• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Watch Dogs AMD & NVIDIA GPU Performance Preview @ [H]

So UBI forgot that PC does not have unified memory? No, they just spent zero effort on optimizing for PC specific architecture (non unified memory) and figured that gamers can go buy a card with 4 or 6GB RAM, problem solved!

This reminds me of something: "On PC, usually you don’t really care about the performance, because the idea is that if it’s not [running] fast enough, you buy a bigger GPU.”

Guess who said that? http://www.incgamers.com/2013/11/ubisoft-trolls-pc-users-buy-bigger-gpu-comment


"and can shoot for high res assets"
Assets in Watch Dogs are not of higher quality then a number of older games which did not require so much memory.

EDIT:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-watch-dogs-face-off said:
On PC, the story isn't quite so rosy. Despite the release of drivers from AMD and Nvidia apparently optimised for the game, we cannot find any way of playing this game at maximum settings without some off-putting performance issues. We've tried GTX 780s in SLI, Radeon R9 290X, GTX 780 Ti and even the 6GB GTX Titan, all of them backed up by a six-core Intel i7 3930K - a level of CPU power that significantly exceeds the recommended spec. In all cases, there are frame-rate and consistency issues that need to be resolved, and a particular rethink is required in the way that AMD graphics hardware handles this game.
Click to expand...

Gee, what a surprise! Once again ubi spat PC players in the face by releasing unoptimized POS. Wonder what they were doing for the last 6 months since the release delay. There is no excuse.
 
Last edited:
Simplex said:
So UBI forgot that PC does not have unified memory? No, they just spent zero effort on optimizing for PC specific architecture (non unified memory) and figured that gamers can go buy a card with 4 or 6GB RAM, problem solved!
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand his point. The game spends 3+ gb solely on graphics and does not represent the total memory consumption on console.

It's not a matter of unified vs. discrete graphics; you can't optimize to run 3gb of content on a 2gb system. You can only reduce the resolution of the content so that it becomes 2gb of content.
 
hordaktheman said:
It's not a matter of unified vs. discrete graphics; you can't optimize to run 3gb of content on a 2gb system. You can only reduce the resolution of the content so that it becomes 2gb of content.
Click to expand...
You can, sort of. Wolfenstein 'optimizes' terabyte(s) of raw surface data into a gig or two per scene with virtualization. Direct3D has such a capability built right in, with resource tiling.

I don't actually believe most scenes in Watch Dogs require as much data as is being soaked up, however. I think it's probably just a consequence of a lack of scalability in the renderer front-end.
 
Digital Foundry: "In terms of pure GPU workload, there's absolutely no reason why a good high-end card like the GTX 780 or R9 290 shouldn't offer up a locked 60fps at 1080p at the highest settings
Texture management seems to be the major culprit - streaming ultra-level assets into and out of RAM simply doesn't happen fast enough, resulting in noticeable stutter. It's not a RAM issue based on our testing - we replaced a 3GB GTX 780 Ti with a 6GB GTX Titan, producing the exact same result. Only by lowering texture quality from ultra to high did we improve matters, and even then the stutter wasn't completely eliminated. We also factored out graphical quality presets too by dropping down to medium settings - and yet still we saw dips in overall performance"

They are reporting really abysmal performance on ATI hardware, which is surprising. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-watch-dogs-face-off
 
Last edited:
Simplex said:
Digital Foundry: "In terms of pure GPU workload, there's absolutely no reason why a good high-end card like the GTX 780 or R9 290 shouldn't offer up a locked 60fps at 1080p at the highest settings
Texture management seems to be the major culprit - streaming ultra-level assets into and out of RAM simply doesn't happen fast enough, resulting in noticeable stutter. It's not a RAM issue based on our testing - we replaced a 3GB GTX 780 Ti with a 6GB GTX Titan, producing the exact same result. Only by lowering texture quality from ultra to high did we improve matters, and even then the stutter wasn't completely eliminated. We also factored out graphical quality presets too by dropping down to medium settings - and yet still we saw dips in overall performance"[/url]
Click to expand...

That's fascinating. In dependent of scene resolution, stuttering occurs because of the texture resolution. That sounds like a game-development 101 mistake to me...
 
hordaktheman said:
I think you misunderstand his point. The game spends 3+ gb solely on graphics and does not represent the total memory consumption on console.

It's not a matter of unified vs. discrete graphics; you can't optimize to run 3gb of content on a 2gb system. You can only reduce the resolution of the content so that it becomes 2gb of content.
Click to expand...

you really need to stop trying to argue because you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Odellus said:
you really need to stop trying to argue because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Except the game's technical director is on record stating that the console versions use a 3gb framebuffer. That you need a 3gb PC framebuffer to match a 3gb console framebuffer is a basic fact of computing.

You can argue as much as you want that the game doesn't need 3gb of framebuffer memory to achieve that level of graphics. But that has nothing to with some imagined 'unoptimized PC version' because it would also be true of the consoles. If they can 'optimize' the PC version to use a 2gb framebuffer then they can 'optimize' the console version to use a 2gb framebuffer.
 
Simplex said:
They are reporting really abysmal performance on ATI hardware, which is surprising. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-watch-dogs-face-off
Click to expand...
I matched their settings from the first benchmark in the video: 1080p, Ultra settings, Temporal AA, MHBAO.
Their results:
http://i.imgur.com/K2DvJic.png
My results:
http://i.imgur.com/hleFSTp.png

Random shots from the same street:
http://imgur.com/a/TaNpY

I also repeated the LAST test from their video (High textures, Medium settings):
Their Results:
http://i.imgur.com/5fQXI6b.png
My results:
http://i.imgur.com/EsrToK7.png

Their 290x's average fps (30) is my minimum. What?
The idiots tested with vsync on.
 
Last edited:
TaintedSquirrel said:
I matched their settings from the first benchmark in the video: 1080p, Ultra settings, Temporal AA, MHBAO.
Their results:
http://i.imgur.com/K2DvJic.png
My results:
http://i.imgur.com/hleFSTp.png

Random shots from the same street:
http://imgur.com/a/TaNpY

I also repeated the LAST test from their video (High textures, Medium settings):
Their Results:
http://i.imgur.com/5fQXI6b.png
My results:
http://i.imgur.com/EsrToK7.png

Their 290x's average fps (30) is my minimum. What?
The idiots tested with vsync on.
Click to expand...

They also mention out-of-memory stutters on that 6gb Titan where another site will peg that at a solid 60fps on Ultra.

This is what bothers me about so many sites that pretend to an authority. You only need to install a single application to see how much GPU and VRAM is being used while allocation of system memory is a click away and nobody even bothers checking for hard drive activity.

People often knock me for being an Apple user who 'just wants things to work' and is an irony unto itself.
 
I think it's safe to say that Eurogamer, being a game review website, was playing the advance press review version which was given to reviewers well before any performance drivers were available from either AMD or NV. Keep in mind that Eurogamer is not a hardware review site specifically (although they have done that), their schtick is playing games and they received an advance copy of Watch Dogs. Basically, the game still plays like shit on both sets of hardware when maxed out, but plays less shitty than it did without the latest performance drivers. Totalbiscuit noted the same thing in his "WTF IS watch dogs" video - the game played like shit on SLI titans. He was using a pre-release review copy which pre-dated all performance drivers. Granted, like I said - the game still is an unoptimized pile of garbage but it is less so now with performance drivers (oxymoron, hey)!.
 
Ya, I'm a big fan of both so I don't want to knock them. I was reading C&VG as a 13 year old in 1990 so I've nothing but good things to say about Leadbetter. He's a good journalist and he doesn't pretend to be a hardware or software guru.

No, what bothers me is when the so-called hardware press goes on a 'consolized' frenzy and doesn't bother checking for these things I mentioned. They're the ones pretending to be an authority while coming up short. Modern PCs are immensely complex machines and if SteamOS is supposed to take off then we need better than 'durr, no worky' kinds of PC journalism.

Here's a choice quote from the recent PC Gamer article on Wolfenstein:

Fixing this meant updating his graphics drivers - thanks to guide4games.net for the tip.
Click to expand...
It happens twice in that article.
 
Well it doesn't change much. The performance drivers help but the game simply does not look good enough given the steep requirements. Context: very few people have 3+ GB graphics cards in the big picture. Maybe 2% or less. We are the minority.

There is simply no excuse for this kind of port without modifications to the engine to be more fitting for the PC. That's just all there is to it. The graphics are NOT very good and certainly do not warranty the extreme amount of VRAM its asking for. I understand the consoles have unified memory. Well guess what the PC doesn't. So modify the goddamn engine instead of giving us a huge pile of shit that has performance issues even with the performance drivers. Yes, the game runs LESS shitty with performance drivers, but given what the game acutally looks like, still should run better.

I can only imagine what the "average" PC gamer is experiencing with Watch Dogs. Again, context. Very few people have 500$+ GPUs. Period. The vast majority of the player base is getting a shit experience in Watch Dogs. There's a reason why the game is getting terrible scores for user ratings on metacritic. This is the reason. If you make a game that runs marginal on the best of the best hardware, what do you expect the AVERAGE PC gamer to experience? You know, the PC gamer that has a more reasonable Pc. These folks do not have GTX 780ti's or 290X GPUs. Yeah, if the high end has a marginal experience with ultra settings then those guys are getting a truly shit experience at all settings. There's just no excuse. The game engine should be modified to be more fitting for the PC, that's all there is to it. No, the PC does not have unified memory. So fucking deal with it, Ubisoft. The game does NOT look good enough to even remotely require as much VRAM as it does.

All the more reason for everyone to skip this game until it's in a steam sale for 10 bucks.
 
stutter and lag will be fixed, but you are still going to need more than 3gb of vram if you attempt to play the game on ultra with AA because these are two isolated issues.

I predicted that this would happen before PS4 came out, people thought I was trolling, including on this site.

This is the new norm from now on, PS4 has 8gb of GDDR5 and it can use more than 4gb of VRAM for games, so be ready when you see console ports going to PC.

Hence the reason why next-gen GPU's from AMD and Nvidia are starting off with 6gb of vram and up.
 
TroyX said:
I predicted that this would happen before PS4 came out, people thought I was trolling, including on this site.
Click to expand...
Meh, it happened the last time round as well. King Kong came out on the 360 and people went rabblerabblerabble/poor PC port/consolized/I don't need a 7800GTX for this.

Turned out they just needed a better GPU.
 
Well I managed to get rid of stuttering. Had to go to straight up crossfire instead of trifire on my 290x's and the frame rate is still pretty low for the system I am throwing at it. 50-60 fps which is playable and now I can enjoy the game which is actually kind of fun . Still though if it takes me a 4930k 290x's and 32 gigs of ddr3 at 2400mhz to get 50-60 fps @1440p that says something about the optimization of this game.
 
wonderfield said:
Instrumentation and shader blobs. No big deal.


Direct3D is not inherently inefficient (compared to what high-level graphics API?), and no console uses the same Direct3D available in Windows: it uses a derivative of Direct3D. Many of the optimization efforts done for the X1 simply do not translate to D3D11.x.

These are technological and architectural reasons, not conspiratorial.
Click to expand...

Well, then AMD and nVidia should fire their whole driver team and hire you.
 
So this is the next gen of gaming? Sub par graphics that eat up more resources on PC? I used to remember when games actually looked a whole lot better and would eat up more resources like vram when you cranked up the settings. This is a step in the wrong direction for pc gamers. Visually this game is nothing next gen at all and personally wouldn't lose any sleep about not being able to max out the settings and have to sell my 780ti because of it. If this is next gen I'm sorry but pathetic, I'm calling it quits and selling off my components and just getting a ps4.
 
TroyX said:
stutter and lag will be fixed, but you are still going to need more than 3gb of vram if you attempt to play the game on ultra with AA because these are two isolated issues.

I predicted that this would happen before PS4 came out, people thought I was trolling, including on this site.

This is the new norm from now on, PS4 has 8gb of GDDR5 and it can use more than 4gb of VRAM for games, so be ready when you see console ports going to PC.

Hence the reason why next-gen GPU's from AMD and Nvidia are starting off with 6gb of vram and up.
Click to expand...

6GB ≠ 8GB. Looks like all PC GPUs are hosed on this POS until the inevitable patch.
 
