Watch Dogs confirmed to run ultra settings on a mid-range GPU

From the tweet: "90% of the dev team runs on Nvidia Geforce 670, that will run Ultra if you have the CPU to match."

bunt-custardly3297d ago

Sweet my HD 7970 should be fine with this then.

AKissFromDaddy3296d ago (Edited 3296d ago )

Will it run ultra on a 6970 in your opinion? (I have this and I'd get the PC version if it does) I hope it's yes.

Update: I just checked that the Nvidia 670 barely beats a 6970. Do you think 6970 loses by too much to do ultra?

Studio-YaMi3296d ago (Edited 3296d ago )

Wouldn't worry about it,if anything,you would lose a couple of frame-rates which won't hinder your gameplay(I guess).

On topic:
great news here,780Ti ready and in full effect! >:D

Glad to help bro.

AKissFromDaddy3296d ago

Thanks for hope Studio-Yami. PC confirmed.

Naughty_Cloud3296d ago

On Batman Arkham City 97 fps [670] vs 67 fps[6970] - that's 30 fps increase, Civilization 5 88.6 fps [670] vs 54.6 fps [6970]. I couldn't call that barely beating it. It's clearly a much faster card.

Magicite3296d ago

6970 goes on par with 570. 670 is two tiers above 6970.

I will test this on my 560ti and if necessary, will upgrade.

LAWSON723296d ago

The GTX 670 is quite a bit better then HD 6970. Hell the GTX 670 was the alternative to the HD 7950/7970 for a while.

Hydrolex3296d ago

I think I will easily max it out

i5 3750
GTX 670 Sli
16gb of RAM

nveenio3296d ago

PC version it is…should it prove to be something that interests me once some more candid gameplay hits the web.

starchild3296d ago

This is good news. My GTX 770 shouldn't have any problem with this game then. I can't wait.

alexkoepp3296d ago

My r9 290x would crush it but I'm not gonna disgrace the card with this game. This game never looked like any graphics powerhouse to me at any point in time.

Dee_913296d ago

Thats more of a upper mid range card,but still good to know :)

specialguest3296d ago

My GTX 770 should have no problem with this game. 1440p at a decent frame rate might even be possible.

awi59513296d ago

Those are nividia games with Physx crap turned on that very few game companies even use. And since all of these games will be based on ATI hardware this gen it will run fine.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 3296d ago
abstractel3296d ago

GTX670, mid range GPU based on what statistics? Or just the person who wrote the article's opinion? I actually doubt that's true even though I have a GTX 670. I would say the 570/580 is the current mid range GPU but I have nothing to back that up -- just like the person who wrote this article.

Stapleface3296d ago

Low-750ti Mid- 670 High-780ti Very High-Titan Black The 570/580 would fall between Mid and Low. The 670 certainly can't be considered a high end card anymore with there being cards that out perform it by a significant margin. Even if they mean by price that it's a mid range card they are still right.

kingduqc3296d ago

Based on the fact that high end 780/780ti is twice as fast as a 670?

A 670 is roughly equal to a 760 and a 760 is mid tier (it's slower at low res but faster at high res)

Hydrolex3296d ago

when I had a single GTX 670, I could not max out games... COD GHOSTS, Far Cry 3, Tomb Raider were all suffering FPS drops... Added another GTX 670, BOOOM ! fixed everything

tee_bag2423296d ago

Yep the 670 is about mid range at stock. Nothing to be worried about since they OC like animals and are still great cards.

@ Hydrolex

Yep SLIed that are great

Born2Game833296d ago (Edited 3296d ago )

@kingduqc 670 is quite a bit faster than a 760. OC it, and it's quite a beast.

@Hydrolex I never had problems playing said games at max. But I did lower the AA, which is the most demanding feature in any game. FXAA, SMAA works just fine.

@Stapleface Speaking strictly for gaming. A 780ti and Titan Black are the same cards, only difference is the amount of RAM [which you can get a 6GB 780ti version now]. I've also seen benchmarks where the 780ti beats the Titan black. The only cards that fall into the VERY HIGH mark are the dual GPU cards, Titan Z and R9 295X.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3296d ago
SaturdayNightBeaver3296d ago

It will do just fine , it's only bit weaker than 670.

hellzsupernova3296d ago

My mate has a gigabyte 660ti overclocked to over 1200mhz I cannot believe it on benchmarks it beats some very high end cards. My R9 290 for example lol

user56695103296d ago (Edited 3296d ago )

wait people on this site was stating that we need gtx780 and titans to max and make this game look on par to next consoles.

