Yes the third one is accurate. I am just talking about the first, it's unloaded asset rather than reduced LOD in that picture.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
[Digital Foundry] Performance Analysis: Assassin's Creed Syndicate
- Thread starter stryke
- Start date
Yes the third one is accurate. I am just talking about the first, it's unloaded asset rather than reduced LOD in that picture.
Palette Swap
Member
I don't know, watching the video it seems 30fps most of the time on ps4. Which is more than "a bit better" compared to Unity?
I'd love to know how it compares to previous gen console versions of past AC games. They pretty much all had Unity's performance and you didn't hear people complaining too much (when they should have, mind you).
RowdyReverb
Member
Do you remember the framerate in Unity? It's doing more than a little better performance-wise
Kinda why I said far less
Perhaps its the location but it doesn't look anywhere near what Unity was aiming for, on top of that its lost the massive crowds, Maybe having a female character model took more resources than expected
ps3ud0 8)
ISee
Member
1.What would you like them to test with? A 980Ti, a R9 380, a high end AMD CPU or an I3 Skylake? Maybe they should even include linux or mac setups?
Too many different, possible and still logical PC configurations you could use to test performance vs consoles. It's too much work.
2.Most, even mid class, PC configurations would just straight out win, like 9 out of 10 times (one being Arkham Knight). It's not even close most of the time.
For example: even one year ago, when Unity came out and everybody complained how bad it ran, most PC people were able to make it run at 1080p30-60fps. On the other side consoles ran at 900p 20-30fps. And the PC crowd (including me!) still complained the hell out of the game and it is still considered a bad port. (Not saying it is a good one but it ran and looked much more worse on consoles).
PC wins. No need to showcase it.
Edit:
Also watch some NX gamer on YT
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
Image quality is straight up nasty.
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/ar.../0/PS4_004.bmp.jpg/EG11/quality/90/format/png
And we're over a year and a half on from inFAMOUS Second Son, by a small developer.
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/ar.../0/PS4_004.bmp.jpg/EG11/quality/90/format/png
And we're over a year and a half on from inFAMOUS Second Son, by a small developer.
Unity didn't have a day night cycle..this one does.
So eventhough it might have cut back on one area (NPC count, less interior) it's doing more in a different area. Day night cycle can be quite heavy, AC1 somewhat looked better than AC2 and had higher quality models than AC2 due to the fact that AC2 used dynamic day night cycle and AC1 didn't
The other reason why it might not "look" as good is because of the dynamic day night cycle the game cannot really use as much prebaked lighting data as Unity which had static time of day.
Ah for some reason I missed the day/night cycle addition (thought Unity had it) - explains that then
ps3ud0 8)
I've no idea, haha.
Both versions should be solid out of the gate. One console over the other on either side is dumb.
Yep. I'll probably get it on PC once it's cheap.
What? The framerate is clearly much better.
The article and the OP makes note of it explicitly.
It's a shit engine.
dead monkey uk
Member
Yes
Slightly expeditious. The game looks good and performs well on consoles, I doubt a subpar engine would have been able to achieve that.
Rather, the PS4's headroom has been used to maximise framerate stability.
Consoles are not draw-calls limited by the API unlike DX11, their APIs are already "low level" akin to DX12.
The Jaguar cores could be the culprit. It could very well drop frames on consoles because of their CPUs, and on PC because the API can only handle so much.
I'm not convinced by your demonstration at all. You know it's common knowledge that PC APIs have no place on consoles where abstraction is not needed nearly as much. Therefore, I strongly doubt the APIs were the culprit, rather the CPU performance seems to me a more likely candidate to explain the wonky performance on consoles.
On PC however, well it's a possibility that DX11 is severely limiting performance.
In all honesty graphically not seems even that goodness to accept the 900p compromise. The efficient of this engine for such console, it's really opinable. I'm not saying 900p are inexcusable. I'm saying the tech used it's too much expensive and barely appreciable. They should focus more to what console can do efficiently not to what they can barely handle.
dead monkey uk
Member
Destiny says hello. I think Fallout 4 was also confirmed as 1080p/30 on both.
Also something at 900/30 does not mean parity, frame rate can be wildly different.
Garrett Hawke
Member
I don't think it's a shit engine, I think they just overshot the PS4/XB1 when developing it and now they're having to deal with it. The games still look very nice and Syndicate seems to perform well enough on PS4, just at 900p, which is a shame.
That's the only company who expected more powerful console from what we see. I don't know in what world ubisoft lived in the past years. Even Rocksteady said to expect such low profile hardware.
[Call-Me-G]
Banned
Maybe because it was not as easy as a parity-thing... And now, Ubisoft has a deal with Sony, not MS.
You wanted a stable 30fps ? Now you got it, and the game performs worse on Xbone so it's not "parity".
Garrett Hawke
Member
Well I don't think it's an unreasonable guess considering what they originally unveiled Watch_Dogs and The Division looking like. Other games that were revealed around that time didn't have anywhere near the same sort of "downgrade" suggesting to me that they were expecting more power than they got.
I'm not complaining of the more stable fps. I'm complaining of this engine in general.
I still don't understand why they are the same (lower) resolution on both consoles.
Considering resolution is GPU bound and not CPU where the Xbox has a slight advantage.
Considering the GPU advantage the PS4 has it should be able to afford better resolutions than the Xbox. If a game is running 1080 on both, that's great but there is no reason for a 900P Xbox game to run at the same resolution on the PS4.
I'm talking only about resolution, not frame rate.
Considering resolution is GPU bound and not CPU where the Xbox has a slight advantage.
Considering the GPU advantage the PS4 has it should be able to afford better resolutions than the Xbox. If a game is running 1080 on both, that's great but there is no reason for a 900P Xbox game to run at the same resolution on the PS4.
I'm talking only about resolution, not frame rate.
SamastahSukhino
Banned
So they can put a sticker on the box saying 900p. It's a sad day when I see a ps4 game in 900p. This generation needs to be wiped from existence. Ps5 and Windows pc can't come soon enough.
You are very naive if you think next console generation will be better of this. There is no way for a tons of reason they can put in the market a console competitive with the PC standard.
the excuse is simple...and valid. Neither of these consoles are particularly powerful
The two are linked, you can't complain about an engine which has to scale things up or down depending on target framerate.
I see nothing suggesting that the game does not make wise use of ressources.
What you define as powerful? So pc is not powerful because Arkham knight problems?
At least say something productive
I too feel like this, you would expect the game to look amazing to justify the 900P and the not locked 30, but it's not, one of the less visually appealing open world games, just seems like a poor tech in this case, not amazing visuals, not great performance, what's left? Pretty disappointing how AC turned out this gen technically.
That's something I don't get it. Why most of the ps4 games can be handle at 1080p when are 900p on xbone but not this? Why suddenly ubisoft are the wizard of the optimization? Probably they preferred more stable fps on ps4. I don't think 1080p was impossible at all.
The situation is nowhere alike. You can clearly see why Syndicate runs and looks as it does on consoles.
AK did not run as well as the hardware allowed, as evidenced by the performance patch which drastically improved performance on my PC.
DarthWalden
Banned
I'd take the incredible amount of NPCs over the performance but I know I'm in the extreme Minority...
I thought that was really quite incredible in ACU
I thought that was really quite incredible in ACU
I'm just saying if this engine can barely handle 30 fps at 900p, they should rethink of their graphic priorities. Even The Witcher 3 seems better and it's even more compromise compared the PC.
Just to be precise, I can live with 900p but the final results in Syndicate it's not even that appreciable.
I would at least take Unity's visuals without the NPCs, we got neither...
the witcher also got performance patch on ps4 hell ac4 was 900p on ps4 lol
how those are not similar cases lol
Lol.
there is simply nothing all that cutting edge on either console. They both use relatively weak CPU setups, and their GPU's are pretty middle of the road...
I couldn't care less about any problems with Arkham Knight on the PC because I don't game on a PC...but if there are across the board problems with the game running, even on bleeding edge PC hardware, than its a problem with the game...
whats your point? youre making apples to oranges comparisons when you say "most games." There are 900p games out there on the PS4, and from major AAA studios as well...
Of course i never actually said 1080p was impossible, but people would in here complaining about the framerate if they picked 1080p and it dropped more frames than the Xbone version...
Im not defending Ubi, but they are in a lose lose situation...
I don't call it terrible but just too much expensive for console.