Watch Dogs CPU benchmarks, i7 (apparently) optional

[escrow4]

Indeed:

http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page5.html

"Despite the vast differences in performance between the various processor types the Core i7-4770K showed no change in performance when clocked at 2.50GHz opposed to 4.50GHz."

"The most shocking results probably came from the octa-core Phenom II X6 1100T which averaged just 49fps, while the quad-core X4 980 was a fraction faster with 50fps. "

***pats his 4770***

 

[jj109]

TechSpot is a joke. See also their BF4 "CPU" benchmark.

 

[escrow4]

And? That is BF4 single player . . . .

 

[AtenRa]

Indeed:

http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page5.html

"Despite the vast differences in performance between the various processor types the Core i7-4770K showed no change in performance when clocked at 2.50GHz opposed to 4.50GHz."

"The most shocking results probably came from the octa-core Phenom II X6 1100T which averaged just 49fps, while the quad-core X4 980 was a fraction faster with 50fps. "

***pats his 4770***

Phenom II 1100T is Hex-core at 3.3GHz base 3.7GHz Turbo. Phenom X4 980 is 3.7GHz no turbo.

Also, it seams Kaveri is faster than Deneb clock to clock in this bench. But again only average frame rates doesnt show the whole picture.

 

[moonbogg]

Thanks for the link, but I can't help but suspect this is a GPU limited scenario. Pretty ridiculous and all too common.

 

[AtenRa]

Gamegpu review

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/watch-dogs-test-gpu.html

 

[BSim500]

Here's the full list of CPU's tested:-

No difference between an i7-4960X vs an i5-3570K. Even an i3-4130 is within 10% of the i5/i7's, is matching an FX-6350, and is only 5% slower than an FX-8350. It may have lower min fps but that's still impressive for 2-cores. A lot of these i7 "requirements" are either wildly over-inflated or more like i7-920 (which is barely faster than an i3-4340).

As predicted, no "next gen" game is going to grind an i5 to a halt and still actually work on a console at more than 15fps... 8x Jaguar cores @ 2GHz = i3-4340, so no real surprise even Sandy/Ivy Bridge i5's continue to run all next-gen games just fine even at stock 3.3-3.4GHz...

TechSpot is a joke. See also their BF4 "CPU" benchmark.

Their BF4 benchmark was single-player. They even stated so on the methodology page : "We tested the single player portion of the game to ensure consistent results". There's nothing wrong with doing that when they're open about it and as long as MP benchies are available elsewhere.

 

[escrow4]

That Gamegpu review, those AMD drivers are horrific. Seriously. 48/55 vs 78/88 and a 10FPS gap between i5 and i7 for Nvidia. Hmmmm . . . . .

Scroll down too, Ultra textures RAM cracks 5GB on an 8GB system. 4GB+ on High. Next gen is here!

EDIT: Techspot's CPU average seems to match nicely to those Nvidia results for a single 290X (half a 295). Crossfire is broken methinks.

 

[jj109]

And? That is BF4 single player . . . .

Their BF4 benchmark was single-player. They even stated so on the methodology page : "We tested the single player portion of the game to ensure consistent results". There's nothing wrong with doing that when they're open about it and as long as MP benchies are available elsewhere.

I expected better from you guys. Just because they're open about how bad their methodologies are doesn't make it okay to be bad.

We settled on the start of the fourth mission (titled "Singapore") which begins on the US vessel Valkyrie as the team walks to an inflatable rib where they have a brief discussion and then jump in before being lowered down. Although the test takes place in the Valkyrie's launch bay, the scene seems to use a lot of GPU and CPU power. There is heavy use of DoF (Depth of Field) here so perhaps that is what taxes the GPU.

That's literally the most GPU intensive portion of the whole single player campaign AND has no gameplay.

Literally all they had to do was wait until the DoF gimmick went away and the CPU results would have scattered again. It's not about the benchmark being on single player. It's about the awful selection of scene to be benchmarked.

If TechSpot fails such a basic test in BF4, why should anyone trust them?

Edit: Here, since you two aren't familiar with BF4 single player. Here's what TechSpot benchmarked and passed off as representative of BF4 performance.

 

[kagui]

gameworks at work. artificial limiting amd gpus with the side effect of making your cpu irrelevant lol
but for why ubisoft allowed this?, well no ubisoft games for me

 

[BSim500]

That Gamegpu review, those AMD drivers are horrific. Seriously. 48/55 vs 78/88 and a 10FPS gap between i5 and i7 for Nvidia. Hmmmm . . . . .

Agreed:-

i3-4330 + R9 295X2 = 36min / 43avg
i7-4770K + R9 295X2 = 48min / 55avg
i3-4330 + GTX780 SLI = 52min / 61avg
i7-4770K + GTX780 SLI= 78min / 88avg

If that were just CPU bottlenecking, you'd get the same low figures on both cards (and an i3 certainly wouldn't beat out an i7). Instead it looks like there's some serious bug that causes it to crawl along on AMD cards. Or maybe it is a crossfire issue as you said.

