Watch_Dogs PC performance thread [Read post #1215 before posting]

Status
Not open for further replies.
everytime i tried to oc past the "dummy oc" button in my bios everything ran in slow motion...it was like everything was just slower. never figured out what that was.

If your I7920 is D0 version you should be able to hit 4ghz fairly easily, likely without even adjusting voltage. Download CPU-z to see if it's a D0 chip. Don't use dummy overclock. Look up guides to overclocking the 920 on overclockers forum, tom's hardware, or Google.
 

Dries

Member
Pretty sure a high OC, like 4.5/4.6GHz would be able to hold up its own assuming you got enough gpu power and vram.
Either way, for the way this game looks at Ultra, it shouldnt require more than a high end quad and mid end gpu. Textures on Ultra are a joke for 3GB vram usage.

Fair enough, couple that OC with a GTX 770 2Gig. That's still pretty awesome nowadays, right?

Why would the 2500k be considered dead?

I don't know! Some people have been uttering that in this thread.
 
Who plays these games with KB/M? I could understand wanting to play FPS that way (I do) but for 3rd person action games, controllers are a must.

The perspective is irrelevant if the action revolves around moving a crosshair over targets, in which case a mouse is my preference.
 
Seeing this thread and thinking about future releases, going forward, looks like this gen will be:

-30fps on high settings for consoles
-60fps on high settings for top end GPUs under 6gb
-Ultra settings only for those with a 6gb crazy expensive GPUs.

Is this about right?
 

HRose

Banned
Seeing this thread and thinking about future releases, going forward, looks like this gen will be:

-30fps on high settings for consoles
-60fps on high settings for top end GPUs under 6gb
-Ultra settings only for those with a 6gb crazy expensive GPUs.

Is this about right?

Hopefully not. This is a case of a very bad PC port.

Previously the prize was of COD Ghost, now Watch Dogs surpassed it. But hopefully PC games will still have some decent coders and engines.

What's more risky is that with so high requirements PC sales will be very low, and so they could just decide to not develop for PC at all gong forward (they'll blame piracy, of course, not their crappy ports that only rich kids can play).
 
Seeing this thread and thinking about future releases, going forward, looks like this gen will be:

-30fps on high settings for consoles
-60fps on high settings for top end GPUs under 6gb
-Ultra settings only for those with a 6gb crazy expensive GPUs.

Is this about right?


for open world games, seems about right.

Curious how more linear cinematic next gen games fair.


Also, gonna be real interesting to see how batman arkham knight runs on pcs ;)
 

Redmoon

Member
Why would the 2500k be considered dead?
Guessing its not enough.

I disabled 2 cpu cores and HT on my cpu and set my oc to 4 (for i5 like specs).
Running 4 cores @4ghz im seeing as high as 80+ cpu usage for WD exe alone(saw 100% load in RTSS at times). Framerate was between 40-60 staying mostly above 50 or at 60. I can pop to 4.8, which could probably keep a solid 60.

EDIT, it only dips below 60 when in movement/loading in new stuff, or when its raining the fps seems to be in the lower 40's.
 

DinHerio

Banned
Glad I bought a GTX680 with 4GB GDDR5. A friend said "that's useless". I countered with ridiculous high-res texture mods for Fallout 3 / NV & Skyrim, etc. last gen. Looking at current gen, it was a really good choice.
 
The water looks really good, beautiful. That leak with the poor lighting was probably beta, or last gen because the game looks pretty damn good for open world.

Ugh I hate the look of Aiden though. He just doesn't look right to me.
The E3 version of him was perfect.
 

Ellite25

Member
I keep seeing people say 2gb of VRAM isn't enough and that's what I have on my 770.

So does that mean console would be the way to go? If so that's kinda shitty, I just bought the damn card

Repost from the OT, thought it might be more appropriate here.
 

onken

Member
Flicked through the thread but didn't see my specs..

