Top
350°

Watch_Dogs PC specs released; 64 bit only, 8-core recommended

Ubisoft just released Watch_Dogs PC specs. They have released 3 different recommendation: Minimum, Recommended and "Ultra". The listing shows that Watch_Dogs only supports 64 bit systems now. More importantly, the minimum requirements suggests a Quad-Core and the Recommend suggests a 8-core CPU.

Read Full Story >>
gearnuke.com
The story is too old to be commented.
vishmarx1512d ago (Edited 1512d ago )

nasty!! im yet to even experience an 8 core let alone own one.lol

hduce1512d ago

Play the Battlefield 4 Beta on pc if you can. It looks spectacular and it supports 8 core processors. I guess this might be another win for AMD.

MajorAly1512d ago

But Nvidia and Ubisoft have made a deal for $5million

http://www.fudzilla.com/hom...

KazHiraiFTW1512d ago

I doubt watchdogs will actually make use of 8 cores, especially since its being released on last gen consoles. The AMD FX-9370 is such a horrible chip and I would never recommend that to anyone. It gets beat in most benchmarks and games by an intel quad core and the AMD chip uses and insane 220w of power vs 77w for intel. Junk.

I'm looking forward to intel's 8-core haswell cpus.

Gamer19821512d ago

Last gen version has nothing to do with core support. Just because its backwards compatible doesn't mean it cannot support cores thats like saying it cant support 8 core cpus as then people with dual cores cannot play it. More and more games will support those extra cores as time goes by..

Computersaysno1512d ago (Edited 1512d ago )

If watchdogs doesn't run at least as well as a next gen console version on a midrange PC with a few years old i5 2500k and a GTX560 then I'll be surprised.

Oh sure, you won't get all ultra without a high end machine but then I doubt you'll get anything like ultra on any console.

Besides the fact you WILL eventually get ultra. Because in about 2 years you'll have a midrange PC and it'll be faster than the fastest machines around now.

So you'll get ultra then. But consoles never will.

PC gaming. Gotta love it.

hduce1511d ago (Edited 1511d ago )

I guess I hurt the Intel fanboys. AMD's processors don't compare to Intel's when it comes to single core performance. But it shines when it comes to multicore especially since the FX series has 8 true cores. Actual cores not threads. This is the first time with the announcement of games like Battlefield 4, WatchDogs, etc. that all 8 cores of an AMD processor will get used. There was an article that did a benchmark comparison where the 8350 FX out performed the Core I7 when running Battlefield 4. For those that didn't take the time to read the article here is some text from it. "Watch_Dogs seem to be supporting 8 cores pretty well. Is this another win for AMD? We have seen benchmarks for Battlefield 4 Beta showing AMD’s 8-core CPU beating Intel. While we have no benchmark results for Watch_Dogs, we have to wonder whether it will see a similar victory for AMD here or not."

shoddy1511d ago

Sound like most PC gamers gonna need an upgrade. .....again.

webeblazing1511d ago

I see when it come out I got a gtx 460 I wonder what gfx setting I can get on it this the first time I seen a min req like this not that hign since a gtx cost like a 100 bucks right now. I doubt your gonna need a 8 core to play, it maybe chug without it tho

Yukicore1511d ago

@KazHiraiFTW

I remember that Far Cry 3 had released recommended or ultra requirements that said to require i7 processor. But the performance against i5 and i7 with same clock speeds was almost identical.

KazHiraiFTW1511d ago (Edited 1511d ago )

Yuki

Exactly. Right now if you are aiming for 120 fps or higher then yes, more cores can get you there in a certain few games like BF3 and Crysis 3. But if you are playing at 60 fps like most ppl then a quad-core will not bottleneck you. Not even Watchdogs. Especially if they are only recommending a gtx 670 or 7970 gpu there is no way in hell a quad core will slow that down. My comments have nothing to do with being an intel fanboy, and everything to do with AMD having shitty cpus. Simple.

inveni01511d ago

I'm anxious to see this on Ultra, then.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1511d ago
LordDhampire1512d ago

Nvidia doesnt care about cpus, they just want ubisoft to gimp the amd gpus

Magicite1512d ago

Im sure that any sandy/ivy-bridge or haswell quad-core cpus can do it better than AMD's 8-cores.

starchild1512d ago

Are you really sure about that? I have an i5 2500k and I hope you are right. I don't want my performance to suffer too much since I only have a quad core processor.

