Watchdogs2 benchmarks

[Sweepr]

Are you guys seriously debating fx vs i3 based on this game?
Look at that crap,this is full on artificial performance limiting,
in which universe are the i5-2500k and i5-4670k only 10% apart in IPC?
No matter how many threads this game runs on the quads,since it can make use of the 8c/16t one it should use both i5s at 100% and the difference in FPS should match the difference in IPC.
Same for i7-4770 and i7-6700,ubifail did the same thing with watch dogs 1 and got tons of bad rap for it.

PCLab tested one of the most CPU intensive scenes of the game. And, as expected, OCed FX-9590 gets crushed by Core i5 at stock. Core i3 almost matching FX-8350. OCed Haswell-E (now replaced by Broadwell-E) delivers almost twice the performance of the fastest AMD chip.

In our opinion, in order to fully enjoy the game in Watch Dogs 2 you must obtain at least a Core i5 (eg. Core i5-6400 or higher). Playing on weaker units (eg. Intel Core i3-6100, FX-6350 and FX-8350) is possible, but fraught with a large number of jams, which in some places may irritate and not in others.

Funny you missed the FX8350 at default being faster than the 3 year younger and more expensive Core i5 6600 14nm Skylake

Turns out it isn't.

 

[Erenhardt]

Turns out it is.
It is just PCLamb being PCLamb. Going against all world.
They should invest in Antivirus software.


Trolling is not allowed
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[Majcric]

From my own CPU Testing with the i7 6700k @ 4.5 Gamegpu results are more accurate.

Looks like PClab was only testing on the bridge and I wasn't able to find out if they had extra details on or not.

Does anyone here have a hexacore or octacore willing to do some CPU testing for this game?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Turns out it is.
It is just PCLamb being PCLamb. Going against all world.
They should invest in Antivirus software.

Yea, it must be a bogus site. They actually test the fastest skylake processors, unlike game.GPU. And they actually over clock them, as most serious gamers would do, again unlike game.GPU.

 

[Head1985]

pclabs habe good cpu test.Same as pcgameshardware you can actually see real cpu frequencies and compare IPC.Far better test than gamegpu.
haswell 4.5ghz still slower than skylake 4ghz(6700k runs at 4ghz whole time when 4cores are in use)
5960x at 4.5ghz faster than 6700k 4.5ghz
Also 6700k have probably Ram speed bottleneck- same performance at 4.5 vs 4.7Ghz.They using slow DDR4 2666Mhz ram.Skylake need 3Ghz Ram minimum to perform decent in games.

 

[Majcric]

I would have liked to seen PC labs do a cpu test somewhere other than the bay bridge. As IMO there are more cpu intensive parts in this game. Both GameGPu and PClab results are probably fine as whole but GameGPU seemed to have found the more CPU intensive part of the game which echos my own findings

 

[PhonakV30]

PCLab tested one of the most CPU intensive scenes of the game. And, as expected, OCed FX-9590 gets crushed by Core i5 at stock. Core i3 almost matching FX-8350. OCed Haswell-E (now replaced by Broadwell-E) delivers almost twice the performance of the fastest AMD chip.

Turns out it isn't.

then you should not use GameGPU as logic

 

[frozentundra123456]

Game.gpu used to by my go to site for gaming data, but recently I have no faith in them at all, especially the cpu tests. Even their selection of cpus is unfathomable. They must have a 6700k system since they use it for the APU tests, so why dont they use it for the dgpu testing?

 

[Dygaza]

Game has places where you simply benefit from more cores, and places where game logic seems to be bottleneck. In latter cases you get benefits from better single thread performance. And for AMD's case there are occasional driver overhead bottleneck's aswell.

 

[Keysplayr]

Turns out it is.
It is just PCLamb being PCLamb. Going against all world.
They should invest in Antivirus software.

No, it really really isn't. I know you would love it to be, so would I, but it isn't.

 

[psolord]

I just finished uploading the first part of my benchmarks. Maybe I will do the 7950 and 5850 at lower settings later just for fun.

