• 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.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Assassin's Creed Unity - PC Performance thread

bro1

Banned
Oct 17, 2008
3,471
0
0
So I'm thinking I should just go ahead and cancel this? Being on a lowly 780 ti.

Were you trying TXAA and ultra textures?
Textures are on High, not Ultra due to the 3GB I have on the card. I have a 4K monitor and I didn't even bother to try and get it there.

I get decent FPS at 1080P with and without a frame limiter. It's the chugging/stutters/slowdown that I can't live with. I just want smooooth. Smooth slow is ok, as long as it's smooth.
 

Skyzard

Banned
Jun 3, 2012
20,772
0
0
I'm definitely holding off with my lowly 780Ti 4770k machine.

God damn, I thought my PC was expensive back in June and was assured by the PC gamer crowd that the needing to upgrade every year is BS. I thought I would get at least high settings with stable 1080p30 for 2 years on all games.

And I'm not even considering the console version because that's apparently trash.
Yup.

Textures are on High, not Ultra due to the 3GB I have on the card. I have a 4K monitor and I didn't even bother to try and get it there.

I get decent FPS at 1080P with and without a frame limiter. It's the chugging/stutters/slowdown that I can't live with. I just want smooooth. Smooth slow is ok, as long as it's smooth.
Ah wow, I understand :/

And no TXAA? Because 1080p (which is basically the lowest you'd want to use txaa) and TXAA is too much for 3GB with this.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
16,217
1,353
1,255
Oohhhh boy.

So basically after we though the game ran well based on the initial impressions of this thread it turn out those reports were premature.

It now makes sense why they didn't allow you to play past the 1st area when it "unlocked early".

Not buying this shit until it's fixed even though I'm sure there is a good game behind all the performance issues. Too many other games to get this month anyway.
 

UrbanRats

Member
Jun 25, 2009
40,860
0
830
I'm definitely holding off with my lowly 780Ti 4770k machine.

God damn, I thought my PC was expensive back in June and was assured by the PC gamer crowd that the needing to upgrade every year is BS. I thought I would get at least high settings with stable 1080p30 for 2 years on all games.

And I'm not even considering the console version because that's apparently trash.
You were assured rightfully so.
If a game is technically crap, there's nothing you can do about it.
AC:Unity seems to be having major problems on all platforms, there's nothing wrong with your setup.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Sep 10, 2009
29,419
0
0
I'm definitely holding off with my lowly 780Ti 4770k machine.

God damn, I thought my PC was expensive back in June and was assured by the PC gamer crowd that the needing to upgrade every year is BS. I thought I would get at least high settings with stable 1080p30 for 2 years on all games.

And I'm not even considering the console version because that's apparently trash.
Some games are just disasters. Nothing any hardware advice could have saved you from, unfortunately.
 

Schnozberry

Member
Nov 9, 2012
4,804
6
430
I'm able to get a decent framerate with an i7-5820k and a EVGA 970. Stays in the 50s most of the time. Everything maxed with FXAA. Cranking up the AA really tanks everything though.

Edit: Should clarify 1080p.
 
Mar 2, 2011
2,311
0
0
Ontario
So the game just hard locks every time I start it. The new 14.11 beta drivers didn't make a difference. I imagine it's related to the forum post about some AMD users having issues.
 
Mar 2, 2011
2,311
0
0
Ontario
So apparently the game isn't playing nice with my Dualshock4 drivers.

If I try to launch the game with the DS4 plugged in it hard locks, but it's fine if I unplug the controller. Interesting.
 

AstuteClass

Banned
Nov 1, 2013
701
0
0
You were assured rightfully so.
If a game is technically crap, there's nothing you can do about it.
AC:Unity seems to be having major problems on all platforms, there's nothing wrong with your setup.
Some games are just disasters. Nothing any hardware advice could have saved you from, unfortunately.
Yeah been reading the other thread with those horrifying screen caps. Seems to be a game specific issue.

Hope it gets tanked in reviews in 30 mins. This shit needs to stop.
 

THEBONDIGTY

Banned
Dec 9, 2013
4,389
0
0
How is the game running on a GTX 980? I really want to build a Gaming pc next year but these shitty pc ports worry me a bit. I got a ps4 already please advice!
 

Bradeh

Neo Member
Mar 1, 2013
17
0
0
This trend of bloated game requirements and sizes is getting ridiculous. It obviously isn't helping anyone because these game are getting less optimized. I haven't purchased a Ubisoft PC game since AC2 and it looks like I haven't missed much.
 

Setsuna

Member
Apr 2, 2012
4,478
1
415
New Jersey
Oohhhh boy.

So basically after we though the game ran well based on the initial impressions of this thread it turn out those reports were premature.

It now makes sense why they didn't allow you to play past the 1st area when it "unlocked early".

Not buying this shit until it's fixed even though I'm sure there is a good game behind all the performance issues. Too many other games to get this month anyway.
Not really
780 runs it maxed out 40fps
Someone said it runs great on a 4GB 770
another person has a 760 but had to goto work

Some people in this thread just saw the first post and gave up on the game even if they have a 770, while others claim the game is poorly optimized

EDIT:also AMD cards are having issues but thats not really unusual these days with nvidia sponsored titles
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Jul 30, 2009
73,803
6
1,030
Western Australia
This trend of bloated game requirements and sizes is getting ridiculous. It obviously isn't helping anyone because these game are getting less optimized. I haven't purchased a Ubisoft PC game since AC2 and it looks like I haven't missed much.
The PC versions of Brotherhood and Revelations are great. 3 and onwards, though... not so much, although I feel Black Flag fares better than 3 (or at least it did prior to the PhysX patch that also added mandatory ApeX-based cloth physics).
 

Felix Lighter

Member
Oct 2, 2007
20,750
1
0
I'm definitely holding off with my lowly 780Ti 4770k machine.

God damn, I thought my PC was expensive back in June and was assured by the PC gamer crowd that the needing to upgrade every year is BS. I thought I would get at least high settings with stable 1080p30 for 2 years on all games.

And I'm not even considering the console version because that's apparently trash.
A hate these posts. Hate them. The people that take the time to help people build their machines get thrown under the bus when a complete technical disaster gets released. No one is going to guarantee you that a piece of hardware will brute force every piece of shit that developers shit out. If that is what you want, don't ask for advice from the PC crowd. Just spend $4000 on the highest end hardware you can find and cross your fingers. Basing hardware purchasing decision on overcoming technical messes is a horrible idea and you won't get that from any reasonable person spending their free time helping others get the most bang for their buck.
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
0
France
I'm definitely holding off with my lowly 780Ti 4770k machine.

God damn, I thought my PC was expensive back in June and was assured by the PC gamer crowd that the needing to upgrade every year is BS. I thought I would get at least high settings with stable 1080p30 for 2 years on all games.

And I'm not even considering the console version because that's apparently trash.
They were right, you don't need to upgrade yearly unless maximum settings is your only way to enjoy PC gaming.
Your PC as it is can indeed run Unity at high settings/30fps, even more than high.
 
Mar 2, 2011
2,311
0
0
Ontario
i7 920 @ 4.2GHz
6GB RAM
7970 @ 1000/1500

Doesn't run very well fps wise. Everything maxed except for PCSS(high) and MSAA(FXAA) gets me 20-40 fps in the opening sequence, averaging around 28. Knocking everything save for textures down to low nets me roughly 3 additional frames per second. Lowering the resolution didn't help either, so I guess I'm CPU limited. After reading other people's impressions I didn't expect much going in, though, so I can't say that I'm surprised.

I will say that, despite the fact that it runs slowly, there aren't any stutters or hitches. It's absolutely not ideal, or even passable, but it's playable.

Tick the box to unhide the controller. It's a uPlay issue. Watch Dogs drove me nuts.
Thanks for the heads up.

EDIT: I don't know what Ubi did differently, but the framerate just seems really smooth. My fps is really low, but it's not annoying. Everything still flows really well despite the fact that I'm below 25 fps at times.
 

VisceralBowl

Member
Sep 30, 2012
7,384
1
490
earth
This game runs pretty damn well for me compared to Black Flag, though not as smooth as AC3. I've had 30-61FPS (45 average) constantly and the only time it dropped below 30 was at the beginning of a cutscene (the textures were popping in at that moment). I was running everything max but AA. I think I'll play with some of the settings and then just lock it at 30. When I get home I'll post some screens.

Specs:
i5-3570k @ 4.2GHz
16 GB DDR3 @ 1600MHz (Surprisingly high amount of usage here)
GTX 780 3GB / Stock Cooler / 7GHz memory OC

I like the combat. The beginning's
time period
was kind of unexpected.
 

hengyu

Member
Jun 24, 2013
323
0
0
Got my hands on the game, literally the worst performing PC game I have ever played, usurping the throne from Watch_Dogs.

GTX 780, i5-3570k @ 4.2GHz, and the game stutters like shit on just Very High + AA dropped to FXAA + 1080p.

I think the game looks pretty good, but it is really not nearly good-looking enough to justify this performance. Shocking
 

Fedelias

Member
Jul 6, 2013
1,086
0
370
Palo Alto
Running on a 970, 4690k not OC'ed (though this game might have me soon). I max'd everything except for shadows (high instead of PCSS) and 4xMSAA. Character models look really great but the environment is kind of lacking in my opinion. Framerate stays around 40-50 and stutters frequently, but sometimes drops to 30 or mid 20s during cutscenes. Overall doesn't seem like a HORRID port, but certainly not excellent at all.
 

Kezen

Banned
Jul 28, 2014
8,919
0
0
France
Got my hands on the game, literally the worst performing PC game I have ever played, usurping the throne from Watch_Dogs.

GTX 780, i5-3570k @ 4.2GHz, and the game stutters like shit on just Very High + AA dropped to FXAA + 1080p.

I think the game looks pretty good, but it is really not nearly good-looking enough to justify this performance. Shocking
Make sure you have not set a texture setting that is too high for your 780 to handle.
 

Serandur

Member
May 23, 2013
1,196
0
0
Well, I finally got to try the game (stayed up until 3 AM my time just to be able to start downloading; stupid uplay). Right now I'm only using one GTX 970 with my i7-3770K at 2560x1440. I'm monitoring FPS, GPU/CPU core usage, and VRAM usage with MSI Afterburner as well; the game hits my GPU hard at this resolution. Turning every setting down to low at this resolution nets me about 50ish FPS after a brief glance running around the starting village; high textures, shadows, and environment details with HBAO+ with FXAA are getting me, just running around, about 35-45 FPS with some dips to around 30 in some in-engine cutscenes.

I am fairly disappointed in the lack of setting options. There are some, but not very many. Now, the game is playable like this and I honestly think it's arguably the most visually pleasing game I've seen (partially due to the setting). There are so many NPCs and they nailed the general look and feel of French architecture. At my resolution, blur is minimal and it's just an overall very aesthetically pleasing game, if a bit inconsistent in some areas (NPC pop-in, blurry distant textures). I'm not getting 60 FPS like I could in Black Flag with a single 970 and a few alarming dips (cutscene) to about 26 FPS have me worried that even SLI 970s won't hit 60 minimum. I can only hope SLI scales well with the game. High textures cause about 3100 MBs of VRAM usage, Ultra High about 3700-3800 and actually lower performance from what I briefly saw. Gsync owners are in for a treat, unfortunately I'm not one (PLS panel).

I can confirm that the game is GPU-bound for me, surprisingly not seeing my 3770K limit things (it's at stock right now for testing purposes). If I lower my resolution to 1920x1080 and keep the same generally high settings with FXAA I listed above, it sticks to 60 FPS just running around with my G1 970's usage hovering about 65-85%. I expect it to dip a bit below in cutscenes. Obviously I'm not playing at that resolution though, so I look forward to the second 970. I should be able to mess around with it tonight, but it'll be about 8-9 hours from now.

If anyone is curious about anything in particular (setting/res combo, single vs SLI 970 performance, CPU usage, VRAM usage, etc.), I'd be happy to check and report back.
 

hoserx

Member
Feb 27, 2013
4,157
1
360
Cleveland, Ohio
Well, I finally got to try the game (stayed up until 3 AM my time just to be able to start downloading; stupid uplay). Right now I'm only using one GTX 970 with my i7-3770K at 2560x1440. I'm monitoring FPS, GPU/CPU core usage, and VRAM usage with MSI Afterburner as well; the game hits my GPU hard at this resolution. Turning every setting down to low at this resolution nets me about 50ish FPS after a brief glance running around the starting village; high textures, shadows, and environment details with HBAO+ with FXAA are getting me, just running around, about 35-45 FPS with some dips to around 30 in some in-engine cutscenes.

I am fairly disappointed in the lack of setting options. There are some, but not very many. Now, the game is playable like this and I honestly think it's arguably the most visually pleasing game I've seen. There are so many NPCs and they nailed the general look and feel of French architecture. At my resolution, blur is minimal and it's just an overall very aesthetically pleasing game, if a bit inconsistent in some areas. I'm not getting 60 FPS like I could in Black Flag with a single 970 and a few alarming dips (cutscene) to about 26 FPS have me worried that even SLI 970s won't hit 60 minimum. I can only hope SLI scales well with the game. High textures cause about 3100 MBs of VRAM usage, Ultra High about 3700-3800 and actually lower performance from what I briefly saw. Gsync owners are in for a treat, unfortunately I'm not one (PLS panel).

I can confirm that the game is GPU-bound for me, surprisingly not seeing my 3770K limit things (it's at stock right now for testing purposes). If I lower my resolution to 1920x1080 and keep the same generally high settings with FXAA I listed above, it sticks to 60 FPS just running around with my G1 970's usage hovering about 65-85%. I expect it to dip a bit below in cutscenes. Obviously I'm not playing at that resolution though, so I look forward to the second 970. I should be able to mess around with it tonight, but it'll be about 8-9 hours from now.

If anyone is curious about anything in particular (setting/res combo, single vs SLI 970 performance, CPU usage, VRAM usage, etc.), I'd be happy to check and report back.
I will be trying it out on a similar system, 2560x1600, i7 3820 @ 4.5 ghz, two 970s..... Luckily this was one of my free games.......... lol
 

TimFL

Member
Nov 3, 2013
1,782
176
495
Germany
i7 920 @ 4.2GHz
6GB RAM
7970 @ 1000/1500

Doesn't run very well fps wise. Everything maxed except for PCSS(high) and MSAA(FXAA) gets me 20-40 fps in the opening sequence, averaging around 28. Knocking everything save for textures down to low nets me roughly 3 additional frames per second. Lowering the resolution didn't help either, so I guess I'm CPU limited. After reading other people's impressions I didn't expect much going in, though, so I can't say that I'm surprised.

I will say that, despite the fact that it runs slowly, there aren't any stutters or hitches. It's absolutely not ideal, or even passable, but it's playable.


Thanks for the heads up.

EDIT: I don't know what Ubi did differently, but the framerate just seems really smooth. My fps is really low, but it's not annoying. Everything still flows really well despite the fact that I'm below 25 fps at times.
I hope my experience wont differ from yours (I have the weaker HD7950 GPU).
 

Wildschwein

Member
Mar 14, 2014
664
0
0
Oh yikes, this got messy since last night. I'm going to test it out this morning just for fun, but right now I'm glad I've still got 3 and 4 to finish. Hopefully they get some patches out by the time I'm ready to play Unity.
 

Memorabilia

Member
Oct 25, 2013
4,271
141
410
"Look, we have consoles with super weak CPUs... Let's push for thousands of NPCs then!"

This seems accurate with Ubisoft seemingly not understanding the meaning of CPU limited (Judging by some their parity damage control).
Its worse than that though given that their engine doesn't seem to scale linearly with greater PC CPU power.