Thats weird, i wonder why they would say that. your tell me a gpu for around the price $200-400 can maxx out this. i could of sworn i needed a pc that cost $2000. whats going on was all the information i been reading is wrong? why would a gamer go through so much trouble to spread lies.

i wonder why

esemce3296d ago

Max this, max that is nonsense you can max most games with a low end card but it depends how many frames you want.

For me I always aim for 60fps then drop detail to get it.

My 4GB GTX670, 16 GB ram, and i7-4770k should do it.

Stapleface3296d ago

Like the other poster said, it's about the frames per second. Your probably going to need a 780ti to run the game on Ultra to be able to hold a solid 60fps without it dipping at all. Of course with out turning ANYTHING down. That is the point of having a higher end card, or SLI'd cards. It's about not having to turn stuff down just to get the performance you want. That is besides the point of building a gaming rig to a lot of people.

PeaSFor3296d ago

you forgot the psu, mobo, ram, ssd, cpu, case, mouse/keyboard.

MRMagoo1233296d ago

so you need a video card that costs nearly as much as a whole console to run this game on the good settings lmao, make PCs for a living making a pc to run this on ultra will cos a lot more than the money it costs to buy one of the new consoles.

tee_bag2423296d ago (Edited 3296d ago )

@ MRMagoo123

I don't care if a PC costs more. I'd rather that money go on hardware I own that paying for online and get WTF. I want a minimum of 1080p and 60fps.
I wish the consoles had better hardware and cost more so they could run these games without being gimped all the time. Don't you get that ?

DoctorJones3296d ago


My 670gtx cost me £150. How does that cost as much as a console? A ps4 is £350. Your logic is, as usual, way off.

ion533296d ago

Ultra is textures. Not max out. Max out would be Ultra, 4K, HBAO+, 8X MSAA, PhysX, ect

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3296d ago
gamernova3296d ago

Confident at 1440p on a 780 :D

Android3296d ago

So should mine ;)....I'm not going to lie, when I saw the first e3 trailer I was ecstatic and worried at the same time. I was ecstatic at the graphics but worried my HD 7970 would've suffered lol....this is good news!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3296d ago
MidnytRain3297d ago

I wouldn't call that mid-range tbh. Iirc, that GPU is faster than a 760 and slower than a 770. That's a little up there.

Stapleface3296d ago

You just contradicted yourself. Between the 760(low end) and a 770 (lower end of high end cards) Makes it a mid range card. You know, in the middle, mid range...

MidnytRain3296d ago

I consider the 760 a upper-mid end, not a low end. If you can max out most modern games at 1080p with smooth frames, you don't have a low end card.

Qrphe3296d ago

760 is definitely not low-end; it'll still be mid-range till the end of next year probably

tee_bag2423296d ago

Its the lower end of 'gaming' cards.

sourav933296d ago

I'm just glad my 770 won't have a problem with WD at Ultra! So happy :D

MRMagoo1233296d ago

I can bet you wont be keeping 60fps tho with it at all times if you run ultra on a 770

tee_bag2423296d ago

@ MRMagoo123

Congratulations - you are officially the most jealous troll on N4G. lol

FalloutWanderer20773296d ago (Edited 3296d ago )

GTX 770 SC w/ ACX with a i5-4670K. Looking pretty good for me as well.

I am hoping at least :) If I have to bring down AA or use an AA injector I will be content and more than likely have 60 fps stable.

MrMaggo - Just enjoy the damn game,OK. No reason to shit on other peoples enjoyment.Regardless of platform.

fullmetal2973296d ago

Not necessarily slow by a great margin. The 770 is just just a rebranded 680 and the performance were neck and neck if I am not mistaken. I bought myself a GTX 770 4GB model to replace my 670 the performance gain was nonexistent in 1080p setting with all my games. I returned it dissatisfied with my purchase.

FalloutWanderer20773296d ago (Edited 3296d ago )

Something tells me there was an issue somewhere else in your PC. I cannot see how upgrading to a 770 from a 670 showed zero gains.

What kind of processor did/do you have?

ETA: Do you play with v-sync? unless you were dipping like crazy or you were unable to max certain games out,what gains did you not see exactly?

sonerone3297d ago

so basically my 4 core i7 with a gt650m will nearly run it on ultra?

