Creston wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 15:06:
But in any case, no matter how many processes or threads or CLOUD MAJICS! it uses, a 32 Bit OS can never address things beyond 4 GB of memory. Ergo, (Latin!), the minimum of 6 means it's going to require a 64 bit OS (even if the executable might still just be 32 bit.)

Though there are and have been OS's that support more than 4gb in 32 bit versions.
The 4gb 32bit thing is more of a normal limit, but it can be worked around

Core i7 980x @ 4.2ghz and 12 gigs of pc3200. No problem there... Now all I need is for the friggin 880gtx to come out so I can upgrade this aging 3gb 580.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 17:49:
Ah, "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." So you're saying, b/c they've got the extra bandwidth, they're going to use it.

Yeah, pretty much. Memory for PCs hit some super cheap points in the last few years, and as I also said in the Titanfall thread even my Sandybridge does well in gaming versus the newest Haswells. Basically, there was ample opportunity for people to get a quad-core and 8+ GB of RAM.

As soon as the next generation ("now-current") came out it was pretty much inevitable that they would use all of that CPU power and memory if it was available since the PC market is tiny for these developers. That's the Parkinson's law part - anybody gaming on a PC can afford to play a game that makes use of the CPU and memory, so there was little reason for console developers to optimize.

In Titanfall's case, the massive amount of space used for audio was to help optimize the game towards dual-cores. That optimization is because the developers in that case are PC-friendly. It is the exception rather than the rule. I think most people would sacrifice bandwidth and space to get a game to run on their older system, but someone like myself who can afford SSDs for online gaming would rather have the option of a smaller install for heftier requirements.

This comment was edited on Mar 12, 2014, 18:06.

NewMaxx wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 16:50:

jdreyer wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:33:
I wonder why the specs are so high. This game is coming out for 360 and PS3, both of which have a lot less RAM than 6GB.

I'm guessing the most recent development was for the now-current generation of consoles and that's where the PC version is forked. I mentioned the other day in the Titanfall thread about how games will be CPU- and memory-heavy now, and this pretty much backs that up. If you've ever heard of Parkinson's law, it applies here.

I've heard of Moore's Law, and of Parkinson's disease. Is this the intersection of the two?

*googles*

Ah, "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." So you're saying, b/c they've got the extra bandwidth, they're going to use it.

1badmf wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:51:

TheEmissary wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:25:

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

Its inferred from the fact the game requires you to have a DX11 graphics card and need 6GB of RAM. Its possible they could also be supporting Vista but its unlikely.

why would it be unlikely? vista can run everything 7 and 8 can. i know me and a few others here are vista holdouts who REGRET NOTHING!!! all patched up it runs flawlessly. maybe still a resource hog, but i've never noticed since i've always maintained an enthusiast level machine.

It has nothing do with whether Vista is a good or bad OS. Most developers usually stick to supporting two versions of Windows at a time. Some might go above and beyond that but its rare. That is all I meant by it. Vista supports DX11, but its up to the developer if they optimize for it.

I do think that when a PC game has more than 3 settings for texture quality and I put it on the highest one. They should at least look as good as the HD Skyrim texture packs. At a minimum. Those were fan made packs and I'll take one of those over the low def crap I see in Titanfall on its so called "insane" setting.

If they want to support low end pcs, fine, that's what the low setting is for. But extreme, ultra, insane, or whatever they want to call it, better look appropriate to the name.

NewMaxx wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 16:50:

jdreyer wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:33:
I wonder why the specs are so high. This game is coming out for 360 and PS3, both of which have a lot less RAM than 6GB.

I'm guessing the most recent development was for the now-current generation of consoles and that's where the PC version is forked. I mentioned the other day in the Titanfall thread about how games will be CPU- and memory-heavy now, and this pretty much backs that up. If you've ever heard of Parkinson's law, it applies here.

Seems like they're going to be leaving a lot of money on the table with specs so high.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:33:
I wonder why the specs are so high. This game is coming out for 360 and PS3, both of which have a lot less RAM than 6GB.

I'm guessing the most recent development was for the now-current generation of consoles and that's where the PC version is forked. I mentioned the other day in the Titanfall thread about how games will be CPU- and memory-heavy now, and this pretty much backs that up. If you've ever heard of Parkinson's law, it applies here.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnd THAT'S MY CUE TO UPGRADE! *Looking down at my sad leaning tower of despair......SIGH*

Morin tweeted some more stuff, with the RECOMMENDED specs, confirming 64 bit:

Core i7 3770 3.5Ghz 8 GB | Windows Vista/7 or 8 (64 bit only) | GeForce GTX 560 Ti | Video RAM 2 GB | Sound Card

Edit:

Here's the URL for the specs http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/watch-dogs/11845/?p=a

Looks like it can run under Vista and 7 without needing 64bit...

wtf_man wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 15:48:

Creston wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 15:06:
It just has to do with how much memory you have on your GPU. You can even easily test it. Just swap out the 512MB card with a 2GB one, and watch how your available system memory plummets.

