Support NeoGAF

[Red Comet]

Alright, I made it to Paris proper, so I suppose I'll post my updated experience with the following rig:

i7-4770k @ 4.5 Ghz
16GB DDR3 RAM 1600
780 Ti SLI 3GB

With everything maxed out at 1080p, and the frame rate capped at 30 FPS, I seem to have run out of my luck somewhat with ultra high textures. The framerate continues to seemingly be maintained at 30, however there is a slight but noticeable stutter every 2 seconds or so. I suppose 3GB cards just aren't going to cut it with ultra textures going forward.

Thankfully bumping textures down one notch to high seems to fix the problem all together. So far I haven't had to turn off TXAA or anything else. And fortunately I was not able to tell the difference between ultra high textures and high textures at all. I'm really tired right now though, so I'll have to investigate this again tomorrow.

The game is definitely ugly in some parts (What game isn't?), but I will say that at other times it is one of the nicest looking games I've ever played. This is not a perfect port by any means (in fact, I think it's sort of a broken game in general), but I'm definitely glad I decided to go PC.

 

[Serandur]

Alright, I made it to Paris proper, so I suppose I'll post my updated experience with the following rig:

i7-4770k @ 4.5 Ghz
16GB DDR3 RAM 1600
780 Ti SLI 3GB

With everything maxed out at 1080p, and the frame rate capped at 30 FPS, I seem to have run out of my luck somewhat with ultra high textures. The framerate continues to seemingly be maintained at 30, however there is a slight but noticeable stutter every 2 seconds or so. I suppose 3GB cards just aren't going to cut it with ultra textures going forward.

Thankfully bumping textures down one notch to high seems to fix the problem all together. So far I haven't had to turn off TXAA or anything else. And fortunately I was not able to tell the difference between ultra high textures and high textures at all. I'm really tired right now though, so I'll have to investigate this again tomorrow.

The game is definitely ugly in some parts (What game isn't?), but I will say that at other times it is one of the nicest looking games I've ever played. This is not a perfect port by any means (in fact, I think it's sort of a broken game in general), but I'm definitely glad I decided to go PC.

780 Ti SLI and 1080p, and you're capping yourself to 30 FPS? Why do that to yourself... you could easily do 60, just lighten up a bit on the textures and the AA.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

i7-2700k
GTX 670 FTW
16GB RAM

High settings @ 1440p

Game is choppy as F*CK, endless juttering and the FPS is horrendous. No other choice than to drop the rez to 1080p and pray I can maintain a locked 30fps.

Now I'm really concerned about FC4.

 

[alexandros]

i7-2700k
GTX 670 FTW
16GB RAM

High settings @ 1440p

Game is choppy as F*CK, endless juttering and the FPS is horrendous. No other choice than to drop the rez to 1080p and pray I can maintain a locked 30fps.

Now I'm really concerned about FC4.

You were way too optimistic with the 1440p res.

 

[RVinP]

Did anyone try playing the game at the console resolution and (approximate) settings?

What would be the PC system requirements to run them at console level of visual details/performance?

Edit: Atleast if the game can be tweaked to run with console visuals without much issues, everyone can group_share the disappointment and talk about non-visual/performance related issues.

 

[ISee]

The point was that Unity doesn't run at 1080p60 with 4x MSAA on the GTX 970, and you said that it's silly to expect the 970 to run future games at 1080p60 with 4x MSAA, hence the reply that Unity's visuals aren't really what I'd call "future visuals."

Look, I am not going to defend Ubisoft, becasue... well there is nothing to defend. They screwed up big times. AC:U performs like shit, even on consoles. I mean they both drop down to under 23 fps at times despite 900p, this is unbereable. Maybe it's their new engine or their optimizations aren't final and the game was released to early or their ambitious vision of several thousands npc on screen at the same time was too ambitious. Who knows and I don't care. A bad game is a bad game.

