Watch_Dogs PC specs released - UPDATED

[frozentundra123456]

If there's anything Crysis taught us, it's that there's a sizeable group of PC users that will judge a game on required hardware. It doesn't matter if the reason for that is because it's horribly optimized, as long as you need a machine from the future they're happy.

True, but crysis did have cutting edge graphics. Will have to wait to see if watch dogs is that outstanding or if it is just a resource hog. I do wonder though about the min requirements. Seems like a hyperthreaded i3 at 3.3ghz or so should be faster than a Q6600, considering the higher clockspeed and ipc.

Maybe it is just lazily ported from the consoles with little optimization for per core performance.

 

[Dankk]

Also, these smell fishy to me. Maybe its just YouTube quality, but the gameplay videos I've seen of Watch Dogs simply don't look good enough to justify those kind of requirements.

It's a Ubisoft game. It will probably be a glitchy, stuttery mess like the rest of their PC ports.

 

[moonbogg]

Willing to bet the IPC advantage of a 4770k still pulls ahead of a 3930k. The game would have to actually need 10 or more threads for a 3930k to pull ahead at all, which I doubt this game will. But this is exciting anyway and if it turns out my 3930k does actually pull ahead, then that's great! If that's the case though, then next year that 8 core Haswell will be the thing to get.

 

[Carfax83]

Willing to bet the IPC advantage of a 4770k still pulls ahead of a 3930k. The game would have to actually need 10 or more threads for a 3930k to pull ahead at all, which I doubt this game will..

Hyperthreading isn't a substitute for a real core. If this game supports 8 threads, then the 3930K should have the advantage....or at the very least pull even.

You see this in the Frostbite 3 engine. Intel hexcores dominate.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

This game better be something REALLY special to be calling for those specs.

 

[futurefields]

I dont understand the cpu reqs.

Maybe the PC and Xbox 360 versions are entirely different or something. Ill skip the game if its a senseless hardwre hog.

 

[WiseUp216]

I dont understand the cpu reqs.

Maybe the PC and Xbox 360 versions are entirely different or something. Ill skip the game if its a senseless hardwre hog.

Re-read the OP, specifically the update

 

[futurefields]

Maybe they mean 8 cores of weak ass tablet cpu.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Watch Dogs is the Disrupt engine's debut but generously grading the footage shown, it's on par or half a step behind what the leading engines already do.

If Disrupt doesn't live up to it's scalability claims it's just going to make Ubisoft look stupid for launching a high requirements game if it doesn't have the eye candy to justify it.

 

[KentState]

Watch Dogs is the Disrupt engine's debut but generously grading the footage shown, it's on par or half a step behind what the leading engines already do.

If Disrupt doesn't live up to it's scalability claims it's just going to make Ubisoft look stupid for launching a high requirements game if it doesn't have the eye candy to justify it.

I would not correlate CPU usage and frame rate together necessarily the same way as with current engines. Hopefully developers are also advancing AI, objects and physics a lot more requiring more CPU cycles. Hopefully the worlds are a little more alive and not as scripted as in the current generation of games and this is a result. That was one of the things that the consoles touted was not only an increase in graphic fidelity, but a general increase in game dynamics due to having more cores.

 

[jetset]

The sub-150 dollar AMD FX 8xx0 don't count?



Also, these smell fishy to me. Maybe its just YouTube quality, but the gameplay videos I've seen of Watch Dogs simply don't look good enough to justify those kind of requirements.

I use an FX8350 and it is fantastic. Worth every penny, and does not cost a lot of pennies. :biggrin:

 

[Carfax83]

Also, these smell fishy to me. Maybe its just YouTube quality, but the gameplay videos I've seen of Watch Dogs simply don't look good enough to justify those kind of requirements.

I think it's both YouTube quality, and the fact that the vast majority of the footage are from the consoles.

I think Ubisoft showed the PC version only once in E3 2012, but it was an early version of the game. The final release should look much better.

At any rate, the main reason for the high requirements on the CPU side is likely due to the massive amounts of A.I and objects that will be in the game due to the size and scale of Ubisoft's recreation of Chicago..

The PC version on ultra should have the highest NPC and object density, followed by the next gen consoles and last gen consoles.

It will be interesting to see how the corrected specs differ from the leaked ones..

 

[futurefields]

Any news on map size and all that? Is this a gta5 competitor?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Min spec of x64, 4Gb of RAM and quad core, we're well on our way to leaving this horrible generation behind, I'm a fan of these "upgrade or lose out" moments, we can finally push the boundaries of what is capable in PC gaming. Glad to see this.

Funny, I'm the exact opposite and think gamers should rise up and smack down idiot developers who think gamers should be on a yearly upgrade cycle just to suit the whims of the designers. Don't buy games that demand upgrades, give your money to studios that create GOOD games rather than games that just look good.

 

[pcslookout]

God dawn.

Gives BF4 a run for its money.