Watch Dogs Coming, What Should I Do??

P

phorkz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
368
Hi Guys,

Running the rig in my sig currently, and am very interested in Watch Dogs which is on the horizon.

With this, and indeed many other games upping the hardware requirements(next gen consoles) i am thinking that my system may be in a little bit of trouble, mainly due to the VRAM limit of my 680's, in relation to the 2560x1440 resolution.

What do you guys think i should do?

I am not totally convinced on going from 680 to 780 just yet as the performance increase does not seem worth the money, though they do have that extra 1gb VRAM.

Not sure if i should just wait and see, wait for the next Nvidia(not inteterested in AMD, not good experiences in past) cards, or swap out for 780's now?

Anyone else in similar situation?

Cheers
 
Wait and see.
No point in spending money early if you dont know what will do the job.
Things will be cheaper later with more options as well.
 
If this is your main game, I'd stick with it. Watchdogs, coming from Ubisoft, is going to be an Nvidia TWIMTBP title so it should run decently on your setup.
 
I think you should be perfectly fine with what you have.
 
Ahh, so what exactly is the "problem" with your system???? :eek:
Arent SLI 680 just as fast or faster than Titan? What games are you playing now, and how are they behaving at 2560x1440?
 
mzs_biteme said:
Ahh, so what exactly is the "problem" with your system???? :eek:
Arent SLI 680 just as fast or faster than Titan? What games are you playing now, and how are they behaving at 2560x1440?
Click to expand...

Currently playing Far Cry 3, Sleeping Dogs, and (irrelevant) Hearthstone.

I currently have no problems with this setup and its performing quite well, i am just worried that with the "next gen" games on the horizon, with watch dogs being the first one i am interested in, that i will be VRAM capping, i guess i am best to just wait and see what happens.

I think i currently inside Far Cry 3, i am hitting 1.7gb or so VRAM usage, with all settings maxed, and AA on the second highest setting.(from memory, at work atm).
 
phorkz said:
Currently playing Far Cry 3, Sleeping Dogs, and (irrelevant) Hearthstone.

I currently have no problems with this setup and its performing quite well, i am just worried that with the "next gen" games on the horizon, with watch dogs being the first one i am interested in, that i will be VRAM capping, i guess i am best to just wait and see what happens.

I think i currently inside Far Cry 3, i am hitting 1.7gb or so VRAM usage, with all settings maxed, and AA on the second highest setting.(from memory, at work atm).
Click to expand...

I see comments like this pretty often across different forums, and I have to ask in order to clarify, so, some games hit near your VRAM limit - are they unplayable? I suspect the answer is "No, they are playable", but to take it a step further, wouldn't you want games to use what hardware you actually have?

Not singling you out, but just wanted to apply some common sense towards these attitudes. It seems like we, as a society, like to live in excess and always want to have this safe buffer - but for what reason? Honestly, I think you would enjoy your games more if you turned off the FRAPS/Afterburner/Precision monitoring software, live a little while in blissful ignorance, and just play the games for what they are. ;)

But to answer your question, as others have said, it's impossible to give an accurate recommendation without having the actual game released. With that said, I can't imagine Watch Dogs being like a "Crysis machine killer" that will have a pair of GTX 680's crawling on their knees - even at 1440p. I support the notion to wait and see. :)
 
covertash said:
I see comments like this pretty often across different forums, and I have to ask in order to clarify, so, some games hit near your VRAM limit - are they unplayable? I suspect the answer is "No, they are playable", but to take it a step further, wouldn't you want games to use what hardware you actually have?

Not singling you out, but just wanted to apply some common sense towards these attitudes. It seems like we, as a society, like to live in excess and always want to have this safe buffer - but for what reason? Honestly, I think you would enjoy your games more if you turned off the FRAPS/Afterburner/Precision monitoring software, live a little while in blissful ignorance, and just play the games for what they are. ;)

But to answer your question, as others have said, it's impossible to give an accurate recommendation without having the actual game released. With that said, I can't imagine Watch Dogs being like a "Crysis machine killer" that will have a pair of GTX 680's crawling on their knees - even at 1440p. I support the notion to wait and see. :)
Click to expand...

i understand what you are saying, and this is surely a case of first world problems, though i have VRAM capped in modded Skyrim and Minecraft in the past, and even 10mb or so over, will jolt you back to 5-10 fps for a few frames each time you cap.

I don't know about you, but that is unplayable for me, hence the worry here.
 
I dont see the point of these posts when the OP clearly knows that his hardware is better than 75% of the gamers out there... The VRAM might be a problem but not too much IMO. An SLI 680 setup would be plenty enough for 99% of the games for two years to come atleast even at 1600p.
 
phorkz said:
i understand what you are saying, and this is surely a case of first world problems, though i have VRAM capped in modded Skyrim and Minecraft in the past, and even 10mb or so over, will jolt you back to 5-10 fps for a few frames each time you cap.

I don't know about you, but that is unplayable for me, hence the worry here.
Click to expand...

Quite honestly, games that are using third party mods will almost always incur a performance penalty. I'm pretty sure most game developers have to draw some kind of creative boundary when it comes to creating textures and game effects, as it has an impact on overall performance. Third party mods, completely throw this boundary out the window. ;)

So I expect that Watch Dogs, in its stock form, will perform just fine with a pair of 2GB 680's. However, once those community mods get in the picture, your mileage will vary.

