-
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
It depends on how the PC port was handled. And if it was taking full advantage of the console's CPU in the first place.
So far, a few games have scaled well with 6 cores. Others haven't.
Not a safe assumption that people are all going to be GPU-limited. That would also depend on what sort of settings they've got chosen.
Its entirely possible(theoretically) that somebody running 40fps average with a 4 core could gain 5-10fps with a 6 core CPU and then spend that extra performance on more GPU intensive settings and get back to the performance they were at before.
It just depends. I wouldn't rule out the game being very CPU heavy, though.
Which games utilize multi-core processors well? Some light-Googling hasn't produced a good list.
lordfuzzybutt
Member
It looks very bad here..too flat and blurry.
At least HBAO+ seems to be very well implemented.
Lords of the Fallen, Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, Ryse, Watch Dogs, Hitman Absolution, Civilization V, Civilization Beyond Earth, Thief (with Mantle).
It looks very bad here..too flat and blurry.
It looks like the material shaders are more or less ok but could do with more highlights and stronger specular mapping. This should really bring up the detail in the surface. I hope this is something that could be modded in.
Battlefield 4, Watch Dogs and Alien Isolation all to some degree, speaking of multiplatforms. Might be more.
undercoverb0ss
Member
Made a good game?
Teletraan1
Banned
The only thing I hate about tweaking setting is that I have bad settings at the beginning of every game. I usually try to go conservative at first now but I wish they made the tutorial section of every game really taxing, just to let you tweak settings without really missing anything.
batman2million
Member
i don't mind running the game on 30fps with everything set to max.
Great post. I guess it's easier to throw up your hands and yell "shitport" than to wait for all the pertinent information to flow in and make a calmer, more contextually based assessment.
Granted, the game might end up being a shitport, but a single set of specific options applied to the game isn't going to get us to that conclusion, especially when patches are being added with this frequency.
Yep, port seems to be fine. PS4 runs @900p/30fps with some drops below 30... A good gaming PC runs the game @ higher settings in 1080p @ ~50fps. Somehow this sounds reasonable to me...
Also the stream chat asking him about a cracked EXE all the time is pretty funny.
Yes stream chat is asking him all the time to play around with settings so we can get a better look about how seetings scale performance wise. I bet some fellow GAFers are helping with this.
Oh okay.
For your hypothetical to be meaningful one must assume that the console versions reach significantly beyond 30 FPS for a meaningful amount of time. I think that's exceedingly unlikely, considering that we have seen them drop frames below 30 FPS. And it also doesn't address the fact that we also have significantly more and higher-quality pixels being pushed on PC.
You are right though that we can only make quite rough comparisons considering that we can't run the console versions unlocked, or know exactly what settings they use compared to the PC version. But based on the information we have, it doesn't look like the PC version shows particularly bad performance compared to the consoles.
The first post needs updating, because people are looking at that and concluding on what is:
1) The game in a pre-release state (Ubisoft has two patches ready for launch, OP only has one of them installed, 1.2.0 also addresses some performance issues that he doesn't have installed)
2) Those results were on non-game ready drivers for Unity
Because at the moment, people are just reading that first post and coming to the wrong conclusions (based on the data we have).
1) The game in a pre-release state (Ubisoft has two patches ready for launch, OP only has one of them installed, 1.2.0 also addresses some performance issues that he doesn't have installed)
2) Those results were on non-game ready drivers for Unity
Because at the moment, people are just reading that first post and coming to the wrong conclusions (based on the data we have).
VisceralBowl
Member
Mod abuse or new thread if OP does not comply?
icecold1983
Member
killzone and infamous both drop below 30 fps but run unlocked at 40 to 45 fps average, so it is in the realm of possibility.
Neither are anywhere near as big in scope as Unity though. I very much doubt either console versions runs at 45fps average.
Better? Updated the OP, I'm sorry that I dont have time to constantly monitor the thread. So yeah, I complied.
CyberPunked
Member
Some 4K screens I found. Friend of mine took them. Running SLI 980s w/ 3930k @ 4.8Ghz. Averages about 30-40fps with the game maxed.
He's taking more pictures now, so i'll post them as quick as i can.
He's taking more pictures now, so i'll post them as quick as i can.
redblack85
Member
really??it's bad
Theoretically possible, but probably not likely.
Don't think they'd have gone with a 30fps cap if the game could average 40+fps.
VisceralBowl
Member
Good stuff! Thanks!
Please tell your friend to get a better hosting solution. (Flickr, Abload, Minus)Some 4K screens I found. Friend of mine took them. Running SLI 980s w/ 3930k @ 4.8Ghz. Averages about 30-40fps with the game maxed.
He's taking more pictures now, so i'll post them as quick as i can.
Dictator93
Member
Some 4K screens I found. Friend of mine took them. Running SLI 980s w/ 3930k @ 4.8Ghz. Averages about 30-40fps with the game maxed.
He's taking more pictures now, so i'll post them as quick as i can.
Tell him for the love of god to not save them compressed or have them uploaded to ac ompressor.
Pretty please.
OldGangWarily
Member
Those are some DAMN good scaling in SLI...especially before launch.
Would you mind asking your buddy to get some benchmarks w/ any AA or with FXAA? I have a pair of 780 TI and would love to get a rough estimation of how it will run in 4K.
Felix Lighter
Member
GPU usage is a little disappointing there for 4K.
That depends eg. I'd consider +/- 5ms variance a decent stability and that already covers ranges between 23-30 to 30-43 (on extreme ends).Durante said:
I don't disagree there - I suspect PC version still has more single-threaded pressure (the usual API/driver limitations - also very common with Ubi games to date) and potentially offloads some of the compute to CPU(this is a guess, depends on how long they really spent on this port) but most gaming configs can absorb that at least to the point of parity.
icecold1983
Member
agree with the first part, not with the 2nd
mattman5000
Banned
Nice, that's fairly good performance at 4K. I think I'll be happy at 3200x1800. Can you ask your friend how the CPU load is across all cores?
I'll post my performance marks sometime tomorrow.
Some 4K screens I found. Friend of mine took them. Running SLI 980s w/ 3930k @ 4.8Ghz. Averages about 30-40fps with the game maxed.
He's taking more pictures now, so i'll post them as quick as i can.
Dude's face has like no texture, but otherwise it looks great.. although it's imgur and all.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
G-sync monitor baby. I'll be pretty happy if it stays in the 40-60 range on my 970. I'm ok with lowering one or two minor settings to get there.
RazorbackDB
Member
AMD released their drivers.
http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMDCatalyst14-11-1BetaWINReleaseNotes.aspx
http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMDCatalyst14-11-1BetaWINReleaseNotes.aspx
ISee
Member
Last update from PC stream as I do not want to keep spoiling the game for myself.
i7 4790k @ 4GHz
GTX 970 (Gigabyte G1)
8 GB System Ram
Game is now set to Ultra settings (max settings) with PCSS shadows.
1080p.
FXAA
no Vsync.
The game runs at 40 - 50 fps in Paris (ground level free running) with drops to 35 fps (very high npc density). CPU load is at 60%. But keep in mind the guy is streaming without any kind of special hardware. FPS without streaming/recording should be higher.
60 fps with mixed high/very high settings + high shadows instead of PCSS shadows etc. seems to be possible
i7 4790k @ 4GHz
GTX 970 (Gigabyte G1)
8 GB System Ram
Game is now set to Ultra settings (max settings) with PCSS shadows.
1080p.
FXAA
no Vsync.
The game runs at 40 - 50 fps in Paris (ground level free running) with drops to 35 fps (very high npc density). CPU load is at 60%. But keep in mind the guy is streaming without any kind of special hardware. FPS without streaming/recording should be higher.
60 fps with mixed high/very high settings + high shadows instead of PCSS shadows etc. seems to be possible
Similar threads
- Poll