Watch_Dogs performance

[LoWRiDeR]

Hi guys,

I just got my copy of Watch_Dogs. Installed and was trying it. I get quite poor performance.

My 2 Gainward GTX660Ti's 3GBRam are slightly overclocked (+50 core +400vram).
They are at around 60%utilization each in SLI if I crank up the settings, and I get around 20 to 30 FPS. My CPU utilization is at 85-90%.
I have a Xeon X3380 C2Q at 4275mhz oc, with 8gig ram.

Even if I set settings to low, the situation doesn't get much better, even though the game might go up to 45-50fps in not so heavy environments.

The game is installed on SSD.

Is the game badly optimized or should I just accept that my CPU is now getting old? I still can't believe that a 4.27ghz quad core can't handle this game properly...

Or is it a matter of getting some patch now post release/new nvidia drivers?

Look forward to your comments.

[tentp0le]

You have installed the latest driver from nvidia as well?
Nvidia GeForce 337.88 WHQL - It is the recommended driver for Watch Dogs, also providing updated SLI and 3D Vision profiles along with bug fixes.

[LoWRiDeR]

Thanks, I am trying to re-enable SLI with the latest drivers as HYPER SLI doesn't seem to work. (i have a non SLI mobo). However might have a workaround which I will try.

U think my CPU is enough for the game? Not CPU limited then?

[Dr. Vodka]

My 2500k @ 4.5 ghz sees 50-65% CPU usage with this game (quick alt-tab to task manager and checking the graph). Feeding a lowly 6850 @ 920/1180. Basically a 6870. It loves threads.. and fast CPUs. It could've been polished a bit better, yes. That much CPU utilization in your case points to a bottleneck there. How does it run when you disable SLI and use one 660? Does it get any better at low settings?



An anecdote I'd like to share: I used to have an E7200 @ 3.8 ghz (450x8.5, 1:1 memory -cheap kingston valueram crap- relatively fast FSB to eliminate bottenecks. Gigabyte board, extreme memory profile. Tight.) with the same 6850 back then in the days of assassin's creed II or brotherhood, I don't remember which one it was. As usual I cranked the settings up, to my dismay it was a stuttery mess, struggling to reach 30 FPS, 1680x1050. What the hell? Why didn't I go for the 6950? It wasn't that much more... Oh well, played it through. Then at the end of 2011 I upgraded to my current 2500k. Fired up the same game with the same videocard.. 60 fps without a hitch. Even managed to enable AA and keep it more than fluid (50+ fps). I was stunned. What the hell...? And to think that I was getting decent GPU usage on the C2D back then. Boggles the mind.

So yeah, as powerful those C2D/Q CPUs are, they are unfortunately held back by an antiquated system architecture (FSB and NB, quads going through the FSB to communicate both CPU dies with each other... remember, not monolithic with fast on die interconnect like the i7s) that can't keep up with these games. Going forward you're gonna have games cleverly designed for 8 slow threads in these new consoles that will need even more CPU grunt, probably. Mostly straight ports from these x86 consoles to our PCs, but who knows what they'll come up with. A i7 920 D0 / W3520 with its 8 threads at 4 ghz would eat this game for breakfast, and that would be a cheap upgrade! A bit power hungry but quite inexpensive... and would get you a SLI certified board without the need to do black magic to get it working, double upgrade!

[LoWRiDeR]

Thanks Dr.Vodka!

Good advice.

I am infact thinking of getting a ROG Z97 and an i7-4770k and get on with it...do you think it's a good combo?

I'll keep rest of hw as is. Your thoughts?

[Dr. Vodka]

That would be an excellent upgrade and it'll last you some long years. You'll see what those 660TIs are capable of when driven at 100% both... for a long time.