I'll have to check that out! I always thought is was system drivers and RAM reserved for onboard graphics... not a discrete card.

Even an old dog learns new tricks from time to time.

Generally the OS reserves the top 512MB for memory mappings (whether you really have memory or not). So even if you have 4GB, you only have at most 3.5GB available.
Note that the discrete GPUs do NOT map their whole RAM to the system RAM, it would make no sense. Only frame buffers are mapped, and that's a tiny amount.
If the OS needs more for hardware mapping than the top 512MB, it will add a chunk of 256MB I think, and keep going. If you find that your OS can't use nowhere near the amount of RAM that you're supposed to be able to use, chances are that some of the RAM is deficient.

submit to the gospel of Vista my son, repent, and DON'T BLOW YOUR CASH ON UNNEEDED OS UPGRADES! THE POWER OF GATES COMPELS YOU!

Creston wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 15:06:
It just has to do with how much memory you have on your GPU. You can even easily test it. Just swap out the 512MB card with a 2GB one, and watch how your available system memory plummets.

I'll have to check that out! I always thought is was system drivers and RAM reserved for onboard graphics... not a discrete card.

Even an old dog learns new tricks from time to time.

wtf_man wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:40:
A 32-Bit Windows OS only addresses 3 to 3.5GB depending on how much it has to reserve for system drivers.

No, actually a 32 bit OS CAN simply address 4GB of memory address space. What everyone always seems to forget is that your graphics memory (yes, even that on a dedicated GPU) has to be addressed by that same controller.

So it's nothing to do with system drivers. It just has to do with how much memory you have on your GPU. You can even easily test it. Just swap out the 512MB card with a 2GB one, and watch how your available system memory plummets.

But in any case, no matter how many processes or threads or CLOUD MAJICS! it uses, a 32 Bit OS can never address things beyond 4 GB of memory. Ergo, (Latin!), the minimum of 6 means it's going to require a 64 bit OS (even if the executable might still just be 32 bit.)

1badmf wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:51:

TheEmissary wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:25:

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

Its inferred from the fact the game requires you to have a DX11 graphics card and need 6GB of RAM. Its possible they could also be supporting Vista but its unlikely.

why would it be unlikely? vista can run everything 7 and 8 can. i know me and a few others here are vista holdouts who REGRET NOTHING!!! all patched up it runs flawlessly. maybe still a resource hog, but i've never noticed since i've always maintained an enthusiast level machine.

I feel like we need to throw you and your PC into the trunk of a car, drive you to a church and have them..... do something. I dunno what, just... dude that ain't right! YOUR WORDS ARE PAIN!

TheEmissary wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:25:

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

Its inferred from the fact the game requires you to have a DX11 graphics card and need 6GB of RAM. Its possible they could also be supporting Vista but its unlikely.

why would it be unlikely? vista can run everything 7 and 8 can. i know me and a few others here are vista holdouts who REGRET NOTHING!!! all patched up it runs flawlessly. maybe still a resource hog, but i've never noticed since i've always maintained an enthusiast level machine.

NKD wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 12:30:

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

With a minimum requirement of 6GB RAM, you're going to need to be on 64-bit in practice, even if it's not a 64-bit executable.

uhh... Technically a single 32-Bit process in Windows can only address 2GB, so the executable would have to be running multiple processes in order to gobble 6 GB... which would be weird. Usually an application is a single process with many threads... not multiple processes with however many threads.

So, if 6GB of RAM is required... then the OS Must be 64-Bit. A 32-Bit Windows OS only addresses 3 to 3.5GB depending on how much it has to reserve for system drivers.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 14:33:
I wonder why the specs are so high. This game is coming out for 360 and PS3, both of which have a lot less RAM than 6GB.

512 meg, I believe. Which makes something like GTA 5 amazing that it runs at all.

I wonder why the specs are so high. This game is coming out for 360 and PS3, both of which have a lot less RAM than 6GB.

Bundy wrote on Mar 12, 2014, 09:47:
Looking for, but don't see "Win7/8 64 bit". Damn.

Its inferred from the fact the game requires you to have a DX11 graphics card and need 6GB of RAM. Its possible they could also be supporting Vista but its unlikely.