Watch Dogs PC System Reqs. - Next-Gen Is Here?

I get that with loads of games lately. Most recently The Wolf Among Us. I have plenty of RAM and plenty of virtual memory. No idea why it does this.

 

what to say, an hour of playing and went to recycle bin. overhyped, gameplay delivers nothing new, glitchy and laggy, oh and driving is awful.

 

I've been having a pretty good time with the game, when Uplay isn't down.

I like it quite a bit.

 

I'm trying to like it, but I'm leaning this direction as well. Add in Uplay nonsense and its a struggle to want to like it.

 

I've been enjoying it, would enjoy it much more if it was optimized and didn't stutter so much. The graphics to me aren't anything special at all. The only time it looks okay is at night while raining with all the reflections. Otherwise, it looks like a game from years ago. The trees and grass movement is so off, and very fake looking. Also, the jacket flapping on this dude is going a little too overboard lol. Textures aren't special, and lack of tessellation makes the city feel way too flat. They need more smoke/steam/mist and debris from city sewers and cars, smog, trash blowing on the streets, like a real city!

This game feels like something you would play on mobile, like gangstar. Its "empty" and cookie cutter looking. I don't feel like I am in a real city experiencing all the messed up and awesome things you see when strolling through in the day time and at night. They need to see what Sleeping Dogs did with the awesome environments of Hong Kong, felt like I was there.

Some good news by the way:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/games/2014/05/27/watch-dogs-review-ps4-new-dog-new-tricks/

I may hold off for a patch so I can enjoy the game. Back to neverwinter.

 

here's a strange/funny moment from the game:



i'm surprised the profiler still worked on a decapitated body but anyways.

 

DAT LOW-RES TEXTURES DOE.

And on a GTX 780M 4GB too. Hmmm...

 

it's actually medium cos that's the lowest you can go....high looks better but it stutters badly when driving and to a small degree even just walking.

 

Game leaks RAM and VRAM like a sieve, no?

 

RAM?i read on a site it only consumes 2GB of ram.They listed 6GB for minimum hahaha.Why dont you overclock vram?something between 2 and 3Gb should be alright for high probably i guess.They will also release soon a patch but its so idiotic if only 2GB ram are used?

 

Nope, game eats VRAM and RAM for breakfast.

 

Yep it sure does. It uses about 3600 MB when I play.

 

Someone said that disabling the online component of the game ie. Other players jumping into your game will increase the performance of the game.

People, give this a try and report back if that is repeatable.

Sent from my One using Tapatalk

 

Wish I could.. I've only ever been able to play in off line mod because Uplay love dropping the ball.

 

They should have gone easy with the VRAM, too much VRAM even for high quality settings ! 2.5Gigs..

 

Yeah, I don't understand this sudden surge in game file size and vRAM usage all of a sudden when they don't look any better, sometimes worse, than games from last year and earlier. Even Titanfall consumes vRAM when it looks like a 2005 game.

 

Because texture size != texture quality. If the textures are drawn badly or muddy, then it doesn't matter if you ran the game at 8K res with 64xQ CSAA forced through sacrificing a card in nVidia Control Panel. It's still going to look muddy. It'll be the sharpest muddy texture you've ever seen in your life, but it'll be a hell of a muddy texture. Dark Souls 2 looks better than Titanfall giving me 60fps at 1080p with 4x SMAA, HBAO+ and a Bokeh filter on. Never drops the fps, uses ~50% of each GPU (through GeDoSaTo, the base game did not use SLI when I was playing it so I don't think GeDoSaTo does more than a placebo) running at stock. Titanfall drops me below 60fps with 2x MSAA & everything else maxed, while using 3600-3900MB of vRAM. Dark Souls 2 doesn't know what "more than 1GB of vRAM is".