Since you have the propensity to use these mods, perhaps, on your next GPU purchase, you should opt for the higher VRAM models so as not to have to worry for future releases.
 
i'd definitely wait and see how your current setup behaves first.

i know you said you're not interested in AMD due to "bad experiences in the past", but may i ask, specifically what issues, and how far in the past?

i had a ton of problems with ATI before the AMD purchase, and due to those issues, i thought i would never buy another ATI video card again. but then some years went by and ATI/AMD unified their drivers, and started putting out video cards that could easily best comparably-priced nVidia cards, for less money, and with far fewer reported problems....so i tried them again. and they were (and ARE) good, with very, very few issues.

i'd at least wait and see what the R9 290 & R9 290X cards look like, performance-wise & price-wise compared to nVidia's offerings, and if it turns out that your current cards are not working out for you, make the decision at that time, once both AMD & nVidia have shown all their cards.

i am not partial to AMD or nVidia, or AMD/Intel for that matter....i.e., i'm not a blind follower of a certain company, just because i've had issues with one or the other in the past. every company has some issues at one point or another...after all, they're all run by humans, and humans are inherently imperfect.

i make my purchasing decisions based on what will get me where i need to be for a specific purpose, at the best price at the time (obviously, after doing some research beforehand to avoid as many pitfalls as possible). at the moment, AMD CPU's are not as good overall as Intel processors, and as a result, my last PC, my current PC, and my laptop are all running Intel CPUs. but i also just bought an AMD setup for a ZFS server that will be running ECC RAM (which Intel desktop CPU's don't support), so for that purpose, it makes sense to run AMD instead.

like i said, it's all about what what will meet or exceed your goals for the least amount of money at the time of purchase.
 
xXaNaXx said:
i'd definitely wait and see how your current setup behaves first.

i know you said you're not interested in AMD due to "bad experiences in the past", but may i ask, specifically what issues, and how far in the past?

i had a ton of problems with ATI before the AMD purchase, and due to those issues, i thought i would never buy another ATI video card again. but then some years went by and ATI/AMD unified their drivers, and started putting out video cards that could easily best comparably-priced nVidia cards, for less money, and with far fewer reported problems....so i tried them again. and they were (and ARE) good, with very, very few issues.

i'd at least wait and see what the R9 290 & R9 290X cards look like, performance-wise & price-wise compared to nVidia's offerings, and if it turns out that your current cards are not working out for you, make the decision at that time, once both AMD & nVidia have shown all their cards.

i am not partial to AMD or nVidia, or AMD/Intel for that matter....i.e., i'm not a blind follower of a certain company, just because i've had issues with one or the other in the past. every company has some issues at one point or another...after all, they're all run by humans, and humans are inherently imperfect.

i make my purchasing decisions based on what will get me where i need to be for a specific purpose, at the best price at the time (obviously, after doing some research beforehand to avoid as many pitfalls as possible). at the moment, AMD CPU's are not as good overall as Intel processors, and as a result, my last PC, my current PC, and my laptop are all running Intel CPUs. but i also just bought an AMD setup for a ZFS server that will be running ECC RAM (which Intel desktop CPU's don't support), so for that purpose, it makes sense to run AMD instead.

like i said, it's all about what what will meet or exceed your goals for the least amount of money at the time of purchase.
Click to expand...

Thank your your input.

I had 2x 7970 CF setup in my previous rig, and always had alot of microstuttering going on while gaming. On investigation of this i found that CF is alot more prone to microstutter(alot more people had the problem)than Nvidia cards setup in SLI currently.

Now i admit this was pretty early in the driver development for the AMD cards at that stage, so the issue may be resolved i am not entirely sure.

Having said that, i have had the 680's since really early also, and had no troubles myself.

If given the option of a larger VRAM card next time around, i will certainly choose the larger, though the 4GB 680's were not available at the time i purchased mine, not that i could find anyway.(im in Australia).
 
They probably didn't want their new franchise to drop at the same time as Assassin's Creed 4, BF4 and COD Ghost. Doesn't help that GTA 5 released a few weeks ago to mass critical acclaim and sales.
 
Lorien said:
Watch Dogs is not coming this year, it was pushed back to Spring 2014. That means Mantle support is a possibility now, should be interesting to see.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...t-watch-dogs-release-date-pushed-to-2014.aspx
Click to expand...

Dammit, that was the main game I was looking forward to this year. So now they're going to push it back and it'll probably come out around the same time Rockstar decides to give us GTA V on pc. It may be smart marketing, but I'd rather be playing a fresh new game, as opposed to the same old shit over and over. They really milk the hell out of "successful" titles. But hey, they'd be fools to turn away all of that money.

As for the op, i'd say stick with what you got for now. Wait and see what comes from AMD's new line and how it affects Nvidia's prices. It'd be a bad time to pull the trigger on a new card right now. Unless you wanted to go AMD and pick up some 7970/7950s.
 
covertash said:
I'm pretty sure most game developers have to draw some kind of creative boundary when it comes to creating textures and game effects
Click to expand...
Yeah, they draw the line at the amount they can squeeze onto a console. Most games on most PCs have plenty of VRAM to spare.
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
Yeah, they draw the line at the amount they can squeeze onto a console. Most games on most PCs have plenty of VRAM to spare.
Click to expand...

Right, but it's not like the developers have carte blanche to do exactly everything they want. As evidenced by community driven texture packs and mods, the boundaries can be pushed further; with user discretion that they be running higher VRAM spec'd video cards in order to enjoy smooth performance.
 
ah well guess i have longer to make my decision now haha, think with wait for the next Nvidia cards and jump in then X2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top