undercoverb0ss
Member
This thread is like 95% shit posts
Assassin's Creed Unity - PC Performance thread
- Thread starter MayMay
- Start date
Framerate smoothing?
CoolMarquis97
Banned
Where's the cheapest place I can buy the PC version at?
ISee
Member
Not sure, he doesn't tell. Was already enough work to change the graphic settings.
Seems he is streaming without extra capture hardware. So yes.
UPDATE: He did not save the ultra settings so the game is still 'only' running on high settings. *sigh*
So the game runs @1080p 55 - 60fps ins Paris with a gtx 970
FXAA
high preset
shadows on low
Vsync off
his total CPU load is at around 60% i7 4790k @ 4ghz
How powerful do you think the CPUs are in the XB1 and PS4, exactly?
stufte
Member
I don't know what you expected.
undercoverb0ss
Member
Usually the PC performance threads have a better ratio of relevant PC setting talk to BS, but this one seems exceptional.
stufte
Member
It's mostly because the game isn't quite out yet. We have barely a handful of people who have actually played it in this thread, and people are reacting to that. It's unfortunate, but I guess that's what happens with so little information to work from. :\
Not very powerful, but there are still too many factors in games like this that prevent most people from hitting a constant 60 fps. Be it how the game streams data, wild fluctuations in CPU usage, etc.
I've been PC gaming for 10 years. But unlike a lot of people here, I realized a long time ago that it's silly to expect a solid 60 fps in games like this, Watch_Dogs, GTAIV. It's so easy to see why a game like this or GTAIV or Watch_Dogs doesn't run as well as say Sleeping Dogs yet people lump them all into the same category anyway.
The same thing is likely to happen with GTAV and it will be the same shit all over. AKA people blaming the devs without knowing how these types of games actually work.
Well after watching that dudes stream, seeing his setup and settings compared to mine performance looks in around what III and IV are like for me (more over III as that is more demanding when cutscene models are pressent). Some SLI benches would be nice but
I'm quite content with the perfromance on display there.
Though those crowds are cracking me up. There about 20 of the same guy copy and pasted sometimes. I'm sure its a different cup of tea while playing but it sticks out as a passive viewer.
I'm quite content with the perfromance on display there.
Though those crowds are cracking me up. There about 20 of the same guy copy and pasted sometimes. I'm sure its a different cup of tea while playing but it sticks out as a passive viewer.
Not sure, he doesn't tell. Was already enough work to change the graphic settings.
Seems he is streaming without extra capture hardware. So yes.
UPDATE: He did not save the ultra settings so the game is still 'only' running on high settings. *sigh*
So the game runs @1080p 55 - 60fps ins Paris with a gtx 970
FXAA
high preset
shadows on low
Vsync off
his total CPU load is at around 60% i7 4790k @ 4ghz
Shadows on low ?
Not sure, he doesn't tell. Was already enough work to change the graphic settings.
Seems he is streaming without extra capture hardware. So yes.
UPDATE: He did not save the ultra settings so the game is still 'only' running on high settings. *sigh*
So the game runs @1080p 55 - 60fps ins Paris with a gtx 970
FXAA
high preset
shadows on low
Vsync off
his total CPU load is at around 60% i7 4790k @ 4ghz
He just maxed shadows to PCSS and it dropped to 45-55 FPS. Except on rooftops where he gets pretty much his old 55-60 FPS frame rate.
EDIT: WHOA! Dude just jumped througha guy's window, crossed his room,a nd out another window... that was cool
RazorbackDB
Member
I feel like these threads are now about people whining about poor pc ports and durante doing some damage control about what people say. Anyway the game seems to have some good character models but everything else seems dissapointing, definitely not what they first showed, but it's Ubisoft sooo.... I want to see the performance with those huge crowds and if they really are huge as they were in the trailers.
You still haven't stated what clocks your 2700K is running at.
Edit: Sorry OP, I read the thread and you mentioned stock clocks.
He is using FXAA but I don't think that's the issue. I know what you mean. Like it really lacks edges where there should be edges and contrast, almost hurts to look at some times. Other times it looks mighty impressive...
