Yeah suddenly he got pretty quiet (posted only 2 times in this thread) while before release he was one of the top posters in Unity threads trying too hard to defend Ubisoft's bullshit.
-
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
Yeah suddenly he got pretty quiet (posted only 2 times in this thread) while before release he was one of the top posters in Unity threads trying too hard to defend Ubisoft's bullshit.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
probably only getting paid for prerelease damage control
Honestly, how long have you been a PC gamer? Because I remember spending around $600 on an X800XT and 'only' getting 40fps in Half-Life 2 maxed. I can't seriously imagine anyone who's been into PC gaming for longer than, say, the PS2->X360 transition being upset that a brand new next-gen-only game isn't running at 60+fps with all the bells and whistles on.
[edit] I just double checked this and actually, H-L2 performance was better than this on the X800XT; it was Doom 3 that didn't reach 60fps with all the bells and whistles.
artsi
Member
I'd like to post that Durante's rant here but too lazy to search it.
Anyway I'm glad there are games I can't max like Arma 3, and it's just because you can set a view distance of 20km + it has downsampling built in the game.
Just means there's something to get from the game even after a few years when GTX 1280 or something is released.
I think it's better to include options that aren't usable today but might be some day, than disable them completely.
Windom Earle
Member
He is trying to find his credibility..
Also was there any merit to him saying the combat is improved? Looks as terrible as ever to me.
Damn you Origin, unlock!
I'm not asking for MAX.
TXAA, something Nvidia heavily advertises won't work on a card bought a few months ago without major gimpage.
Good luck when developers start pushing the consoles even further.
"Oh you're on a crappy 4GB card that you just bought? You dumbass, why do you expect that to run advertised options well. You ought to upgrade to 8GB if you want a decent time. "
TXAA, something Nvidia heavily advertises won't work on a card bought a few months ago without major gimpage.
Good luck when developers start pushing the consoles even further.
"Oh you're on a crappy 4GB card that you just bought? You dumbass, why do you expect that to run advertised options well. You ought to upgrade to 8GB if you want a decent time. "
When nVidia released an HDR patch for Far Cry back in 2004 it was the same deal. Totally crashed performance for a relatively minor (in the day) effect.
That's kind of how these boutique visual effects work.
Kazdane
Member
So, I've decided to embark on a masochist trip with this and install it on my laptop, which is well below minimum requirements (I have a desktop computer at home which meets the recommended requirements except for my gfx, which is a GTX 660, so I'm really doing this just for the sake of curiosity).
Anyways, I thought it'd be a good idea to post this just to help those guys that are wondering if they'll be able to play this at minimum.
My laptop has the following:
i7 Q740 @ 1.73 Ghz (it jumps to 3.0 when running games, though).
4GB DDR3 RAM
GTX 460M 1.5 GB VRAM
I've been playing with everything at minimum (with just SSAO on) and the game averages 15 to 25 fps at 720p (which is fine in my case because this screen is 1366x768).
The performance is weird. The game doesn't really drop when there are big crowds around (which I was expecting), and stays at around 18-20 fps consistently. It's playable, although the game drops to single digits whenever a detailed face appears in any of the in-engine scenes.
I'm not sure to what equals a GTX460M in desktop, but it's definitely much slower than the desktop GTX 460.
Anyways, I thought it'd be a good idea to post this just to help those guys that are wondering if they'll be able to play this at minimum.
My laptop has the following:
i7 Q740 @ 1.73 Ghz (it jumps to 3.0 when running games, though).
4GB DDR3 RAM
GTX 460M 1.5 GB VRAM
I've been playing with everything at minimum (with just SSAO on) and the game averages 15 to 25 fps at 720p (which is fine in my case because this screen is 1366x768).
The performance is weird. The game doesn't really drop when there are big crowds around (which I was expecting), and stays at around 18-20 fps consistently. It's playable, although the game drops to single digits whenever a detailed face appears in any of the in-engine scenes.
I'm not sure to what equals a GTX460M in desktop, but it's definitely much slower than the desktop GTX 460.
CambriaRising
Member
This is a major reason why I've stuck with the 680 and not upgraded yet.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
I think the last console generation has spoiled some people. It was so long that they really didn't push pc hardware at the end. Couple that with the lack of real cpu/gpu performance jumps allowed people to use the same hardware for years.
Now gamers are complaining when their single cards don't run things on max. That is how it always use to be. You had to have a beast machine for that and still there were games you couldn't play with everything turned and have good fps.
