Watch Dogs 2 performance thread

[nashathedog]

Can't hold 60 fps @ 1080P on a GTX 1080? Did the guy try turning settings down a bit? Or did he just whack them on full? Game does look fantastic though and something good to run in the future on full settings but not with current GPUs and especially if you are on anything from AMD.

The sad bit is how those extra setting hardly bring anything to the table and certainly nothing that warrants the additional performance hit so while future gen gpu's may be needed to max the game we get very little in return.

I suppose it's down to the fact that there are limits to what can be done on the graphics front and for now they're unable to move on to the next big thing, whatever that may be (some may say VR but I don't think anything forcing a headpiece to be worn is it).

 

[Stu]

As per the OP, see the nvidia guide to understand the impact of different settings.

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

Talking about the video, the dude has enabled "San Francisco Fog", HFTS, cranked up "Extra Details" to 100% plus MSAAx2, with Temporal Filtering turned off... each of those will take away 10-20 fps.

Personally, providing the dev has done his work and it's not just a bad port, I think it is good to release a game that current high end cards struggle with when everything is on Ultra, because then you can come back in 1-2 years and enjoy again with a better experience. Remember when Crysis was released... everyone was talking about how amazing it looked at max settings, even though it was unplayable, not that it was coded badly.

 

[Gregster]

Well TBH,look at cards like the RX480 and RX470,they are not massively slower than either version of the GTX1060,maybe, around 10% at most or thereabouts.

Well if a 1080 can't hold 60 fps @ 1080P, then anything from AMD is going to be unplayable. Might as well go NVidia then

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well if a 1080 can't hold 60 fps @ 1080P, then anything from AMD is going to be unplayable. Might as well go NVidia then

I somehow doubt the average person buying a RX470/RX480 or GTX1060 3GB/6GB is suddenly going to buy a GTX1080. So basically you are saying anybody who does not have a GTX1080 should avoid this game.

 

[Gregster]

I somehow doubt the average person buying a RX470/RX480 or GTX1060 3GB/6GB is suddenly going to buy a GTX1080. So basically you are saying anybody who does not have a GTX1080 should avoid this game.

Yer, exactly that! Can't be turning settings down now can we

 

[TNA]

Yer, exactly that! Can't be turning settings down now can we

Oi, my 1070 does a great job and I game 4K! Don't need no 1080!



Okay, so I have to turn down some settings sometimes

 

[Gregster]

Oi, my 1070 does a great job and I game 4K! Don't need no 1080!



Okay, so I have to turn down some settings sometimes

Of course lol. I was being a bit sarcarstic (I don't like sarcarsm) and For a few games I drop settings to get the frames I want and accept it. The OP was being a bit dramatic in his statements

 

[TNA]

Of course lol. I was being a bit sarcarstic (I don't like sarcarsm) and For a few games I drop settings to get the frames I want and accept it. The OP was being a bit dramatic in his statements

Yeah

Overall I like my graphics and I usual prioritise IQ over fps as I am happy to game at 30-60fps range. I am cool with dropping down settings when the difference from say High/Very High to Ultra is hard to see during gameplay. On many occasions there is a big hit for very little extra IQ and I am happy to take the extra fps by choosing the lower setting.

Apart from the upgrade itch that randomly comes along, I know it is time to upgrade when I cannot get a nice balance of some of the best visuals a game has to offer at acceptable fps. That is what started to happen for me on my 290, Just Cause 3 and Rise of the Tomb Raider were just not happening on that card at 4K. My 1070 did a great job though

 

[Gregster]

Yeah

Overall I like my graphics and I usual prioritise IQ over fps as I am happy to game at 30-60fps range. I am cool with dropping down settings when the difference from say High/Very High to Ultra is hard to see during gameplay. On many occasions there is a big hit for very little extra IQ and I am happy to take the extra fps by choosing the lower setting.

Apart from the upgrade itch that randomly comes along, I know it is time to upgrade when I cannot get a nice balance of some of the best visuals a game has to offer at acceptable fps. That is what started to happen for me on my 290, Just Cause 3 and Rise of the Tomb Raider were just not happening on that card at 4K. My 1070 did a great job though

Yer, in most games I am happy to sacrifice a few fps to add a decent visual addition and as my reactions are that of a slug, I don't think I miss out on much

 

[shankly1985]

Not sure what's going on but the steam review page everyone saying very well optimised.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yer, exactly that! Can't be turning settings down now can we

If you turn down settings you are not a member of PCMR,just one of those weird console lovers!!

 

[Jediben]

Getting 55 fps max settings at 4k on my 1080 sli set up. What you all complaining about?