 1080p as you are pushing more than 75% more pixels.

Would it not be better to say Have a processor capable of x millions of operations per second and a gpu capable of y Mpixels and Mtexels per second with z much video ram at a given resolution.

The manufacturers of hardware would have to play along and list this kind of info on the product description so you don't have to trawl wikipedia and Google.

This gives me an idea for a website where you bench the game and give the real requirements to play on high mid low at common resolutions 4k 2k 1080p and so on.