Jump to content



Photo

Watch Dogs requires 6GB of RAM, 64-bit Windows


  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#226 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 29 December 2013 - 22:12

I'd like to know where he's getting that no-HT=<8 threads, too.  I have Task Manager open in detail mode - simply to check that; Google Chrome (which is not an x64 browser) has three tabs open, and eighteen processes running.  That does NOT include the two crash handlers (Google has both x64 and x32 crash handlers -rather odd for an x32 browser).  And I'm not running on an i-series CPU of any sort, let alone one with HT; this is a Q6600 -- Kentsfield, the original Intel quad-core.  Chrome has the most processes of anything; even svchost (Services Host) uses just twelve processes - and that's a core process. (I picked svchost.exe because it uses the second-most process threads behind Chrome itself.  It's also an x32 application/executable. So, we have one application with eighteen threads, and another with twelve - and neither is 64-bit?  The OS is, but the executables are not. )

The amount of processes in use is not a measure of code efficiency by any stretch of anyone's imagination - despite Chrome's eighteen processes (and svchost's twelve) the CPU is still using less than thirty percent of available resources - in other words, despite the process load, it's basically "loafing".

 

It appeared to me that in subsequent posts that he thought that applications had to implement thread scheduling themselves as opposed to scheduling/thread-handling being an OS-service and preemption/interrupts being hardware supported. So, I think from there he had just assumed that it would be very difficult to do such a thing without taking massive performance hits. He had used an example of an video encoder only using the same number of threads as physical cores as evidence for what he was saying.

 

I don't think most people have the background to understand the nuances of processor utilization or scheduling and just assume more cores is better and that it would be impossible for a machine with less cores to do an equivalent amount of work in the same amount of time or less.




#227 Athernar

Athernar

    ?

  • Joined: 15-December 04

Posted 29 December 2013 - 22:18

Do you think, at this point, that 10% who are x32 with <4GB or RAM are going to buy Watch Dogs in any case? Even if some do, should developers continue to invest in developing for that segment in lieu of moving forward with mastering x64 development and giving them access to everything x64 may or may not offer?

 

If crossplatform developers were capable of cramming games up till now onto PPC machines with 512MB of RAM, I think they should be able to manage supporting 2-4GB x86 machines without compromising 4GB+ x64.



#228 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 29 December 2013 - 22:22

Do you think, at this point, that 10% who are x32 with <4GB or RAM are going to buy Watch Dogs in any case? Even if some do, should developers continue to invest in developing for that segment in lieu of moving forward with mastering x64 development and giving them access to everything x64 may or may not offer?

 

I don't think that the 10% who are using 32-bit Windows would have bought Watch Dogs. I don't see it as an issue of developers continuing to develop for the x32 segment, but as developers continuing to develop for the segment with <4GB of RAM, 32-bit executables just comes naturally if you are within that segment. Let's be honest, if you are aren't developing games for at-least the 4GB boundary as minimum then you probably aren't pushing the envelope anyway.

 

That being said, I don't take issue with the Watch Dogs requirements, moving forward, or pushing the envelope to x64. Most people are running x64 anyway. The only thing I am is skeptical of whether those requirements are truly valid or if they are just listing unneeded minimums.



#229 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 29 December 2013 - 22:23

They disabled Enhanced Protected Mode as default after a while, claiming it was only for 'information gathering' (wot)

 

I had 6GB.  Would still be running that if this crappy ass mobo didn't decide it hated it.

EPM is the equivalent of UAC for browsers - like Hyper-V, EPM comes from the server side of Microsoft (where it is still the default, as of Server 2012R2, which is the core of my Hyper-V test setup, due to no Extended Processor Table requirement in Windows Server).  Despite G41, it's the lack of DDR3 support (the MCH in this particular G41 mATX motherboard only supports DDR2 - there ARE G41 motherboards, even in mATX, that support DDR3 - one is the ASUS P5G41-M LX Plus - this very motherboard's otherwise-twin sister).

