• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Watch Dogs botched on PC but run well on console.

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
50,920
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Watch Dogs Visual Analysis: PS4 vs. Xbox One vs. PC, PS3 vs. Xbox 360

Coming to the actual number crunching, the Xbox One manages an odd resolution of 792p, with its Sony counterpart standing not too tall at 900p. Nonetheless, the game more than makes up for the lack of low resolutions with good textures. The PS4 somehow manages to look better at times than the PC counterpart although that’s not always the case – not too far from it either- , it’s still surprising that the console manages to catch up to the aesthetic performance of an high endPC.

And what better for console owners than to have their game run more consistently than the PC users? Well, as of now. A number of patches have been issued for the PC version of the game, with AMD vying to give its customers an experience anywhere near smooth, owing to Ubisoft’s abstinence from not working with AMD on the game at all.

In light of that fact, AMD has managed things really well. Even people with Nvidia cards have had tonnes of issues; one of many Steam users complaining of the game had said that the game was running at sub-30fps on an GTX760, that too not on ultra settings. Therefore, the argument that the PC manages to outperform the consoles a fair bit with its better textures, frame buffers et al, is rendered useless as the PC fails to perform consistently, which its console counterparts do almost flawlessly; even the older generation of consoles.
Click to expand...
http://gamingbolt.com/watch-dogs-visual-analysis-ps4-vs-xbox-one-vs-pc-ps3-vs-xbox-360
 
Last edited:
It's not that the consoles are better they are basically the same processor and graphics cards for a reason to make games better want a coincidence they both went amd.
If you make a multi platform game it's generally **** on the pc not the other way round.
That said watchdogs worked with nvidia on this and plays lovely on my nvidia card was bad on My amd odd as both Xbox and ps4 use amd.....
 
Being fair, Watch Dogs is running fine for me with SLI Titans and at 4K. I understand some people are having issues and mainly AMD users but that was the same for nVidia users when Tomb Raider was released. It took some patching to fix it for us (and we didn't feel the need to go on a rampage about it) :D
 
Gregster said:
Being fair, Watch Dogs is running fine for me with SLI Titans and at 4K. I understand some people are having issues and mainly AMD users but that was the same for nVidia users when Tomb Raider was released. It took some patching to fix it for us (and we didn't feel the need to go on a rampage about it) :D
Click to expand...

Actually other users say the game runs really bad on AMD and Nvidia, its just a really really really bad PC port, its either Game Works or Ubisoft, or both.
The Consoles are all AMD and it runs perfectly on them, something is causing it to run like crap on PC.
IMO that something is Game Works.
 
It runs fine for me on 780 sli @1400p if I have textures on medium but when I turn it to high ,even with aa off, its only reaching 2700mb of vram but gets that hitching when driving. Sweetfx makes it one good looking game though
 
A number of patches have been issued for the PC version of the game, with AMD vying to give its customers an experience anywhere near smooth, owing to Ubisoft’s abstinence from not working with AMD on the game at all.
Click to expand...

y0q5YLw.gif.png


Where have i heard that part in bold before? ;)

Ubisoft gets a big custard pie from me. You just know they'll botch these up and coming games. :D
 
humbug said:
Actually other users say the game runs really bad on AMD and Nvidia, its just a really really really bad PC port, its either Game Works or Ubisoft, or both.
The Consoles are all AMD and it runs perfectly on them, something is causing it to run like crap on PC.
IMO that something is Game Works.
Click to expand...

Remember that software is licensed separately for different platforms.

If a game runs physx on a console and on a PC, it doesn't mean the game is running the same physx software on both. Same goes for an engine, UE will say have a console version of the engine and a pc version and while they'll be mostly similar they will have different optimisations and some code.

If Ubisoft sabotaged it or just did a poor port, you can't really look at a console game and presume because it runs well and is well optimised for the hardware that the PC version is automatically optimised to the same level.

The thing that bugs with Watch dogs is, you could almost understand a game made directly for the next gen consoles, the specific set of hardware and every function of the game is built around having 6gb(or so, forget how much is reserved on both systems) of unified memory and so is designed to stream in such a way that outside of a 8gb unified memory setup the code simply struggles to run efficiently.

But this game released on the old gen consoles, there is no way it was built to perfectly work on the consoles alone. It's clearly designed to run smoothly and well on frankly crap old hardware. It feels particularly unoptimised on the PC. The cpu usage I get, considering a 4.6Ghz 2500k vs any of the consoles, particularly the old gen, I shouldn't have that high cpu usage.

It's mostly a case of simply lazy ass porting by Ubisoft, if Nvidia did anything intentionally crappy through ubisoft, who knows. Why does Watch Dogs work SO much worse than other Ubisoft multiplatform games on AMD hardware in particular?
 
LOL ONE GAME.....and you wait, IGN will plaster this all over it's homepage as next gen console being far superior to pc. lol..I find the article quite funny. I'm AMD, have 2 of their cards actually, and quite honestly can manage between 40fps and 60fps with Ultra textures and AA to boot. Nothing to see here, we all know it's BS on PC. That's Ubiturd all over, and they'll do it for The Division as well.

DO NOT PRE-ORDER THE DIVISION,
 
I think I will install this on my GTX 690 system and see how the old 2gb cards handle it @1600p.

Well I have got a sense of humour.:D
 
30FPS sitting a few feet at most from a monitor is not ideal for most fast paced games.

Console users are sitting on a settee many feet away in fact so far away are most it does not even matter if its HD or SD and add extra portion of motion blur and players are fooled.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom