lowrider007
Weaksauce
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 72
Please guys can you do an i5 vs i7 bench, pleeeeeeeeeeease!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please guys can you do an i5 vs i7 bench, pleeeeeeeeeeease!!
I guess we all need a AMD W9100 16GB to be future proof. This is one HELL of a "R9 290X" workstation video card. Check it out. Now a bad price either, considering what you get!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195129&cm_re=W9100-_-14-195-129-_-Product
You can run these cards in gaming. And you lose about 5% performance VS. a regular R9 290x only because of the extra built in software. But you can game with it
TechSpot's test was done in the hotel area at the start of the game, and walking down the street.
Not the most reliable results. According to them I should be sitting happily at 62fps... lol.
Wish I had 4GB 680's, oh well the 880 can't be too far off at this point.
Wondering if those having performance issues are running into system memory issues. 16GB needed now?
Agreed. This is a game-specific issue, not an issue that's necessarily applicable to any other game. Ubi seems to be a little flippant about resource management only because, on the consoles, they can be.I wouldn't go VRAM crazy just yet...I think this game still has a long way to go to be optimized. There is really no reason we should be seeing 3+ GB VRAM usage with the textures this game has.
Watch Dogs is running around 2 GB consistently for me.Wondering if those having performance issues are running into system memory issues. 16GB needed now?
Yeah, I think the real issue for this game is, for that 3+ GB VRAM requirement, what are you actually getting in terms of texture quality? Everything I have seen so far looks nothing like anything that should require that kind of VRAM usage.
Looking forward to the IQ follow-up.
According to nVidia 780Ti with 3GB of VRAM is enough to play on ultra in 1080p. I guess they do not want to admit how badly Ubi dropped the ball with memory requirements - so badly, that their flagship GPU does not have enough memory for highest settings.Running an R9 290X (4GB RAM) with Ultra settings and GPU-Z shows 3.7 GB of VRAM used while I play the game! Yikes!
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dogs_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review said:You can mark my words, Ubisoft is going to release a bunch of zero-day patches as Watch Dogs does not seems to be behaving the way it should with better than HIGH image quality settings.
Concluding then, as much as we like games to stress graphics cards we are a little puzzled. Watch Dogs is not a game that looks mouth-watering good, I mean it is nice and all, but it is just that. To see graphics card struggle this much over graphics memory is weird to see. However if you use our guidelines then your frame-rate should remain very acceptable and the game playable whilst looking good. You will still run into the occasional stutters here and there as it is the nature of the game engine I'm afraid. Let's hope Ubisoft is able to release a patch that at the very least eliminated the heavy stutters.
For the first two graphs we will be using the built-in overall quality option of "Ultra" to keep everything comparable. Look on the previous page to see what those "Ultra" settings are. This means HBAO mode in use is "MHBAO."
In Watch Dogs, gamers can enable Ubisoft’s half-resolution, console-quality Ambient Occlusion technique, MHBAO
Well, the games run amazing for me! I am playing right now on a
RIG ONE ----- RIG TWO
Intel i7 3820 @ 4.3 Ghz ----- Intel i7 4820K @ 4.85Ghz
4x4Gb DDR3 1866mhz ----- 4x4GB DDR3 1866
Samsung 840 evo ssd ---- Samsung 840 evo SSD
GTX 780 Classified 1293/7000------GTX 780 Classified "Not tinkered wid yet"
It is very SIMPLE! Just turn the shadows to "High", instead of Ultra, and run the textures to high instead of Ultra. I don't see a big quality difference. Or any at all! The game runs, lag free! It uses about 2gb of vram, and does not skip or studder one bit.
"Ultra textures is another story. I just don't see a difference in picture quality, or graphics detail. I just see a HUGE performance hit! And unless you have a 6GB GTX 780 or a 6Gb Titan. Then you cannot play it smoothly.
Also, another issue to condsider, when your video card runs out of memory. The game will use your system page file instead of your SYSTEM MEMORY! So, if you disable the PAGE FILE. It will use your VRAM, and DDR system ram. It helped some for me.
But regardless! I have every single option set to "Ultra" accept for, textures = High.. And Shadows is = High, everything else is on "Ultra" With 2X MSAA
And it runs amazing! I dunno why but it just does! Even on my GTX 660 OEM It ran just as good on the same settings, and it was only a 1.5GB card
The 660 OEM was clocked at like 1306mhz/ and 7160mhz memory lol. But it ran the game like a beast! Everything on ultra, 2xaa high shadows, high tectures
Also, I have 16X AF forced in the Driver, and FX AA, as well High quality AF enabled. And Gama correction, and Ambient occlusion forced to.
the textures to high instead of Ultra. I don't see a big quality difference. Or any at all!
is it worth it to run this game at "Ultra" textures? The answer is yes. We have discovered many situations where there are big differences between "High" texture quality and "Ultra" texture quality. We've noticed this on textures on buildings, indoors and outdoors, on posters, billboards in the game, and basically any type of image put over a texture. It is a very texture-rich gameplay world. "
The difference between high and ultra is pretty noticeable. http://international.download.nvidi...dogs-textures-comparison-1-ultra-vs-high.html
not on my screen and i am viewing that on a macbook retina display