Post by Eorl @ 10:11am 08/04/14 | 59 Comments
As suggested by the previously leaked requirements, Watch Dogs will be requiring a somewhat beefy system on launch, even in the minimum section which needs a whopping 6GB of RAM. To go hand-in-hand with the high RAM requirements Ubisoft has also opted for 64-bit support, an occurrence in PC gaming that seems to be gaining steam.
Minimum:As you can see the specs are reasonably high, though for those like myself who are still sporting a GTX 570 it looks like we may have a bit of life left. How do you compare with these requirements? In need of a new upgrade soon? Let us know in the comments below!
OS: Windows Vista (SP2), Windows 7 (SP1) or Windows 8 (Please note that we only support 64 bit OSs.)
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66Ghz or AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.0Ghz
Memory: 6 GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 11 graphics card with 1 GB Video RAM - Nvidia Geforce GTX 460 or AMD Radeon HD 5770
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 25 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Sound Card with Latest Drivers
Recommended:
OS: Windows Vista (SP2), Windows 7 (SP1) or Windows 8 (Please note that we only support 64 bit OSs.)
Processor: Eight core - Intel Core i7-3770 @3.5 GHz or AMD FX-8350 X8 @ 4 GHz
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 11 graphics card with 2 GB Video RAM - Nvidia Geforce GTX 560 ti or AMD Radeon HD 7850
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 25 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Sound Card with Latest Drivers
Watch Dogs will be released worldwide on May 27th, 2014 on PlayStation 4, PlayStation 3, Microsoft Xbox One, Microsoft Xbox 360 and Windows PC. The Wii U version will release at a later date.
Buy now from Green Man Gaming Only GBP£41.99!
Latest Comments
59 Comments
Show
Follow Us
Advertisement
Log In
Posted 10:22am 08/4/14
Simple maths dictate that this will clearly be 3 times as good as Titanfall.
Posted 10:22am 08/4/14
Posted 10:26am 08/4/14
Steal :)
PS I think my system may struggle a bit with i.... gtx 560, i5 2400 & 8Gb ram, so I may need to tune it down a bit
Posted 10:26am 08/4/14
Posted 10:52am 08/4/14
Posted 11:05am 08/4/14
Posted 11:14am 08/4/14
Posted 11:19am 08/4/14
i7 4770K
GTX780
16GB RAM
Posted 11:22am 08/4/14
Posted 11:25am 08/4/14
Posted 11:33am 08/4/14
How is it arbitrary if the game requires 6GB of memory, but your 32-bit Windows can't allow programs to each access more than ~3GB of linear memory?
My experience with FarCry 3:
* Launch Steam, wait for it to connect to Steam servers. Log in. Launch "game".
* Uplay opens, wait for it to connect to Uplay servers. Log in. Launch real game.
* FarCry 3 opens, wait for it to connect to servers. Load last game ...
Posted 11:40am 08/4/14
your specs are very close to the recommended, with the only exception being that you have an i5, which is heaps faster then a q8400 as it is. it should run fine.
Erol,
To say that "Ubisoft has opted for 64-bit only support" sounds like you're saying Ubisoft made a trivial decision because they felt like it.
It is a fundamental fact that a 32-bit operating system (Windows in this case) can only assign a maximum of 2GB of Ram to a single application, despite the system maximum being 4GB.
Simply, a 32-bit operating system is not capable of holding enough information in ram to for this game, thus the 64-bit requirement.
I find these specs quite mild.
6GB of ram was a common amount of ram in systems with the launch of LGA 1366 along with the first i7 processor back in 2008, which was still a lot more powerful then a q8400.
The worst and unfortunately a very common thing would be if you bought a system with 32-bit windows, a format reinstall is not fun (also, because it's 32-bit you wouldn't have been given more the 4GB of ram) to fix this you would likely need to install 64-bit windows, which you would have to buy, and also buy more ram.
As a clarification, I've said what I have to be constructive, and I don't intend for it to sound critical.
Posted 01:40pm 08/4/14
Posted 02:13pm 08/4/14
RAM though..
