Watch Dogs PC specs (x64 only quad core minimum)

Here are the specs for the PC Vesion of Watch dogs and they are quite high^^

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

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

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:

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

Either its Low for me or maybe not even that. Time for a new PC^^

Finally we can move on from 32-bit, should have happened years ago.

So I opened that page and saw animated ass on the right side. Not that I have a problem with animated ass, but I'm at work, and animated ass at work isn't a good thing. It wasn't a lot of ass, though, but you should probably watch out if someone sensitive to animated ass is around.

There's something appealing about typing "animated ass". The page is also in Russian, so presumably this is a sister site to gamebomb.ru.

Oh, yeah, I pass recommended specs and all that so I'm good.

Sorry for that. I don't see one there. Maybe because of Adblock?^^ Will edit:

shit! 8 core processor recommended? welcome to next gen i guess...

Well shit, I guess I need a new motherboard and cpu. Maybe even a new PSU. Once you tasted the Ultra life, you can never go back.

Well, fuck. I need to upgrade my CPU and maybe grab another 7870XT for crossfire. Or just get a whole new machine.

Fuck it, I'm just getting the PS4 version.

Its happening! Pc versions of next gen games will require much more to run them than the consoles will (this will be the case for the next 3 or 4 years). Don't think I'll be investing money in a PC after all, because those specs are just stupid

Now I have to ask since this is only the start of this gen: how much for everything (except maybe the screen) to build a PC with recommended specs for this game?

Edit: nevermind, 600 for the GPU and CPU alone. 1100 for CPU and GPU on ultra specs (which, by looking at past history, won't even last the entire generation). People saying PC gaming is affordable are delusional.

@afabs515: They say 8 cores but an intel CPU with hyper threading covers that.

Holy Toledo! Those specs are crazy. The only thing my pc covers is the recommended RAM and video card. The PS4 is looking mighty appealing.

AMd's new cards should cover that for at most 300$ for the GPU for the Ultra one.

You're saying the 300$ AMD card is comparable to the 500$ Nvidia card? That's fucked up.

The CPU is still 600 though.

Well technically at this stage of the current gen console cycle, if you picked up a pc able to run it at equivalent quality to a 360/ps3 it would probably be similar cost.

With the incoming consoles obviously the bar will reset given that they are basically mass produced pc's sold at a loss. PC gaming is and has been as affordable recently but obviously will set back at least a few years once the new consoles arrive.

It's worth noting some of the affordability comes in actual cost of games when factoring in steam sales etc, as well as the fact that after initially laying down money for a pc, you only should need to upgrade a couple of times over the length of a console cycle for a much better graphical payoff, by the time you upgrade your pc in another 3 years or whatever, it's pretty likely to far exceed what the next gen consoles can deliver.

So with the costs you posted. 600 dollars for recommended specs which are likely on par with ps4/one. Thats not a huge amount over the new console price once you include all the extra accessories and shit, as well as paying RRP for games all the time. It's also worth noting the cost for the gpu and cpu will likely be a few hundred dollars less within a year.

Also factor in geography. It's just plainly more affordable in many countries that aren't the USA. I paid 110 dollars for GTA 5 on the PS3 the other day. Next gen at launch here is $500 - $600.

Last cycle when the PS3 came out here it was over $1000.

"1100 for CPU and GPU on ultra specs (which, by looking at past history, won't even last the entire generation)"

Well yeh so to get a console equivalent you upgrade once now to recommended specs and in a few years you upgrade again and for the same cost and it will far exceed these ultra specs. Premium settings are always somewhere near double cost at any given time.

edit - one more thing, Ubisoft are absolutely useless at optimising their games for PC, so im not sure this should be taken as the new standard just yet.

@pyrodactyl: You really don't need Ultra specs. They look nice, but not that much nicer than the high settings. I'll be able to achieve Medium at least with my 7870, which was a $230 card last year.

And for some reason part of that is bolded and I don't feel like figuring out why.

Hah, jesus. Also this.

http://www.giantbomb.com/watch-dogs/3030-38538/forums/720p-or-1080p-next-gen-we-don-t-know-ubisoft-1454195/#36

They know PC gamers aren't settling at 720p at 30fps.

The game recommends an eight core CPU and a 560ti-level GPU?

lol, wut?

As long as they have decent SLI support I'm sitting around ultra, and if they don't I'm still above recommended. I'm sure the CPU stuff is mostly nonsense. Other than some huge strategy games there isn't much that is CPU limited, and I'd be surprised if that changes dramatically. We'll see I guess, but I think I'd rather take my chances with the PC than get a version that is locked at 30FPS.

Open world games have relied heavily on the CPU, look at GTA 4. A game with a lot of objects to process has different requirements than a highly detailed linear game.

Looking forward to seeing what this machine can do with the game!

My hypothetical PC can't even run on recommended settings.