2pacalypsenow1511d ago

even a 4 core with HT will be 100X better than anything amd has

hiredhelp1511d ago (Edited 1511d ago )

Starchild i built my mates first gaming comp i fiited a i5 2500k version trust me its plenty when time comes go into bios disable boosting overclock it over 4gs where you feel its stable.
If you have decent video card oveclock it great thing with PCs is our video cards has a deadicated pcb board thats why we always have the edge. Means we fine in game video options to get balance of performance and gfx.

kingduqc1512d ago

http://www.overclock.net/t/...

Not that 8 core is even relevant for gaming even in games that use more then 4... The 2 year old cpu 4 cores form intel still beat out the amd 8 cores

Kleptic1511d ago

the 8 core piledriver cpus are gimmicky...Yes, it has 8 cores (which nearly no software fully utilizes, although it has been shown to scream at bf4, which is good), but its per core performance is very dated...

Its not the right time to be buying an AMD cpu...Kaveri is just around the corner, which so far is a new apu lineup...but rumors are showing dedicated cpu's for the FM2+ socket as well, with similar core architecture...

AMD's other socket stuff is dead in the water...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1511d ago
RedDeadLB1512d ago (Edited 1512d ago )

Well there goes my i5. It sucks though, I've only got it last year and again, I'm CPU limited. PC gaming is really not worthwhile.

LAWSON721512d ago (Edited 1512d ago )

if an i7 3770 is recommended then any i5 sandy bridge-haswell will be more then enough, especially if you can oc. If I am wrong I will be shocked

Also since next gen consoles have pretty low end cpus I dont see something like i5 2500/3570k becoming obscelete for at least another 2-3 years

RedDeadLB1512d ago

The thing is, history repeats itself. The i5 3570k has only 4 cores, although they are powerful, they most definitely will get slammed to the floor if a game is 8 threaded. Same thing happened to dual cores vs quad cores years back.

My i5 is already at 100% in BF3 and BF4. It can't really go the distance like before.

JunioRS1011512d ago

The evolution of processor architectures goes: "North bridge South bridge", "Nehalem", "Sandy bridge", "Ivy bridge", "Haswell"

i7-3770K is an Ivy bridge, so an i5 sandy bridge would likely not be suitable for the same level of performance.

An i5 Haswell, however, would definitely be pretty good. Of course, I have to recommend an i7 Haswell lol

Hassassin1512d ago

my i5-2500k (@4GHz) hasn't limited my GPU yet and I suspect it won't for even more ears to come. Even more now that I game at 1440p.

DeadManIV1512d ago

Even if it's quad core, doesn't it still have 8 threads?

neoMAXMLC1512d ago

The i7s do. I don't think the i5s support 8 threads.

Volkama1512d ago

No, that's what separates an i7 from an i5.

Up to now the i5 has been the gamer's choice, because games typically run a single demanding thread with some peripheral processing able to take advantage of extra cores if they're there.

With the new consoles having not just 8 cores, but 8 sloooow cores it is a fair bet that multi-threading will take off and an i7 (and possibly even AMD's range of many-core CPUs) will offer a significant improvement.

JunioRS1011512d ago

Quad core, hyperthreaded has 8 threads.

8 core, hyperthreaded has 16 threads.

Beastforlifenoob1512d ago

Mine is a 17-2600K
4 cores and 6 threads....

hiredhelp1511d ago

@Beastforlifenoob
You have my sandybridge cpu trust me you have 8 threads. Im running 4.6ghz with 7970 i aint changing anytime soon.
http://ark.intel.com/produc...

Lets not forget it also suggest using 8gb memory

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1511d ago
Shane Kim1512d ago

PC gaming as its finest...You probably need some kind of alien technology hooked inside your computer to act like the GPU, then you need Tjernobyl to run the thing and then a couple of refrigerators to cool it off.

krazykombatant1512d ago

Even if most people can't run this at ultra they'll most likely run it better than Next-Gen consoles will. Those that have the money to spend will no doubt have not be bothered with the spec for this game.

