Guru3D review is out:

[styckx]

Not looking good

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dogs_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,1.html

So after testing six cards we immediately halted testing. The game was a mess, the results all over the place with many anomalies and offsets, Ultra Quality settings at Ultra HD would even use up to 6+ GB on the graphics memory. Ultra HD became a stutter-fest especially in-game at road at crossings and with cars passing by.

Concluding then, as much as we like games to stress graphics cards we are a little puzzled. Watch Dogs is not a game that looks mouth-watering good, I mean it is nice and all, but it is just that. To see graphics card struggle this much over graphics memory is weird to see. However if you use our guidelines then your frame-rate should remain very acceptable and the game playable whilst looking good. You will still run into the occasional stutters here and there as it is the nature of the game engine I'm afraid.

[Eeffy]

styckx님이 먼저 게시:

Guxany님이 먼저 게시:

I would ♥♥♥♥ on Guru3d, they are in my opinion such a bad review page. Wait until tomorrow and you will see how WD will run and how it will look like...

Many people already know how it runs. It runs like AC4 and GTA IV had a baby and BF4 was the real father.

So you say its good or ♥♥♥♥? I dont get it rly.

[Stupendous Man]

styckx님이 먼저 게시:

Not looking good

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/watch_dogs_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,1.html

So after testing six cards we immediately halted testing. The game was a mess, the results all over the place with many anomalies and offsets, Ultra Quality settings at Ultra HD would even use up to 6+ GB on the graphics memory. Ultra HD became a stutter-fest especially in-game at road at crossings and with cars passing by.

Concluding then, as much as we like games to stress graphics cards we are a little puzzled. Watch Dogs is not a game that looks mouth-watering good, I mean it is nice and all, but it is just that. To see graphics card struggle this much over graphics memory is weird to see. However if you use our guidelines then your frame-rate should remain very acceptable and the game playable whilst looking good. You will still run into the occasional stutters here and there as it is the nature of the game engine I'm afraid.

Is this guy a PC enthusiast or an average PC gamer? I only ask as he makes a pretty stupid statement. A game itself does not need to have insane mouth watering graphics to use a lot of VRAM.

There are multiple factors. You have texture quality, AA, shadows, and what resolution you are playing at. Max Payne 3 looks about the same graphics quality wise yet at 1080P maxed out it was pushing 2GB of VRAM and at 2560x1600 it was pushing 6GB of VRAM. And this was 3 years ago.

An open world game has to load certain things into VRAM in order to keep it from having texture pop. Add in all the factors, such as 4x AA basically means 4x the resolution and more VRAM useage, and I am noit surprised this game needs 6GB of VRAM at Ultra HD resolutions.

[Dukie]

Ok that was the negative part (which can be patched more or less to a certain degree).
Something positive that article said.

The gameplay and experience however are top notch.

Stupendous Man님이 먼저 게시:

Is this guy a PC enthusiast or an average PC gamer?

Guru3d.com is a reliable site.

[styckx]

Yes.. The game.. Is fun.. When you seperate it from all the stuttering and hiccuping it constantly does at all settings. Yes I've played it. The review is dead on. Countless others who have played the game can back that review up 1000%.. The game is a VRAM ♥♥♥♥♥ and when you see it you will come to the same conclusion.. Why? Because what you see, doesn't equal what it demands..

Sleeping Dogs is what all game developers should strive for.. That game looks amazing and runs like a watch without asking for your paycheck in hardware upgrades in return.

[Dukie]

styckx님이 먼저 게시:

Yes.. The game.. Is fun.. When you seperate it from all the stuttering and hiccuping it constantly does at all settings.

Yes, I didnt ment it as an excuse. It can make it a bit frustrating when it stutters, that's a fact.

Those GTX 770 results on page 5 are kinda shocking btw. That's realy odd.

[chrisleutz]

all you people complaing you do realize that ultraHD is 4k resolution correct and that you have to have a 4k monitor and they did say that almost all cards would run it at 1080p just fine.

[Dukie]

chrisleutz님이 먼저 게시:

all you people complaing you do realize that ultraHD is 4k resolution correct and that you have to have a 4k monitor and they did say that almost all cards would run it at 1080p just fine.

Yes I can read thank you.

[X]

guru 3d who?

[Frit_/x/]

surprise people surprise...... next, next gen game for the toilet...

[Knottypine]

Duke McFishy님이 먼저 게시:

Those GTX 770 results on page 5 are kinda shocking btw. That's realy odd.

Sure is. That's my card. At least I'm only planning on playing in 1080.

[Dukie]

Knottypine님이 먼저 게시:

Duke McFishy님이 먼저 게시:

Those GTX 770 results on page 5 are kinda shocking btw. That's realy odd.

Sure is. That's my card. At least I'm only planning on playing in 1080.

Yeah fortunatly that helps a bit.