bit-gamer.net

Watch_Dogs specifications suggest many-core focus

Watch_Dogs specifications suggest many-core focus

Ubisoft recommends eight-core processors for its Watch_Dogs title, for which PC gamers may have the next-generation Xbox One and PlayStation 4 consoles to thank.

Ubisoft has revealed the specifications required to run the PC port of its upcoming Watch_Dogs third-person shooter, following the accidental early publication of a Uplay listing for the game.

Due to launch next month on Windows, PlayStations 3 and 4, Wii U, Xboxes 360 and One, the cross-platform title sees the player take on the role of Aiden Pearce in a stealthy shooter where a futuristic smartphone accessory becomes a weapon: players can hack into everything from traffic lights and electrical substations to cash machines, while an augmented reality (AR) overlay provides mission and background information.

According to specifications posted in a Uplay listing, since removed, the PC port of the game will require a 64-bit Windows install - with no 32-bit support whatsoever - with 20GB of free hard drive space and a DirectX 9.0c-compatible sound card. Those willing to crank down the settings are told they can get away with a DirectX 11-compatible graphics card with 1GB of VRAM, 4GB of system RAM and a quad-core CPU - the latter of most interest, given that traditionally games have seen little real-world improvement moving from two to four CPU cores. Suggested setups for this level include Nvidia GeForce GTX 460 and AMD Radeon HD 5770 graphics cards, and Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and AMD Phenom X4 9750 CPUs.

To hit Ubisoft's recommended level, you'll need 2GB of VRAM, an eight-core CPU and at least 8GB of memory - again suggesting that the Watch_Dogs engine can scale very well on multi-core processors, which could be taken as early evidence of the use of eight-core chips in both the PS4 and Xbox One next-generation consoles helping to push developers into making better use of similar PC setups. Here, Ubisoft recommends at least an Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti or AMD Radeon HD 7850 graphics card, and an Intel Core i7-3770 or AMD FX-8350 CPU.

Finally, there's the ultra level: to play the game with the graphics settings cranked right up high, Ubisoft is recommending gamers invest in a Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 card or better, alongside an Intel Core i7-3930K or AMD FX-9370 CPU.

Ubisoft's heavy focus on pushing eight-core - and, the company's notes suggest, even more cores where possible - could spell the beginnings of AMD's return to form: while the company's current processors fail to compete with Intel's offerings in terms of instructions per cycle, they do typically offer more processing cores. The AMD FX-9370, for example, features eight processing cores to the Intel Core i7-3930K's six. Should Watch_Dogs prove to be the vanguard of a new generation of many-core-friendly highly-scalable game engines, the PC gaming market could be about to get a serious shake-up.

28 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
AlienwareAndy 3rd October 2013, 21:36 Quote
Music to my ears :D
AlienwareAndy 3rd October 2013, 22:27 Quote
More detail....

Base Specification
Operating System: Windows Vista (SP2), Windows 7 (SP1) or Windows 8
Note that we only support 64 bit OSs.
DVD-ROM: DVD-ROM Dual Layer
Hard Drive Space: 20 GB
Sound: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Sound Card with Latest Drivers
Internet: Broadband connection and service required for multiplayer mode
Minimum Specification
GPU: DirectX 11 graphics card with 1 GB Video RAM
CPU: Quad core
RAM: 4GB
example 1
GPU: NVidia GTX 460
CPU: Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
example 2
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 5770
CPU: AMD Phenom X4 9750
Recommended Specification
GPU: DirectX 11 graphics card with 2 GB Video RAM
CPU: Eight core
RAM: 8GB
example 1
GPU: NVidia GTX 560 ti
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770
example 2
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7850
CPU: AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core
"Ultra" Specification
GPU: Latest DirectX 11 graphics card with 2 GB Video RAM or more
CPU: Latest Eight core or more
RAM: 8GB or more
example 1
GPU: Nvidia GTX 670
CPU: Intel Core i7-3930K
example 2
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7970
CPU: AMD FX-9370 Eight-Core


Taken from here.

http://www.nextpowerup.com/news/4091/watch-dogs-specs-leaked-for-pc-version.html
Hustler 3rd October 2013, 22:31 Quote
Looks like the days of running console ports on cheap PC's are over.
AlienwareAndy 3rd October 2013, 22:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Looks like the days of running console ports on cheap PC's are over.

Or, depending how you look at it, just beginning.