D: what am I doing wrong? 290x lightings CF (14.6 beta) , 4770k @ 4.2 @ 1600P, and struggling to maintain 59 FPS (locked via afterburner). FXAA yields a slight improvement but nothing significant. disabling CF worsens performance more.
 
Well, your first problem is running AMD.
Your second problem is running CrossFire.

I have yet to find anyone who actually benefits from CrossFire in this game. You're the first person to say you actually lose fps by disabling CF.
 
Last edited:
TaintedSquirrel said:
Well, your first problem is running AMD.
Your second problem is running CrossFire.

I have yet to find anyone who actually benefits from CrossFire in this game. Your the first person to say you actually lose fps by disabling CF.
Click to expand...

D:'ness :( . it just seems like I'm far off from what [H]'s performance preview suggests... though their setup was non CF.
 
Last edited:
TaintedSquirrel said:
Well, your first problem is running AMD.
Your second problem is running CrossFire.

I have yet to find anyone who actually benefits from CrossFire in this game. You're the first person to say you actually lose fps by disabling CF.
Click to expand...

I have 2 290s and performance is bad, disabling crossfire makes it worse also.

edit: never mind. Turns out I was wrong. Min fps is better with crossfire disabled, max is higher with it enabled. Also vsync with crossfire disabled caps it at 30 for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Ubisoft is reportedly working on a performance patch to start to address some of the "issues".
 
Simplex said:
Source?
Click to expand...

From my post in another thread:

Max9R said:
Apparently Ubisoft is listening.

From Forbes.com "Watch Dogs is an important release for Ubisoft, and it’s reassuring to see their team working on improving the game for PC users. Nvidia is also continuing to consult with Ubisoft engineers on optimizing drivers for the game."

You had to know this was coming, the negative press on it has been very wide spread. Hopefully they do a decent job of it, and things actually improve for everyone. At that point I might even consider getting it :)
Click to expand...
 
That news is almost a week old. I thought there was some development in this matter, an update from the devs, ETA on the patch. What you linked to is damage control.
 
It is almost a week old now... but it wasn't when I originally posted it in the other thread (it was a couple days old) hehe...

I agree it is a form of damage control but its also an admission that it's not performing as intended with ultra textures. It seems like a good thing to me that they've officially acknowledged that. At the very least it's better than not saying or doing anything, and hoping everyone just goes away hehe... :)
 
I would not be surprising if nvidia was beating them with as sick to fix the game so that extra textures do not require more memory than their flagship 780Ti has.
 
Simplex said:
I would not be surprising if nvidia was beating them with as sick to fix the game so that extra textures do not require more memory than their flagship 780Ti has.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more... looks really bad...
 
Simplex said:
I would not be surprising if nvidia was beating them with as sick to fix the game so that extra textures do not require more memory than their flagship 780Ti has.
Click to expand...
Ubisoft doesn't fix games.
The game is released. They've made their money. They're done with it.

Watch Dogs will be in the same state 5 years from now as it is today. Mark my words.
It might be playable then, thanks to new hardware (See: GTA 4).
 
I didn't say they don't release patches, I said they don't fix games.
AC4 had 6 patches but still runs like ass. And what about AC3? That's even older. Watch Dogs has way more problems than any of the AC games.

PhysX isn't a "fix". It's a feature that Nvidia paid them for. Maybe if Nvidia pays them to fix their game, we'll see results.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Ubisoft doesn't fix games.
The game is released. They've made their money. They're done with it.
Watch Dogs will be in the same state 5 years from now as it is today. Mark my words.
Click to expand...

TaintedSquirrel said:
I didn't say they don't release patches, I said they don't fix games.
Click to expand...

Sure does sound like you were saying they don't patch their games and won't patch Watch Dogs. :D

All joking aside... after dealing with Rome II I stopped buying games until way down the road... sad trend in gaming.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
What happened to the rest of the "Review"?
This article being the "Preview".
Click to expand...

We have been waiting for the game to be patched and subsequent driver changes. These types of reviews take a long time to produce. That said, if we know the game is going to be patched and very likely get driver updates as well, we hold off a bit. If we don't hold, and this has happened to us more than once, we will very likely end up with an entire review that is basically worthless if the patch or driver updates go public when we are almost done or come out a day or two after the review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top