Exactly.
Assassin's Creed Unity - PC Performance thread
- Thread starter MayMay
- Start date
martino
Member
is it different on ps4/xbone ? i will help you : no
and to understand you need to be take a little interest in tech aspect , for real
dampflokfreund
Banned
Well, the benchmarks from PCGamesHardware are without optimized drivers and with 4xMSAA everything maxed out which is extremly demanding. While a GTX 780 archieves 40 FPS with only FXAA and lower settings in AC Unity. Dragon Age is massively better optimized.
Sorry but 780ti should be able to deadlift 5 ps4s.
40fps?!?!?! no txaa?
If nvidia don't put a million gb vram on their next card pc gaming is dead.
They'll need to be 100x as powerful to get the same performance due to shitty dev optimization.
I don't even give a shit if this is FUD. 40fps and no txaa?? For AC??
40fps?!?!?! no txaa?
If nvidia don't put a million gb vram on their next card pc gaming is dead.
They'll need to be 100x as powerful to get the same performance due to shitty dev optimization.
I don't even give a shit if this is FUD. 40fps and no txaa?? For AC??
If my calculations are correct, it should actually hover around 2304fps because a 780 has 2304 cuda cores, if Ubisoft did their job right by spreading the rendering accross all cores.
martino
Member
this games runs like crap on a r9 270x
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gqsztV3gE
i'm so disappointing. note its not me playing
must deliver correct performance at 900p
Oh my God...
martino
Member
come on !!!!
UnrealEck
Member
Woffls
Member
Cheers, I'll see if I can find it. I played Black Flag at about 30fps and it didn't bother me.
RadioactiveLobster
Member
So I got this game free as part of the Nvidia game thing so I can't complain too much but holy shit are UPlay's download speeds complete shit.
There was no preload and it's saying 14 hours until it's finished.
There was no preload and it's saying 14 hours until it's finished.
dampflokfreund
Banned
Interesting...
InfYn
Member
this games runs like crap on a r9 270x
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gqsztV3gE
i'm so disappointing. note its not me playing
Wow. Done. I hope Far Cry 4 runs at least decent for the red team.
Looks like I'll be picking up a GTX 970 next year...might give Unity a go then if the promo is still going.
Believe me, I don't like this kind of answer but it's pretty clear that you understand nothing about tech or PC gaming.
Peruse this :
jim2point0
Banned
LOD is a problem....
Just look how plain the "grass" looks on the right side. And that building.... wtf
As is, the game is unplayable @ 2560x1440, no AA, maxed. Frame rate is quite low with some serious stuttuers. During off the contact hardening shadows doesn't hekp m uch. I'm going to have to turn some other settings down
This is with a single 980 and the latest drivers.
Just look how plain the "grass" looks on the right side. And that building.... wtf
As is, the game is unplayable @ 2560x1440, no AA, maxed. Frame rate is quite low with some serious stuttuers. During off the contact hardening shadows doesn't hekp m uch. I'm going to have to turn some other settings down
This is with a single 980 and the latest drivers.
SliChillax
Member
I want max everything. Not even bothering with this until the 8GB GTX cards come out.
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
The main problem for Nvidia cards here is the low amount of VRAM they have in their card, a GTX 780 is about as fast as a GTX 970, while a GTX 780ti is even faster than the GTX 970, though they suggest to low texture quality and atialiasing on both the 700 gen cards due to the only 3GB of VRAM available versus the 4 of the 900 serie...
Thankfully almost one years ago when i had to choose between a GTX 780 3GB and a r9 290 4GB, which are almost the same in performance, i've chosen the AMD one, now i guess i can obtain the same performance of a GTX 970 in that table, that's great.
Thank you, I have the same setup. It looks like this isn't half as bad as people are claiming here. That chart with GTX680 on all low settings is probably bullshit, nvidia just trying to sell more hardware.
dampflokfreund
Banned
Why? Because 15% more performance won't transfer directly in FPS? I already know that. I just talk about theoretically gains
Edit: Yeah, that's pretty much PR. Look at the screenshot Jim posted. The LOD is laughable and the Global illumination just shines indoors.
Then why the 680 at 1440p ? It seems you don't know what max settings are there for.
I was alluding to your Unity graphical assessment, there is more than meets the eye, yours especially.
alexandros
Banned
Thank you! Why is it so hard for people to understand that simple fact?
jim2point0
Banned
Grass rendering distance
Don't forget 4X MSAA
Alexandros is still in the Tanaari 750Ti vs Baatezu PS4 eternal war.
