PC for WatchDogs

[DRBLN]

Please, advise specs
Budget: $1,000-$2,000

[Gammro]

My advice is: http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc

Prices are a bit different in the US, so I can't advice much else.

[Darthlawsuit]

Laptop or Desktop?

If Laptop Asus G-Series.

[DRBLN]

Desktop ofc

[boki]

I would actually suggest you to buy a console if you want to play the game like watch dog on max. They are cheaper, and for few first years they will be able to run games on max, as high end PC. When they start getting behind after few years, than I would suggest you to get a high end PC.

[Gammro]

Sorry to go all r/PCmasterrace on you now, but buying a console will only give you a "consistent" experience. The game won't run on what on PC would be called max settings.

Like the previous generation of consoles, they claim to be able to do 1080p, and they're right: Technically the console can do it. But most games can't and won't because of limitations of the hardware. For example for the last generation:
The xbox 360 was advertised as "high resolution" 720p, even ignoring the fact that most PC's have been running at higher resolution for 5 years at the time of announcement. And while most launch games did run 720p, most AAA games, even barely 2 years after launch, didn't even run at that resolution anymore:
Modern warfare 2 runs with a 1024x600 resolution, at barely 30FPS.
Halo 3 ran on 1152×640, granted it did run a smooth 60FPS most of the time.
Meanwhile, Crysis 1 was released around the same time as Halo 3, as a PC exclusive. Ok, A lot of PC's didn't run it at maximum settings: but 7 years later, and it still looks great. Halo 3, or MW2, does not.

The hardware in the new generation of consoles is already outdated right now. My 5 year old HD5850, still has 1.6 times more raw power compared to the xbox One's GPU. And while my graphics card is already 5 years old(4 generations!), only last year did I notice that I have to turn down the settings a notch instead of maximum(So still on high). And in the next few years, I expect my PC to still hold up against the newest generation of consoles. Meanwhile, Watch_dogs got a noticeable downgrade to run it on a PS4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGIi9VA_AI (all previous demos ran on a PC)

Then not to mention cheap sales, like on steam, and the countless indie games(like factorio!) that still need a (somewhat) powerful computer to enjoy them as they were meant to. And for $400-$500 you can get a decent gaming PC that will last at least as long as the current console generation, while still running with better settings.

[boki]

There is a lot in your post that is wrong, but generally I see that a lot when people talk about consoles /PC where people make same mistakes very often. There is no master race,there are only fanboys trying to defend their investment in both console or PC and fight each other, not knowing a lot about how things work.

The hardware in the new generation of consoles is already outdated right now. My 5 year old HD5850, still has 1.6 times more raw power compared to the xbox One's GPU. And while my graphics card is already 5 years old(4 generations!), only last year did I notice that I have to turn down the settings a notch instead of maximum(So still on high). And in the next few years, I expect my PC to still hold up against the newest generation of consoles. Meanwhile, Watch_dogs got a noticeable downgrade to run it on a PS4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGIi9VA_AI (all previous demos ran on a PC)

This is one of the biggest mistakes people do. You can never compare a hardware of console to a PC like 1:1. Because console hardware doesnt work the same way. Unlike PC, console systems allow for much leaner and far closer to the hardware access to resources. They have one same hardware and there is no need to have a layers of abstraction to create a unified interface between an incalculable number of possible variables of system hardware and software like on PC. In practice it means a hardware can work few times better than same hardware on PC. That is one of the main reasons (not the only one, as the way hardware is made and implemented/connected is also somewhat different from PC)why bad old hardware on consoles can run games, that PC need two to three times more powerful hardware.But because console hardware is static, after few years it will not be able to run anymore same games as PC (as PC will continue to improve), so developer try to lower the graphics on consoles after few years (as we saw for the last few years on any console when its near the end of its life, and they really milked the last generation for to long).

About watch dog,the thing you say are also not correct:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkw39b0N_zY

Then not to mention cheap sales, like on steam, and the countless indie games(like factorio!) that still need a (somewhat) powerful computer to enjoy them as they were meant to. And for $400-$500 you can get a decent gaming PC that will last at least as long as the current console generation, while still running with better settings.

Most Indie games dont need powerful PC (factoriocan can run on a bad pc from 2008), and OP asked directly about watchdog. If he is already considering to get a system for that game, he should consider a console ,as there are also exclusives that will come on them, so it's really good to have both pc and console. And no, you can not buy a PC for 600$ that will be any close to new consoles in reality. The only thing it can be close is hardware (the one that you can find actually), but how the games will work will be very different.

There will be a huge jump in graphics and requirements, as the new consoles are released, and we start to see it now with games like watch dogs, witch is really good. Things will speed up a little again.

[Gammro]

I really don't want to start an all out Console VS PC discussion here, and /r/pcmasterrace is indeed a circlejerk. But I stand by what I say. I'm not a game developer, but I'm speaking as student in electrical engineering with a big focus on digital hardware, and a long time hardware enthausiast. I have experience developing with several programming languages(Assembly, C and C++) as well as designing microchips. I don't consider myself the biggest expert, do tell me if you are one(ie. a veteran console developer), but I think I know at least something about it.

The current console generation runs on modified AMD APU's with the Jaguar architecture. This is the newest architecture at the moment, so it probably contains some hardware optimizations not found in previous architectures, but otherwise pretty standard. And you're right, there can be some optimizations, but most of the time these optimizations will cut into graphical fidelity(similar to the options menu). The other optimizations require more extensive hardware specific rewriting of the code. This only happens to some critical components because: A - It takes a lot of work and testing. B - Consoles tend to get some hardware replaced after a few years(Xbox 360 had 8 revisions), making hardware specific optimizations useless. Effectively, developers will only work to get a few more % out of the hardware, nothing too revolutionary like you said(2-3x).
I'd like to support this with this quote:

A big problem with all the talk of console optimization is that it usually lacks a proper understanding of what, exactly, "optimization" is. Consoles do tend to have thinner API layers than PCs, but that doesn't amount to much at all. Any of the absurd claims people put forward of 2x performance improvements are just deeply insulting at that point to the software engineers that develop DirectX, OpenGL, and GPU drivers. There isn't a chance in hell that these professional, mature APIs waste anything close to half of a GPU's cycles. Seriously consider how ridiculous it is to think so; such a solution would be wholly inept and quickly replaced by something superior given there are companies and divisions of companies whose revenue and livelihood largely depend on processing performance. The fact of the matter is that the PC platform is single-handedly driving the advancement of high-performance graphical processors these days, it's kind of important that APIs exist which do not cripple performance to such a vast degree.

The issue of optimization is not an underlying software issue (except perhaps for draw calls). However, if developers do know a given platform has fixed and understood specifications, they could very much benefit from tweaking rendering options to suit the strength of that hardware (i.e. tone down settings that kill performance, design clever streaming and occlusion culling solutions, etc.). This is not completely impossible on PCs either. Optimization via streaming/occlusion culling type stuff is design-level and benefits PCs as well by not wasting precious resources on unseen/unnecessary assets. The problem arises from rendering settings. These, too, are tweakable on PCs. The difference is that it's on the end-user to determine what balance they want to go for and, as with late-generation multiplatform games sometimes, the baseline of PC hardware is so far ahead feature and power wise that PC versions have more advanced settings enabled by default. Then people confuse the pared-back and optimized console setting balances with increased performance over time. It is not this, that is impossible. The pure computational capacity of a processor is fixed, period. Optimization is simply a matter of making the most of perceptible graphical differences (because some effects and rendering methods produce an arguably small difference to a lot of people, yet incur a huge penalty to performance; see: SSAA/FSAA, AO, soft shadows, fully dynamic lighting, tesselation, etc.) and given that PC games do not ever have an explicit "console-level settings" option, people tend to assume false equivalencies. If a GPU stronger than a console's is struggling with a game the console does not, it typically means one of two things; the PC GPU is rendering greater settings or the game was poorly-ported to the PC."

The video I posted is pretty shitty resolution wise, but it shows the difference in shadows, post-processing, and reflective surfaces. And if you look at your video it doesn't say anything about what platform was used for the gameplay footage(I suspect PC, as he was talking about if the PC version will hold up to the 2012 announcement trailer).

I didn't say every indie game needs a powerful PC, but some do, and Indie games are primarily for the PC platform. I consider console exclusives to be a non-reason, as every platform has it's own exclusives.

And finally: The subject for this topic. DRBLN is talking about buying a PC. With a nice budget no less. It's like going to the car dealer to look for a new Porsche, and you suggesting him to buy a Peugeot 102.

/walloftext

[boki]

First, xbox revision did not happen directly to power of the hardware (no stronger CPU, GPU and similar). Changes where with the HD and some hdm cables, kinetic, cooling with smaller production, and other crap to make production cheaper and similar that is not that interesting to me, and did not affect performance of the console. The thing is, because the hardware is static, you can use it most effectively. You have a set memory, set cpu and gpu.It allows you to squeeze much more from it when you know with what you are exactly working on. The 2x more performance does not come only form thiner API as they said, that is correct (but it does improve it). The most reason is the set hardware of the console and with what you need to work.

You can easily test this in practice. Get a pc with same hardware of console, and run the games on them that are on console also . The thing you will notice, that most of the better looking games will run very bad even on minimum (some will not even start because of memory needs). I actually test this with my old xbox back when it was new. A system that has 64 mb ram, 700 mhz cpu, and geforce 3 with 200 mhz. All of the better looking games that where released on both system could not be even started on PC with similar specs, or would need to run on minimum settings and look much worse than on console. There is a huge benefit knowing what hardware you will be using and no need for different drivers and hardware configurations.

The video you posted of watch dogs shows that is something obvious wrong with it, as the graphics are even worse than on ps3 and look incomplete (i am actually surprised that anyone can think that is how the game will look on ps4). If you watch my video, you will see that all the demos and gameplay from that video is done on ps4 (as is said around 1:30), and it doesnt look anything close to your video,and nothing obvious different from the PC demo.

The OP asked specifically for pc to run this game. I suggest a console, because it will be able to run the game on max, and is few times cheaper than to get same experience on PC, simple as that. As indie games are not that big problem to run, and nothing close to system requirements that watch dogs needs, he would not have that big problems because of it.

He will decide what he wants, I'm just suggesting to not waste that much money on high end pc where there is a cheaper solution for same end result, and to get a new high end pc in a year or two, when console hardware will not be able to follow PC anymore.

[ssilk]

I just ask me... from the players I know that they are console players, I'm about 100% sure, that none of them ever would play a game like factorio.

[Gammro]

I'm not going to discuss performance based on the hardware anymore, because I don't think it's worth my time discussing(and explaining) it with you. So back onto the other topics:

The Xbox One already wouldn't run Watch_dogs 1080p@60fps, sony was very proud to announce they would be able to do it, but now also Sony seems to have backed out:
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/arch ... dogs-.aspx

The video you posted of watch dogs shows that is something obvious wrong with it, as the graphics are even worse than on ps3 and look incomplete (i am actually surprised that anyone can think that is how the game will look on ps4).

Also an article on that comparison video:
http://www.psxextreme.com/ps4-news/1194.html
PSextreme is obviously a website that is biased towards the PS4, and even they acknowledge the difference in videoquality on the PS4 demonstration. Skip the first 12 seconds of really bad quality footage, and there's no denying anymore: As you can see there's barely any world shadow left, and the facial animation has also clearly become worse.

And if you don't believe it was PS4 footage, it's been officially confirmed(clickable), that it was recorded on a PS4.

So not only do I think the console version can not give the full experience like a PC with the specified budget($1000-$2000) would. Also, over the timeframe of 6 years, a console is not that cheap:

PS4: $399.99 RRP
PS+ $50/year: $300 for 6 years.
Total costs for console+online play: $700

XbOne: $499 RRP
XBL: $60/year: $360 for 6 years
Total costs for console+online play: $860

In both cases, you don't even have games yet(ok, PS+ tends to release some games to their current subscribers). But games on average are a bit more expensive for consoles. Even more expensive when you buy them on release.

In the meanwhile, you'd still need a PC to do other work on(taxes/reports/work/porn). However, for $800, you can already build a kick-ass PC that beats the now-gen consoles into the ground. OP's budget is even higher. Why go for something that can give you an ok experience, while the somewhat more expensive option can give you a truly high-end experience, and that will hold up for just as long. And towards the end of life for the console cycle, that PC will not run everything on max settings anymore, but it will still look and perform better than the console.

And to try to get back on topic. I made DRBLN a parts list for a PC around $1000: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Gammro/saved/4FtY
This is a base list, there is still some room for expansion. Maybe a 3TB HDD, or a non-stock CPU cooler can be added.


EDIT: Ubisoft just made a blog post: http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-next-gen ... -dynamism/

On new-gen systems the game will run at 900p on PS4 and 792p on Xbox One, at 30 frames-per-second on both consoles.

[johncostas]

I would also like to suggest you to buy console to play such good games.

[zytukin]

Consoles and PCs both have their benefits, nowadays it mostly comes down to preference.

One thing I will say is that computer hardware is advancing faster then gaming software can make use of it and the cost of parts drops pretty quickly. What this means is that for $500 you can build a reasonably high end computer using parts that are up to a few years old and it will still play games on max settings for another 3-5 years. And that time frame even depends on personal preference because how much lag you can tolerate is a matter of opinion and how sensitive your eyes are. Some people think anything under 60fps is laggy, if your eyes aren't perfect, you might see anything over 30fps as fluid and smooth.

Depending on your current computer and how far an upgrade you want, you only need to buy up to 5 things.
Primarily a CPU and GPU
Possibly a new motherboard, unless your current one can take a new CPU
Possibly new ram, to either upgrade what you have, or if you ended up needing to replace the motherboard then it might take different ram
Possibly a better PSU, if your old one can't handle the new GPU.

Everything else can be reused from your old computer. Case, peripherals, drives, fans, monitor, etc


Another thing to take into account is how you care for your computer.
If you keep it clean and running smoothly, your computer will perform much better.
When Crysis came out, I was getting 50+ FPS on it on max settings, same with GTA IV and other games where people with much better systems couldn't play on max (assuming they didn't do a stupid bottleneck like 2gb of ram on a 64bit os). But, I keep my system clean and can pretty much name everything I have installed (aside from games). If you don't care for your computer and load it up with tool bars and dumb info things that run in your task bar, then performance will suffer.

[zytukin]

Just throwing it out there, I have been playing watch dogs on my computer for the past few hours with everything set as high as possible and it has been perfectly smooth and beautiful @ 1920 x 1080. Tried playing it at my 'native' resolution of 5760x1080, but the game doesn't like that resolution, view gets messed up.

(prices from amazon.com)
3.3GHz i5-2500 - $290
8GB DDR3 - under $50
4gb Asus GeFroce GTX 970 - around $320
Asus P8P67 motherboard - around $130

Total cost, under $800
Could spend a bit more and get a faster i7 instead of an i5, or higher quality/faster/more ram