-
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 Performance thread
- Thread starter MayMay
- Start date
^ Eugh... time for OP to OC then.
I regretted saying that after seeing the screenshots, looks like a decent bit of difference between ultra and min to me.
I regretted saying that after seeing the screenshots, looks like a decent bit of difference between ultra and min to me.
The colour tone seems much more realistic than previous games in the series. I can understand why some people think that ACIV looks better. They're wrong, but I can understand it.
[edit] Huh; is this screen high or low settings?
Durante agrees with me, my life is now complete.
Very high enabled tessellation and much bigger draw distance. To this day I can't keep a perfectly locked 60fps, the CPU is the limit.
Wow. That max lighting. These are both at sunset(?), because that's a pretty striking difference just right there.
There's no way you can tweak the lighting in the .ini/.cfg's or in-game, right?
So not CPU limited after all. Good.
Would be great to get a screenshot at this Location, but i think it's difficult to find this spot in paris ^^ ?
So we can see a comparison between PS4 and PC Version.
It has to be somewhere near the beginning of the game.
Hmm...
Felix Lighter
Member
That's actually encouraging. I wonder what is causing the drops at low detail then.
Is that an offscreen shot or is the game really this blurry on PS4?
DarkLordMalik
Member
So shit port confirmed.
Not really imo. Does resolution affect CPU usage much? Seems like that's what the OP is lacking a bit of atm. I always though it was more about the GPU but maybe.
Good thing it's out tomorrow for US.
Shit.
Good Christ, anyone who can't see the difference between 900p and 1080p needs to get their eyes checked. That PS4 screen is a blurry mess.
Not to any significant degree.
thehillissilent
Member
I'm going to try 720p out on my Epson PowerLite Home Cinema 2030 projector (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?sku=V11H561020) just for the LOLs. It is a true 1080p projector, btw. I'm curious as to how it would look because Nvidia will not enable GPU scaling on it.
alexandros
Banned
Nope.
ACIII and AC4 were capped at 62-63fps so no surprises there.
Thank you for your report on performance, it seems like a very good job by Ubisoft Kiev.
Would be great to get a screenshot at this Location, but i think it's difficult to find this spot in paris ^^ ?
So we can see a comparison between PS4 and PC Version.
It has to be somewhere near the beginning of the game.
Is that PS4?
It's like TXAA minus the AA
Fimbulvetr
Member
How's RAM usage? I've survived until now with 4GB... Does it really eat up 6 at minimum? I'm up to spec for this outside of that.
Looking at the task manager while playing the game I'm at 6.6GB of used RAM now.
martino
Member
plz stop making so much sense can make me think !
You can solve that yourself with Rivatuner OSD
CyberPunked
Member
A 2600k isn't too great of a CPU. I'd like to see how the game scales with the CPU.
Dictator93
Member
IMO, screens of this game should be taken without TXAA (MSAA is fine) before people start making claims about image quality or something. We all know what TXAA does to an image to get it temporally stable.
It is well below the minimum requirements and just at the minimum for a lot of games. I would expect a rather ugly game at an ugly res with that card.
Windom Earle
Member
Now I am definitely interested in SLi performance...
The compression from Share doesn't degrade image quality that much. It certainly doesn't apply a Vaseline filter over the screen.
Hm, you're right.
Usually I wouldn't even think about playing stuff at 30fps on PC, but I was ready to get it on PS4, so at least I'll have higher res...
Oh, damn I disabled PCSS Shadows and now I'm averaging at 55-60fps atm where I'm at in the city. That made a difference. But its an open world game, so time of day, crowd etc all factor in and I cant possible test all that.
Tested a bit more, those Shadows give a 10fps hit. Well jeez.
Tested a bit more, those Shadows give a 10fps hit. Well jeez.
ISee
Member
WTF. No performance increas? That would mean it is cpu bound... But at 720p the game runs smoothly @ 60? Now i am very confused. Whats going on ubi ?
That's great to know, shadows settings are usually the first things I dial back to get better performance.
Damn alright, I could run black flag on high about 50 fps. Also COD:AW On medium 60 fps.
keltickennedy
Member
So....my 590 will probably melt right guys?
Felix Lighter
Member
It means that it's not CPU bound so there could be graphical tweaking potential. With CPU bound games there is typically very little you can do about it. The only discouraging aspect is the dips he's seeing at low detail. That's strange that dropping resolution from 1080p to 720p has such a dramatic impact but lower settings has such a small impact.
It's an artificial FPS cap. It doesn't tell us anything about cpu bound.
Yes, many of those "nVidia exclusive" features often prove too demanding for most hardware. The only one I tend to use is HBAO+ which looks so nice and doesn't destroy performance.
Yup, me too.
They usually eat up so much, and i can live with more jaggy shadows, before bad AO and such.
Fimbulvetr
Member
Thanks, but is that from the game .exe alone, or total system usage?
UnrealEck
Member
Maybe you have me on ignore or just didn't see but I suggested that like three times and even said it'll likely give you about 10 fps.
total system usage, sry. Gonna check the specific one later
Similar threads
- Poll