And you will most likely have to pay the price of a higher end GPU for it, just to have a overkill CPU.
- Status
Why would you upgrade for TW3 8 months before release? It's not like it takes months to build and purchase a PC. Wait for the system requirement announcement and buy your stuff accordingly. You will get more performance for your money in 8 months and you will know better what you need.
That's my plan atm.
Not saying I was buying an 8 core CPU. Just glad that they finally release them to the market to see how they actually perform with games. And against the current Quads.
Also, a lot of my friends said my i7 920 was overkill, but it turned out to be one of the best components I've ever bought.
They haven't. That was just BS spread by some idiot on some site.
That's great then. I have a 6TX 660 and Intel Core i5-4570 so i guess that would be enough. I guess i should upgrade some Ram. I only have 8 GB.
I have only 6GB ram and i7 930 and GTX 780 GLH and I have no problem with capacity of RAM.Watch Dogs which is very demanding on ram is OK on my PC on ultra settings so 8GB ram is momentally enough I think.But specially for Witcher I´m planning an upgrade mainly CPU because i7 930 is very old and in some case its a little bit bottlenecking my GTX 780 GLH.
That is the way it always goes though, the first models of a new tech cost a lot, expect the same thing for DDR4 memory.
It doesn't get truer by constantly repeating it. This statement is just wrong. The PC port of Watch_Dogs is ok for the genre and it offers good graphics for the hardware. An open world game is NOT a linear shooter. Have a look at GTA IV to see how other companies were able to optimize such a game on PC...
Witcher 3 will be an open world game as well. It will be very difficult to optimize it properly since so many calculations are running in the background at every moment. It's not a scripted game like Crysis or Metro where you can plan your graphics very well in each moment. Ubisoft has done a good job with the ports of AC IV and Watch_Dogs imo, both look and play great on my mid-level hardware. For the kind of game and genre the games are better optimized than the competition and also offer way better visuals and tech.
Playing Witcher 3 at constant 60 FPS isn't needed imo. It's neither a fast FPS nor a racing game. I would personally rather go for really good visuals instead of having a high frame rate in such a game. If you want to play Witcher 3 at constant 60 FPS with ultra visuals you need of course a very good GPU, that should be clear. But that's neither the minimum nor recommended system requirements but some "luxury settings" for the best optics possible.
Absolutely yes. You can't compare the game to Crysis or Metro because these are corridor shooters. Show me even one other open world game with similar features to Watch_Dogs that looks even half as good as Watch_Dogs on respective hardware. Far Cry 3 didn't look better and it had way less calculations in the background. The moving objects on the screen and background calculations are the problem here...
I suggest that you should compare the game to other games of the same genre. Developing and optimizing an open world game is a completely different story than doing the same for a corridor shooter. It's way too easy (and dumb) to cry about the performance of Watch_Dogs without taking into account the features and systems of each single game in comparison. "Watch_Dogs was a bad port" is just a stupid statement since it lacks any serious attempt of delivering arguments. It's pointles complaining...
Lol, do you even know what you're talking about? Watch_Dogs runs on all 8 of my CPU threads (4 cores with hyperthreading) with almost similar load (30-40% each). I can prove that anytime with an MSI Afterburner log.
Wow, show me one modern AAA game that is that perfectly released that there are no patched needed after all. As I said, high-end AMD cards don't scale well enough with nvidia high-end cards. Most benchmarks show that effect and I guess that's one of the major concerns in the patch. Also crossfire and SLI setups don't work well with the game. I never said that the game is a perfect example for a multiplatform game on PC. But this pointless complaining that the port is SOOOOO bad is just ridiculous. The game runs well on most systems if you just choose the right settings. Some poeple pretend that you couldn't even properly play Watch_Dogs on PC and that's imo just hilarious and plain wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I can not say otherwise then that the pc port of Watch Dogs is an unoptimised mess with crazy requirements for a game that looks like it should require a lot less. I am glad that the above poster is happy with it but I see statements of it being a good port as utter nonsense.
Yeah...imo, AC4 looks much better than WD and somehow it has lower requirements
and both are from Ubisoft...
Absolutely not.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting, GTA IV is one of the worst ports to ever exist yes and W_D is only marginally better and that is no feat. One of the Ubi devs on twitter was doing damage control and said a patch was being worked on, clearly they know their game isn't in a good state.
Neither does Watch_Dogs have impressive visuals not do I see anything that was a technical marvel. That's just a very misinformed thing to say that they were good ports, they weren't, they were terrible. If your game is recommending high end CPUs but is only actually using two cores properly at best and is performing well only on processors that are better at single threaded performance and the multi threaded processors are performing very poorly then clearly it's not a good port.
Last edited:
Wolfenstein even run at my old rig (Core 2 Duo E8400, HD6870) with some massive slowdown, but overall it run ok, can't say the same thing with Watch Dogs tough.
- Status