FX 6300 + 7850 2gb rig around £500. New consoles? around £500.
Eggy 3rd October 2013, 22:34 Quote
Probably won't be able to tell the difference when running it on recommended or ultra specs. Looks more like a let's recommend the highest possible hardware specs even though the game will never push the hardware it gives us some attention ploy.
MrDomRocks 3rd October 2013, 23:10 Quote
Whoever comes up with those results is talking crap.

Fan boy alert.

I am looking forward to watch Dogs, the specs look good. Remember it's console shaped but has the heart and soul of out dated pc components.
Combatus 3rd October 2013, 23:15 Quote
Can't really draw any conclusions from that image seeing as they've left out the last two generations of mainstream Intel desktop CPUs. I'd want to see numbers at 1080p and above as as well given they're supposedly using a Titan. The game is probably CPU limited and that's not indicative of what you'll see at higher resolutions.
sandys 3rd October 2013, 23:22 Quote
oops wrong thresad
joplin66 4th October 2013, 04:43 Quote
are the new console cpu's not just running at 1.6 GHz per core? and if so wouldn't 4 running at 4.8 (sandy/ivy bridge overclock average) be way better? Its the 8 gig of gddr5 unified ram that excites me and is the area where i can see current pc's trailing a little. Regardless of all that though i really want these machines to be amazing and breath new life into the games market, there's only so many pixel art retro indie games i can take before i start to question why i even game on a pc and blow the dust of my snes.
edzieba 4th October 2013, 07:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienwareAndy
Oh look ! Quelle surprise !

http://s72.photobucket.com/user/timmahtiburon/media/Alienstuff/bf4.jpg.html
Actually, that is surprising. It's been some years since I've seen any appreciable difference in game performance between CPUs (e.g., moving from a C2D E8400 to a i5 2500k gained me squat in framerate with the same GTX670) given the same GPU, outside of twiddling around in the hundreds-of-fps for older games. GPU-bound games have been the norm for quite some time.

::EDIT:: Anandtech have just updated their [url=http://anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013]massive gaming CPU comparison/url]]. I guess if I'd notice more of a difference if I had multiple GPUs or in Civ V.
Gareth Halfacree 4th October 2013, 08:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienwareAndy
More detail....
You mean the exact same amount of detail as found in the article, just formatted differently, right? :p
Corky42 4th October 2013, 09:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Looks like the days of running console ports on cheap PC's are over.

Give it 3-5 years and we will be back to square one with console ports on cheap PC's
suragh 4th October 2013, 09:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDomRocks
Whoever comes up with those results is talking crap.

Fan boy alert.

I am looking forward to watch Dogs, the specs look good. Remember it's console shaped but has the heart and soul of out dated pc components.

Same, I cant wait.

This 8 core nonsense is obviously a wind up. I played this at EG and the console specs compared to a 4 core i5 with a decent gpu won't come close graphically.
Platinum 4th October 2013, 09:28 Quote
Given that the 360 pretty much made 4 threads a requirement its not a surprise that this gen will make 8 threads a requirement for high res / detail games.
Blakmagik 4th October 2013, 10:19 Quote
@joplin66

8 weak AMD cores running at max 2.75G in the PS4. I don't see a reason why would it need 8 cores on a PC. Considering that AMD needs to clock Bulldozer 5G to compete with i7s running at stock I find it rather unlikely that the next gen consoles running a cpu with a bit better IPC around half the clockspeed as the high end Bulldozers would force a cpu upgrade.

Looking forward to some benches but I expect good old 2600Ks clocked to 4.5G wich is a given with those still be able to run it perfect.
Alecto 4th October 2013, 12:57 Quote
What the heck is "Phenom X6 9750" ? I have heard of a quad core Phenom chip with 9750 designation, did you mean X4 9750 ?
Yslen 4th October 2013, 13:12 Quote
So, a game sponsored by AMD, the company who makes mid-range 8-core CPUs, recommends using an 8-core CPU?

Just clarifying the situation here. Lets wait for some benchmarks, shall we?
CrapBag 4th October 2013, 13:20 Quote
Why is it when they list these requirements they never state at what resolution?
Guinevere 4th October 2013, 13:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
So, a game sponsored by AMD, the company who makes mid-range 8-core CPUs, recommends using an 8-core CPU?

Is that so... that would explain A LOT.

Certainly wouldn't put it past anyone.

But... Where did you hear the game was sponsored by AMD? Mr Google hasn't heard of there being a link and the official site has it affiliated with Nvidia with no sign of AMD Radeon.
Corky42 4th October 2013, 13:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
But... Where did you hear the game was sponsored by AMD? Mr Google hasn't heard of there being a link and the official site has it affiliated with Nvidia with no sign of AMD Radeon.