I benchmarked a lengthy session of the Cyberdriver mission at straight ultra preset, which is not the highest. You can fiddle around with 3-4 more settings and give them even higher values. Maybe I will do a maxed out version of the same run later.

Watchdogs 2 1920x1080 Ultra GTX 1070 @2Ghz Core i5 2500k @4.8GHz
- 70fps

Watchdogs 2 1920X1080 Ultra GTX 970 @1.5Ghz CORE i7-860 @4GHz - 42fps

Now I have to say that is one of the bigger deltas I have see between the 1070 and the 970. A devilish 66.666666% lol My results seem to be closer to the Guru3D's review. Maybe we used a similar location.

Both runs exhibited mild cpu limits of equal measure. GPU Usage was at 98-99% for the most part.

Both systems did not provide stellar performance however.





The bright side is that with the 1070, you can have a decent gaming experience and if you don't analyze performance numbers too much, the game is enjoyable.

In the cpu side, my 2500k cried, once again. It is a trend lately to see my cpu usage sky high. Crazy for a quad 4.8GHz sandy. But at least it was enough to keep the 1070 properly engaged.



You can see how cpu heavy this game is however, because my gaming cpu frequency is much lower for the 2500k and the game was struggling to break 50fps.

The 860 was more relaxed but you can never know with stupid hyperthreading switching threads all around.

The video ram usage climbed up to 6GBs for the 1070 and when you see that, you can safely assume that it's not spelling any good news for the 970. Maybe I will have to tone down things a bit, to see what kind of settings it can handle at 60fps. Not to mention the 7950.

Decent game overall. Quite beautiful but quite heavy. Maybe even disproportionately so.

 

[Majcric]

Yes the game looks very good for an open world game. It probably has the best looking shadows seen in gaming to date. Compressed videos on youtube doesn't do this game justice. Not to mention 1440p takes the graphic fidelity to a whole new level. Seems to be much more profound in this game than others.

In a cpu test what kind of mins are you seeing on that highly overclocked i5 2500k? With say a 720p/1080p res extra details 100%, everything else off.

 

[psolord]

I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but with the settings at low and the extra details at max, in 1080p, these are the results I am getting with the 1070 at stock and the i5-2500k@4.3Ghz which is its normal everyday frequency.

Same Cyberdriver session, but only up to the point where you park to meet the paparazzi.

2016-12-07 13:13:22 - WatchDogs2
Frames: 11508 - Time: 156594ms - Avg: 73.489 - Min: 46 - Max: 122

Video ram is at 1.7GBs with these settings.

It does not look that butt ugly at low settings either.

Spoiler: Watchdogs screenies at low settings

 

[happy medium]

 

[Majcric]

I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but with the settings at low and the extra details at max, in 1080p, these are the results I am getting with the 1070 at stock and the i5-2500k@4.3Ghz which is its normal everyday frequency.

Same Cyberdriver session, but only up to the point where you park to meet the paparazzi.



Video ram is at 1.7GBs with these settings.

It does not look that butt ugly at low settings either.

Spoiler: Watchdogs screenies at low settings

You understood me perfectly fine. What speed is your memory? I still have an i5 2500k sitting around, I was thinking of testing Watch Dogs on that system and see how it stacks up again the i7 6700k. Both processors at 4.5. In the first Watch Dogs there was around 50% performance difference

On a side note, I have 13 hours in this game and 0% percent progression.

 

[moonbogg]

I haven't seen any 6 core testing on this game. I don't think it matters at this point anyway. Quads, with or without HT, are going out quickly, and 6 core CPU's are an odd middle ground that most people will skip right over. When AMD releases 8/16 Zen for a decent price, 8/16 will be the new standard to expect from a CPU at a decent price, although a skylake 6 core might compete well with it.
Anyone wanting a new CPU with plenty of gaming horsepower for new games like this will likely turn to Zen since anything intel has to offer will be way off in some distant galaxy as far as price is concerned, pretty much making high end Intel CPU's totally irrelevant for gaming, regardless of their performance. I can't see gamers spending $600-$1700 on an Intel CPU when an 8 core Zen will get the job done just as well (for many years) for around $400 or something like that.
Of course I'll be looking for an 8/16 Skylake, but I'm stoopid like that.