I said before that I was glad that developers were intending to take advantage of large vRAM pools, because it could allow for greater texture feats graphic-wise, but it appears that I was mistaken. I thought they began using the PC properly due to a lack of a need to focus on the last-gen systems now that current-gen is here (I refuse to call them next-gen), but it seems that they simply went crazy with the amount of available memory and just forgot all about optimization. Titanfall with insane textures doesn't look as bad as people say it does, but I'll be dipped in crap and rolled in breadcrumbs before I think it's even 3/4 as good looking as BF4 and Crysis 3. Hell, even Crysis 2 looks better, albeit not hugely (good for its time or not, 3-4 years has its share of wear and tear in visuals).

Anyway. Consoles have 5.5GB (to game) on X1 and ~6GB (to game) on PS4... devs aren't bound to the 2GB system RAM limit of the x86 architectures anymore, so the x64-only games are starting to use the stuff we got. This is a prime example of a company tossing it in, figuring we'd have enough "spare" memory/power/etc to make it work.

 

Notebookcheck is soon out with their benchmarks from Watch Dogs. Will be interesting to see if one can see any GPUs with little VRAM struggling vs the GPUs with 3GB+

 

I know eh, Crysis 3 @1080p with everything on Ultra + 2x MSAA only eats 2.7GB vRAM at its peak. And it's helluva better looking than most games on the market right now.

 

i run crysis 3 ultra with 2x msaa and never seen it go passed 2GB, consoles ruin everything. We have these PC's with super fast gpu cores and limited VRAM that are now choking, and consoles with mediocore cores and tons of VRAM, very unbalanced. They should have cut the VRAM(or unified memory) on these consoles in half and put in better cpu/gpu's

 

Yeah. I guess it seems they're just getting sloppy, or lazy, or both. Just because they have it available doesn't mean it shouldn't be optimized.

To this day, I'm still very impressed with this project done years ago: .theprodukkt

The full playable game tech demo is 96KB only (yes KB).

<iframe width='480' height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2NBG-sKFaB0" frameborder='0' allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Card with 2 gigs of VRAM like the 860M are struggling with high preset 1080p + MSAA x2...
nbcheck should avoid AA for their high preset !

 

What's your average fps on that setting with 860m 2GB ?

 

I wish I had Watch Dogs and I could see how much VRAM my card would use. The highest I've ever seen my card get was using the Star Swarm bench:

View attachment 112678

 

27 (min: 24) fps source :nbcheck but it seems it's the kepler 4gigs card not the maxwell..

It's 30$ in key sites.. 60$ in uplay..
why not buying it, it's worth the payment !

to delete sorry

 

which key sites/?

 

And that's the entire point. Nobody is working on optimization. It's why there's going to be less and less AAA titles on the market soon. People are poring more and more money into the games, foregoing optimization and instead preferring quick development schedules, and in the end they need to sell SO MUCH to make enough money back. For example: Did you know Bioshock Infinite, with its something like 6 million copies sold, didn't make enough money? That studio was broken off not because he "decided" he "wanted to work on smaller projects" or anything... they simply didn't make back enough cash in sales. It had a 5-year dev cycle and was a $60 single-player game with very little replayability, so it made sense that it didn't sell 15-20 million copies or anything. But yeah, that's the truth. And the sad thing was, that was a game that had pretty good optimization and detail in it.

But yeah. By my account, we're gonna see a lot more games needing "2GB or more of vRAM" in the coming months. I mean 2GB was pretty standard for a lot of things lately, Black Ops 2 used 2GB, BF3 used almost 2GB, Crysis 2 used 2.2GB, Crysis 3 used more than 2GB though 2GB was enough for it, etc. The list goes on. It's just all the unoptimization. I'll still call it back to things: If I can find a game that looks as good or better than a newer one and uses less video memory, the newer one is unoptimized, barring some other radical difference. For an example of a radical difference, Arma 2 has been known to render things FAR in the distance that you can't see... If you tell the game to use "default" video memory it'll use up to 2.6GB of vRAM. "Very high" doesn't work either, that locks it to 1.5GB. People say that's why performance suffers, but in reality it's simply tied to your server. When I go in Arma 2's training I get 99% scaling on both cards WITHOUT FAIL no matter what I'm doing. When I hit a server or play DayZ, my utilization tanks. It's in a state where lowest graphics = highest graphics in terms of experienced fps. But I do notice that I don't get stutters when moving long distances quickly with the video memory set to "default", which means that the extra memory helps long-distance rendering so you're never "out" of rendered area. Usually people use RAM or hard drives for that, but I guess it's simply how Arma 2 works.

