You'll need Titan to see Watch Dogs trailer quality on PC

Maybe to run at 60fps . I doubt you need a titan to run it at ultra. I'm pretty sure lower cards will just push more pedestrian frames. In the end you will customize the game to run on your system the way you want it to so known of this matters.

It looks like that I will be playing Watchdogs at ultra quality then : )

ps. 780 is not a Titan, is twice as less expensive.

I don't think so, lol, the game has been in the top 3 of best selling games on Steam since it was added for preorders.

Oh man, AC4. What a crock of shit that game is. I never bothered to run it again after I tried to play it at the Nvidia recommended settings for my 780Ti which was a horrible experience. FPS going up and down faster than a whores draws.

why?

Nothing to upgrade to yet.

because he's clearly jelly about how people spend the money he doesn't have

maybe his mommy will buy it for him so he doesn't have to use all of his allowance

That'll be at least a few years of allowance

Well it's obvious little lglz isn't getting into college so he might as well use it for something fun

Its not even that impressive. Sleeping Dogs looks better

@Led_poison: yeah,SD has better draw distance,more NPCs and traffic are rendered on screen,more detailed world,weather effects with wind that affects vegetation and clothes,different intensities of rain,dynamic clouds and fog.

You will need a titan? lol.. Ya righttttttttttttttttt .The same titans that get beat by gtx 780sc edition and R9 290 for way less money? lols .. Terrible topic title indeed

It worked though, it got you in here....

So the definite experience is on PS4 then, good, that's the version I was getting anyways.

I don't know what it is about Watch Dogs, but no matter what trailer I see, it simply does not look as good as some other games from 1-2 years ago to me. It suffers many of the same problems as Infamous: Second Son, one such caveat to me being the lack of shadows cast by people. Some cars a mere ~30ish feet in front of the player also do not cast dynamic shadows. Also, the advertised use of TXAA is cool, but after using it in Crysis 3, I could definitely determine that edges were much smoother but at a similar (but strikingly a bit worse) cost to overall IQ caused by FXAA (e.g., blurring the whole image, impacting the quality of AF, pics here and here - in order from first to last: AA disabled, FXAA, TXAA, MSAA), so using TXAA at resolutions at or below 1080p would be a detriment. Even some shots I took at 1440p looked impacted. The level of detail when one zooms in on a wall or an individual object will no doubt look great, especially if many of the other LoD'ed, less detailed objects are occluded by means of motion blur or Bokeh DoF. The tricks that make this game visually fantastic look great, especially in motion, but I just simply cannot see this looking that technically impressive.

Of course the graphical powerhouse that it is, Crysis 3 looks better to me. It implements much of the same tech and more into CE3 and manages to need less beefy hardware to run. I still honestly cannot understand where this 4770k/FX-9590 for Watch Dog's ultra settings claim is coming from. As others have, perhaps prematurely, pointed out on the PC hardware forums (and I agree), this game seems like a fairly unoptimized game on the CPU side of things. If it requires all that to have the sharpened shadows and other post processing effects for this quality, I can only imagine that many of the features we've been fed as PS4 (and subsequently XO) footage will be heavily diminished if not discarded all together. I guess that's the cost of developing the game for at least five platforms.

Nope, still PC

Well I guess if you want to spend 1k on a video card. I dont, so PS4 version for me. Day 1.

I really don't give a shit about the graphics, I'm more concerned that the game is good and that their shitty cloud save feature in Uplay is fixed.

Lol, I don't either to beat the PS4 version

I couldn't fathom running without the max settings on PC as recommended by developer, so I'll take the version that has been specially optimized for the hardware.

I'll get the PC version later on a $5 steam like every other PC game I buy.

Lol, it's ubisoft, it will probably **** up on all platforms

That's true..hahaha. Still getting PS4 version :P

Nvidia's gotta sell those $1500-$3000 cards somehow. Back room deals FTL.

There seems to be eons more going on in Chicago than in C3 though, all running seemlessly.

..... Its not a gaming card you bumbling buffoon!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. At least not yet its not. But there will be a derivative of it for the consumer market.

No doubt but the Titan Range is not geared towards gamers. Sure it can run games extremely well but its not made for gamers.

It doesn't look as good as InFamous Second Son and you need a 1000 dollar GPU to run it? pffffffffffffft.

@MonsieurX: keep guessing

you must be a verry old man so sensitive

@lostrib: you also keep guessing

you must me the father if monsieurx even older and so sensitive

dafuq is this shit?

@lostrib: your balls getting gray old man

I hope not

how old do you think I am?

I have trouble seeing jaggies with 2 X AA in 1080p well I play on PC. And I sit 10 feet from a 100" screen (projector)

Dem console jaggies were 720p x 2 AA which looked horrible.

TressFx is not proprietary. Reason why it runs better on AMD hardware over Nvidia is because AMD's gaming GPUs are better at GpGPU (non-CUDA) calculations like DirectCompute than Nvidia's gaming GPUs. Nvidia on purpose gimps their Geforce cards on GpGPU calculations to have a huge gap between Geforce and Quadro.

And PhysX is proprietary.

A lot of PC gamers aren't going to be able to experience this game on Ultra...can we be honest about that? I'm not interested in this game, but even if I was, I wouldn't be able to experience it maxed out. I drop down to 30 frames on Tomb Raider at high settings. I'm content with my rig until a game comes along that truly impresses me....gameplay wise.

It's only because they have MSAA right up.

I stand corrected then. I wasn't sure if TressFx was proprietary as well. But thanks for informing me of what causes the performance issue.

PC gamers are never happy.

Either a game doesn't make full use of the PC platform, or it pushes to much and they complain that the requirements are too steep.

**** the Titan. I'll wait and get a high end 800 series card.

Taking full use of the PC platform includes optimization. A game that just has high requirements isnt necessarily doing anything to take use of the platform.

But if you need a GTX Titan to play The Watch Dogs smoothly in 1080p, I'd say its poorly optimized. The Witcher 3 looks MILES better yet is said to run on Ultra settings @ 1080p on a single GTX 780 TI and get stable 30-35fps.

Of course if you want to run it at 1440p or 4K you'll need two or three GTX 780 Ti's.

Haven't upgraded my PC since my beast in 2009, which still maxes 99% games @ 1080p. Going to wait for 4K projectors to come in the sub-$5000 range (currently the cheapest is a $12,000 Sony) before I upgrade my PC again, which will probably be a GTX 880 SLI or 980 SLI when they come out.

Good then, my 4770k and 780Ti have been resting far too long

Thought the game will be mediocre anyway so it matters little

Brah, the 780ti is more powerful than the Titan, it just has less ram (which doesn't matter at 1080p).

Will you be able to record and play it at the same time?

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert but isn't that fairly unreasonable considering the amount of fragmentation on the PC platform?

Yeah I know, but not by that much?

To some degree. Its not like a game is either optimized or not, there are multiple things to look at. Not just performance, but how filled out the video setting are, and how well the controller support is implemented, among other things.

Well, I was hoping to max the game out with my gtx 770. Guess not.