But again 4xMSAA is very demanding. Some People expect their GTX 970 cards to be a wonder machines with secret sauce in it. It's a great card and you get a good performance/money ratio out oft it and even I love my GTX 970. But expecting the card to run 4xMSAA with 60fps + ultra settings in future game is like expecting it to run 4k in future games. Your expactations are too high you will be dissapointed.

 

[Red Comet]

780 Ti SLI and 1080p, and you're capping yourself to 30 FPS? Why do that to yourself... you could easily do 60, just lighten up a bit on the textures and the AA.

The thing is though that I'd rather a locked 30 than a frame rate that frequently drops below 60. I'll give it a go tomorrow though now that I've reached Paris. I capped it at 30 from the start after reading other people's experiences, so I don't really know what kind of frame rate I'll get uncapped.

 

[alexandros]

Did anyone try playing the game at the console resolution and (approximate) settings?

What would be the system requirements to run them at console level of visual details/performance?

We don't have any benchmarks yet but you should need console-level hardware to get console-level performance. A Gtx 660 can run this game on high at 1080p so if you have something close to that you should be good to go.

Gtx 660 (high, 1080p): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5MQmDdZctQ

Radeon 5770 (medium, 720p): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=71YUESwQkVw

Once again the minimum requirements were bogus.

 

[deeptech]

Ultra (MSAAx2 & High Shadows)

GTX 970 @ 1500/7500
2500K @ 5Ghz

hey Unreal , i was curious to see how much fps my 970 can get in same place like you and same settings at 1080p. Seems weird but i got 10fps more at +170 core +300 memory

 

[Vuze]

But again 4xMSAA is very demanding. Some People expect their GTX 970 cards to be a wonder machines with secret sauce in it. It's a great card and you get a good performance/money ratio out oft it and even I love my GTX 970. But expecting the card to run 4xMSAA with 60fps + ultra settings in future game is like expecting it to run 4k in future games. Your expactations are too high you will be dissapointed.

+1 for this.

Also, I think the graphics quality is all over the fucking place just like the performance. Some areas look reaaaally good in terms of lightning, reflections, texture and model quality (especially interiors) and so do the characters models as well as animations but what I've seen so far from the beginning town is pretty ugly.

I still have to fiddle around with the settings, just played for 30mins or so yesterday.

 

[AstuteClass]

Alright, I made it to Paris proper, so I suppose I'll post my updated experience with the following rig:

i7-4770k @ 4.5 Ghz
16GB DDR3 RAM 1600
780 Ti SLI 3GB

With everything maxed out at 1080p, and the frame rate capped at 30 FPS, I seem to have run out of my luck somewhat with ultra high textures. The framerate continues to seemingly be maintained at 30, however there is a slight but noticeable stutter every 2 seconds or so. I suppose 3GB cards just aren't going to cut it with ultra textures going forward.

Thankfully bumping textures down one notch to high seems to fix the problem all together. So far I haven't had to turn off TXAA or anything else. And fortunately I was not able to tell the difference between ultra high textures and high textures at all. I'm really tired right now though, so I'll have to investigate this again tomorrow.

The game is definitely ugly in some parts (What game isn't?), but I will say that at other times it is one of the nicest looking games I've ever played. This is not a perfect port by any means (in fact, I think it's sort of a broken game in general), but I'm definitely glad I decided to go PC.

How did you cap the framerate to 30fps? Can you do that for all games?

I would honestly prefer locked 30fps if it meant I could up textures, etc. Prefer the cinematic look as 60fps is too smooth for me.

 

[j0hnny_385]

Does vsync work properly (triple buffered) or is it the Black Flag 30 <-> 60 jumping scenario?

 

[Red Comet]

How did you cap the framerate to 30fps? Can you do that for all games?

I would honestly prefer locked 30fps if it meant I could up textures, etc. Prefer the cinematic look as 60fps is too smooth for me.

I used EVGA Precision X to set a framerate target of 30, which I assume works for all games. You can also use Afterburner or if you've got a 60hz monitor you can set a Vsync to half your refresh rate via the NVIDIA control panel.

 

[vocab]

I would honestly prefer locked 30fps if it meant I could up textures, etc. Prefer the cinematic look as 60fps is too smooth for me.

