Watch Dogs PC specs (x64 only quad core minimum)

  • 97 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Korwin (2824 posts) -

@thehbk said:

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

Sure can, just buy a PS4 or an Xbox One (AMD Jaguar architecture, 64 bit :P:P:P)

#52 Posted by Korwin (2824 posts) -

@claude said:

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.

Min Spec = Xbox 360 mode, High Spec = Beyond PS4 mode.

#53 Posted by TooWalrus (13135 posts) -

My bud sold me his GTX 680 today, so I'm good to go. My 2700K still has a few years left in it, I think.

#54 Posted by TheHBK (5463 posts) -

@korwin said:

@thehbk said:

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

Sure can, just buy a PS4 or an Xbox One (AMD Jaguar architecture, 64 bit :P:P:P)

Holy shit, I didn't even think of that. Mind blown. The Atari Jaguar lives!

#56 Edited by Orexis97 (34 posts) -
@darji said:

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^^

How the fuck is the PS3 and Xbox 360 even going to run this damn thing if those are the minimum requirements? Is the system just going to catch fire the moment you insert the disk?

#57 Posted by JJWeatherman (14557 posts) -

Well... I look forward to giving it a shot. I guess my CPU may be my limiting factor, but that honestly seems unlikely. I can't imagine this game really maxing out a quad core i5 4670, but I guess we'll see!

#58 Posted by ajamafalous (11845 posts) -

It must be horribly optimized, then.

#59 Posted by Mcfart (1545 posts) -

Yup it's brutal. Right now, a PC with equivelent specs to an Xbone/PS4 costs more then $500, but don't forget that PC games require higher specs then the consoles to run, because programming with DX carries far more overhead then programming low-level on consoles. TLDR - don't be surprised to see 16GB RAM be minimum for high profile 2014 games.

AKA PC gameing will stutter now, since specs are going to skyrocket.

#60 Edited by Andorski (5187 posts) -

@mcfart said:

Yup it's brutal. Right now, a PC with equivelent specs to an Xbone/PS4 costs more then $500, but don't forget that PC games require higher specs then the consoles to run, because programming with DX carries far more overhead then programming low-level on consoles. TLDR - don't be surprised to see 16GB RAM be minimum for high profile 2014 games.

AKA PC gameing will stutter now, since specs are going to skyrocket.

Probably the biggest lie I've heard PC gamers say is that 1) PC games look/perform better than consoles and 2) PC gaming is cheap when factoring in sales.

It's either one or the other. No doubt that when given a game that didn't get a rushed port job on a particular platform, the PC version will be better. You just need the hardware to get that performance, and it will for damn sure be way more than the cost of buying both consoles. Conversely, you can game on PC on a relatively cheap budget. Make a budget rig, stick with sales, and enjoy the PC library that has a much more flexible pricing structure than the consoles.

... but you can't have it both ways.

I don't care how damn cheap you can get stuff during the Steam Summer/Winter sales, Humble Indie Bundles, etc. To get the performance that PC gamers tend to gloat about, you need to thrown down some serious cash. You're going to have to buy a ton of $20 on-sale games that retailed at $60 to make up for the $400 GPU you just bought to keep up with the next gen consoles.

#61 Posted by RoarImaDinosaur (191 posts) -

I guess I'll be forced to upgrade next year if I want to keep up with current releases. Honestly, I might hold off and buy a console instead with the way things are going. PC gaming in Australia is really expensive :(

#62 Edited by Slaegar (688 posts) -

@darji said:

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

Someone should probably tell Ubisoft (if its their examples) that an i7 only has four cores.

Ubisoft has had some crazy system requirements for games before like From Dust recommending an i7 when it ran at full speed on an old core 2 quad 2.4GHz.

I could go all conspiracy theorist and say that computer specs are getting over estimated to scare people back towards closed down consoles. Hell the recommended video card for Cod of Doody Goats is a GTX 780.

The GPU for the 360 is 240 GFLOPS, the GPU in the PS4 is 1.84 TFLOPS which is about the same as a lightly (about 7%) overclocked AMD HD 7850. A GTX 780 is 4 TFLOPS.

#63 Posted by Korwin (2824 posts) -

@andorski said:

@mcfart said:

Yup it's brutal. Right now, a PC with equivelent specs to an Xbone/PS4 costs more then $500, but don't forget that PC games require higher specs then the consoles to run, because programming with DX carries far more overhead then programming low-level on consoles. TLDR - don't be surprised to see 16GB RAM be minimum for high profile 2014 games.

AKA PC gameing will stutter now, since specs are going to skyrocket.

Probably the biggest lie I've heard PC gamers say is that 1) PC games look/perform better than consoles and 2) PC gaming is cheap when factoring in sales.

It's either one or the other. No doubt that when given a game that didn't get a rushed port job on a particular platform, the PC version will be better. You just need the hardware to get that performance, and it will for damn sure be way more than the cost of buying both consoles. Conversely, you can game on PC on a relatively cheap budget. Make a budget rig, stick with sales, and enjoy the PC library that has a much more flexible pricing structure than the consoles.

... but you can't have it both ways.

I don't care how damn cheap you can get stuff during the Steam Summer/Winter sales, Humble Indie Bundles, etc. To get the performance that PC gamers tend to gloat about, you need to thrown down some serious cash. You're going to have to buy a ton of $20 on-sale games that retailed at $60 to make up for the $400 GPU you just bought to keep up with the next gen consoles.

For the price of a Macbook Air and an Xbox One I could build one hell of a machine. At the end of the day you still need some kind of computer to function in this world and every console user has one varying anywhere from a $600 off the rack cheapo laptop to a Mac. Lump the money together between those two and you have a machine that can perform both jobs, super reductively at the end of the day the only real difference between a generic PC and a gaming machine is a video card.

#64 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@gike987 said:

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

yep

Now lets wait and see if this game is any good, pretty/big doesn't necessarily make for good.

#65 Posted by armaan8014 (5323 posts) -

Yay i'm covered !c At least for medium settings :P

#66 Posted by voltronadactylsaurusrex (69 posts) -

I hear that the game was developed for PCs then down ported to everything else.

#67 Posted by Tarsier (1056 posts) -

mine can just do ultra... gt 670. but im going to get another for SLI once these games start coming out, and also overclock a bit

#68 Posted by Rick_Fingers (524 posts) -

I am calling bullshit on this - not in terms of content, but in terms of Ubi doing a shit job of optimising (or artificially inflating them)

If WatchDogs can run on the new consoles, then those requirements are grossly inflated.

#69 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@orexis97 said:
@darji said:

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^^

How the fuck is the PS3 and Xbox 360 even going to run this damn thing if those are the minimum requirements? Is the system just going to catch fire the moment you insert the disk?

The versions are vastly different. For example no real physics in the Ps3/360 version. no advanced Ai and so on. This Pc version is a port of the next gen version not the current gen one.

#70 Edited by voltronadactylsaurusrex (69 posts) -

@darji said:

@orexis97 said:
@darji said:

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^^

How the fuck is the PS3 and Xbox 360 even going to run this damn thing if those are the minimum requirements? Is the system just going to catch fire the moment you insert the disk?

The versions are vastly different. For example no real physics in the Ps3/360 version. no advanced Ai and so on. This Pc version is a port of the next gen version not the current gen one.

The PC version is the main version. The X1/PS4 version are the ports. http://www.dsogaming.com/news/ubisofts-ceo-confirms-that-pc-is-the-lead-platform-for-watch-dogs/

#71 Posted by FritzDude (2253 posts) -

All set here for high/Ultra:

  • i7 4820K @ 4.20Ghz
  • GTX 780 3GB GDDR5 @ 900Mhz
  • 16GB DDR3 RAM @ 1600Mhz
  • Windows 8 64bit
  • 1TB HDD 6Gb/s @ 7200 RPM

#72 Edited by Venatio (4482 posts) -

Looks like I'm gonna have to go with the PS4 version, yikes!

#73 Posted by kagato (892 posts) -

Mostly ignoring the gibberish Ubi have published and going by the amended stats posted further down, i can probably run the game medium to medium high (medium with some tweaks) but im already getting a PS4 so i might just get it on that for now. My PC still runs the majority of new games at high or highest settings, i will upgrade the ram and graphics card around summer next year, get it ready for Watch Dogs 2.

#74 Edited by tariqari (430 posts) -

The real concern here is how optimized this game will be. AC4 runs awful on my PC, which runs most modern games fine, including BF4. Does that mean W_D is going to run as bad for me? I'm not a hundred percent sure because with AC4, it was mostly the rain storms, cannon smoke during boardings, and open seas gameplay that bogged down my system. Running around cities like Havana was smooth sailing however. So I guess there's hope yet since none of this game takes place in the ocean, right? That and there will probably be minimal particle effects?

#75 Edited by MB (11956 posts) -

@tariqari: It doesn't even run on the same engine as AC4.

Moderator Online
#76 Posted by tariqari (430 posts) -

@mb: Well that gives me hope then!

#77 Edited by w1n5t0n (174 posts) -

Don't the new consoles have 8-cores? I wonder if this is a result of poor optimization since a single Intel core is much more powerful than a jaguar core.

#78 Edited by ThatOneDudeNick (498 posts) -

Games need to start having higher requirements eventually. I've been blindly maxing out settings on every game for far too long, and my PC is far from top of the line.

That being said, Watch Dogs smells like a bad port. Just throw enough power at it and push through it. GTA4 comes to mind. I hope it's not and they just have an impressive PC game. I'm all for high requirements to play with all of the settings turned up. Hopefully it's just so badass on PC that it's making use of that power.

#79 Posted by AdequatelyPrepared (315 posts) -

8 cores on the CPU really sounds like over-stating the requirements to me so that the graphics will seem more 'fancy'.

#80 Posted by Rowr (5476 posts) -

@tariqari said:

So I guess there's hope yet since none of this game takes place in the ocean, right? That and there will probably be minimal particle effects?