Nvidia paid Ubisoft $5 Million..
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/32693-nvidia-spends-5-million-on-ubisoft-deal
Gareth Halfacree 4th October 2013, 13:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alecto
What the heck is "Phenom X6 9750" ? I have heard of a quad core Phenom chip with 9750 designation, did you mean X4 9750 ?
Typo - fixed, ta!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
So, a game sponsored by AMD, the company who makes mid-range 8-core CPUs, recommends using an 8-core CPU?
That would have been a very good point, if the game were sponsored by AMD. Sadly, it's sponsored by Nvidia.
Spuzzell 4th October 2013, 14:40 Quote
It's surely almost certain that optimised code for the next gen consoles will be somewhat transferable to modern AMD powered PCs.

Whether that's enough to make up the performance shortfall to Intel is another matter, but I can say that for the first time in years I am seriously SERIOUSLY thinking about my next system being entirely AMD.
AlienwareAndy 4th October 2013, 16:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuzzell
It's surely almost certain that optimised code for the next gen consoles will be somewhat transferable to modern AMD powered PCs.

Whether that's enough to make up the performance shortfall to Intel is another matter, but I can say that for the first time in years I am seriously SERIOUSLY thinking about my next system being entirely AMD.

Going back to this article again, and taking the interview as gospel -

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says.

So basically what he (Avalanche Studios' Chief Technical Office, Linus Blomberg) is basically saying is that the code they have should work natively on the AMD architecture and can then be implemented on Intel.

Whether or not that will result in poorer performance on Intel? well again, it's mostly all speculation at the moment. Watch Dogs to me though merely props up that venerable Eurogamer article and somewhat confirms what the guy on there was saying about the new consoles.

Time will tell, however even if it doesn't flip things around the AMD CPUs are more than fast enough now for it not to matter. They still fall behind Intel in IPC by quite a margin but they're finally at the point where it doesn't matter (using say, 45 FPS compared to 49 FPS on Intel).
Yslen 4th October 2013, 21:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
So, a game sponsored by AMD, the company who makes mid-range 8-core CPUs, recommends using an 8-core CPU?
That would have been a very good point, if the game were sponsored by AMD. Sadly, it's sponsored by Nvidia.

Drat, I'm clearly thinking of something else then.

However... the technical director has tweeted that the "leaked" requirements are false anyway and will be lower than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastien Viard (@SebViard), via Twitter
Hello. Ce ne sont pas les configs officielles. Les vraies specs sortiront bientôt et seront moins élevées que celles-ci :)
technogiant 7th October 2013, 21:33 Quote
So pc's have had multiple core for ages and only recently some games have started using quad cores....just because 8 core consoles area coming soon games can immediately support 8 cores.....I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT.
TreeDude 8th October 2013, 14:15 Quote
I will never understand why PC fanboys always dismiss consoles as yesterdays hardware. Direct hardware access is possible on a console and not on a PC. PCs will always have more overhead. Not to mention that because a console's hardware stays static, devs can eek out every last frame by using tricks specific to the hardware. Something impossible on the PC because of all the variables.

Look at the 360. The GPU is basically an ATI X1800. Try running anything current on a PC with an X1800. You cannot compare them direct like that. What devs are able to squeeze out of these 9yr old consoles is quite astounding because they have spent 10yrs with the hardware and know it inside and out.
theshadow2001 8th October 2013, 14:49 Quote
Direct hardware access is possible on pc, there's just too many types of hardware to make it viable.

Up until the next generation of consoles are released, the current gen are yesterdays hardware. Even with direct to metal coding the limits of consoles have been well reached. Consoles then hold back further development and improvements of games because the peak of performance is achieved and with no new hardware games are developed at that plateaued level.

PCs are much more inefficient because of the APIs required to run on the massive range of hardware, but the rate of development of PC hardware is light speed compared to the up revving of consoles. This leads to them becoming more powerful than consoles within a short time of the consoles being released, even with the required overheads of running a pc game.

If AMDs new api works out this could reduce that over head significantly and put PCs ahead of consoles even quicker and by larger amount.

Plus there's more to PCs than just playing games, there's the whole hobby of hardware. The drafting, building, maintaining, upgrading of PC hardware is a whole part of the hobby that is just lost on exclusive console users.

I'd much rather build my own gaming machine than just have it handed to me.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums