Assassin's Creed Unity - PC Performance thread

Seanspeed

Banned
Sep 10, 2009
29,419
0
0
Aren't PS4 and XB One games programed with with 6 cores in mind? Shouldn't that that translate over to the PC as well? This will be the first "next-gen" only game I buy, so I interested in performance difference between 6 and 4 cores (but I am guessing there wont be much of a difference).
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.

I am assuming that four cores already would be able to max out the game and that people are being limited by their GPUs. It is possible that six cores would give better performance, but since resolution/aa/effects don't have an effect on your CPU you can't do much with the extra performance.
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.
 

Calabi

Member
Nov 2, 2013
2,971
0
0
It doesn't look great really, almost like a cartoon. Who new vaseline was a parity feature.
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
0
France
Which games utilize multi-core processors well? Some light-Googling hasn't produced a good list.
Lords of the Fallen, Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, Ryse, Watch Dogs, Hitman Absolution, Civilization V, Civilization Beyond Earth, Thief (with Mantle).
 

orava

Member
Aug 14, 2014
2,661
1
0
It looks very bad here..too flat and blurry.

o_O
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.
 

Skyzard

Banned
Jun 3, 2012
20,772
0
0
I'm pretty sure this was a closeup after a synchronization at a peak. Like it spanned the city, then zoomed on this, which would explain a lot.

Not 100%. But it reminded me of something I saw on the stream.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,177
2,998
670
Canada
Some people hate tweaking settings. I fucking love it. I like getting a new game and finding a spot where the framerate drops to the lowest point. Then I try changing settings to find which ones have the biggest impact on performance. I'll tweak until I get my target framerate and then I'll be done and able to play with the lowest graphical compromise to achieve the performance I want.
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.
 

danm999

Member
Jul 15, 2014
10,832
0
0
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=885444

This should be linked in the OP of every PC Performance Thread.
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.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Jun 22, 2004
7,590
68
1,575
Durante said:
Considering that in addition to the framerate difference (and I doubt the console versions will maintain a stable 30 FPS)
Again, I was referring to hypothetical running both unlocked - not the end-user-experience Ie. if we're going to throw in computational variables one should also compare stats that aren't measured completely differently.
 

Loris146

Member
Dec 6, 2012
4,487
0
410
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. :)
 

Durante

Member
Oct 1, 2006
48,836
1
0
peter.metaclassofnil.com
Again, I was referring to hypothetical running both unlocked - not the end-user-experience Ie. if we're going to throw in computational variables one should also compare stats that aren't measured completely differently.
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.
 

Rip

Member
Apr 27, 2012
334
0
0
Damn, this thread is hard to read with almost every other post being some guy strolling in reading the first post and tossing in his 2 cents of bullshit.
 

Qassim

Member
Jul 6, 2012
6,854
2
0
United Kingdom
qassim.uk
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).
 

VisceralBowl

Member
Sep 30, 2012
7,384
1
490
earth
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).
Mod abuse or new thread if OP does not comply?
 

icecold1983

Member
Feb 28, 2010
6,270
0
590
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.
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.
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
0
France
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.
 

CyberPunked

Member
Mar 6, 2014
4,046
0
0
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.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Sep 10, 2009
29,419
0
0
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.
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
Sep 30, 2012
7,384
1
490
earth
Better? Updated the OP, I'm sorry that I dont have time to constantly monitor the thread. So yeah, I complied.
Good stuff! Thanks!
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.
Please tell your friend to get a better hosting solution. (Flickr, Abload, Minus)
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,813
4
570
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
Dec 18, 2013
903
0
0
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.
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.
 

Naedtrax

Banned
May 20, 2014
234
0
0
I'll put up my thoughts on 980 SLI @ 1440P w/ G-Sync once the game unlocks in my region, unfortunately it's the opposite of COD : AW, in that i'm getting it nearly 2 days late vs a day and a bit early lol
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Jun 22, 2004
7,590
68
1,575
Durante said:
I think that's exceedingly unlikely, considering that we have seen them drop frames below 30 FPS.
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).

But based on the information we have, it doesn't look like the PC version shows particularly bad performance compared to the consoles.
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.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Jan 9, 2013
26,118
0
0
After reading through the thread and watching the stream I'm pretty happy with the outcome. My 780 should do a good job with it.
 

mattman5000

Banned
Jan 29, 2014
98
0
0
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.
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.
 

UrbanRats

Member
Jun 25, 2009
40,860
0
830
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.
 
Dec 11, 2010
34,635
0
0
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.
 

ISee

Member
Feb 18, 2014
4,789
28
410
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
 

Dr Dogg

Member
Nov 30, 2011
12,818
0
535
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.
http://i.imgur.com/wMqILau.jpgIMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Ast11VO.jpgIMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cxby13F.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ayTos9I.jpg[MG]
He's taking more pictures now, so i'll post them as quick as i can.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmmm those GPU usage numbers aren't inspiring. 77% and 83% and not hitting a locked refresh target doesn't bode well for scaling. I wonder what patches are in the works.