MR ARCADE FOREVER
Member
Will the PC version be based on DX 11 or 12?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
[Digital Foundry] Performance Analysis: Assassin's Creed Syndicate
- Thread starter stryke
- Start date
Garrett Hawke
Member
I haven't seen anything about it but probably 11. They would probably mention if it was 12 and already be using it for marketing.
DX11 - nothing is DX12 yet and won't be until mid-late 2016.
We don't know what framerate can both console handle without unlocked builds. I find your complaints very strange.
Hum, AK PC cannot be compared to Syndicate on consoles. One was broken at launch, the other is not. One clearly does not run well in relation to the hardware, the other actually does to me. Like, I'm not surprised at all Syndicate needs to make compromises to achive its targets on consoles. AK performance jumped by a massive 50-60% in my case, I'm pleased with how the game runs (60fps mostly stable with near max settings).
What makes you think Syndicate leaves performance on the table ?
Fable Legends - Q4 2015 is DX12
Gears UE also.
But Syndicate will likely be DX11 only.
ISee
Member
I highly doubt it will be DX12. Maybe PC will get tessellation options this time around though. Not like Unity where they promised it never and delivered.
edit:
Battlefield and Battlefront... oh sorry they are 900p/60... my mistake
Dictator93
Member
Clearly you see why that is so. Right? I mean... really?
900p games are not that common on ps4. I don't understand why suddenly it's just an hardware fault when there are a very minority which runs on 900p. I'm not saying ubisoft it's incompetent. But I don't like the preconception it's just an hardware fault when couldn't be true at all
Uh. It's strange to complain of an engine who can barely handle 30 fps at 900p on console? I think it's quite normal.
Please fill us in on what they are doing so wrong since you seem to have a deeper understanding of the engine than the developers.
GPU isn't everything.
Or it could very well be the culprit.
There is nothing surprising about 900p on PS4, all it takes is the right workload.
Did you burst a tit when Battlefront was revealed to be 900p as well ?
if you make a game run with exactly the same settings (parity) it doesnt mean its not still parity when those settings cause the other console to chug... it means the other console cant handle the engine running the same settings as PS4.
Annual release would be a start.
Yea, when you do get 900P from other developers at least the game runs much better with a good IQ and it looks far more appealing visually, like with Battlefront, I can't really compliment Ubi on this one.
PeterLegend
Member
games that require strong CPUs seem to be the limiting factor of consoles this gen which makes sense if you think about it rationally.
Which means it's not parity. One runs better than the other.
No. Because it was targeting 60 fps.
And 30fps can't be demanding then ? I'm sorry but it's totally possible you are overestimating how capable consoles are.
Obviously, I could be wrong too.
Nobody is saying that the hardware is completely at fault, but its the major player. You are correct that 900p games are rare on the PS4...but you cant simply point to that as evidence of why a game should or should not be 900p. You simply dont know enough about whats going on under the hood of this particular game to make that argument. I have no doubt that further optimization could have helped, maybe even helped a lot. But you can only do so much with set hardware
I overestimate console saying this engine is uselessly expensive in such low profile hardware?
I have repeated different time I don't like this engine for this reason and still I continue to dislike it because don't give appreciable results to accept its compromises.
I'm not saying there is no excuse for such performance.
Rendering such open world games require hardware ressources and from what I've seen Ubisoft had their priorities right, they got rid of those needlessly draining huge crowds for instance.
I disagree with the notion that they have not used ressources at their disposal wisely.
Why do so many people always assume every game is GPU limited? Both systems have the same amount of RAM and a pretty similar CPU. If the game is running into memory limitations at 900p then they aren't going to magically make it run at a higher resolution on PS4, regardless of the better GPU. I swear people just dig for things to be angry about these days while pushing aside any kind of rational thought.
As if the difference in performance would be worth the money.
Also Unity was patched several times and there wasn't a big difference afterwards. Let's see how this will turn out.
DR3 give me the suspect it's really horribly developed. Zombie hasn't particular elaborate AI to justify such compromise.
The thing is that you can't load on a system by just looking at the game. There is a lot of calculation done in the small time frame that 30fps give you.
Actually it can get quite complex when we are talking about hordes, even multiple of them at the same time.
no its still parity the devs have nothing to do with the console chugging... they made both version equal... parity.
So you would have been fine with the PS4 dropping more frames than the Xbone because of better visuals ?
Well, to say it is not, one would have to have a pc and investigate how much the engine relies on CPU performance, testing different setups.
family_guy
Member
To be fair, MGSV is pretty barren as far as open worlds go and they aren't rendering as many AI at once as the AC games do.
id rather have cleaner LOD and 1080 @ solid 30 with whatever sacrifices they had to make (which would still look better than Black Flag, and black flag looked great... but no they over promised and now everyone is expecting visuals that arent achievable from ubisoft.)
MGS5 is pretty much using last gen tech, its world is also not even close to being half as complex and dense as the one in AC and nor does it have to deal with as many NPCs.
What about GTA5? I honestly feels it looks better than Syndicate while running at a more stable 30 (on PS4) and 1080P.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
What's special about this game's deferred rendering setup that they'd be struggling with a 1080p30 frame buffer?
Not particularly barren inside bases and it hardly struggles at 1080p60.
Yes because things like these never happened before in previous gen and every game this gen is doing this....right.
LOD is also GPU dependant, so at 1080p LOD might have needed to be actually toned down compared to what it is now. I don't think the general gamer cares about res so Ubisoft did the right thing : priorise visuals and scale over resolution.
At least if both are 1080p at the target framerate, that means both consoles hit the goals they set. I'm fine with that.
It just seems particularly odd here given that there isn't a huge delta in framerate at 900p and the AA and AF are relatively low as well. You'd think they'd at least try to clean up the IQ from Unity.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
If Battlefield 4 was 1080p60fps then this discussion would be comparable.
Black Flag was 1080p30fps (and solid at that).
tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
Can't even hit 1080p another no purchase
:-(
This gen just makes me sad, think I've played more games on my tablet
:-(
This gen just makes me sad, think I've played more games on my tablet
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
Black Flag was much more polished in general. Only the character faces were especially ugly and that's more art than tech.