DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
I was expecting to see Skynet min required... was not too far 
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Assassin's creed Unity PC version System requirements
- Thread starter catmario
- Start date
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
No they didn't do that one.
They have a mix of solid, "ok" and crap ports to their name.
I'm not sure which of those they might have worked with other studios on, if any.
I remember Carmack saying it was possible to get like 2x the perf on console versus PC, due to all the overhead and not being able to focus on a single spec.
2x7850 is slightly better than a 7970 so that could explain the minimum requirement.
Recommended specs probably suggest settings beyond that of console. Wouldn't surprise me if consoles are running @ the minimum spec.
I'm not in the slightest bit worried about how my 970 or the 780 Ti I'm eying to switch it with will handle this game at 2560x1440; there is nothing, absolutely nothing this level of GPU performance cannot handle well at this resolution or below (lol, waste of such performance if you ask me), including Ubisoft games. Especially given adjustable srttings. Therefore I find it sad when everyone loses their shit over some meaningless and context-less "requirements". I am, however, worried that Unity will have very limited use of multiple threads and therefore will hit only one CPU core pretty hard, limiting my framerate consistency with my 3770K.
TLDR: Why the hell is anyone with a powerful machine even half-seriously looking at "required specs" when it's not at all obvious what they mean? The "minimum" here will run 1920x1080 with respectable settings and framerate, I bet.
TLDR: Why the hell is anyone with a powerful machine even half-seriously looking at "required specs" when it's not at all obvious what they mean? The "minimum" here will run 1920x1080 with respectable settings and framerate, I bet.
GhostTrick
Banned
Okay first: 2xHD7850 is slightly worse than an HD7970 because of clockspeed.
Second: I'll say it again, minimum and recommended means nothing at all. You people are just overreacting. If you think that you'll need an HD7970 to match PS4/One version... then you're likely really wrong.
GameAddict411
Member
That's not always the case, remember COD: ghosts? Crysis 2? Crysis 3? All of these games prevented hardware below their suggested hardware even though theoretically can handle the game just fine.
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
Very afraid for FAR cry 4 requirements... sli gtx 970 min, I know you want to say it Ubi
I bet they don't even support sli or crossfire at launch... that would suck, but wouldn't be surprised!
I bet they don't even support sli or crossfire at launch... that would suck, but wouldn't be surprised!
UnrealEck
Member
GhostTrick
Banned
True that's not always the cause. But it's usually because either of a DirectX version thing, or RAM amount.
Iastfan112
Neo Member
My theory would be that, perhaps in order to max out the consoles(slow cores but 8 of them) Ubisoft has made AC:U well parallelised, in contrast to previous games that thrived on 2 to may 4 fast threads. When it came out, the 8350 generally sat between Ivy Bridge i5's and the i7's in well threaded tasks, its just gaming has not traditionally resulted in that sort of work load.
Or these requirements are either made up, overstated, or inaccurate, more likely options than my above theory.
GameAddict411
Member
That's not how it works, while there no doubt that the homogenous nature of consoles has its own advantages it can't beat physics now wouldn't it? Most of the performance overhead on the PC is CPU wise, the GPU on the other hand is utilized close to max. There may be some un-used part of the GPU during rendering, but it's not 2x slower.
alexandros
Banned
Seriously. I can't believe we are doing this dance again, so soon after the last requirements panic. Sigh.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Far Cry 4 is cross-gen so it should be fine. AC Unity is the first Ubi game that's next-gen only.Very afraid for FAR cry 4 requirements... sli gtx 970 min, I know you want to say it Ubi
I bet they don't even support sli or crossfire at launch... that would suck, but wouldn't be surprised!
Mordor and Evil Within were also cross-gen, by the way. AC Unity's reqs might be legit.
because not everyone have a 780TI or 970?
according to this, most common graphics card people have on steam don't even hit the minimum requirements
I have a HD7870 and pre ordered this game and now i am not sure if i want to keep it
Admiral Woofington
Member
wouldn't that have more to do with Ubi's optimization skills for the computer?
- GPU:
Minimum - NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 or above
Graphic Memory minimum - 2GB
"You cant blame us now if the game doesnt run! - ubisoft"
And the game still won't run, probably jog while stopping at he nearest water fountain, sometimes waking up and deciding I just don't feel like it today
FunkyMunkey
Banned
Another person using a Ubisoft game as if it's some sort of metric. Low/medium settings for this game for PC will probably match/outmatch the XO/PS4 versions btw so I'm not sure what "catch up" means. Unless you're just trolling that is.
Most of these people will conveniently disappear when the game actually releases, and then pop up again when more system req's are announced for another game.
Thank you.
j0hnny_385
Member
i5-4670K & GTX 970 represent!
BRING IT!
Crazy specs, btw.
That coupled with Ubisoft PC Optimization = disaster.
Questions I have:
- will the game be forced to 16:9? I have a 24" 1920x1200 16:10 monitor and I would like to play the game without forced black bars.
- will vsync work properly? AC:IV didn't have triple buffering so I had to force it via RadeonPro (I had a 7850 at the time) in order to maintain a proper sync to 60fps.
Either way, the game looks gorgeous and I hope this release fares better than Watch Dogs did on the PC. I'm sick of half-ass optimized ports. >(
BRING IT!
Crazy specs, btw.
That coupled with Ubisoft PC Optimization = disaster.
Questions I have:
- will the game be forced to 16:9? I have a 24" 1920x1200 16:10 monitor and I would like to play the game without forced black bars.
- will vsync work properly? AC:IV didn't have triple buffering so I had to force it via RadeonPro (I had a 7850 at the time) in order to maintain a proper sync to 60fps.