ACIII, FC3, JC2, and Sleeping Dogs ran fine on lower end hardware. GTAIV is more of an exception than it is an example.

It's weird that they say 8 core CPU and then give an example of a six core CPU. As far as I know, most i5 and i7 CPUs are quad core, while the most expensive are 6 core. Isn't AMD really the ones making 8 core CPUs (which don't really wind up being as good as a high end i7)?

@ll_exile_ll: They say 8 core, but what I think they mean is 8 threads. (Hyper-threading)

i7 CPU's have 4 cores with 8 threads, where the 3930k has 6 cores with 12 threads.

Assuming it's 8 threads and not 8 cores my laptop passes recommended specs. Awesome.

I'm solid... except for video card. My 480 meets the minimum, but just isn't cutting it anymore.

I think they mean Hyper-threading, I meet all specs other than processor where I'm on the i7-3370k.... to be honest with you I'm good to go with the next generation... YAY! Also Watchdog is going to run at 30fps on the next gen consoles, is it going to run at 1080p? It sounds like the game is either poorly optimized or the PC versions will still look vastly superior to the next run of consoles. Also as it seems processor intensive you may just need to turn down the population (if the is an option for that) and you're good to go, the GPU requirements seem very reasonable.

what did you expect? This is next gen hardware specs. Actually a 560ti is maybe a little low as most of them only have 1GB video ram.

Yep. It looks like my pc build from 3 years ago managed to perfectly segue into the launch of a ps4.

That is what I was getting at. The discrepancy between a high end CPU with an entry level GPU from two cycles ago. Something about these specs aren't adding up.

Looks like they were wrong. The actual ones are even more demanding.

Minimum

Supported OS: Windows Vista SP2 64bit, Windows 7 SP1 64bit, Windows 8 64bit

Processor:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66Ghz or AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.0Ghz

RAM:

6 GB

Video Card:

1024 VRAM DirectX 11

with Shader Model 5.0 (see supported list)

Sound Card: DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card

This product supports 64-bit operating systems ONLY

Recommended:

Processor:

Core i7 3770 @ 3.5Ghz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0Ghz

RAM:

8 GB

Video Card:

2048 VRAM DirectX 11

with Shader Model 5.0 or higher (see supported list)

Sound Card: Surround Sound 5.1 capable sound card

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=692962

Wow first 6GB Ram game ever^^

Holy fuck

Specs required to play a game have always been inflated. Tweak the game's taxing and useless settings like tessellation and insane FXAA and your current hardware will run it. As always.

That's what I was thinking as well.

Normally not with the minimum specs though especially in regard of ram. And if it will run it will not even slightest enjoyable.

My PC is MINIMUM? What the fuuuuck? I can run nearly everything on high.

i7 4770k and a GTX 770

Can't wait to eat that up, but I'm really interested in seeing if those CPU reqs are really that necessary. It might explain why the console versions are being scaled back from 1080/60

Just want to point out to all the people mentioning "Hyper threading" that this doesn't automatically mean you get the performance of double the number of cores or even any performance increase. It also doesn't mean you automatically get 2 x "Number of Cores" worth of hardware threads either.

If the games threads are all fully utilising the same shared CPU resources then hyper threading will have no effect (or even a detrimental effect).

Id like to announce that I will be keeping my ps4 pre order.

Those specs are insanity and I just built a new pc a year ago.

Seems reasonable, new game designed for new platforms with recommended specs still within hard released in the past year or 2.

@andorski: Maybe it is a very CPU intensive game? Also, there were some nice overclocked 2 GB 560 ti's released (one of which I have) which is probably what they are referring to. Most 560 ti's didn't have 2 GB of RAM so they can't mean those. Still, I can only run the most demanding games on a mix of medium and high settings with no MSAA/SSAA if I want 1080p/60 so I can't imagine a 560 ti doing well with this.

EDIT: Also weird that the AMD spec is a current gen 7850. That's just a weird comparison to a 560 ti.

Apparently I can run the ultra spec if it counts an i7 processor hyper threading eight cores.

FXAA is a low cost solution to AA, there's nothing insane about it. MSAA is what you want to turn down if your having performance problems.

Man, I just barely make the recommended specs for this game.

Can I run this game on a Jaguar? It is 64-bit.

If this game uses more than 6GB of ram with everything turned to minimum, they fucked up. I don't even see why it would need that much ram at max settings...

Hey, let's make a game that's not well optimized on the PC, but it'll run great on old ass console hardware, trust me.

pfff that's it? God this next-gen is so weak pathetic compared to my ULTRACOMPUTER

Hrm. Built my PC two and a half years ago and... maybe I could go for a graphics card bump, but I can turn off SSAO...

Ubisoft, you crazy! I mean, I'm glad I have a PC that should be able to run the game nicely, but holy shit.