Watch Dogs 2 performance thread

shankly1985 · 29 Nov 2016 at 14:16

Not looking good so far GTX 1080 @1080p cant even hold 60fps lol

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/watch-dogs-2-graphics-and-performance-guide

Drivers
AMD 16.11.5

Nvidia 376.09

Looking at the Nvidia performance site they show a GTX 1080 holding 60+ fps in some of the comparisons?
I do have to hand it to Nvidia here and it would be something I would like AMD to do more, these game by game performance sites are quite handy. It showed me what I should disable in GTA 5 a while back.

humbug · 29 Nov 2016 at 14:57

23 to 45 FPS on a GTX 1080 @ 1080P!

Go Nvidia Gameworks.....

TNA · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:07

humbug said:
23 to 45 FPS on a GTX 1080 @ 1080P!

Go Nvidia Gameworks.....

Wow, that is terrible! Would expect that fps if 4K, but 1080p :confused:

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:14

TPU tests the game:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Watch_Dogs_2/4.html

Needs at least 4GB VRAM at normal textures!

AMD performance is lower but not as much as I expect!!

Edit!!

More tests:

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/watch-dogs-2-test-gpu

It seems to tax both companies cards quite a bit. I would put Nvidia around 10% faster compared to the equivalent AMD ones.

Rroff · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:18

That is on a Titan X - you'd have to see what the utilisation and/or any performance impact was on a card with less than 4GB to be sure it actually needs 4GB and/or if there is any performance implications from lower priority garbage collection if its just caching data due to there being plenty of VRAM to spare.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:21

I suppose - but we need a GTX1060 3GB in there too. If that is within 10% of the 6GB version then probably.

Another one from GameGPU:

http://gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/WATCH_DOGS_2/wd2_vram.png

Not sure what texture pack was being used though.

LoadsaMoney · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:24

Not looking good for AMD here.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Watch-Dogs-2-Spiel-55550/Specials/Test-Review-Benchmark-1214553/

Rroff · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:26

So definitely exceeding 4GB actual in use data at 4K, not so much at lower resolutions.

EDIT: Actually looks like at a guess its slightly topping 4GB actual use on nVidia cards and hovering around that on the AMD ones based on the strange deltas compared to the 1440p results.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:31

Performance seems quite consistent between AMD and Nvidia TBH with a slight edge for NV GPUs overall when compared to equivalent AMD ones. Looking at the 3GB GTX1060 3GB it has a 15% drop in minimums over the 6GB version.

Fury X perforrmance is interesting - two reviews put it ahead of the RX480 comfortably by 20% to 30% and the last one it is slightly worse. Now,the first two do use reference RX480 cards,but even that does not explain it,so makes me wonder what is causing the Fury X to crash like that?? Lack of VRAM,worse tessellation,etc.

Rroff · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:34

At a guess depending on the exact testing scenario its having more or less impact on the FX's memory management with a knock on effect on results.

~>Dg<~ · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:39

are we suprised it favours nvidia ?

looks at my new nvidia card hello watched dogs free code

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:41

Rroff said:
At a guess depending on the exact testing scenario its having more or less impact on the FX's memory management with a knock on effect on results.

Probably I suspect.

More surprised its at only 1080P though!!

~>Dg<~ said:
are we suprised it favours nvidia ?

looks at my new nvidia card hello watched dogs free code

Well TBH,not massively and the performance on AMD seems reasonable overall.

Rroff · 29 Nov 2016 at 15:46

FX's memory setup always seemed to come into better effect at over 1080p.

Dicehunter · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:07

Terrible performance as usual from an Ubisoft game.

RichardH754 · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:09

SLIs running crap on it too!

Nexus18 · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:24

And so much for them delaying the game to give the PC "extra love"

LOL!

If they did indeed do some optimisations, I dread to imagine what state it would have been released in if they didn't push the date back :eek:

Couldn't possibly be any worse than mafia 3 release though

Shame as the game looks good but hey, unfortunately this is what we can expect from PC and completely and utterly broken titles on release day now

cmsbfent · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:28

Glad it's not just me. Pretty terrible on my 1080 as well.

Can't even max it at 1080p for a constant 60fps.

Back to 4k metal gear solid V at ultra settings until (if) it's sorted : )

Was starting to think this 1080 was unstoppable as well : p

Dirk Diggler · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:37

Surely if you were in the development team, the first thing you would say is: "We can't put it out there like that.... Can we?"

It's like they want to out-Gimp themselves every time!

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 29 Nov 2016 at 17:51

You forget 30FPS is cinematic lol.

humbug · 29 Nov 2016 at 18:43

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
You forget 30FPS is cinematic lol.