They're not "BS".
They are not official. A 680 as minimum makes no sense whatsoever.
A 470/560 will most likely end up as being the minimum GPU, along with an old I5 (I5 750).
-
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
They're not "BS".
They are not official. A 680 as minimum makes no sense whatsoever.
A 470/560 will most likely end up as being the minimum GPU, along with an old I5 (I5 750).
I call bullshit... source can't be reliable.
I don't see any dev releasing a game with a high end GFX card as minimum spec.
That would just cause their game not to sell.
I mean I have a 660ti, it ran AC4 fine on 60FPS on max (I have a i5 4670k)
There is no way I see Ubisoft srsly releasing this with a minimum spec that high.
I don't see any dev releasing a game with a high end GFX card as minimum spec.
That would just cause their game not to sell.
I mean I have a 660ti, it ran AC4 fine on 60FPS on max (I have a i5 4670k)
There is no way I see Ubisoft srsly releasing this with a minimum spec that high.
That on the other hand is not surprising at all. Higher quality assets take more space.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
When has that ever happened?
derExperte
Member
I'm still waiting for a list of those 'more and more games' that 'require i7/more cores'. They all just have inflated official requirements (W_D had some weird bugs that made it run unnecessarily bad before patches) so it's no surprise people take Unity's min-reqs with a grain of salt.
Also it's weird how close min and rec are here because almost all other games have shown very little difference between a 2500 and a 3770, hyperthreading usually doesn't do all that much in games and their performance per core is basically identical.
fastford58
Member
In UBI we trust?
You know...for being such a CPU heavy game per UBI, those are some mighty stout gfx card req's.
Bronetta
Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
Not only does Ubisoft make some ugly remarks regarding gaming but they also push out ridiculously unoptimized games on uPlay which is fucking atrocious. (At least Origin works as it's meant to)
Fuck Ubisoft, I'm officially boycotting them starting now.
Fuck Ubisoft, I'm officially boycotting them starting now.
nkarafo
Member
So, you need a CPU 4-5 times as powerful as a PS4/Xbone CPU and a GFX that is also at least twice as powerful to play the game at the MINIMUM settings?
LOL, i might as well find a PS4 emulator, i bet if it existed it would run this game better than this native port... Thankfully, its just the usual, boring Ubisoft game i don't care about.
LOL, i might as well find a PS4 emulator, i bet if it existed it would run this game better than this native port... Thankfully, its just the usual, boring Ubisoft game i don't care about.
phxxBullet
Banned
I have a 2500k and a 7970. First time in years that I've only met a game's minimum reqs.
I remember years ago when I built my first real gaming rig, and had to laugh about the "minimum specs." every single time.
I would read stuff like 1GB ram, 256 MB GPUs and dual-cores, when I just got 8gig ram, had a 1GB HD5870 and a quad-phenom II 965.
Now, some years later, I don't even reach the minimum specs anymore.
In some way, that's kinda funny too.
For now, and for Ubi-titles, yeah. But don't expect it to get you past 2015 haha /jk
nkarafo
Member
The worst thing about this is that so many people will waste money to buy unnecessary upgrades or even buy new PCs while having perfectly good ones, just to play this shitty port of a shitty game. At this point, i even believe that Ubi is doing this on purpose, either to kill PC gaming because they want a bigger console user base for some reason, or because they get payed by GFX card manufacturers or something.
Don't bite people. Just ignore this game.
People want to upgrade because of shitty Ubi port.
Don't bite people. Just ignore this game.
See?
People want to upgrade because of shitty Ubi port.
This, we all know Ubisofts "Its PC, so who cares" attitude. Just dont give them your money
Ryunohadouken
Neo Member
Im good to go on recommended specs, but this is BS for those who aren't. This game has to be poorly optimized. SMH
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Holy conspiracy theory. And apparently the game is shitty too even though you haven't played it. >.>
Evidently you don't because it was later found out that that was part of a conversation between two code monkeys that had nothing to do with not caring about pc. Let's stop taking things out of context.
elcuervo75
Banned
All you devs out there who make games my PC cant run which is just as powerful as a PS4 ... up yours! I won't buy your games if you wont optimize them. PS4 and XBone are all x64 architecture now just like a PC, you have no excuse.
Maybe you should take some time to understand what the graph is showing.
Freaky stuff!