Posted 02:15pm 08/4/14
Posted 02:43pm 08/4/14
Posted 03:01pm 08/4/14
From Hoggys pic:
Windows 8.1 64 bit 12.90%
Windows 8 64 bit 9.14%
Windows 8 0.49%
Windows 8.1 0.38%
Windows 7 32 bit 12.10%
How is 12.1% higher than 22.91%?
Posted 03:14pm 08/4/14
of more direct concern id assume some type of future is past future type 32<->64 reality bleed typo
it would point to the most obvious
Posted 03:25pm 08/4/14
And how much would you spend on a PC thats going to be powerful enough to meet the specs for everything for the next 10 years? $3k? $4k? More? Versus $500 for a console that also will let you play everything for the next 10 years. So I guess if you were to 'buy smart' the console is the obvious choice?
Posted 04:43pm 08/4/14
I guess that happens is when you are using Virtual Machines or your onbard video card is using some dedicated ram
Posted 05:11pm 08/4/14
Posted 05:34pm 08/4/14
If grainy console graphics are your thing, go for it. I wouldn't even give these consoles 5 years, now they're using x86 hardware, time will tell. What was easy to tell was how long in the tooth the last gen consoles were - years ago.
Question: With BF4 - one of the first games on the next gen consoles - did they ever get it running at 1080p smoothly on the 1 month old hardware?
It's my opinion that for the most full gaming experience, throwing wads of money at it makes it more enjoyable. From a comfy chair, nice desk, peripherals, screens, audio, video, yadda yadda. - However, this debate could be fueled for weeks so I'll just leave it there.
Posted 05:37pm 08/4/14
Posted 06:19pm 08/4/14
That's my experience too. It's also why I haven't played Farcry 3 again. I refuse to sully my PC with uplay. I love steam, I tolerate origin, I loathe uplay. We don't need every damn company making their own version, once people man up and stop buying this s***, they might say oh hey maybe we should just use steam like every other civilised person and do away with having to be logged into 3 different clients just to play one damn game.
Posted 06:47pm 08/4/14
Sorry I ment all versions of 8.1. eg 32 & 64bit.
Posted 07:24pm 08/4/14
i5 3570k
8gb DDR3 1600
Radeon HD 7990
256gb SSD and 6tb of storage (though I had 4tb already)
Some $90 asRock mobo
700w brand name PSU (I don't remember off hand, probs corsair or antec).
I purchased:
Vid card, CPU, RAM, Mobo, Case, PSU and 2x 120mm case fans. I already had a monitor, mouse and keyboard plus a few HDD's from my last system, but it was essentially an entirely fresh build in terms of major components.
The only reason "top end" systems cost so much is mostly due to the ignorance of the buyer. Or, obviously, they're willing to pay much more than they need to because the case looks badass etc.
My system benches in the top 5% in 3d mark with nothing except an OC on the CPU (runs at 4.2ghz) and it was WELL under what you said. If I had your estimated budgets (3 or 4k) I could have bought myself a motorbike AND an oculus rift along side it.
The only real weakness is the VRAM on the 7990 (3GB) but even so, that should still be more than enough until the end of this console generation (another 10 years if the past is any indication). Even then, unless there's a fundamental shift in games and technology, it will probably still kick the s*** out of the next console release as well.
Posted 08:38pm 08/4/14
Posted 04:34am 09/4/14
I was keen for this, but now I'm not so sure.
PC gaming should be the 'master race' but given the number of disjointed 'platforms' required (I'm not talking hardware at all either) make it a headache. And each different platform comes with its own set of pros and cons.
Part of me is very glad to see GFWL go, another part of me still sees GFWL's overlay performing much better than the s***tily assembled uPlay overlay.
Posted 05:31am 09/4/14
Has this become a 'new' method for arguing the PC/Console thing?
For reference, Prescott P4's and nVidia Geforce 6's are 10 years old...
Who here is still running ANYTHING PC from that era?
(I'm not gonna lie to you, I have a [borrowed] SNES in the loungeroom that's still going strong)
Posted 08:53am 09/4/14
That aint going to cut the mustard for 10 years buddy, 5 tops, probably 2-3.
Posted 10:26am 09/4/14
Hrmm, unless you got some super sweet inside deal or it fell off the back of a truck or something, I'm doubting $1200 when theres a 7990 in the mix. Either way though its beside the point, its still more than double what the average punter would drop on a console. Emphasis on 'average', because we aren't the average gamer. I'm not anti-PC by any means, I've easily dropped a few thousand dollars on my PC in the past couple of years, but I wouldn't be recommending anyone else do the same, its really for the enthusiasts only. The reality is, we're the minority when it comes to gaming these days, and most people probably couldn't even tell the difference between something running in 720p and something running in 1080p, especially on a television. For a lot of people a console is a much cheaper, easier alternative.
Posted 01:52pm 09/4/14
People say "Consoles are cheaper, you have to upgrade every few years on PC" yet you actually don't. You need to upgrade at the start of a console life span and you should be fine for the life of said console.
Also, there are still people running 8800gt's and such, so it's not that silly to think about. Hardware req's are pretty static for 10 years for most AAA titles thanks to the console hardware. Possibly the only thing I can think of that might alter this is if VR takes off big-time and hardware evolves around it.
Tollaz0r - this thing still whips the s*** out of the console CPU's and it should continue to do so unless games start becoming very poorly optimized on the CPU power side. Worst case, in 5 years if it starts to chug, I drop $350 on a new CPU and maybe motherboard to take advantage of the increased use of multi-threading in games.
Khel - I just got one EoL. They dropped down to pretty low prices when I picked mine up.
All up, I spent:
$80 - Mobo
$230 - CPU
$50 - RAM
$40 - Case
$175 - SSD
$700ish - PSU and 7990
Total - $1275 - Almost $1300 if you include fans, but you can also remove the SSD as it isn't essential to the build as well. If you take that off the price and instead throw in a 7200RPM HDD, it comes to around $1200 for a full upgrade.
It's not hard to get a ripper PC for cheap if you keep an eye out for a good deal.
Posted 03:14pm 09/4/14
Who says this stuff? In 10 years time they will be so deprecated that people will turn to PC in the midst and not look back.
As you just said, the GF6 series was out 10 years ago (DX9 compatible). We've been through about 7 generations of graphics card in that time. Anyone playing BF4 on a GF6800 Ultra? The answer is a firm no.
Posted 03:46pm 09/4/14
for no really good reason
regardless of how superior you think you are, fact is consoles market share only getting bigger. why is it so hard to like both? each have certain strengths and weaknesses
Posted 03:50pm 09/4/14
Well, I'm going based off the fact that the 360 and PS3 have had that long a shelf life (ok, not quite, but I rounded up to make it a nice easy number), along with the PS2.
Sure, in 10 years these new consoles will be slow and terrible much like the 360 and ps3 are now. Doesn't mean they won't be milked for that long though. And games will still be getting made for them even at the end of those 10 years of life.
And maybe there was mild exaggeration in saying 10 year old hardware was in use today, but I wasn't far off. I said 8800GT's are still being used and they are. 7 year old card that can still run BF4. I think it's far more likely that now, with the ability to have SLi and Xfire with relative ease, 10 years will be not as big a deal to high end cards of today.
Posted 04:44pm 09/4/14
Posted 04:49pm 09/4/14
Posted 05:12pm 09/4/14
While this "live and let live" ideal is a great mentality It tends to work for many things but not for everything.
For example It doesn't work in this PC vs Console scenario.
Posted 05:42pm 09/4/14
Posted 07:21pm 09/4/14
It's like saying X brand of golf clubs is worse than Y. Someone arguing that wouldn't be classed as stupid.
And as for why it's so hard to like both? Because beyond exclusive games and userbase, consoles are worse in literally every way. I had a Ps3 that gathered about 3cm of dust and was used for maybe 40 hours total over the years I owned it because my PC did everything better.
Posted 07:35pm 09/4/14
and this right here is where you enter sad-act territory. it's ok to have opinions on inconsequential s***, but to care so much you will debate it on an internet forum or look down on someone who thinks the opposite is pathetic. which just about sums up the gaming community, so don't take it personally, but take it nonetheless.
Posted 07:50pm 09/4/14
Thats kinda the point though, it doesn't need to be PC vs Console
Posted 07:50pm 09/4/14
And we all know how much of a sad experience that would be.
Ah, but the future is memory bandwidth. When the GTX1000 arrives with approx 4 times the total mem bandwidth of current gen - yet another new benchmark for the devs is unlocked. A year or two after that you'll have the old gen users asking why their cards are running slow even though they have 3 or 4 of them.
Within 12 months of cards with double the RAM of previous generations coming out, games are out there chewing up the majority of it.
Ultimately, I'd be very surprised if the PS4/Xbox make it past 5 years. Same motherboard, double the RAM, up the chip spec and bam, PS5.
Posted 11:33pm 09/4/14
Posted 12:36am 10/4/14
This is one of the few SP games I'm vaguely interested in checking out, but I really don't think I could be bothered if it has Uplay as a hard requirement. I just don't have the energy to deal with Yet Another Dumb System in front of the games that I want to play. Ubi do such great stuff but their track record on "getting" PC has been woeful.
Posted 06:10am 10/4/14
lol
Posted 10:11am 10/4/14
Posted 12:13pm 10/4/14
Yes it does.
And yet you would be the 1st to have a dig at someone if they were trying to have a chat about something "serious" (like factory farming etc). Now it seems inconsequential things (like gaming) are also off limits to debate? Are we down to polite greetings and general discussion about the weather? If so i guess you are in trouble because you have no idea what polite is. You don't even know polite's postcode.
Posted 12:23pm 10/4/14
further, the political threads on this forum contain some of the stupidest s*** written in any language even if the voynich manuscript was all about being a stupid f*****g idiot. and the amount of words typed alone is an affront to decency.
but if you want to be a massive gay baby on a web forum you can argue about what thousands of dollars worth of entertainment system is superior. you can. this forum will facilitate that. but people like me are going to call you a god damn retard manbabby
Posted 12:25pm 10/4/14
Sorry but how the f*** does that matter? It seriously boggles my mind that people think console gaming and PC gaming can't co-exist and you have to pick one. Source: I have consoles and a PC.
Posted 12:34pm 10/4/14
Posted 12:51pm 10/4/14
This. You'll never teach a dirty, filthy console peasant any better - we need to move on.
Posted 01:22pm 10/4/14
+1
Posted 05:31pm 10/4/14
i'm pretty sure he was being ironic. a grown ass man that pays bills does not give a f*** about these things.
Posted 01:50am 11/4/14
Contrary to his dumb opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to debate the merits of different platforms, because in many cases different platforms have quantifiable or qualifiable differences that actually matter to some people (e.g., systems that require high speed broadband for digital download are useless to people who live in an area where such a thing is not available).
Similarly, some actual game experiences are far better on one platform than another. FPS games are more playable on PC, a fact that will remain no matter how much Call of Duty players wish it was otherwise. However, other games are far more enjoyable and easy to play with a controller. And compounding the issue, there are games that should be better on PC, but aren't because of bad ports.
So actually yes, it's fine to have different opinions on things and argue about them, EVEN ON THE INTERNET. Just because you've made up your mind and know everything doesn't mean everyone else in the world has.
It's especially relevant for this thread because Ubisoft have a long proud tradition of doing whatever they can to f*** PC gamers over. And without discussion about HOW and WHY they have done so, it is hard to make an informed choice. As I said, I'd love to play this game because it looks awesome - I'd rather play it on PC because that is my preferred platform, but if I'm going to get a brutally savaged version that will cripple my PC with DRM or make me jump through hoops with Uplay, then I'd rather try it on console (or, more likely, not bother playing it at all).
Blithely and rudely writing off the discussion and then abusing everyone because you don't want to hear who thinks what is better is exactly as obnoxious as PC and console fanatics that don't shut up about which one is better. But sometimes one IS better than the other. In this case its probably the console version, and I say that as a representative of the PC master race.
Posted 07:06am 11/4/14
you must have been disappointed that i recognised it and didn't write a huge paragraph in a frothing rage and furtherm
oh
Posted 07:30am 11/4/14
Posted 11:13am 11/4/14
Posted 11:56am 11/4/14