 

Current DDR3 pricing - I took a look at DDR3 pricing (an admitted snapshot), and I looked at dual-channel pricing for desktop DDR3 from my usual retail source - MicroCenter.  They have twenty DDR3 sets - the spread from cheapest to priciest runs from $74.99 at the bottom to $139.99 at the summit; all are 2x4GB.  The only reason DDR3 is as high as it is has to do with increased demand and constrained supply - less than six months ago, there was practically a DDR3 glut.  (I bought a 2x4GB set during the worst of the glut for just $39.99.)  2x8GB?  $139.99 to $239.99 - again, constrained supply.  Four such sticks has you bouncing off the motherboard RAM ceiling.



#230 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 29 December 2013 - 22:42

I don't the that the 10% who are x32 would have bought Watch Dogs. I don't see it as an issue of developers continuing to develop for the x32 segment, but as developers continuing to develop for the segment with <4GB of RAM, 32-bit executables just comes naturally if you are within that segment. Let's be honest, if you are aren't developing games for at-least the 4GB boundary as minimum then you probably aren't pushing the envelope anyway.

 

That being said, I don't take issue with the Watch Dogs requirements, moving forward, or pushing the envelope to x64. Most people are running x64 anyway. The only thing I am is skeptical of whether those requirements are truly valid or if they are just listing unneeded minimums.

I don't either - most of us that ARE so constrained aren't necessarily unwilling to upgrade, but we're constrained by our current motherboards (dead memory technology in my own case, for example).  Merely changing to a motherboard that supports DDR3 makes that issue moot - however, the (relative) sting in the tail is that a new CPU is also required.  However, outside of games such as Watch Dogs (BF4, for example, or NFS Rivals, or even Supreme Commander) and even with x64 applications (Office 2010/2013), the issue is more add-ons and/or plug-ins - not the core software (again, browsers and productivity software).  Niche software IS pushing the requirement (Photoshop went multicore-aware several years back, for example; same applies to AutoCAD and 3DS Max) - however, what about even the add-ons for the same software (Photoshop/AutoCAD/3DS Max) - how many of those are x64?  I wouldn't think that many folks are going to run AutoCAD on any PC with just 4 GB of system memory.



#231 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 30 December 2013 - 10:51

It appeared to me that in subsequent posts that he thought that applications had to implement thread scheduling themselves as opposed to scheduling/thread-handling being an OS-service and preemption/interrupts being hardware supported. So, I think from there he had just assumed that it would be very difficult to do such a thing without taking massive performance hits. He had used an example of an video encoder only using the same number of threads as physical cores as evidence for what he was saying.
 
I don't think most people have the background to understand the nuances of processor utilization or scheduling and just assume more cores is better and that it would be impossible for a machine with less cores to do an equivalent amount of work in the same amount of time or less.


Yeah, games are one of those strange things where throwing more cores/threads at it might not help, unlike something like Excel or a video encoder.

The main difference being that excel or a video encoder don't care if a thread is 100ms late to reply, while having a subsystem in a game being 100ms out can make the entire thing break.

Stuff like map/model/texture loading is inherently asynchronous, while stuff like AI/physics are tightly coupled, the AI needs to know the physics state to make decisions, and the physics system will need to know the location of AI for collision, etc. So you end up with something resembling a real time operating system kernel where the majority is tightly coupled, and non-important tasks are thrown onto separate threads, which is rather hard to write (Meaning only people like John Carmack can do it justice), having everything handled as separate threads and leaving it up to the OS gets you into situations where you have your AI thread preempted to perform a texture load, not ideal.

#232 Xerax

Xerax

    Flashbomb

  • Joined: 04-December 10
  • Location: London, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1

Posted 30 December 2013 - 10:55

GTX 460 and HD 5850 are fairly ancient now. The 6GB RAM requirement might be the biggest stumbling block for users though. A quick look at the latest Steam Survey shows more than 50% of users won't meet the requirement.

 

Well, thank god ram is cheap, haha.



#233 JJ_

JJ_

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-July 05

Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:14

I can't wait to run multiple instances of this game



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!