• 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

Loris146

Member
The guide by AndyBNV on geforce.com suggests the following settings for a 770 to keep above 40fps:

YIehewI.png

iblEDSIz1ioio5.gif
 
This is the comparison on the 770 for those who played Black Flag:

Same 770, same resolution:

Black Flag: Environment - Very High. Textures - High. Ambient Occlusion - HBAO+. Shadows - Soft Shadows
Unity: Environment - High. Textures - Low. Ambient Occlusion - Off. Shadows - Soft Shadows disabled
 

Kezen

Banned
Holy... Is this with a 2gb 680/770? I hope my 4gb 680 will stand a chance running all maxed at 1440p with FXAA and 30fps.

You can set textures to max, otherwise medium/high at 30fps.
Note that the recommendations were made using pre release code.

EDIT : Oh wait...1440p ? Nope.
1080p yes.
 

phaze

Member
So is my 7850 gonna catch on fire trying to play this?
It is isn't it? ;_;

I would like to know that too. :lol

The game runs surprisingly OK (20-30fps) with my 3GB 7870HD (which is below the minimum requirements) and an i5-3550, with everything on max (apart from shadows at high) as long as I don't turn on any antialiasing. The CPU usage is only around 40-60% (Though I've not been in Paris proper with huge crowds). Also, all options seems to have only moderate impact on performance - the difference between everything on low and everything on high is 10fps or so.

(This is on version 1.1 of the game and I haven't tried the new AMD drivers yet, since I consider just getting a 970 today anyway)

Hope rising.
 

thuway

Member
With every single post coming through, I am feeling awful about my 280X. I'm gonna hold off on purchasing the game, until comprehensive benchmarks hit the web, but as for now I'm all:

jumpoutwindowgif.gif
 

b0uncyfr0

Member
If they think im buying a new card to run Unity they're bat-shite crazy. This game needs a few more months in the oven. Those requirements are utterly insane.

A 770 cant get 40+ fps without low texture quality (which looks horrible btw) and basically crippling it to look like a multiplat game released 3 years ago ; f&ck off!!! Ill take my 770 that runs almost all new games at 1080p/60 with most bells and whistles and play something else.

EDIT: I swear to some God, i will lose it if they flap up Far Cry 4.
 
Have you downloaded the two PC patches ? They fix crashes, among other things.

Well I am redownloading it now. I don't know if it installed patches as I downloaded it overnight while asleep. I assume it did because I tried several times including a reboot to launch the game after it completed and nothing. The verify game cache also failed completely to do anything.
 

Kezen

Banned
Well I am redownloading it now. I don't know if it installed patches as I downloaded it overnight while asleep. I assume it did because I tried several times including a reboot to launch the game after it completed and nothing. The verify game cache also failed completely to do anything.

Check if your drivers are up to date, Nvidia recently released the 344.65 WHQL.
 

Durante

Member
Why do you keep defending this port so hard?
There's nothing to defend. Given what we know about the console performance ("Atrocious" framerate at 900p with lower graphical settings) the PC version's performance is entirely in line with the other platforms.

If you want to complain, don't complain about the port, complain about the game's basic technology.
 

UnrealEck

Member
There's nothing to defend. Given what we know about the console performance ("Atrocious" framerate at 900p with lower graphical settings) the PC version's performance is entirely in line with the other platforms

That's what annoys me. When PC performance is bad people talk about going console for the game and they don't have any perspective on a comparison whatsoever.
 

Qassim

Member
There's nothing to defend. Given what we know about the console performance ("Atrocious" framerate at 900p with lower graphical settings) the PC version's performance is entirely in line with the other platforms.

If you want to complain, don't complain about the port, complain about the game's basic technology.

Yep, that's the point. If we're picking on the 'port' we need to look at it relative to what it was ported from. A discussion about the technical choices of the game is a different one.
 

Loris146

Member
There's nothing to defend. Given what we know about the console performance ("Atrocious" framerate at 900p with lower graphical settings) the PC version's performance is entirely in line with the other platforms.

If you want to complain, don't complain about the port, complain about the game's basic technology.

Pretty much.
 

Kezen

Banned
Why do you keep defending this port so hard? Do you really think a new 970/980 will do much better than your 780(770)? I really don't think so. If we only defend this piss port, nothing will change.

I'm "defending it" because the performance data we have is not conclusive enough to call this unoptimized.
To your second point : a 970 is noticeably faster than a 780, 15%. You can add another 15-20% for the 980.

Frankly, I have a hard time being surprised by those results, the game seems legitimately demanding and I'm 100% fine with that.
 
It runs *differently*. Seems to be using some higher quality settings, but its also only 900p and sub 30fps at the moment.

I think pretty much everybody with the game or planning on getting it is crossing their fingers for some miracle Day 1 patches.

"Sub 30fps" is generously. It feels like it sits in the low 20s most of the time on PS4.

Should have gotten the PC version...
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
What happened to that 'rumour' about Ubisoft being pressured into crippling PC performance?
It's about as true as the rumor that Microsoft is paying developers for parity, even the ones that have a marketing deal with Sony.
As in completely unfounded bullshit.
 
I'm "defending it" because the performance data we have is not conclusive enough to call this unoptimized.
To your second point : a 970 is noticeably faster than a 780, 15%. You can add another 15-20% for the 980.

Frankly, I have a hard time being surprised by those results, the game seems legitimately demanding and I'm 100% fine with that.

I... I can't understand that at all. Why buy a new GPU which costs 350$ for only 15-40% faster framerates? 15% isn't noticeably faster, its just a bit faster (7,5 FPS).

Yeah the game is demanding but not because of the graphics or the crowds but because its unoptimized. The game looks like a blurry mess, there are many low res textures and pop-ins, every NPCs acts and looks the same, what's so special about the games graphics? The lighting is good indoors but that's really it.

@Durante well, if you show me a 7770 with a intel i3 CPU (Sandy Bridge no hyper threading) which is similar to a Xbox One, if that archieves the same FPS I will believe you
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
There's nothing to defend. Given what we know about the console performance ("Atrocious" framerate at 900p with lower graphical settings) the PC version's performance is entirely in line with the other platforms.

If you want to complain, don't complain about the port, complain about the game's basic technology.
Yeah, I think people are missing that part. They see mediocre performance numbers and assume bad port when, in reality, the problem goes deeper. If anything it seems to be running better on the PC with hardware similar to the consoles.
 

UnrealEck

Member
:( it's THAT bad?

Edit: How much Vram does it eat up? Is a 4GB card enough?

It uses over 6GB of VRAM.
Please for the love of science bear in mind though that this isn't a necessity. Some games these days make use of what you have to offer them. 4GB is enough. 2GB is enough. It all depends on the settings you want.
 
Top Bottom