I wouldn't bet on that.

There's probably going to be more particle effects if anything.

#81 Edited by MB (11956 posts) -

@adequatelyprepared said:

8 cores on the CPU really sounds like over-stating the requirements to me so that the graphics will seem more 'fancy'.

More telling is the recommended GPU...the 560ti, a card that was released well over three years ago. Doesn't make any sense.

Moderator Online
#82 Posted by Splodge (1045 posts) -

I got this suit on lock. Can't wait for this game. It looks like fun, and I will FINALLY get to push my rig.

#83 Edited by Skyfire543 (654 posts) -

I'm okay in the GPU department, but i don't know about my CPU. a 4 core Intel i5-2500 @3.3GHz should be okay... right?

#84 Posted by Akeldama (4238 posts) -

I cant wait to crank this fucker up to full settings and resolution!

#85 Edited by onarum (2011 posts) -

yet another game recommending an i7, I have a i5 3570K running at 4.5GHz.... I'm good at both the ram and graphics card though, 16 GB 2400 and a GTX680

I really wanted to wait till the next intel processor and nvidia cards to upgrade but I might just get a i7 3770K for good measure

I'll probably just wait till the damn game comes out and see how it runs on my i5 first though

#86 Posted by LiquidPrince (15840 posts) -

@mb: You just blew my mind. I can't believe it isn't running on the AC engine... It probably has be to some derivative of the Anvil Engine though right? Can't be a new engine from scratch...

#87 Posted by YukoAsho (2001 posts) -

These specs are the reason the PC will never be a mainstream device. The minimum specs cost more than a PS4!

#88 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (5205 posts) -

Welp, looks like my fancy computor I built back in January should be able to play this thing on Ultra. I wonder what the install size will be though. Unfortunately that'd be the only reason I got it on Ps4 instead. I'd love to max this game out on my Pc.

#89 Posted by White (1320 posts) -

@mb said:

@adequatelyprepared said:

8 cores on the CPU really sounds like over-stating the requirements to me so that the graphics will seem more 'fancy'.

More telling is the recommended GPU...the 560ti, a card that was released well over three years ago. Doesn't make any sense.

My experience with PC games is that the recommended is only good enough to play it on between low or medium on 1080. I rarely use it as an actual barometer.

#90 Posted by gogosox82 (424 posts) -

Well looks like I'll be able to run it at least on medium but its definitely time for an upgrade since I'm assuming the specs are only going to get more demanding.

#91 Posted by RenaissanceXD (44 posts) -

So let me get this straight. This game requires a super computer to look on par with sleeping dogs? Ubisoft are bad at making games....

#92 Posted by CorruptedEvil (1679 posts) -
#93 Edited by Vuud (1943 posts) -

As always I highly doubt that the game engine is even capable of taking advantage of that amount of RAM or CPU cores.

#94 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (5205 posts) -
#95 Posted by CorruptedEvil (1679 posts) -

@themanwithnoplan: The reason a lot of games are huge nowadays is uncompressed audio. Decompressing audio fast enough for it to be practical on top of the actual rendering of the game takes a pretty powerful processor. Apparently Ubisoft decided that it was worth compressing, which explains the insane minimum/recommended specs.

#96 Posted by rickyyo (122 posts) -

@themanwithnoplan: The reason a lot of games are huge nowadays is uncompressed audio. Decompressing audio fast enough for it to be practical on top of the actual rendering of the game takes a pretty powerful processor. Apparently Ubisoft decided that it was worth compressing, which explains the insane minimum/recommended specs.

Yeah it always blows my mind how much it takes to decode/encode compress/decompress.

#97 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5205 posts) -

@themanwithnoplan: The reason a lot of games are huge nowadays is uncompressed audio. Decompressing audio fast enough for it to be practical on top of the actual rendering of the game takes a pretty powerful processor. Apparently Ubisoft decided that it was worth compressing, which explains the insane minimum/recommended specs.

Yeah. That's right. I don't recall the game, but I remember not that long ago one came out with a rather large download size and it being revealed that most of the space was dedicated to the audio for all the different languages. If that is indeed what is making the size lower then good on Ubisoft for realizing that most people don't need 16 different language options for a single game.

#98 Posted by UlquioKani (1025 posts) -

@corruptedevil said:

@themanwithnoplan: The reason a lot of games are huge nowadays is uncompressed audio. Decompressing audio fast enough for it to be practical on top of the actual rendering of the game takes a pretty powerful processor. Apparently Ubisoft decided that it was worth compressing, which explains the insane minimum/recommended specs.

Yeah. That's right. I don't recall the game, but I remember not that long ago one came out with a rather large download size and it being revealed that most of the space was dedicated to the audio for all the different languages. If that is indeed what is making the size lower then good on Ubisoft for realizing that most people don't need 16 different language options for a single game.

That was Titanfall

#99 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5205 posts) -

@ulquiokani: Yep, that's exactly what it was. Took forever to download on my relatively slow internet connection.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.