Wolfenstein: The New Order Requires 50GB HD Space, Core i7 CPU - Update

[Under_your_bed]

I'll just re-post what I posted last time some bullshit developer claimed that their game "needed" an "8-core" CPU.

Spoiler

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?

I doubt it. I doubt it very much.

First of all, it seems that both Killzone Shadowfall [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory] and InFamous: Second Son [http://www.gamepur.com/news/14201-infamous-second-son-used-ps4s-45-gb-ram-6-cpu-cores-only-comparison-screens.html] only use 6 of the PS4's 8 CPU cores for gaming, with the other 2 reserved for the OS. The same appears true for the XBOX one [http://kotaku.com/the-five-possible-states-of-xbox-one-games-are-strangel-509597078/all]. So really, there shouldn't be any benefit for having more than 6 cores, as any half-decent modern CPU can run windows in the background effortlessly and won't need an extra 2 cores for windows in the background. I've got an I5-3570K at stock settings, and the background tasks of windows and internet surfing almost never causes my CPU usage to crest above 10% in task manager.

Secondly, this never happened last generation. The XBOX 360 had 3 hyper-threaded CPUs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)] and the PS3 had a 7-core "cell" CPU [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_technical_specifications]. Yes, admittedly, unlike current gen-consoles, these weren't x86, 64-bit CPUs that could be easily ported directly to PC's. But with each console being able to process 6 threads of computing simultaneously, you would have expected them to cause games ported to PC to require more cores over the course of their lifetimes. Nope. As late as 2012, A tom's hardware benchmark of CPU-demanding games found no reason to get a weak quad-core CPU over a slightly stronger dual-core CPU. [http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,review-32368-10.html] It wasn't until 2013, with a new suite of CPU-demanding games, that they found that modern games were more suited to quad-core processors [http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,review-32628-9.html].

Spoiler

2012 test suite

2013 test suite

If we compare the two graphs, we note that while in the 2012 Benchmarks, the dual-core pentium G860 clearly beats the quad-core FX-4170 and falls just below the quad-core Phenom II X4 980. However, in 2013, the G860 falls to near the bottom and is soundly beaten by both the FX-4170 and Phenom II X4 980. As most of the games which caused this reversal were released in 2012, we can therefore reasonably assume that it wasn't until around 2012 that games began to take advantage of more than 2 cores, which was towards the very end of the last console's life cycle.

So, in a nutshell, I fail to see how an 8-core CPU is going to be a vital advantage in future games. If the last generation is anything to go by, it seems that consoles have almost no effect on the number of CPU cores that PC games require. And even if the more PC-friendly x86/64-bit CPU cores of the new consoles allow for more direct ports, with the exact same number of cores, it doesn't seem as though games made for them will need more than 6. I don't see MOAR CORES becoming the new big thing any time soon....

Original thread I posted it in [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.846654-Watch-Dogs-PC-Requirements-Recommend-8-Core-CPU#20877690]

Also, I feel it worth mentioning that any game that will run fine on a GTX 460 or HD 6850 (mid-range cards from 2010/2011) but requires a high end I7 (2011 "sandy bridge or later) has to be CPU-bottlenecked in a way we've never seen before [http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-your-own-budget-gaming-pc,3780.html].

 

[AdagioBoognish]

Four disks!? I'm assuming nobody has gotten their hands on it yet to give a rough estimate on play time, right? Because when I hear "ship on four disks", I immediately think of 100+ hour JRPGs from the PS1.

Legend of dragoon was the first time I saw a game with more than two discs. There was something really satisfying about making it onto the next disc. It felt like I won when I finally got to throw in disc 4.

 

[kasperbbs]

I guess i'm not gonna buy this one since it's nowhere near the game that would make me wanna buy a new PC and i spent most of my money on my new apartment anyway..

Just rewatched the gameplay video to figure out why it needs such high specs and i honestly have no idea, i have been playing better looking games on my current rig with no problems.

 

[Grabehn]

So another PC game that requires a ridiculous amount of HD space for no reason whatsoever? And there I was actually thinking of giving it a try... Shame.

 

[Under_your_bed]

If you haven't tried loading games off your SSD you really should. It will change your life.

Wow. A single-digit reduction in loading times. Consider my world rocked. Totally worth the exponentially higher cost of replacing my hard drive with an SSD RAID array.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

If you haven't tried loading games off your SSD you really should. It will change your life.

Wow. A single-digit reduction in loading times. Consider my world rocked. Totally worth the exponentially higher cost of replacing my hard drive with an SSD RAID array.

Additionally: SSDs die suddenly and have no SMART-System to report it in time while they even don't live any longer than HDDs!

 

[Something Amyss]

My reaction when they told me that COD Ghosts was 50 GB was that those in charge of storage management and compression were clearly on drugs. Apparently someone has sent over those drugs to Machine Games because 50 GB for a game like this seems absolutely ridiculous.

We're going to see a lot of games of this size soon, simply because 50 GB is what you'll see for consoles.

getting real tired of all these new games requiring 50 GB of space, thats up to 5 times what a game last gen needed, sure technology advanced, but didnt so any kind of compression?

It's more than that. I mean, we had 360 games clocking in at about 5 GB. That's ten times, and the generation's still young.

But then, this is what you see when a console generation comes along these days. Without the console version "holding PCs back," developers will rush to fill up the gap.

 

[major_chaos]

Also do NOT worry, the game will run maxed on your i5 provided the GPU is decent. No game released so far really had a reason to gor for an i7... and Wolfenstein WILL NOT be the one that gives us a reason.

I have an HD7950 for my GPU and 8GB of RAM yet a lot of games wont run maxed out, so I kinda doubt the power of the i5. off the top of my head Borderlands 2, Farcry 3, The Witcher 2, and Titanfall have all needed a few things turned down from max to get a steady 60FPS.

You're not serious, are you? Loading games off an SSD is considerably faster than loading them off a disk drive...

If you haven't tried loading games off your SSD you really should. It will change your life.

The crux of the issue is weather or not faster load times are worth ~$500. (yes you can get SSDs for ~$200 but those aren't going to hold more than a few games)
Also I don't have an SSD. I was on a budget and decided that better performance > shorter load times.

 

[Under_your_bed]

Also do NOT worry, the game will run maxed on your i5 provided the GPU is decent. No game released so far really had a reason to gor for an i7... and Wolfenstein WILL NOT be the one that gives us a reason.

I have an HD7950 for my GPU and 8GB of RAM yet a lot of games wont run maxed out, so I kinda doubt the power of the i5. off the top of my head Borderlands 2, Farcry 3, The Witcher 2, and Titanfall have all needed a few things turned down from max to get a steady 60FPS.

Do you have any evidence at all that it was your CPU that was bottlenecking your performance and not your GPU?

Protip: you can check which one it is by monitoring your CPU usage (using windows task manager) and GPU usage (using MSI afterburner or EVGA precision tuner) and seeing which one is topping out at 100% and which one is sitting idle.

Spoiler: Spoiler alert

It's your Graphics card

 

[major_chaos]

Do you have any evidence at all that it was your CPU that was bottlenecking your performance and not your GPU?

Protip: you can check which one it is by monitoring your CPU usage (using windows task manager) and GPU usage (using MSI afterburner or EVGA precision tuner) and seeing which one is topping out at 100% and which one is sitting idle.

While I haven't done any actual benchmarking (and I should at some point) I really really doubt my GPU is the problem. I have a single monitor setup and a HD7950 which was IIRC the second or third best AMD GPU when I bought it and is still high end, not to mention leaps and bounds ahead of what games list on their recommended specs.

EDIT:

The 7950, whilst a good GPU, is what is causing your problems. Not the CPU.

Seriously? I bought the second or third best card available at the time and its not good enough, even for single monitor?
And people say PC gaming isn't expensive...

 

[Someone Depressing]

Oh great, more quantity over quality bullshit.

Crysis got away with its insane requirements because the game was beautiful, but also because in just the near future, it actually became possible. This is just... exactly what it sounds like: A 2.5d (you know, those tricks they use in cheap MMOs and RPGs to only have to have 1 sprite for everything; Yahtzee talks about it in his Normality play through on his channel) first person shooter.

I also have no idea how they took something so simple and basic into a 50gb+ mess, but I suppose they deserve a reward for that.

 

[EHKOS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the i7's only difference to the i5 the hyper-threading capability? I thought the top end ones of both model had the same clock speed.

 

[OManoghue]

I seriously hope an i7 is recommended for maximum PC God Players, the rest of my specs match or surpass that shit, but I still run a Core 2 Quad

 

[Wanicochil]

Whelp that's a game I'm not getting any time soon

Seriously 50 gigs? That is 1/4th of my internet limit for one freaking game

 

[DoctorM]

Are they even saying there is an AMD chip that can run it? An 8-core FX should be in the same ballpark but I haven't heard it mentioned.

 

[jackpipsam]

Okay I am getting this for Xbox One now.

My PC has the right specs and can run it fine, but I don't trust Steam with physical copies and there's no bloody way I am going to risk a download of that size.

 

[Robert Marrs]

So long as its not 30+ GB of uncompressed files I will be ok with it but this better not be a result of laziness. There was no good reason for Titanfall to be as large as it was for pc.