 

[psolord]

You understood me perfectly fine. What speed is your memory? I still have an i5 2500k sitting around, I was thinking of testing Watch Dogs on that system and see how it stacks up again the i7 6700k. Both processors at 4.5. In the first Watch Dogs there was around 50% performance difference

On a side note, I have 13 hours in this game and 0% percent progression.

Ok I am glad I did.

Watchdogs1 was one of the most cpu limited games when I did my Q9550 vs 2500k comparison with the GTX 970.

From what I have seen Watchdog2 follows suit. I bet the 6700k will a have a considerably better performance.

 

[escrow4]

5930K @ 3.7GHz, GTX 1070 Strix OC (Default OC), 16GB DDR4 2133MHz (quad channel), all settings at "Ultra" preset, AA disabled, no extra details:





Initial tests, never seen a game take this much CPU resources, all 12 threads are easily cracking 50%. The engine is very very well threaded. No surprise a quad may be running out of puff, even overclocked. Will grab some more screenshots . . . . so far solid 60FPS @ 1200p easy.

 

[moonbogg]

^ Interesting. Thanks for that. I wonder if my CPU is faster than a 6700k in this game? Hmm, wouldn't that just be a real hoot. I saw a benchmark video where an OC'd 6700K was totally pegged on all 4 cores/8 threads at 100%. Crazy.

 

[escrow4]

Nightime scene:

If your FPS are dipping its more than likely your CPU, this game is extremely well threaded. Dips are into the 50s, very impressed with the engine. Deducting Win 10 usage, RAM for this game alone is around 7GB.

 

[moonbogg]

Your CPU is at 3.7? So stock then, right? I'd assume a 3930k @ 4.6 should do at least as well as that or close to it. Its funny because I don't even want this game, lol. I really wish there was a way to get the game for benchmarking purposes. A demo would be great.

 

[escrow4]

Your CPU is at 3.7? So stock then, right? I'd assume a 3930k @ 4.6 should do at least as well as that or close to it. Its funny because I don't even want this game, lol. I really wish there was a way to get the game for benchmarking purposes. A demo would be great.

Stock is 3.5GHz. Being lazy, enabled MCE and left it at that. A 3930K is starting to creak but the bigger problem would be the old platform.

 

[Majcric]

5930K @ 3.7GHz, GTX 1070 Strix OC (Default OC), 16GB DDR4 2133MHz (quad channel), all settings at "Ultra" preset, AA disabled, no extra details:





Initial tests, never seen a game take this much CPU resources, all 12 threads are easily cracking 50%. The engine is very very well threaded. No surprise a quad may be running out of puff, even overclocked. Will grab some more screenshots . . . . so far solid 60FPS @ 1200p easy.

When you say you never dip below 60, do mean literally never as in never at all. Or you might have a dip but only for a fraction of a sec? I had some do a CPU test with the i7 5820k, extra details on and reported a min of 39. Very interesting if you never get any dips at all regardless of your location on the map.

Also any chance you could run the game at 720p with everything off, except extra details put this at 100%

Edit: after rereading I seen where you said there were dips in the 50's. This is what I have 95% of the time but if I really go out of my way I can find some in the 40's

 

[Majcric]

^ Interesting. Thanks for that. I wonder if my CPU is faster than a 6700k in this game? Hmm, wouldn't that just be a real hoot. I saw a benchmark video where an OC'd 6700K was totally pegged on all 4 cores/8 threads at 100%. Crazy.

Do you recall what GPU's were used? I know hardware unboxed was pegged with 2 Titan XP. I need to upgrade my i7 6700k

 

[tg2708]

yea I have seen with my 6700k clocked at 4.5 a core was maxed out at 100 for a sec or two, never seen that before. Also can anyone tell me which settings have no graphical increase but kills fps.