If TechSpot fails such a basic test in BF4, why should anyone trust them?

Because their benchmarks usually tally up with what most people see with similar hardware on dozens of other games? Far less worse than other sites that posted Beta - even Alpha - builds of BF4 (simply to be "first post!") that ended up wildly different to the finished game...

 

[ViRGE]

Keep in mind that this is the CPU forum, guys. GPU commentary belongs in Video
-ViRGE

 

[Haserath]

That Gamegpu review, those AMD drivers are horrific. Seriously. 48/55 vs 78/88 and a 10FPS gap between i5 and i7 for Nvidia. Hmmmm . . . . .

Scroll down too, Ultra textures RAM cracks 5GB on an 8GB system. 4GB+ on High. Next gen is here!

EDIT: Techspot's CPU average seems to match nicely to those Nvidia results for a single 290X (half a 295). Crossfire is broken methinks.

Watch Dogs was made with Nvidia's Gameworks. Not really surprising AMD can't compete.

 

[SPBHM]

game is locked at 30FPS on the PS4, so the nextgen experience is pretty easy to have in terms of the CPU performance, any pentium dual core will do (maybe not, but that's what the limited available information is telling me)?

but the GPU requirements are pretty high, if you want full settings that is,

edit: or maybe they are not using demanding enough scenes:

http://pclab.pl/art57916-13.html

 

[AtenRa]

Techspot uses the Catalyst 14.4

Gamegpu.ru and pclab.pl are using the new Catalyst 14.6 Beta

Edit: And as always, performance is different in different areas of the game.

Edit 2: For a single card setup, the differences in performance between the GTX-780 and R9 290X is not that much with the new Catalyst 14.6 Beta

Last warning. Please keep the GPU discussions to the Video forum. This is not the place for it
-ViRGE

 

[frozentundra123456]

Are these early tests single player? If so the game might be much more cpu demanding in multiplayer. Otherwise the system requirements for a 3770k were wildly overstated, at least in regards to hyperthreading. Hyperthreading seems to show very little effect for the intel quads. Does give a nice boost to intel dual cores. 7850K and pentiums really tank though.

 

[Rakehellion]

There's no game that will ever require an i7 since it's an enthusiast chip.

 

[NTMBK]

Off topic- I keep seeing thread titles starting with "Watch" and thinking that they're spam threads trying to get me to look at pirated films...

 

[Rakehellion]

Are these early tests single player? If so the game might be much more cpu demanding in multiplayer. Otherwise the system requirements for a 3770k were wildly overstated, at least in regards to hyperthreading. Hyperthreading seems to show very little effect for the intel quads. Does give a nice boost to intel dual cores. 7850K and pentiums really tank though.

Doesn't the game have an always-on multiplayer like Dark Souls?

 

[Spjut]

Both CPU and GPU benchmarks at PCGameshardware.de
PCgameshardware.de tested the core scaling on an FX 8350, got a nice increase all the way up to eight cores
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Watch...s/Watch-Dogs-Test-GPU-CPU-Benchmarks-1122327/

There's no game that will ever require an i7 since it's an enthusiast chip.

Saying intel i7 is just too vague. An i7 can mean anything from the i7 920 to the LGA 2011 i7s

 

[SPBHM]

Both CPU and GPU benchmarks at PCGameshardware.de
PCgameshardware.de tested the core scaling on an FX 8350, got a nice increase all the way up to eight cores
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Watch...s/Watch-Dogs-Test-GPU-CPU-Benchmarks-1122327/




Saying intel i7 is just too vague. An i7 can mean anything from the i7 920 to the LGA 2011 i7s

or a dual core ULV thing :biggrin:

very nice scaling from 2 to 3 modules,

 

[Rakehellion]

Saying intel i7 is just too vague. An i7 can mean anything from the i7 920 to the LGA 2011 i7s

Require an i7 is not vague.

 

[USER8000]

It does appear you might need at least a FX6300 or Core i3 for the game. The Pentium dual cores and slower AMD and Intel quads don't do so well it seems.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Both CPU and GPU benchmarks at PCGameshardware.de
PCgameshardware.de tested the core scaling on an FX 8350, got a nice increase all the way up to eight cores
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Watch...s/Watch-Dogs-Test-GPU-CPU-Benchmarks-1122327/




Saying intel i7 is just too vague. An i7 can mean anything from the i7 920 to the LGA 2011 i7s

I believe they said specifically 3770K as recommended, which seems way to high based on the priliminary results.

 

[USER8000]

I believe they said specifically 3770K as recommended, which seems way to high based on the priliminary results.

However,it does seem to be dual core(without HT) unfriendly and seems to need at least 4 to 8 reasonable speed threads,which in the case of Intel means a Core i5 should be fine.

Even the Pentium K series with a 40% overclock is barely going to manage to match a Core i3 at stock clockspeeds ATM.