1) Of CPU's within their own series, the difference between the i5 and i7's are small. You can see an i5 4670k is the 3rd fastest CPU on the chart, only a tiny amount behind its i7 4770k big-brother. Same deal with the Sandy Bridges. i5 2500k is just a tiny amount behind the i7 2600k. The advantage of the i7's might well be partly or fully explained by the slightly higher core speeds, too.
2) Haswell CPU's have a noticeable benefit from *somewhere*. An i3 4330 Haswell is better than the i7 3970X Ivy-E processor.
3) AMD processors suck, so there's more to it than just number of cores and threads.
Haswell's advantage is a strange case, but overall, this is showing exactly opposite of what you think - hyperthreading provides little(or no)benefit in this specific game.
Looks like Ubisoft isn't holding back any longer after gamers whined about Watch Dogs graphical downgrades to make their game run decent on an average spec-d PC for its time.
Gotta get used to it. Sooner or later, i5 will be way outdated as they move on to octa-cores to match Console's CPU architecture for ports. But then again, I'm quite happy with my Xbox One so I won't be bothered to upgrade my PC until few years down the road.
derExperte
Member
To be fair I think he does and is just surprised to see a benchmark like that. Evil Within is a strange beast. Any easy explanations why Haswell does so much better than the rest there?
News to me that that was the reason for the 'downgrades'.
Looks like Ubisoft isn't holding back any longer after gamers whined about Watch Dogs graphical downgrades to make their game run decent on an average spec-d PC for its time.
Gotta get used to it. Sooner or later, i5 will be way outdated as they move on to octa-cores to match Console's CPU architecture for ports. But then again, I'm quite happy with my Xbox One so I won't be bothered to upgrade my PC until few years down the road.
6 cores are available to games, you might want to keep that in mind.
Oh ok, maybe I misunderstood his post. My bad if that's the case Canis.
mugurumakensei
Member
it should also be kept in mind that amd procs have shitty ipc and the cores are clocked at a really low freq on the ps4 and xbox one.
Haswell's advantage down to the newer instructions it offers? That's what gives it the big boost over SB and IB in emulation iirc.
But understanding data is much less exciting than screaming about the falling sky.
Then again, even I don't understand that data. The Haswell advantage is inexplicably high. Maybe the game runs into some kind of improved branch prediction in some excessively hot code fragment or something.
Anyway, The Evil Within is just a rather terrible performer on every platform it runs on.
Not really if the load is sequential as Haswell has a higher IPC over Sandy which looking at that chart you can see all the Haswell based CPU's bunched together whilst the Sandy Bridge based ones are also bunched together. When you look at the actuall load on the CPU core you see the The Evil Within primarily uses one core massively over the other (apart from in Dual Core instances). Same with Hyperthreading which is not utilised except in Dual Core instances.
Now I didn't think IPC gains from Haswell over Sandy are that high, maybe 10-20% depending on load and certainly wouldn't have thought it would have been in instruction sets games would use but looking at a more overall picture is only when things become apparent. But still taking just one site's results as gospel is never a good idea and while PCGH did also do some tests they're a bit hard to compare to GameGPU's. Also from what dark10x was saying the game varies massively from one level to the next what demands are put on it so where this was benchmarked (which the GameGPU article doesn't say) makes a difference too due to no universal benchmark tool.
Angry Fork
Member
Why would Ubisoft put higher specs than the actual minimum? Is it to just make sure their bases are covered or something? I have a GTX 660, the other requirements I have, really hoping I can play this decent enough. I haven't played Watch Dogs so I don't know how that runs.
It was misinterpreted, iirc the context was that there was a feature only appearing on PC and that bit of code related to the console platforms. 'This feature is for PC only, so we may as well turn it off for consoles, who cares'. Something like that.
nkarafo
Member
Funny, because i5 CPUs run circles around current console CPUs. Even i3 CPUs are more powerful.
CyberPunked
Member
nkarafo
Member
One answer would be that they care only for consoles (no piracy there) and they scare off all PC users so they would avoid the PC version altogether (pirated or not) and buy a console version? But in reality the game runs fine on lower specs so the PC users who didn't bite in the end, won't think they are incompetent coders?
derExperte
Member
He's joking.
It's Ubisoft... If there's one thing they are good it, it's making supercomputers kneel at something a toaster can run.
Can Crusher
Banned
Minimum requirements this bloated....
Ubisoft is a joke.
Ubisoft is a joke.
jim2point0
Banned
I haven't read the whole thread but my initial impression is that there is no way these requirements are true. I don't buy it.
I love some of the conspiracy theory's that publisher only care about console because there SKUs are higher priced. Yeah for a reason because that pie is divided between a lot more people. Platform holders want their pound of flesh as do the retailers, distribution companies etc. What was the last estimate that a publisher get's from the sale of retail a console game? 15%? What was it for a PC game on Steam? 30%? If that's the case and we go barmy and say all console games are $70 and PC titles are $40 then it's $10.5 to the publisher from a retail console game and $12 from a digital storefront like Steam.
How many different sets of PC equipment do you guys think a QA team actually have on hand and in working order to test on to come up with these requirements, let alone the space to store it as well? And this isn't even factoring in what on earth the minimum requirements will bring in terms of performance regards to resolution, framerate or graphics settings. Does the mimumim requirements mean the game will be playable at a resolution of 1920x1080 at 30fps (because that's what Ubisoft were banging on about) with a broad selection of setting? Because what's been stated doesn't even begin to show what settings they are for.
How many different sets of PC equipment do you guys think a QA team actually have on hand and in working order to test on to come up with these requirements, let alone the space to store it as well? And this isn't even factoring in what on earth the minimum requirements will bring in terms of performance regards to resolution, framerate or graphics settings. Does the mimumim requirements mean the game will be playable at a resolution of 1920x1080 at 30fps (because that's what Ubisoft were banging on about) with a broad selection of setting? Because what's been stated doesn't even begin to show what settings they are for.
Dictator93
Member
The recommended could be perfectly real for 1080p with a good framerate, but the minimum stuff is wh ere I get confused. Surely... those cannot be what it takes to get 30 fps at the bar minimum settings in the game....
FF Seraphim
Member
How the hell would anyone think a GTX 680 be required for min spec of a game. That is one of the most ridiculous things to see. That card still cost over $300. If this is true, and I highly doubt it is, then Ubisoft done goof on PC optimization.
Last generation, there were not many games requiring a multithreaded process. Since this generation of consoles have been announced, it's been recommended to grab an i7 to take advantage of the hyper-threading. Not too many games have taken advantage of that yet, but we are still in the cross-generation age.
Yeah, the recommended looks about what I expected and reasonable from what I have seen of the game.
The minimum is a bit odd.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I don't believe this is true. I've never seen such requirements before. It makes no sense.
I played Black Flag on a i7 950 3.0 GHz and a Geforce 470 1256Vram Gigabye OC, and that hardware was over 4 years old and it still managed to play Black Flag smoothly at medium-high. It looked amazing.
ACU is a step up visually and it has a lot more pedestrian, but Black Flag on PC was a very, very impressive looking game with tons of details and effects and a big seamless world when everything got cranked up. There is just no way. The amount of people who have access to those requirements.. It wouldnt even make sense. So few people to buy it. I don't believe most PC gamers ever get those kind of specs 680 and 780 are hardcore gamer/enthusiast grade cards, and Assassins Creed is a mainstream franchise. It would be like try selling mountain dew as an expensive red wine. Sure you could do it, but how many dorito dusted pastry gamers are gonna be able to afford that or be interested in selling their organs to afford it?
I played Black Flag on a i7 950 3.0 GHz and a Geforce 470 1256Vram Gigabye OC, and that hardware was over 4 years old and it still managed to play Black Flag smoothly at medium-high. It looked amazing.
ACU is a step up visually and it has a lot more pedestrian, but Black Flag on PC was a very, very impressive looking game with tons of details and effects and a big seamless world when everything got cranked up. There is just no way. The amount of people who have access to those requirements.. It wouldnt even make sense. So few people to buy it. I don't believe most PC gamers ever get those kind of specs 680 and 780 are hardcore gamer/enthusiast grade cards, and Assassins Creed is a mainstream franchise. It would be like try selling mountain dew as an expensive red wine. Sure you could do it, but how many dorito dusted pastry gamers are gonna be able to afford that or be interested in selling their organs to afford it?
R_thanatos
Member
impressive ..when i'll play this game i'll hope that it'll have something to justify all that GPU power and ram they ask.
TheSlySoul
Member
Wow, I remember publishers was about 20% back in the day.More like three times of that.
Man how times have changed and now I understand Kickstarter better.