You cant honestly expect him to answer these types of questions? Andy is a good guy but come on.
Anyway there is a reason I haven't ditched my Titans for 980s. I wouldn't not feel comfortable with 4GB especially at resolutions beyond 1080p.
---
I hope to do some more testing later today. Do we know if the 1.2 patch is automatically downloaded with the game install or is it coming later?
^ true, should clarify, thanks for your posts here Andy. It's not about you.
Yeah these shitty single card 780 tis.
1080p, 40 fps, no TXAA - but to be fair it's a new PC focused Crysis 4. Nope. AC.
Fuck sli dude, who needs that extra pain.
The smart (but hard) thing to do.
Yeah these shitty single card 780 tis.
1080p, 40 fps, no TXAA - but to be fair it's a new PC focused Crysis 4. Nope. AC.
Fuck sli dude, who needs that extra pain.
The smart (but hard) thing to do.
You are seriously ridiculous.
The game runs considerably BETTER on PC than on next gen consoles, and you are trying to insinuate that its console's tech pushing PC hardware?
It's not. It's this crappy engine that runs at 900p dropping frames like a motherfucker on a PS4. The performance of PC hardware on this crappy engine is exactly what we would expect.
This is not a console WIT DAT RAM! GDDR!!!! Thing. This is an anvil next is shit, thing.
AHA-Lambda
Member
How is the game coping on high end cards? I just got a 970, hoping it's running appropriate and well to a card like that.
The problem is, PC gaming is not cheap to get into at all because of games like this. A $1000 PC can't even max this game out. I consider that a problem.
alexandros
Banned
It is cheap to get into. It's just not cheap to go high-end.
That's not an accomplishment.
Have we seen performance on like for like hardware yet?
Because the high end is not impressive.
A $1,000 can't max it out at 60 FPS (IT certinaly can at 30 FPS). But a $500 PC plays it BETTER than a PS4. So yeah, I think PC is plenty affordable.
And anvil next games are the exception, not the rule. Look at Alien isolation, on which a $500 PC smokes the PS4. Look at Battlefield 4 and the new COD, where again PC performance is through the roof, with a single 970 able to pull off near 60 FPS at 4K on the latter game!!!
I really don't because you don't "need" to max games out to play on PC.
You want max settings ? Be ready to pay an hefty premium for it, as it should be.
Maximum settings exist for a reason.
We've seen this shit with a few games now.
And Rainbow Six will be using that engine too apparently.
As there are very few GPUs with 8GB onboard and each game is different, it's difficult to make any conclusions. The only half-way decent testing I can find is this review of the Vapor-X R9 290X 8GB published a few days ago. Yes, it's Tom's, so the usual caveats apply.
It doesn't look like 8GB will help you much in 1920x1080 with recent games. It really does depend on the game, how its designed. For example, I've read that Watch_Dogs actually alters visual details depending on the resolution you play at.
If you're playing at 3840x2160 or multi-monitor resolutions, then more VRAM is better. But, you'll have to turn down settings to get playable framerates with any GPU available today. It's questionable whether more, lower-quality pixels provides a nicer experience than fewer, higher-quality pixels. This is down to personal choice, of course.
If you're playing at 1920x1080 or so, an 8GB 970 seems a bit pointless to me. If you want more performance, you should either go for a 980, or wait a few months for R9 390x and GM200 products.
This fixation some have with finding the "one GPU to rule them all" is very weird, in a tech area that moves so fast and has such a healthy second-hand market.
It doesn't look like 8GB will help you much in 1920x1080 with recent games. It really does depend on the game, how its designed. For example, I've read that Watch_Dogs actually alters visual details depending on the resolution you play at.
If you're playing at 3840x2160 or multi-monitor resolutions, then more VRAM is better. But, you'll have to turn down settings to get playable framerates with any GPU available today. It's questionable whether more, lower-quality pixels provides a nicer experience than fewer, higher-quality pixels. This is down to personal choice, of course.
If you're playing at 1920x1080 or so, an 8GB 970 seems a bit pointless to me. If you want more performance, you should either go for a 980, or wait a few months for R9 390x and GM200 products.
This fixation some have with finding the "one GPU to rule them all" is very weird, in a tech area that moves so fast and has such a healthy second-hand market.
Geez, weird. Its almost like they simply have the setting names swapped or something.heres some pics, but keep in mind its much worse in motion. msaa and txaa have so much temporal aliasing compared to fxaa i rly dont understand whats going on
fxaa
txaa
If you're going to run with crappy settings why would you not just buy the game on a console at that point?
LOD is a problem....
Just look how plain the "grass" looks on the right side. And that building.... wtf
As is, the game is unplayable @ 2560x1440, no AA, maxed. Frame rate is quite low with some serious stuttuers. During off the contact hardening shadows doesn't hekp m uch. I'm going to have to turn some other settings down
This is with a single 980 and the latest drivers.
Wait, that building on the right doesn't make any sense at all :lol
Did it not load properly?
mugurumakensei
Member
he didnt say crappy settings. turn off pcss. dump antialiasing past 1080p unless you settle with fxaa. The reason for pc would be 30 fps is not a ceiling but a floor it rarely crosses below.
the ps4 and xbox one regularly are below 25fps at 900p.
Windom Earle
Member
That's probably just a Minecraft easter egg
Hahahahha, unfuckingbelievable.
That modern French architecture!
Lemonade727
Member
Not running a game at max doesn't instantly mean crappy settings, there are still quite a few spots to land your settings at between max settings and console quality. For this game, I agree that the end IQ result isn't exactly stellar for what you have to throw at it, but in general I DEFINITELY agree that max settings on any PC game should be pushing above and beyond what a single GPU can handle, that's how progression works.
Even that is not necessarily true.
Again, people are extrapolating from issues with this one game. For THIS title, maxing seems to be soemthign only the bleeding edge can accomplish. For most other titles, that is NOT the case.
That's probably just a Minecraft easter egg
Hahahahha, unfuckingbelievable.
Damn, Ubisoft trying catering to dat Minecraft market
Meanwhile at Crossing Eden's house
Anything less than max settings is 'crappy'?
If you're running the game at 1080p with 40fps you're already getting a better experience than the console version.
Not max settings = crappy ?
You can still play better than consoles without aiming for max settings. You're free to think gaming on PC is only worth it if you can "max out" demanding releases but I disagree. You can find your sweet spot performance/IQ wise on mid-range machines.
Teletraan1
Banned
I certainly never wanted to max this game out. I just wanted to play it at a decent framerate at 1080p. That looks to be impossible on hardware that is not that old. The game is hardly a looker. Just about every other game release this year I have been able to hit 1080p/60 on my system with the right settings and many of them have looked (to me) a lot better than this game. While the port is inline with the console version performance wise, visually it doesn't seem like its worth the hardware needed to get actually good performance.
Isn't that literally the point of a PC?
For you only maybe.
That meltdown. Could we argue without relying to platform warrior-ism? Please?
The game is shit on every platform it seems, Dev is the real issue here.
They could have made a gorgeous game on every platform, they didn't, end of story.
You have hardware out there, get your engine in line with them. At the end of the day, you have a crossgen game called BlackFlag and everyone and their mothers were fine with how it plays (sub par but playable), now you have a game that is going into unplayable territory on every platforms (some less than others), that's bullshit.
This situation is like blaming the PS3 for Skyrim. This whole multiplatform bloat should last if devs aren't on par.
Sax Russel
Banned
Wow those shots jim posted. Holy shit, this looks awful, especially for the kind of hardware it demands @_@. Technical disaster indeed.
Damn, Ubisoft trying catering to dat Minecraft market
Meanwhile at Crossing Eden's house
Oh man, this pic is too perfect :lol
TheNamelessOne
Member
Performance report after playing the intro. Still waiting for the resto of the game to download and install fully. My specs are as follows:
i74790k @ 4,2GHz about 30% load when playing
12GB ram
MSI GTX 970 @1310 MHz is 100% load when playing
With ingame settings on "very high" and 2xMSAA and at 1080p i got 50-60 fps. I have yet to see performance outside with a lot of people on screen.
i74790k @ 4,2GHz about 30% load when playing
12GB ram
MSI GTX 970 @1310 MHz is 100% load when playing
With ingame settings on "very high" and 2xMSAA and at 1080p i got 50-60 fps. I have yet to see performance outside with a lot of people on screen.
Yes. PC's were actually *invented* purely so they could play console games at higher settings.
Rainbow's six scope is MUCH smaller. If this shit happens with that game I will personally sit outside Ubisoft headquarters with a sign demanding they scrap anvil.
I didnt buy a 780 so i could play games at max i bought a 780 so i could play games at a higher fps than a 770
I would challenge the notion that it's "unplayable" on well specced PCs. And I'm not even talking about high-end systems.
Just take a look around. Console performance does not seem that bad, PC performance is very good as long as you don't have quixotic expecations about your hardware.
Similar threads
- Poll