DeadIIIRed1512d ago (Edited 1512d ago )

Wrong, the average PC set-up on Steam only has a dual core processor and stats that would make games from 2009 and on blow it up.

Convas1512d ago (Edited 1512d ago )

What nonsense is this? A solid Intel quad-core and a good 2GB GPU will be more than enough.

This just means that you dare not expect anything near the E3 debut of this game running on consoles.

starchild1512d ago

I have an i5 2500k and an HD 7950 with 3GB of GDDR5 video memory. I think I should be able to run it decently well.

Also, we have to consider that the Ultra setting is going to be well above the PS4 and XB1 level of quality. Nvidia and Ubisoft have a partnership to bring advanced graphical features to PC versions of their games, taking the games to significantly higher levels of visual fidelity than found on the consoles.
http://nvidianews.nvidia.co...

This should bring things like tessellation, higher resolution shadows, higher resolution textures, HBAO+, more advanced physics, etc. Most of that stuff should work on an AMD graphics card as well, just as was the case with Splinter Cell Blacklist.

I don't mind turning down a few features considering that this is a machine I basically upgraded to play current gen games. The fact that I will even be able to play "next gen" games on it is just a huge bonus.

PurpHerbison1511d ago

Game will come out, majority of PCs will run it just fine. No sweat.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1511d ago
TwistingWords1512d ago

Real 64bit support for PC gaming coming finally?

http://youtu.be/kEl5RvbGdik...

Deividas1512d ago

Holy hell....I was seriously not expecting it to be that demanding damn. I knew it was going to require something a little more powerful but to play on Ultra...damnnn

Beastforlifenoob1512d ago

It requires less then Crysis 3 (Crysis 3 does not support DX9) also dont let 8 core put you off, the AMD 8350 is not much better than an intel i3 (if you dont believe me check benchmarks and CPUBOSS)

Deividas1512d ago

Oh I know, I built my own High end gaming rig, so I know some of this stuff. Just still from what I have seen from gameplay and stuff, just surprised me a little bit. You know?

Dante811512d ago

Who would choose and i3 over an 8350? A dual-core processor for Christ's sake. You'll be bottlenecked in no time flat.

webeblazing1511d ago

I know how you feel I haven't seen much watchdog footage lately im surprise too. but then again open world games for pc is demanding.

Kleptic1511d ago (Edited 1511d ago )

yeah, uh, haha an I3?...I agree the FX-8000 series stuff is not what you'd expect from head lines like 8 cores...but, gtfo...its WAY better than any of the I3's...with appropriate software, that is...

An I3 lands directly in the sweet spot of current software...developers LOVE 2 lines of parallel processing, and only just starting to dip into 4...they are no where near 8 yet, so nearly every benefit of an 8 core cpu is wasted right now...

CPU benchmarks are NOT even close to as comparable to gpu benchmarks...most of them involve a particular bit of software to do some kind of 'real world' stress test (encode some video, etc.)...the inherent problem is that there simply is no universal 8 string program to run that is comparable with a 2 or 4 string program for cpu's with less cores...So when you do have a properly optimized benchmark for an 8 core cpu...its not really relevent, because you can't compare it to anything but another 8 core cpu...Even I7's w/ HT (running 8 lines of instructions) aren't directly comparable, because computationally they perform everything differently...

I'm in no way suggesting go buy an 8 core AMD FX cpu...There isn't anything available that is going to load up 8 cores to 100% right now...and its per core performance is dated by today's standards...I'm just saying its a cpu that is pretty far ahead of its time in the programming sense...programmers/developers have just barely figured out for threads of instructions...and until they step up to 8 core full term parallel processing, its just unneeded power consumption...

on the other hand...If games like BF4 really are stepping up to 8 lines of cpu instructions (even more optimized with Mantle)...watch what happens...if the resources of an 8 core cpu are actually used, its a considerable difference in performance...its just you can't judge an 8 core cpu's ability based on software better optimized for 'normal' current technology...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1511d ago
starchild1512d ago

Open world games always seem to be more demanding. It's also a pretty damn nice looking game with a lot of physics simulations for wind, water, collisions, etc.

On PC it is going to have even more advanced graphics than on PS4 and XB1 due to the fact that Ubisoft and Nvidia are working together to make more advanced versions of their games for the PC.

HarryB1511d ago Show