Do you work for ubi?

 

[AstuteClass]

I used EVGA Precision X to set a framerate target of 30, which I assume works for all games. You can also use Afterburner or if you've got a 60hz monitor you can set a Vsync to half your refresh rate via the NVIDIA control panel.

Thanks!

 

[ambar_hitman]

Anyone with r9 280? Curious to know how it will run on 280. Also is it cpu dependent? I hope my 1055T won't bottleneck my GPU severely.

 

[RVinP]

We don't have any benchmarks yet but you should need console-level hardware to get console-level performance. A Gtx 660 can run this game on high at 1080p so if you have something close to that you should be good to go.

Gtx 660 (high, 1080p): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5MQmDdZctQ

Radeon 5770 (medium, 720p): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=71YUESwQkVw

Once again the minimum requirements were bogus.

That is actually good performance on a GTX660, but I wonder how much a lower CPU frequency (or AMD CPU's in general) might affect the game.

 

[Damerman]

i'm playing 4x DSR 1080p Max settings with solid 30-60 FPS with G-sync on. needless to say, large crowds/stained glass or not, this is a true next gen game. That lighting is using some kind of hybrid GI and the PBR is also very nice and the mixture of the two makes for some stupendous interiors. The graphics team made the right calls for this game...if this game wasn't marred with issues, it would have set a graphical standard where PBR and GI are the most important things. I wish they didn't go for the massive crowds. That tech isn't ready evinced by the pop in of their textures or their horrible IQ. I got the game for free with my Samsung 850 ssd and i was elated that i got it that way because of the backlash today. But if there was a demo, i would almost be tempted to pick this up, despite my convictions regarding Ubi's business practices.

 

[AndyBNV]

Morning.

If you boot up GeForce Experience and check for updates (with the profile checkbox ticked), you should download an updated Assassin's Creed Unity SLI profile.

You can then manually verify in NVIDIA Inspector if you so wish:

 

[Serandur]

The thing is though that I'd rather a locked 30 than a frame rate that frequently drops below 60. I'll give it a go tomorrow though now that I've reached Paris. I capped it at 30 from the start after reading other people's experiences, so I don't really know what kind of frame rate I'll get uncapped.

I'm running a much higher resolution (1440p - 77% more) with two 970s in SLI (right around your 780 Tis in performance) and a 3770K still at stock clocks (as opposed to your 4770K's 4.5 GHz) and I'm getting 60 FPS almost all of the time with a mix of high and ultra settings and FXAA. You're underestimating your hardware mate, it's top-notch stuff. Of course, you should give it a try for yourself to decide, but two top-tier GPUs and an overclocked high-end CPU for 30 FPS and 1920x1080 is a bit overkill.

 

[icecold1983]

Morning.

If you boot up GeForce Experience and check for updates (with the profile checkbox ticked), you should download an updated Assassin's Creed Unity SLI profile.

You can then manually verify in NVIDIA Inspector if you so wish:

Have you tried the retail version yet? Is txaa working as intended?

 

[tHoMNZ]

780Ti

25fps. Only 40% GPU utilisation. Utter trash

 

[Rwinterhalter]

But again 4xMSAA is very demanding. Some People expect their GTX 970 cards to be a wonder machines with secret sauce in it. It's a great card and you get a good performance/money ratio out oft it and even I love my GTX 970. But expecting the card to run 4xMSAA with 60fps + ultra settings in future game is like expecting it to run 4k in future games. Your expactations are too high you will be dissapointed.

I think the PC gaming evangelists are partially to blame for this attitude. They ran around forums telling everyone that they could play games super-sampled, at 1440p, with high-res textures, at 120fps, for hardware that costs a pittance. So people went ahead and bought gaming PCs.

Now that the demands of games on hardware are closer to historical norms these neophyte PC gamers seem indignant that they can't run games "maxed out." Doubly so when developers go the extra mile and include features for the top 1% of hardware when the effort is minimal enough (like Mordor's Ultra textures.)