Worse than default skyrim :/
The problem with the 780ti is the VRAM available, just 3GB, Nvidia went completely wrong with their 700 series, putting there just 3GB, unlike AMD which gave us 4GB already at that time, Though if you have a 6GB 780ti you can run the game as good as a GTX 980
DarkLordMalik
Member
After reading the Nvidia, guide, TotalBiscuit's opinion and the bad performance on consoles, this game just looks to be a terrible mess overall.
Somebody somewhere messed up when he decided to design the game around the concept of "thousands of NPCs"
Grass rendering distance
Pc version? Jesus , too much aliasing for me ahahaha
alexandros
Banned
Grass rendering distance
Yuck! Is that the maximum setting?
SliChillax
Member
It seems that you are missing the point. I'm not demanding my 680 to run this at max, I was asking how much Vram it uses at max settings so I know what to buy in the coming months.
If there was a 6GB 780ti I'd have bought it!
Amazon letting me return this 780ti due to poor performance for price, I have a year. Will save that return for when Nvidia fixes up.
Sho Nuff's post in the other AC thread - had to repost it here:
jim2point0
Banned
I'm getting about 11MB/s which is a bit faster than my connection should be getting, same goes for all uPlay downloads for me. Maybe your ISP is throttling you.
Will be testing this out on a 2600k@4.5|970@980 levels tonight. From reading everything I am surprised people are still saying it's a shitty Ubisoft port, this looks nothing like the horse shit of past Ubi games with single thread heavy engines or games that can't achieve 60fps no matter how much power you throw at the problem.
Look at the consoles performance, it's terrible. At least the PC platform scales well with high end hardware this time. This should be praised!
Grass rendering distance
Every video game hero in open world games is Amaterasu. Grass grows wherever they walk.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
jim2point0
Banned
More fun with LOD.
If you right click the mouse, the game will zoom in. I don't recommend it.
If you right click the mouse, the game will zoom in. I don't recommend it.
Apologies then. You should wait, definitely.
You sure the SMAA is working?
Oh my god ... Are you sure that it's working ? Look at the "building" on the letf... Anyway this LOD is awful...
CyberPunked
Member
How did you inject SMAA?
dampflokfreund
Banned
Grass rendering distance
This can't be true... this is.... WAY worse than I imagined.
Kezen, what do you say now? Do you still believe the PR bubble you posted? Most of the stuff listed already had Black Flag too.
SliChillax
Member
Yup I am, this is getting ridiculous. Let's hope the 8GB 970 wont cost a fortune.
ISee
Member
Source: UbiJohkr - Ubisoft Community Manager
Maybe people with AMD hardware should wait for further clarifications before buying this on PC.
Felix Lighter
Member
The attitude in here change since I went to bed last night. Doesn't sound to great. I ended up picking this game with the Nvidia promotion because I had a morbid curiosity of how it would turn out. Have those videos with mid tier hardware running the game at playable framerates with medium settings been debunked?
LOD is a problem....
Just look how plain the "grass" looks on the right side. And that building.... wtf
As is, the game is unplayable @ 2560x1440, no AA, maxed. Frame rate is quite low with some serious stuttuers. During off the contact hardening shadows doesn't hekp m uch. I'm going to have to turn some other settings down
This is with a single 980 and the latest drivers.
Wtf is going on with the building in the back? Another house on the roof of the first one, with a ladder /steps coming from nowhere? And the textures..
I don't know why you would like 8gb on a 256 bus.
It might a decent port job, but I'm not going to praise the game's performance, sorry. It seems excessively demanding for what the final output is. There may be valid reasons for why it runs the way it does and it may not necessarily be 'unoptimized', either. That doesn't mean they didn't make a lot of bad choices to get here, though.
I bet if you took a poll and asked how many people would take a halving of NPC counts for a respectable increase in performance, people would be all for it. Or maybe if there was some breakthrough in CPU performance on the near horizon, we could chalk it up to being 'ahead of its time', but that's not really the case.
Bottom line, some people want to enjoy *playing* the game and that's made difficult with a violently inconsistent and demanding framerate. Another example of why I fully support the push for 60fps console games, so we can at least get an emphasis on playability before thinking about tacking on the shiny.
SliChillax
Member
I know that makes it even more difficult for me to choose. Should I go with the normal 4GB? Is 256 bus that much of a problem?
Similar threads
- Poll