I dunno what it is.
Well except the part where 55-60 without VSync(according to that post?) is unlikely to be anywhere near double the console performance - granted that's not user-visible, but if we're talking raw numbers without frame-limiters.Durante said:
Most of them are literal ports. Ie. there's no shippable PC codebase, the console version is branched near release and ported in a minimum amount of time feasible(3-6months).dawid said:
FunkyMunkey
Banned
For those with frame dips using in-game vsync, have you tried using D3DOverrider for vsync and triple buffering instead? I had to do that on Black Flag.
Dictator93
Member
It has a lot to do with the game switching to PBR whilst taking place in the a century gone by. Most surfaces back then were diffuse. Not a lot of glass, polished marble, or metal strcutres
BloodMoney
Banned
Wut? No.
I said multiple times that its running on stock clock
What's PBR?
keltickennedy
Member
Hahaha. Why is it if people can't play Max settings at a good framerate all is lost? I'm sure you will be able to play at a higher framerate with a similar look to the consoles. Or better looking at the same framerate.
Dictator93
Member
Physically Based rendering. Making metals and other materials react more consistently and realistically. That "dullness" of a lot of the non-metal shading is just how dull these material look in real life. Albeit, less detailed and approximated.
ISee
Member
He just maxed shadows to PCSS and it dropped to 45-55 FPS. Except on rooftops where he gets pretty much his old 55-60 FPS frame rate.
EDIT: WHOA! Dude just jumped througha guy's window, crossed his room,a nd out another window... that was cool
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.
He's running at 1080p not 900p. The PS4 version drops frames below 30 FPS outside. He's runnignat higher graphics optiosn than the PS4.
So yeah, I would say that IS twice the performance of a PS4, at least.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=885444
This should be linked in the OP of every PC Performance Thread.
Ah that explains it I think, some interior scenes look really great.
Thanks.
They should have given everyone silk clothes.
mattman5000
Banned
I am interested to see how this game performs at max settings at 3200x1800 with my two GTX 980s and i7-3930k. I am also interested in how much of a difference 6 cores will make. Anybody here with two 980s and a 4 core CPU? For gaming, I wonder if the additional cores where really worth the extra money.
You really should have chosen an I7 instead of an I5. No brainer really and I7 aren't expensive at all nowadays (300/$ for a 4770K).
matrixman92
Member
welcome to an assassins creed thread
Prophet Steve
Member
Well, likely it won't make a difference, since resolution doesn't matter for CPU performance. Unless you'd want more than 60 FPS.
He has no i5. And it really isn't required to have an i7. Also the price difference is pretty big.
Could definitely help performance in general if it was built to scale well across 6 cores. Lifting your CPU limitations can free up room for more effects/AA/resolution or whatever.
Felix Lighter
Member
I wish we could hit a reboot button on this thread. I guess I'll know my situation soon enough when I'm able to download it for myself. I appreciate your effort EzioCroft. Just remember to update the OP as relevant information becomes available.
Nah, there's just
//PC only, who cares
/shitpost
I want this game, but my GT660ti is afraid
AC4 ran fine on high, but this time i'll better wait for more info.PBR seperates the material from the texture, setting physics based rules for how lighting should behave when interacting with a particular material. This is good because it tends to create a realistic effect that is universal and that artists cannot mess with without specifically changing the material type.
mattman5000
Banned
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).
Considering that in addition to the framerate difference (and I doubt the console versions will maintain a stable 30 FPS), there's also a 45% resolution improvement and other improved graphical settings (PCSS and HBAO+ are usually pretty significant hits each) going on, I think "double" is low-balling it, frankly.
VisceralBowl
Member
Has anybody confirmed if the GTX 680 minimum or better is a hard lock?
Prophet Steve
Member
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.
DodgyGeezerFella
Member
Truer words cannot be said. I have wondered for years now if "max settings" should just be console equivalent, leaving anything beyond that or advanced features to config edits (as shitty as that is).
Similar threads
- Poll