Compromises on even high end hardware is how things have been for most of PC gaming history. No one was maxing out Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 at 60fps on their Radeon 9800 yet no one called those games "poorly optimized." The situation at the tail end of last generation was an anomaly, albeit one we will likely return to quickly with the consoles being so under-powered.

 

[Dmax3901]

I think the PC gaming evangelists are partially to blame for this attitude. They ran around forums telling everyone that they could play games super-sampled, at 1440p, with high-res textures, at 120fps, for hardware that costs a pittance. So people went ahead and bought gaming PCs.

Now that the demands of games on hardware are closer to historical norms these neophyte PC gamers seem indignant that they can't run games "maxed out." Doubly so when developers go the extra mile and include features for the top 1% of hardware when the effort is minimal enough (like Mordor's Ultra textures.)

Compromises on even high end hardware is how things have been for most of PC gaming history. No one was maxing out Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 at 60fps on their Radeon 9800 yet no one called those games "poorly optimized." The situation at the tail end of last generation was an anomaly, albeit one we will likely return to quickly with the consoles being so under-powered.

But there is far more evidence that this game is poorly optimised, no to mention buggy as hell, than the other games you mentioned.

Unity is not 2014's Crysis.

 

[Qassim]

But there is far more evidence that this game is poorly optimised, no to mention buggy as hell, than the other games you mentioned.

Unity is not 2014's Crysis.

What evidence?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I dunno, I guess I was expecting at least 60-70 FPS average with 4x MSAA considering how well the card performs at 1080p in other games that look pretty similar to this game.

Doesn't really seem like a reasonable expectation with these current gen ports.

Even something like Shadow of Mordor doesn't run at a locked 60 fps on the same settings and that game has dramatically less going on.

 

[Sickbean]

So,

All things considered, given that I've yet to play Black Flag, am I better off just getting that game?

How will it run on my 4.3GHz i5 2500K + 970 GTX?? I'd like 60fps on max settings ideally.

Is it the better game aside from performance issues?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

So,

All things considered, given that I've yet to play Black Flag, am I better off just getting that game?

How will it run on my 4.3GHz i5 2500K + 970 GTX?? I'd like 60fps on max settings ideally.

Is it the better game aside from performance issues?

If you've waited this long, you may as well just wait a couple of more weeks. Chances are it will be around 50% off during the Thanksgiving Steam sale.

 

[Sickbean]

If you've waited this long, you may as well just wait a couple of more weeks. Chances are it will be around 50% off during the Thanksgiving Steam sale.

I'm in the UK - Ubisoft games are not on Steam.

I can currently pick up the game for £14.99, which seems reasonable.

 

[Bl@de]

So,

All things considered, given that I've yet to play Black Flag, am I better off just getting that game?

How will it run on my 4.3GHz i5 2500K + 970 GTX?? I'd like 60fps on max settings ideally.

Is it the better game aside from performance issues?

Play Black Flag. Great game (my favorite AC after AC2, AC2:B) and better performance. When you finished Unity wiill (maybe) be patched.

 

[sca2511]

Is that a typo? How did you OC to 5GHz?

Do you have liquid nitrogen cooling?

I can get to 4.8 on air, but dialed down to 4.7 just in case on my 2500k. I should look into water cooling. Can't imagine 5ghz though.

 

[Sickbean]

Play Black Flag. Great game (my favorite AC after AC2, AC2:B) and better performance. When you finished Unity wiill (maybe) be patched.

Sounds like a plan.

I've not played an AC game since 2 so it's definitely an itch I need to scratch.

 

[Setsuna]

780Ti

25fps. Only 40% GPU utilisation. Utter trash

What CPU are you using and what were you doing when you got 25 fps?

 

[Dmax3901]

What evidence?

I don't have the game myself and haven't been collating the posts from people who have. Perhaps evidence is too strong a word at this stage, but the overwhelming impression I've gotten is that the game has all kinds of technical issues other than performance, and given Ubisoft's track record, I'm more inclined to go with Unity being rushed rather than too demanding for today's hardware.