But then let's take, for example, a game like Prototype 2. Prototype 2 has some of the BEST looking environments I've ever seen. And it's an open world game with lots of enemies running around. You can't drive cars, but you can jump and dash/glide from building to building. Doesn't crack 1GB of vRAM usage. Looks bloody amazing. Hell, I've found better looking environments in there than some places in Crysis 2. vRAM doesn't seem to be a problem. People need to optimizeeee

I need to stop writing novels at 2am.

 

hello, my notebook i73630qm 240gb ssd 32gb ram 2x ati 7970m CF watch dogs im not played ultra fxaa on very low fps only 15-20 fps. plz help me...

 

This game is getting bad reviews. Some because of graphic and frame rate issues and some because it isn't a good game.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/watch-dogs/user-reviews

Sounds like to me the marketing was much better than the actual game. Are you guys actually enjoying it? I don't want to get a $60 game that fails to be GTA and only adds one button "hacking".

Sent from Tapatalk from an increasingly expensive smartphone

 

Saw a funny pic about "NASA close to run Watch Dogs at max settings" a few days ago but can't find it now. (It's just a picture so text search doesn't help.) Does anyone have a link?

 

getting high temps in this game on my 780m

 

Each game heats up CPU/GPU differently. Maybe this is just one of those games that makes it run hot? BF4 is a prime example of a CPU Toasting Simulator, for example.

 

No..

About a year ago Ubisoft released a version of watchdogs that was very very different to what was shown at E3 2012.
This shows that something happened along the way of development (hint think ps4)

 

i don't even bother with metacritic.

anyway, is vsync working cos the in-game vsync doesn't work but i have the GPU vsync running in place of it?

I also did a test and forced the GPU to vsync to 30fps and running everything on high settings, hbao+low, no motion blur with my alienware 17 and it still stutters while in driving segments so it's definitely an issue with Disrupt's (the game engine) texture streaming. at 30fps it was definitely playable but not fluid and probably not preferable for the sheer power of the 780M.

 

The minute you see "Ubisoft" in the title publisher list, don't expect it to run well on PC XD. You should be able to MAX this game, even nVidia's website says 680 4GB and 770 4GB should set all options to maximum.

 

I was just checking, Crysis 3 is 14GB. Metro Last Light is 9GB. Tomb Raider is 10GB.

Those all have remarkable textures and visuals and audio. Now all of as sudden these games are 40-50GB? Makes not sense. Even BF4 with all of the maps and add-ons and weapons and everything else is 40GB, but that almost seems justified.

 

theorectically a 780m is a downclock gtx 680 which i have overclocked with an unlocked vbios to 1006/6000 so i should be getting the same level of performance...in theory at least

EDIT: i have figured out how to make the game run in a 21:9 aka 2.40:1 aka cinemascope ratio on a 16:9 display. here's what i did.

1. go into the nvidia CP and find the custom resolution section.
2. create the resolution 1920x822 @ 60hz or 120hz depending on the display.
3. go into the gamerprofile.xml for watch dogs and search for Force16_9="1".
4. change the 1 to a 0.
5. load the game.

make sure your GPU is set to do the ratio scaling and not the display.





If you want to find the height of the custom resolution you can use the following equation:

Height = (9 x (width)) / 21

Sent from my One using Tapatalk

EDIT 2: looks like the game does a vertical minus when it comes to widescreen.

