ASUS GeForce RTX 3080 Noctua OC review
AMD Ryzen 5 5600 review
PowerColor RX 6650 XT Hellhound White review
FSP Hydro PTM Pro (1200W PSU) review
ASUS ROG Radeon RX 6750 XT STRIX review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Sapphire Radeon RX 6650 XT Nitro+ review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6950 XT Sapphire Nitro+ Pure review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6750 XT Nitro+ review
MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO review
Watch Dog 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Posted by: on: 11/29/2016 01:33 PM [
103 comment(s) ]
We will look at Watch Dog 2 in a PC graphics performance and PC gamer way. We'll test the game on the PC platform relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVIDIA graphics card drivers. Multiple graphics cards are being tested and benchmarked. We have a look at performance with the newest graphics cards and technologies.
Read article
Advertisement
pages « < 18 19 20 21
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7979
Senior Member
Posts: 7979
Posted on: 12/02/2016 10:02 PM
Typical suspect dev releases cpu hog open world game in almost 2017 using obsolete api, despite having not one, but two low level modern apis, and it´s supposed to be a good port lmao:
So wait, the AMD CPUs are not hindered, it has proper multithreading, and it's a bad "CPU hog" port?
Do you even spend 30 seconds with the images you yourself post?
Typical suspect dev releases cpu hog open world game in almost 2017 using obsolete api, despite having not one, but two low level modern apis, and it´s supposed to be a good port lmao:
So wait, the AMD CPUs are not hindered, it has proper multithreading, and it's a bad "CPU hog" port?
Do you even spend 30 seconds with the images you yourself post?
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9800
Senior Member
Posts: 9800
Posted on: 12/02/2016 10:05 PM
So wait, the AMD CPUs are not hindered, it has proper multithreading, and it's a bad "CPU hog" port?
Do you even spend 30 seconds with the images you yourself post?
Short answer: no.
So wait, the AMD CPUs are not hindered, it has proper multithreading, and it's a bad "CPU hog" port?
Do you even spend 30 seconds with the images you yourself post?
Short answer: no.
Monchis
Senior Member
Posts: 1303
Senior Member
Posts: 1303
Posted on: 12/02/2016 10:06 PM
So wait, the AMD CPUs are not hindered, it has proper multithreading, and it's a bad "CPU hog" port?
Do you even spend 30 seconds with the images you yourself post?
Like who gives a ****?, every processor would have twice or triple the performance there using dx12 or vulkan.
So wait, the AMD CPUs are not hindered, it has proper multithreading, and it's a bad "CPU hog" port?
Do you even spend 30 seconds with the images you yourself post?
Like who gives a ****?, every processor would have twice or triple the performance there using dx12 or vulkan.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7979
Senior Member
Posts: 7979
Posted on: 12/02/2016 10:26 PM
How do you know that? It seems that despite the game being DX11, processor load is even and correct, even for AMD processors that people used to write off.
And it's not only Hilbert. From the Techpowerup analysis:
Like who gives a ****?, every processor would have twice or triple the performance there using dx12 or vulkan.
How do you know that? It seems that despite the game being DX11, processor load is even and correct, even for AMD processors that people used to write off.
And it's not only Hilbert. From the Techpowerup analysis:
"Watch_Dogs 2" is a significant improvement in gameplay over the original Watch_Dogs. You play a hacktivist in San Francisco who has to team up with his buddies in DedSec to stop whatever ctOS 2.0 is doing with the data it's collecting from all citizens in the city.
The new Disrupt 2.0 engine is a revamped version of the engine that powered the original. Unfortunately, it still uses DirectX 11, but given how bad the track record of DirectX 12 games is so far, this might not be bad thing. Graphics-wise, the game looks great, with good visual detail in all scenes. Only flat areas like streets look a bit too flat, lacking some geometric detail. An optional high-res texture pack is available as a free download and the game settings provide tons of dials to adjust performance. There is no frame-rate (FPS) cap and field of view can be adjusted by up to 110°, both of which are certainly welcome in the PC-gaming arena.
Performance on AMD Radeon graphics cards is a little bit lower than what we would expect, but this is no surprise given Watch_Dogs 2 bears an NVIDIA "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" badge, inferring that NVIDIA helped Ubisoft in the development of this game. Both companies have delivered game optimized drivers yesterday, which, especially on AMD, shows that the company is right on track with providing timely driver updates to gamers for new titles. We used these GeForce 376.09 WHQL and Radeon Software Crimson Edition 16.11.5 drivers in this article.