Either way, the game looks gorgeous and I hope this release fares better than Watch Dogs did on the PC. I'm sick of half-ass optimized ports. >(
Ubisoft, who makes terribly unoptimized PC games, leads you to believe that this is an indictment on PC gaming?
Yeah, well I didn't meant to suggest the GPU is 2x slower, but overall a closed platform can achieve 2x perf overall. I know that doesn't necessarily translate to 2x the FPS though.
https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/50277106856370176
Anyway, optimized, I wouldn't be surprised if the PS4 can reach a bit beyond 7870 level. Combine that with Ubisoft's usual sloppy port job and considering the consoles run at 900p I could see this actually needing a 7970 minimum IF you want to run at 1080p. But we'll see.
because not everyone have a 780TI or 970?
according to this, most common graphics card people have on steam don't even hit the minimum requirements
I have a HD7870 and pre ordered this game and now i am not sure if i want to keep it
Not everyone is running 2560x1440 ( a full 77.8% more demanding than 1920x1080) either and we still have no idea what that "minimum" means. That should be the real concern, lack of any attention from Ubisoft to specifically state what is necessary for what or take into consideration people wanting to know actual information. But if you're thinking that minimum is just to run, say, PS4-level settings, resolution, and framerate. Ubisoft historically are far from accurate in these assessments.
So, we are yet again panicking over system requirements that tell us literally nothing about how the game actually performs on min/recommended specs? Yay
Can't wait for the PC performance thread, gonna be good as with almost every Ubisoft game. I just hope FC4 will perform well, that's actually one Ubi game I'm interested to play
Also "Your PC needs to be this revolutionary to run AC Unity" article on Kotaku imminent.
Can't wait for the PC performance thread, gonna be good as with almost every Ubisoft game. I just hope FC4 will perform well, that's actually one Ubi game I'm interested to play
Also "Your PC needs to be this revolutionary to run AC Unity" article on Kotaku imminent.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
This is UBIsoft. The company that doesn't like using 3d cards and loves putting tons on the CPU for... Reasons.
Until the end of time
I'm gonna call bullshit. These 'requirements' sound fishy as all hell. The specific choice of a GTX680 for instance. That's an odd one to pick out. It is not that much more powerful than a 670 at all. Surely that cant be the actual breaking point where the game can and cant play. I just don't believe that for a second. And that's an extremely powerful GPU for *minimum*. What do they mean by minimum? Will this game not support resolutions lower than 1080p or something? Can a GTX670 not play this game at 900p? Seriously? Again, don't believe it for a second.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but notions of the console manufacturers or Nvidia/AMD having their fingers involved sound altogether less ridiculous with these crazy requirements we've been seeing lately. This has to be scaring off many potential PC customers.
If that's not happening, then I can only assume that they are flat out guessing with this shit lately. And are getting it quite wrong. Either way, anybody paying any attention should know to not take this too seriously and I honestly wouldn't be afraid to put money down that something like a GTX670 will run this ok still.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but notions of the console manufacturers or Nvidia/AMD having their fingers involved sound altogether less ridiculous with these crazy requirements we've been seeing lately. This has to be scaring off many potential PC customers.
If that's not happening, then I can only assume that they are flat out guessing with this shit lately. And are getting it quite wrong. Either way, anybody paying any attention should know to not take this too seriously and I honestly wouldn't be afraid to put money down that something like a GTX670 will run this ok still.
Almost had me.
Denton
Member
And that's why you get much worse experience.
CyberPunked
Member
Lol, there's no way in hell I'm gonna be running this in 4k unless Nvidia or Ubisoft have some damn good SLI scaling.
Well, yes every ported game to Pc ends up having
A performance thread on GAF that is quite telling that most ports don't run smooth at all, let's not forget you have to run drm to even get this game running.
GHG
Gold Member
Yep.
Even if your PC can run this at 1080p with medium/high settings at just 30fps you are by default getting a better experience than playing on consoles.
CyberPunked
Member
I can't tell if this is some extreme satire or you're just not too sharp.
Performance threads on Gaf is one argument
The other is the topic at hand
What exactly are you talking about?
Krappadizzle
Member
I'm waiting for W3's recommended specs to upgrade the ol' 780 myself.
Maybe a key motivation is to avoid tech support for gamers who complained that their product cannot run "well" (ie 1080/60fps).
Going by GAF/Reddit threads here (plus my confirmation bias lol), it seems gamers may have outsized expectations on what their i3/GTX750Ti should be able to perform on current-gen.
These threads are getting boringly predictable. At least MRORANGE's sarcastic posts are entertaining, especially when people fall for them.
Anyway, I guess some sanity injection is in order.
This is a game that will run at 900p/30FPS (and let's see how solid those 30 FPS are) on PS4. If it doesn't scale down much below that, a 7970 isn't too unreasonable as a minimum requirement, at least if Ubisoft realizes that non-native resolution with mediocre (at best) IQ is unacceptable on PC. Remember that 1080p is 44% more pixels than 900p,
Anyway, I guess some sanity injection is in order.
This is a game that will run at 900p/30FPS (and let's see how solid those 30 FPS are) on PS4. If it doesn't scale down much below that, a 7970 isn't too unreasonable as a minimum requirement, at least if Ubisoft realizes that non-native resolution with mediocre (at best) IQ is unacceptable on PC. Remember that 1080p is 44% more pixels than 900p,
This is also true, and equally as annoying as the console fanboy gloating (which is inappropriate, since as history has shown time and time again, for literally every single "bad port" released over the past 5 years, a good PC will still easily outperform their systems of choice).