Pandamobile3296d ago

Not likely, I'm afraid. A GTX 650 is a low-mid range GPU.

A 650M is quite a bit below the minimum requirements as posted on Steam (which calls for a GTX 460). The 650M is apparently in the performance range of an 8800 GT, so you're going to be looking at running the game on low settings. Medium if you're lucky.

Studio-YaMi3296d ago

mid to high settings depending on what fps are you targeting,I would say you'll get good frame-rate with mid settings while you'll probably get 30-45fps with high settings.

Panda can correct me if I'm wrong.

Pandamobile3296d ago

If a 670 can play it on ultra at a respectable framerate, I'd imagine that a 760 would be more than capable of hitting a similar framerate with a few of the more demanding GPU settings turned down a bit.

sonerone3296d ago

thanks for reply :) I thought so btw as I couldn't really play ac4 better than low settings. anyway going to get it on ps4, was only wondering :)

RobNuts3291d ago

Running fine here with a GTX 650ti. Everything ultra except for shadows on low and disable motion blur. Will play this while these nitwits argue about gaming until my ps4 copy arrives.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3291d ago
HighResHero3296d ago (Edited 3296d ago )

I have the same card in my y500. Used to have SLI but only need one 650m.
I think the game will run just fine on that computer but I wouldn't try to max everything out personally.

SaturdayNightBeaver3296d ago

That seems like a laptop , laptop gpus are weaker than their desktop versions, might try to run it like x360 graphics. 720p low-medium

HighResHero3296d ago (Edited 3296d ago )

I have that card in one of my laptops. It plays any game I know of but not at the highest settings.
It's a much more powerful setup than a x360 but I doubt he will be playing on ultra at any reasonable framerate, lol.
But you're right though. At 720p medium or better should be easily achievable and that's fine imo, especially given the portability factor.

sonerone3295d ago

one thing for sure, I can run any game on much higher settings than an x360 or ps3, for example F1 2013 ultra no AA on 900p with around 30fps. or tomb raider almost ultra, no tress fx, no AA 900p around 30fps. or far cry 3 almost ultra, shadows medium, no AA, 900p around 30 fps. I could run SHIFT 2 on ultra 1080p around 30fps, these are much better settings than the x360 or ps3 ones. but than with the current gen started, I couldn't run AC4 properly, even on low I had problems.

WeAreLegion3297d ago

Seriously?!? On a 670? That's fantastic. The ACIV PC version was such a mess. This is great news!

Alex_Boro3296d ago

Haha yeah forreal ac4 ran like trash on my 7970 ghz edition.

aftershock3296d ago

I keep reading this all over the net that AC4 runs like shit but I'm having 0 problems. I have a gtx 660 and an i5 3570k and I run everything on high with HBAO+ and TXAA on with volumetric fog and I rarely dip below like 45 fps

sourav933296d ago

Wait, when you say high, I'm assuming that's not max? On my 770, with everything on max, ACIV was really bad. I had to use tweak guides and turn things like environments down and use low god rays, as well as use med soft shadows. Only then did it play okay. But even still there were some bad frame drops in certain parts of the game.

starchild3296d ago (Edited 3296d ago )

It's not such a mess. AC4 simply isn't optimized well on the processor side, which limits framerates quite a bit. But when you max it out and run with TXAA it looks amazing. I personally use "1/2 refresh rate vsync" through Nvidia Inspector and this gives me a rock solid 30fps. Yes, not the framerate we generally shoot for on PC, but at least it is solid and consistent and the game looks utterly fantastic.

In other words, the CPU optimization is a bummer, but it's not the end of the world. It still looks better than the console versions and runs rock solid.


I'm using a GTX 770 too. In my opinion, due to the poor CPU optimization you should cap the framerate at 30fps in this particular game. Don't use a framerate limiter, though, as that won't give you a properly vsynced 30fps and you will still get some stutter. Use the "1/2 refresh rate vsync" option in Nvidia Inspector. Then max out all settings, except put anti-aliasing at 2x TXAA. In my opinion the blur is minimal, but the anti-aliasing is superb and only bested by SGSSAA which is very costly in terms of performance.

If you are still dropping below 30fps in places and aren't getting the performance you want you should lower shadows quality to "very high" standard shadows and simply forgo the PCSS contact hardening shadows, which do look better but aren't worth the performance hit in my opinion. The shadows are still of very high quality at the "very high" setting.

With those settings you should be getting an amazing looking game and a solid 30fps essentially everywhere.