Overall performance is decent, but could be a bit more optimized - Watch_Dogs 2 certainly doesn't look as good as Battlefield 1 for example, which runs at higher FPS across the board. VRAM usage is very reasonable, especially without the optional high-res texture pack. With its details maxed out, Watch_Dogs 2 runs comfortably on most >$200 graphics cards, at 1080p resolution. The RX 470 is a little more reassuring compared to the GTX 1050 Ti, which is too close to the 30 fps mark (below which playability degrades). The GTX 1060 6 GB is comfortably faster than the RX 480 8 GB. AMD's fastest GPU, the R9 Fury X, still doesn't breach the 60 fps mark.
To enjoy the game at 2560 x 1440 with the highest details, you need to invest in a GeForce GTX 1070, which can be had for around $390 right now. The performance-segment cards run close to the 30 fps mark. 4K Ultra HD is a daunting task for all single-GPU graphics cards we have. Even the GeForce GTX 1080 barely holds things above the 30 fps mark. Given that the game supports both NVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFire, you could look into something like GTX 1070 SLI or R9 Fury X CrossFire to tame this beast.
What's also worth mentioning is that gameplay feels very smooth, even at sub-60 FPS rates. I'm also happy to report that there is no weird mouse acceleration and the driving controls have been significantly improved over the first Watch_Dogs. Overall, we love this game. It's reasonably well coded so far and the game's rendition of San Francisco is gorgeous. We look forward to adding this game to our VGA bench.
The new Disrupt 2.0 engine is a revamped version of the engine that powered the original. Unfortunately, it still uses DirectX 11, but given how bad the track record of DirectX 12 games is so far, this might not be bad thing. Graphics-wise, the game looks great, with good visual detail in all scenes. Only flat areas like streets look a bit too flat, lacking some geometric detail. An optional high-res texture pack is available as a free download and the game settings provide tons of dials to adjust performance. There is no frame-rate (FPS) cap and field of view can be adjusted by up to 110°, both of which are certainly welcome in the PC-gaming arena.
Performance on AMD Radeon graphics cards is a little bit lower than what we would expect, but this is no surprise given Watch_Dogs 2 bears an NVIDIA "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" badge, inferring that NVIDIA helped Ubisoft in the development of this game. Both companies have delivered game optimized drivers yesterday, which, especially on AMD, shows that the company is right on track with providing timely driver updates to gamers for new titles. We used these GeForce 376.09 WHQL and Radeon Software Crimson Edition 16.11.5 drivers in this article.
Overall performance is decent, but could be a bit more optimized - Watch_Dogs 2 certainly doesn't look as good as Battlefield 1 for example, which runs at higher FPS across the board. VRAM usage is very reasonable, especially without the optional high-res texture pack. With its details maxed out, Watch_Dogs 2 runs comfortably on most >$200 graphics cards, at 1080p resolution. The RX 470 is a little more reassuring compared to the GTX 1050 Ti, which is too close to the 30 fps mark (below which playability degrades). The GTX 1060 6 GB is comfortably faster than the RX 480 8 GB. AMD's fastest GPU, the R9 Fury X, still doesn't breach the 60 fps mark.
To enjoy the game at 2560 x 1440 with the highest details, you need to invest in a GeForce GTX 1070, which can be had for around $390 right now. The performance-segment cards run close to the 30 fps mark. 4K Ultra HD is a daunting task for all single-GPU graphics cards we have. Even the GeForce GTX 1080 barely holds things above the 30 fps mark. Given that the game supports both NVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFire, you could look into something like GTX 1070 SLI or R9 Fury X CrossFire to tame this beast.
What's also worth mentioning is that gameplay feels very smooth, even at sub-60 FPS rates. I'm also happy to report that there is no weird mouse acceleration and the driving controls have been significantly improved over the first Watch_Dogs. Overall, we love this game. It's reasonably well coded so far and the game's rendition of San Francisco is gorgeous. We look forward to adding this game to our VGA bench.
pages « < 18 19 20 21
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1303
Typical suspect dev releases cpu hog open world game in almost 2017 using obsolete api, despite having not one, but two low level, low overhead, modern apis, and it´s supposed to be a good port lmao: