Update: Watch Dogs Won't Run on 32-Bit Windows

[Kenjitsuka]

Eight cores? What's that make, an Intel Xeon Server CPU?

I mean, you can't get more than 6 cores from Intel's desktop lines atm...
Do they mean 4 cores with hyperthreading = 8 threads, or am I missing something?

 

[Metalrocks]

i have everything from the recommended settings except my quad core cpu.
but it wont matter to me really since i dont want it anyway. since ubi wants to make franchises only and i dont want to get dragged in to this.

 

[Adultism]

Great, now I have to throw down 600$ to get ready for this gen of PC games.

 

[votemarvel]

Damn and I've only just upgraded to a Intel i5-3330.

I do have a dual boot system though. 32-bit Windows XP where I spend most of my time and a 64-bit Windows 7 for when I want to take advantage of the 8gb of RAM in my PC.

 

[Steven Bogos]

Damn and I've only just upgraded to a Intel i5-3330.

I do have a dual boot system though. 32-bit Windows XP where I spend most of my time and a 64-bit Windows 7 for when I want to take advantage of the 8gb of RAM in my PC.

Dear god why would you dual boot a 32 bit os?

 

[Weaver]

I'll be good for ultra

 

[AnthrSolidSnake]

Well...the system I just recently built is pretty much EXACTLY what is recommended for "Ultra", so I should be okay for now, but I was planning on upgrading anyway. I guess it's a good thing I upgraded to that AMD 8-core after all.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Damn and I've only just upgraded to a Intel i5-3330.

I do have a dual boot system though. 32-bit Windows XP where I spend most of my time and a 64-bit Windows 7 for when I want to take advantage of the 8gb of RAM in my PC.

Dear god why would you dual boot a 32 bit os?

Helps to run older programs. I know windows 7 professional has an XP mode but the rest don't so it would help to have an actual copy of windows XP on the system.

Also on that note some places use older operating systems because the newer versions of the programs they use would be crazy expensive. Was fixing a computer at an embroidery place and they were using windows 95 (this being about 2 years ago).

 

[Bat Vader]

I am now happier than ever that I decided to splurge and get the AMD Radeon HD 7970. I have a quad core processor but it has hyper threading so I am good there and I have more than enough RAM. My mind, body, and computer are ready.

 

[rofltehcat]

Well, some of those requirements seem rather excessive but whatever. If it should turn out to not run well on systems in my range, I'll just pick it up for 15? once the next console generation is established and people actually know what to buy to not have to upgrade before that generation is dead. After all the game is also coming for the current gen, so I guess it won't be a problem really. Maybe they also just want to be on the save side with their published requirements?

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

and a graphics card with at least 2 GB of video RAM, such as the Nvidia GTX 560 or the AMD Radeon HD 7850.

GTX560 only has 1GB of VRAM, at least the model I have (GTX 560 Ti).

 

[Dr.Awkward]

As for the recommended requirements, Ubisoft suggests at least 8 GB of RAM, an 8-core CPU, and a graphics card with at least 2 GB of video RAM, such as the Nvidia GTX 560 or the AMD Radeon HD 7850.

Nope, stop right there. There's a point where you understand the recommended settings being high, and then there's a point where you can look at this and say, "The dev team is too lazy to optimize their engine, so they made it use higher requirements".

For one, look at the eight-core requirement. Is that actually eight cores, or eight threads? AMD processors use one thread per core, so AMD users would need an eight-core processor, while Intel users should be fine with a quad-core processor with multithreading. And the 2GB VRAM tells me that they're either not using resource-saving visual tricks, or that they aren't using them to a full extent. Either way, I'd say no to these requirements and make the team find optimizations that at least bring the recommended settings down to 4 threads/cores and 1.5 GB of RAM.

 

[Steven Bogos]

and a graphics card with at least 2 GB of video RAM, such as the Nvidia GTX 560 or the AMD Radeon HD 7850.

GTX560 only has 1GB of VRAM, at least the model I have (GTX 560 Ti).

There are a lot of variants on the GTX 560

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Wow, Ubisoft's uPlay has some really demanding requirements doesn't it? I know background DRM is bit of a resource hog and all but, this is ridiculous.

 

[munx13]

Damn it, I knew when I bought that i5 2500k last year it would become obsolete fast. Ah well, no point running this at 15fps on minimum so I guess I should hold on for a PS4 version.

Close, but I think you'll find that in Intel the only thing that fits is nothing. There are no 8 core Core processors, even i7 only goes up to six [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_core_i7_processors], and they haven't even bothered with that many with the Haswell architecture.

So really, the claim that this is the recommended requirements is just plain stupid. Virtually no-one has an 8-core CPU because it's virtually impossible to find one even if you want to. Even AMD only sell a couple of 8-cores, and since they tended to score worse than Intel CPUs, and even some previous AMD ones, on benchmarks, not many people looking for a high-end gaming machine will have them. Even Crysis had fairly sensible recommended specs, it was just capable of making use of a lot more if you happened to have it. Setting recommended specs that a tiny fraction of potential customers can meet is just stupid.

Stupid maybe, but at least they're being honest. Since the new consoles have 8 cores it's going to be a hard requirement for PC games going forward. Until someone actually releases a decent 8-core it's going to be a bumpy ride.

The new consoles will use some of those cores for stuff like the OS and game recording, plus they are clocked below 2Ghz (PS3 is 1.6 I believe, don't quote me on this though). This means that ANY basic 6 core PC CPU will be enough for gaming for years to come.

Personally I think it's just marketing - to make it seem like it's "true next-gen". Kinda like the TW: Shogun 2, which runs on a crappy single-core CPU, but somehow has an i7 listed as a recommended requirement.

 

[Something Amyss]

People still use 32-bit systems? Come on, get with the program!

I'm surprised 32 bit systems have seen as much support as they get, to be honest.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

8-core?
In Intel the only thing that fits that is the Core i7, even i5 is Quad Core, i3 is Dual Core with Hyperthreading.

Close, but I think you'll find that in Intel the only thing that fits is nothing. There are no 8 core Core processors, even i7 only goes up to six [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_core_i7_processors], and they haven't even bothered with that many with the Haswell architecture.

So really, the claim that this is the recommended requirements is just plain stupid. Virtually no-one has an 8-core CPU because it's virtually impossible to find one even if you want to. Even AMD only sell a couple of 8-cores, and since they tended to score worse than Intel CPUs, and even some previous AMD ones, on benchmarks, not many people looking for a high-end gaming machine will have them. Even Crysis had fairly sensible recommended specs, it was just capable of making use of a lot more if you happened to have it. Setting recommended specs that a tiny fraction of potential customers can meet is just stupid.

Its interesting you use the word "virtually" here because that is exactly how the core i7 fits in. Its Quad Core with Hyperthreading(i5 is Quad Core without Hyperthreading, except one or two models which are Dual Core with Hyperthreading) so each of the four cores 'virtually' work as two.

The reason there aren't many actual 8 core ones is that synchronization would be a nightmare, I am sure some PHD designers are working on making it stable and affordable.