4770k
780 Ti
1080p

Though I'm getting the impression I'll have to drop to High to get 60fps ;/
 

Arthos

Member
If you know your motherboard model number, you should just be able to search for that + '2500k over-clocking' to find what you're looking for. The BIOS might be overwhelming at first but you shouldn't need to change much (depending on what sort of over-clock you're looking for, I got my 2500k to 4.2GHz through only changing the ratio). Try and refrain from using software to overclock - that shit can cause instability.

Thank you! Will do. Found a few videos and posts on other forums.

These are the Bios settings I use to get it to 4.2Ghz. I've gone to 4.4Ghz on the same settings though

Thank you as well! I'll try out your settings and test it out a bit. Hope it works! :D
 

HRose

Banned
I keep seeing people say 2gb of VRAM isn't enough and that's what I have on my 770.

So does that mean console would be the way to go? If so that's kinda shitty, I just bought the damn card

Repost from the OT, thought it might be more appropriate here.

We've yet to see even a single guy reporting how good is his performance on a 4Gb model.

Right now pretty much everyone is having issues regardless of configuration, and it seems that if anything it's the CPU to make the difference between the various experiences.
 

BPoole

Member
Thank you! Will do. Found a few videos and posts on other forums.



Thank you as well! I'll try out your settings and test it out a bit. Hope it works! :D
Just make sure to download Prime95 and CPU-Z to do a stress test to check stability once you've applied the OC. There are several guides to walk you through that on YouTube
 

Dries

Member
I keep seeing people say 2gb of VRAM isn't enough and that's what I have on my 770.

So does that mean console would be the way to go? If so that's kinda shitty, I just bought the damn card

Repost from the OT, thought it might be more appropriate here.

I'm in the same boat as you and also kinda worried. Would love to hear more opinions.
 

timshundo

Member
Fine, I'll be the Mac guy. Im curious how this will go (in windows, of course).

4ObP5JK.png
 
Found at Guru3D a simple tweak to get rid of stuttering.

Make a shortcut to the game and add "-disablepagefilecheck" without the quotation marks after the target and the stuttering should be extremely minimal (essentially just when driving very fast and loading new environments).

Example (under target): "X:\Games\WD\watch_dogs.exe" -disablepagefilecheck

Just tried and sttutering got heavily reduced!
 

sertopico

Member
Will 8gigs be enough? Like more than enough? Or will I still get stutter?
Of course, but you'll need a good amount of video RAM as well. Balance is the keyword. On the other hand, the game engine isn't working very well on this side as you can read around, so expect a patch or praise the Gods it will be fixed.
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
You need some water cooling for that (assuming you don't already have it). Water cooling is so easy these days, everyone should be doing it.

Yeah, I'll be going that route when I upgrade again. I'm completely over dealing with unwieldy HSFs.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Glad I bought a GTX680 with 4GB GDDR5. A friend said "that's useless". I countered with ridiculous high-res texture mods for Fallout 3 / NV & Skyrim, etc. last gen. Looking at current gen, it was a really good choice.
I'm still waiting on benchmarks that show 4GB provides a tangible, worthwhile benefit over 2GB for cards like the 670/760/680/770.

I can certainly show performance chart that says otherwise:

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

Again, just because a game can utilize higher vRAM doesn't mean your card can, necessarily.
 
I have an i5 750 and i don't see each of my cpu core going past 75% load and my gpu (670) is constantly 99% with vsynch 1 vbl (up to locked 60fps) on high settings, wich means it isn't cpu bound, though i get terrible drops while driving or in certain places on foot, around 10fps and it seems totally random.

I don't think it's that cpu bound but the game eats a lot of system RAM and vram, all of my 8 + 2 GB.
 
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/76223

You could add bloom to spice up the daytime lighting, not sure it's very necessary nor very subtle but it's feasible at least

Code:
   /*-----------------------------------------------------------.
  /                  Gaussian Blur settings                     /
  '-----------------------------------------------------------*/
#define GaussEffect 2        //[0|1|2|3]        0 = Blur, 1 = Unsharpmask (expensive), 2 = Bloom, 3 = Sketchy. Default is 2
#define GaussQuality 3       //[0|1|2|3]        Warning: 2 and 3 are expensive. Default is 1
#define GaussSigma 1         //[1 to 4]         The higher the wider blur/bloom is (only effective when Bloom selected)
#define GaussBloomWarmth 0   //[0|1|2]          "Temperature" of the bloom - 0 = neutral, 1 = warm, 2 = hazy/foggy
#define GaussThreshold 0.50  //[0.00 to 1.00]   [DX10/11 only] Threshold for what is a bright light (that causes bloom) and what isn't.
#define GaussExposure 43.0   //[0.00 to 100.00] [DX10/11 only] Exposure of the effect (the lower the brighter)
#define GaussStrength 0.60   //[0.00 to 1.00]   Amount of effect blended into the final image
 
I'm still waiting on benchmarks that show 4GB provides a tangible, worthwhile benefit over 2GB for cards like the 670/760/680/770.

I can certainly show performance chart that says otherwise:

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

Again, just because a game can utilize higher vRAM doesn't mean your card can, necessarily.

I feel the same, as that I want to see benchmarks first before making a judgment, but frametimes may show a difference where framerate might not. Also the question is more of how long will 2GB still be enough instead of whether it runs the games that are out now well.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
I feel the same, as that I want to see benchmarks first before making a judgment, but frametimes may show a difference where framerate might not. Also the question is more of how long will 2GB still be enough instead of whether it runs the games that are out now well.
I have no doubt that vRAM requirements will go up slowly but surely. I think anybody who expects their 2GB card to last for the next 5 years just fine is in for a rude awakening. But they should be good for a while still. I really don't think Watch Dogs should be used as a great example of the limits of these cards. I would bet money that The Witcher 3 will look quite a bit better on these same 'vRAM limited' cards, showing that they are still more than capable.

But yea, eventually, moving up to a higher vRAM card is going to be preferable to deal with any and all the unoptimized ports the PC gets. I just wouldn't recommend something like a 770 in these cases. If you want a 3GB/4GB card, you should look at a 780 or 290 at minimum. Cards that can really make use of that vRAM.
 

Confiture

Banned
I have an i5 750 and i don't see each of my cpu core going past 75% load and my gpu (670) is constantly 99% with vsynch 1 vbl (up to locked 60fps) on high settings, wich means it isn't cpu bound, though i get terrible drops while driving or in certain places on foot, around 10fps and it seems totally random.

I don't think it's that cpu bound but the game eats a lot of system RAM and vram, all of my 8 + 2 GB.

Also got an i5 750 (although @3.7GHz) and am seeing the same load on average cpu wise.

Can't even get a smooth 30fps with textures to high, temporal smaa and everything else maxxed with 12GB RAM and a r9 280x (o/c @ 1.1GHz)...

VRAM usage is at around 2.6GB with those settings.

I tried tinkering with other settings but not really satisfied with the result.

Worst offender is when driving too, the game goes into the low 20s
 

BeeRich

Banned
If anyone is having issues with the studdering in Watchdogs, pick your graphics settings and quit out of watch dogs then open and play it. I found out that this worked for me.
 
Also got an i5 750 (although @3.7GHz) and am seeing the same load on average cpu wise.

Can't even get a smooth 30fps with textures to high, temporal smaa and everything else maxxed with 12GB RAM and a r9 280x (o/c @ 1.1GHz)...

VRAM usage is at around 2.6GB with those settings.

I tried tinkering with other settings but not really satisfied with the result.

Worst offender is when driving too, the game goes into the low 20s

I ve tried so many combination also, nothing is playable to me, even at lock 30fps. How many of your 12 GB are used? I was thinking maybe i was limited by my system ram..
 

ducksauce

Member
So after reading through this thread it's become clear that I'll need to upgrade if I want to play Ubi's open-world games on Ultra. I currently have:

i5 3570
GTX 680 2gb
16gb ram

Which should I upgrade first, my GPU or processor?
 

kharma45

Member
So after reading through this thread it's become clear that I'll need to upgrade if I want to play Ubi's open-world games on Ultra. I currently have:

i5 3570
GTX 680 2gb
16gb ram

Which should I upgrade first, my GPU or processor?

Is that the regular 3570 or the K variant?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom