-
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
dampflokfreund
Banned
Are you actually happy with that? Jeez, I would be so pissed off if my shiny new 970 wouldn't do 1080p60.
I'll try to run a few tests again tonight.
Like you said, hopefully this is just a bug that'll be patched out.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
This only happens when you exit the game and not while playing? Otherwise check your cpu temps, and then check your bios for the safety shutdown temp.
The guide by AndyBNV on geforce.com suggests the following settings for a 770 to keep above 40fps:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/assassins-creed-unity-graphics-and-performance-guide
Damn, I feel for the people who went for the 2GB variant of the 770 when some recommended the 4GB variant instead.
My download of the game is two hours from completion so I will post my performance results when I can.
(Specs: i5 4670K @ 4.5 and a 290 @ 1007/1400)
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I'd love for it to perform better, and I'm sure it can with optimization, but the game looks downright amazing to me, so I'm more or less satisfied. It's still a much better experience than can had obtained on consoles. It looks like the performance situation over there is pretty disappointing indeed.
All things considered, this honestly seems like a pretty good port.
Most of the textures look really good and the main character is very detailed. The pants have subtle stripes, even the stitching on the belts, armor and holsters is detailed.
i5-2400 or stock equivalents of 2500K just don't cut it in this game. going down to low from ultra on textures, environment details, shadows and even turning ambient occlusion completely off barely gains me 3-4 fps. I have to turn the res down to get to acceptable frame rates:
i5-2400 or stock equivalents of 2500K just don't cut it in this game. going down to low from ultra on textures, environment details, shadows and even turning ambient occlusion completely off barely gains me 3-4 fps. I have to turn the res down to get to acceptable frame rates:
d00d3n
Member
Did you use ultra textures? I guess FXAA + overclocked memory may make it possible to run ultra on a 780 3gb card.
Most of the textures look really good and the main character is very detailed. The pants have subtle stripes, even the stitching on the belts, armor and holsters is detailed.
i5-2400 or stock equivalents of 2500K just don't cut it in this game. going down to low from ultra on textures, environment details, shadows and even turning ambient occlusion completely off barely gains me 3-4 fps. I have to turn the res down to get to acceptable frame rates:
I'm confused, since when did the x1 get fraps?
Where are the black details? You're not running sweetfx right?
Seems like this came to bite PC folks too:
Depends on your CPU.
dampflokfreund
Banned
Most of the textures look really good and the main character is very detailed. The pants have subtle stripes, even the stitching on the belts, armor and holsters is detailed.
i5-2400 or stock equivalents of 2500K just don't cut it in this game. going down to low from ultra on textures, environment details, shadows and even turning ambient occlusion completely off barely gains me 3-4 fps. I have to turn the res down to get to acceptable frame rates:
Wow, that's bad. Your CPU is fine tho, cuz if you lower the res you get acceptable FPS. What GPU do you have?
Lol, this game needs the CPU processing power of the all the clouds in the world to power dem brainy ai.
You screwed boy.
(60fps at 720p).
Lower your environment settings to high and your shadows to high.
Just played through the intro and thought I'd weigh in.
Here are my specs
2500k@4.7Ghz
8GB DDR3 2133Mhz
GTX 980 overclocked
Running everything max except shadows on high with FXAA at 2560x1440. Runs perfectly smooth with GSync. It's a huge plus in a game like this with fluctuating fps.
Cutscenes are running around 30-45fps. In game is around 60fps for now. We'll see how things go in Paris.
My uPlay tag is WRCEvoX if you want to play some coop.
Here are my specs
2500k@4.7Ghz
8GB DDR3 2133Mhz
GTX 980 overclocked
Running everything max except shadows on high with FXAA at 2560x1440. Runs perfectly smooth with GSync. It's a huge plus in a game like this with fluctuating fps.
Cutscenes are running around 30-45fps. In game is around 60fps for now. We'll see how things go in Paris.
My uPlay tag is WRCEvoX if you want to play some coop.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
30 fps at 1440p seems reasonable on a 780 Ti depending on the VRAM of your GPU and what your CPU is.
Thanks!
Kazdane
Member
I posted this morning about minimum specs, but I'll post again.
I've been testing the game in my laptop and played for around 2 hours (mostly picking up collectibles and doing the first 3 missions), this is the hardware it has:
i7 Q740 @ 2.93 Ghz
GTX 460M 1.5 GB VRAM
4 GB DDR3
Everything set to low except for AA, which I've left at FXAA. The game averages 20 fps (sometimes goes down to 15-16 and sometimes up to 25-30) and it's borderline playable (cutscenes are almost single digits though, but 1.2.0 isn't out yet, so that may help fixing it).
The actual real (not the suggested) minimum specs must be relatively close to what this laptop has, but that's just a wild guess. The funny thing is that framerate doesn't really change no matter how many npcs are around or if you are out in the open or not. The difference between low and high textures isn't massive either:
I'll see this weekend what the performance is in my desktop computer, but that one meets the recommended requirements, except for the graphics card (GTX 660).
I've been testing the game in my laptop and played for around 2 hours (mostly picking up collectibles and doing the first 3 missions), this is the hardware it has:
i7 Q740 @ 2.93 Ghz
GTX 460M 1.5 GB VRAM
4 GB DDR3
Everything set to low except for AA, which I've left at FXAA. The game averages 20 fps (sometimes goes down to 15-16 and sometimes up to 25-30) and it's borderline playable (cutscenes are almost single digits though, but 1.2.0 isn't out yet, so that may help fixing it).
The actual real (not the suggested) minimum specs must be relatively close to what this laptop has, but that's just a wild guess. The funny thing is that framerate doesn't really change no matter how many npcs are around or if you are out in the open or not. The difference between low and high textures isn't massive either:
I'll see this weekend what the performance is in my desktop computer, but that one meets the recommended requirements, except for the graphics card (GTX 660).
Alright at 1080p:
i7-4770k @ 4.5 Ghz
16 GB DDR3 RAM 1600
780 Ti 3GB SLI
I've maxed everything out (include Ultra High textures and TXAA) and I'm getting a rock solid 30 FPS (capped with Precision X) with no dips or stuttering to speak of so far.
However, I have not left the village of Versailles yet. I have explored Versailles pretty thoroughly though so far include climbing two viewpoints and I have not run into problems yet. Does performance in Paris take a bigger hit? If so I may have to knock textures down to high. We'll see. I would have waited to post my performance until I got there, but I won't have time to do so until much later tonight.
Since I'm playing on a 120 Hz monitor, I set my Vsync to adaptive through the NVIDIA control panel, turned off the in game Vsync, and then set a frame rate target of 30 FPS through EVGA Precision X.
i7-4770k @ 4.5 Ghz
16 GB DDR3 RAM 1600
780 Ti 3GB SLI
I've maxed everything out (include Ultra High textures and TXAA) and I'm getting a rock solid 30 FPS (capped with Precision X) with no dips or stuttering to speak of so far.
However, I have not left the village of Versailles yet. I have explored Versailles pretty thoroughly though so far include climbing two viewpoints and I have not run into problems yet. Does performance in Paris take a bigger hit? If so I may have to knock textures down to high. We'll see. I would have waited to post my performance until I got there, but I won't have time to do so until much later tonight.
Since I'm playing on a 120 Hz monitor, I set my Vsync to adaptive through the NVIDIA control panel, turned off the in game Vsync, and then set a frame rate target of 30 FPS through EVGA Precision X.
Nah, the minimum specs are quite a bit above those specs. The 680 is considerably more powerful than a 460M and at a minimum it recommends 2GB VRAM.
GPU is overclocked, both core and memory, while VRAM is 3 GB.
CPU is 2600K @ 4.4 Ghz.
It just uses "every ounce of power" of your PC.
Will you be playing some more soon? I got very close specs and that sounds much better than I was expecting. TXAA!
I think it may drop when you get to the big dense areas though...
Kazdane
Member
Oh sorry, I definitely meant the *real* minimum specs (not the suggested minimum specs, which seem *way* exaggerated)
d00d3n
Member
Did you get occasional "white flashes" during cutscenes, but not normal gamplay, using this setup?
dampflokfreund
Banned
Finally a interesting impression, thank you for that. Not bad actually, the 460M is a old and weak card. CPU has fine performance, but also old. How does it run on everything low and a extremly low resolution like 1024x600?
@FLAguy but this is running in 720p and on a much better CPU so not really comparable to Xbone.
Kazdane
Member
The game only lets you go down to 720p by itself. I'll see if I can edit the .ini to use that one and I'll update the thread later.
Unfortunately I won't get the opportunity to play again for several hours, but I'll edit my post or post again if my performance changes in those areas (and it very likely might). If so, the likely culprit will be VRAM issues, so I'll knock down the textures. And if that's not enough I'll knock down the AA as well.
I should also note that I locked the framerate at 30 right from the get-go, so I'm not even sure how high my actual framerate is so far.
Yeah, maybe one or two. Nothing too jarring though.
Thanks for the info, will look out for it as I probably won't get it till late tomorrow.
Unfortunately SMAA via SweetFX, RadeonPro, or Inspector won't show up in screenshots aka what you are playing most likely looks WAY better than your screen indicates (but that won't fix the grass :/).
VisceralBowl
Member
I did.
1. That i5 is the oldest i5, it's 5 years old. Also, why an i3? Why would you suggest a dual-core vs the 6 core (of the 8 available to developers) in the consoles? We know there significant are CPU bottlenecks in DirectX regarding draw calls that wouldn't be the fault of Ubisoft, so that's not a fair comparison. We could swap it out for an i3 if you so wanted, there are, after all i3s faster than that i5 750.
2. That 250x is less capable than the Xbox One GPU, except the 250x is clocked higher.
I think its a reasonable comparison, 720p + a less capable GPU + less memory + higher CPU overhead on an old CPU. Given all those things, I don't think the PC version in particular is a "bad port". It's a demanding game regardless of the quality of the port.
well I honestly have to say that for the first few moments of the game, I really feel like I had the first next gen experience I've had in awhile. The game looks truly stunning as you're running around as the child.......the music, everything is really neat.
performance wise:
I'm playing at 2560x1600 on two gtx 970s, an i7 3820 @ 4.3 ghz, and 16 gb of ram. I have everything maxed, except AA is set to FXAA. I was locked at 60 for the most part until I got to the first village....... and wow it really looks great with all of the people everywhere... I was really shocked at how good it all comes together. Had some drops down to the high 40s in densely populated areas.....
So far, I think performance is okay. Gpu utilization for me seems to be pretty decent, but there are moments when the cpu is worked heavily that gpu utilization drops down to around 75% on each card. I'm having a decent amount of fun so far with this beautiful game. ( I didnt expect to say that after reading threads all day at work)
performance wise:
I'm playing at 2560x1600 on two gtx 970s, an i7 3820 @ 4.3 ghz, and 16 gb of ram. I have everything maxed, except AA is set to FXAA. I was locked at 60 for the most part until I got to the first village....... and wow it really looks great with all of the people everywhere... I was really shocked at how good it all comes together. Had some drops down to the high 40s in densely populated areas.....
So far, I think performance is okay. Gpu utilization for me seems to be pretty decent, but there are moments when the cpu is worked heavily that gpu utilization drops down to around 75% on each card. I'm having a decent amount of fun so far with this beautiful game. ( I didnt expect to say that after reading threads all day at work)
I can't play the game until the 13 so i am basing my impression off the Nvidia article but it's kinda crazy that the Nvidia added effects are almost the only settings that add something to the look of the game. Otherwise between low/medium/high/ultra there is little difference (texture aside, i can see a big difference there).
7950, i5-2400, 8GB RAM, WIN 8.1, native 1440p monitor. Game is 1.1 patched and AMD
s beta Unity driver installed.
This is the buggiest game I've played in a long time. Forget BF3&4, this is GTA4 level buggy.
Add this to OP: Settings apparently don't "register" in game, one has to completely restart the game/engine. If you lower setting, the image quality goes down but the frame rate barely reflects the changes, even extreme ones, like going down to low 720p.
Here is a 1440p ultra no AA screen, followed by a 720p all low/no amb occlusion screen, frame rate barely changes. One has to leave and reenter the game to get the fps increase from lowering IQ settings:
deeptech
Member
This is weird , 7950 should at least get you 30fps on high + 1080p. Did you check the GPU usage? Seems fishy
Very true. Just reloaded settings I gave up on earlier and they're now running smoothly.
krameriffic
Member
I had Rivatuner statistics server set to a Game Detection level of high. For some reason, this causes the game to crash. I can run it with that setting on Low no problem, and the framerate counter still works.
jim2point0
Banned
Uhhhhh... that is absolutely not true. I'm capturing the screenshots with SweetFX which does capture SMAA. I don't know why you'd think otherwise. I even posted comparisons with and without sweetfx SMAA.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/99713
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/99710
d00d3n
Member
What settings are you using now that run smoothly? (you have a kind of similar sli setup)
Similar threads
- Poll