 

Yeah. There's no need for massive game file sizes. Games like titanfall make excuses and say how they uncompressed audio so weaker-CPU systems don't dedicate power to uncompressing the audio etc... but then the game releases with broken performance. Titanfall's "beta" *cough* release candidate build chosen for stability to show off how great the game could run *cough* build was able to even run at 60fps with low graphics on my friend's 540m laptop. He played it a lot during beta and so did I and so did some of my friends... then the release came around, and EVERYONE had worse performance. My buddy with the 540M? He can't even cross 35fps. The game's aiming system is related to its fps, which made it literally unplayable for him (and many others over at the titanfall community forum, who were told, by the min specs, that they had enough juice to run it). The whole point about uncompressed audio went out the window, and we were stuck with a game that 1: doesn't run at min spec, 2: doesn't run well at max spec, 3: is NEEDLESSLY 50GB in size and 4: doesn't even look that great due to poor texture quality.

Also, I wrote another book at 3am. Help.
Edit: I guess this wasn't so booky

 

Anyone else here getting regular Nvidia driver crashes with the 337.88's in WatchDogs? All other games are stable and fine that I've tried, but I can't play WatchDogs reliably for whatever reason. Settings don't seem to matter in game, as it gives the same error on even lowest settings. Running at stock clocks on the 860m in my signature.

Seems I'm not the only one:
https://forums.geforce.com/default/...-driver-stopped-working-watch-dogs-crashes/1/

 

I had no crashes with those drivers during my playthrough (finished main story and some optional stuff). Have you tried reinstalling the game or drivers?

 

Yea the game was almost unplayable for me at ultra settings until I changed textures to high and I stopped getting stuttering while driving. This is with 780ti sli. This is also the first game I have ever played that will push my GPU fans to max speed and they will rattle.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Be77solo have you monitored your temps whilst playing?
I had no issue with nvidia drivers.

 

Try using Nvidia Inspector and add Farcry 3 to the Watchdogs profile. I've got it butter smooth 60fps now maxed out with SMAA. The standard Nvidia profile is junk.

I'm loving this game more and more.

 

I haven't tried reinstalling either, worth a shot I suppose but man it's such a big game ha. I'm considering trying an older driver to see if it makes a difference as well.

Temps were in the mid to upper 70C's at the hottest, stock clocks no overclock; I struggle to think it's an actual hardware issue as everything else plays great and stable... particularly, been playing a bunch of Wolfenstein the past couple weeks without issues.

 

I tried that last night and it smoothed it out but lowered the fps. I find that the quote unquote official fix of lowering textures has pretty much gotten rid of stuttering. Game is awesome BTW I reallly like it. I don't know the proper way to complete missions though but I have all these AR rounds I figure...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Shootouts with cops and hearing your rounds thwack against their cars is extremely satisfying

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Probably software related. Definitely try some new /old drivers and use driver sweeper to remove old drivers.
Good luck.

 

guys need some help here. I am with gtx 780m sli+3920xm+16 GB ram

Really getting crappy frames should I disable SLI? At what settings should I play

After nearly a year I found a game worth playing and suiting my taste but I cant Play at all.

GTX 780m SLi running at 850/2500+ 3920xm @ Stck speed

 

@Riddhy916 the game optimization is broken. It's not your PC, it's the game. You can try using Far Cry 3's SLI bits and see if it works, people have stated successes with that. Otherwise, force it to one card and hope for the best.

 

Read through the Nvidia 337.88 driver thread in the Alienware 18 section or do a search. Compatibility bits is the answer.
I'll be posting up a new video in a couple of days with close to fixed 60fps gameplay using Shadowplay too. It's entirely possible to have a butter smooth experience.

UPDATE: here's the link

 

thanks bro ....why arent developers and nvidia not releasing any patch or drivers come on waiting for your video