 

[Turin Turambar]

I think people expecting more visual quality (for the performance they are having) aren't taking in account this is a open world game in a big, dense, complex city with thousands npcs.

Yes, you could have better visuals with the same computer if this was a corridor fps. It isn't.

 

[Bl@de]

Sounds like a plan.

I've not played an AC game since 2 so it's definitely an itch I need to scratch.

Have fun. And always sing along to the chanties "oooohhh what shall we do with the drunken sailor ..."

 

[SapientWolf]

I think people expecting more visual quality (for the performance they are having) aren't taking in account this is a open world game in a big, dense, complex city with thousands npcs.

Yes, you could have better visuals with the same computer if this was a corridor fps. It isn't.

The performance is tanking even in cutscenes. Something is amiss.

 

[Rwinterhalter]

I don't have the game myself and haven't been collating the posts from people who have. Perhaps evidence is too strong a word at this stage, but the overwhelming impression I've gotten is that the game has all kinds of technical issues other than performance, and given Ubisoft's track record, I'm more inclined to go with Unity being rushed rather than too demanding for today's hardware.

The game is quite the technical power house, but LOD issues and aliasing make it look awful.

 

[SaberEdge]

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.

Your comment is spot on. I share a very similar perspective. I've been PC gaming for a long time and it annoys me the way a lot of these people that are new to PC gaming have these outlandish expectations that every game should run at a solid 60fps on their average gaming PCs.

There's no consideration for what these games are doing from a technical perspective, they simply label any game they can't max out at 60fps an "unoptimized mess". As if most of them even understand what "unoptimized" means.

And you are right, certain people are going to complain about GTAV, The Witcher 3, The Division, Batman Arkham Knight and basically any other demanding game that comes out. I've heard the same sort of complaints leveled at games like Crysis 3 and Ryse. To hear all these complaints about supposedly poorly optimized PC games you would think that PC gaming is comprised of nothing but trashy second-rate ports.

 

[hengyu]

Prefer the cinematic look as 60fps is too smooth for me.

Really?

 

[d00d3n]

I am not really understanding the vsync that can be activated in fullscreen mode. Some people have said that it is double buffered, but my fps seems to hover between 53-60 in fullscreen with vsync activated(try to start the game at 60hz running these settings, I noticed that messing around with settings could permanently decrease the fps to the 45-55 range until a restart). Anyway, if vsync was double buffered, shouldn't the fps drop to 30 when it can't hold 60 fps?

Subjectively, fullscreen + vsync appears much smoother than borderless windowed mode, even though the fps fluctuate in the same range. Why is this? Remember to restart the game into fullscreen + vsync mode, as messing with settings can introduce chugginess that stays until you quit.

AndyBNV: What does the new sli bits do? Improve scaling? Decrease graphics bugs? It is a bit hard to judge performance before/after. Fps seems to stay in the same range, but stuttering may have decreased somewhat.

specs: 3570k@4.6GHz, 8 gig ram, 2 x geforce 780 sli, ssd drive, running win 7 64 bit, steam version with patch 1.1.0, fps tested with FRAPS

 

[Angry Fork]

For anyone interested in below minimum specs (at least for GPU): I'm using GTX 660 2gb, 8gb ram, AMD fx-8350.

I'm on the lowest settings, at 1080p. I've just gotten to Paris, and it's pretty stuttery so far depending on the situation. The game has been playable, at around 30fps, sometimes lower sometimes higher. The stutter is most frequent in cut scenes, as well as doing stuff quickly like climbing down buildings. There's lots of pop-in when there are many NPC's around, and background/far textures don't load until you get close obviously.

I had low expectations as to whether or not I could run it, but I caved and bought it anyway since I've wanted to play it so bad. So far the performance is good enough that it's at least playable at around 30fps. Hopefully the stuttering doesn't get worse which would definitely hamper the experience but so far it's only been a minor nuisance. I really wish I had the tech to play this at higher settings though because I'd love to see how it looks and feels.

 

[AndyBNV]

Have you tried the retail version yet? Is txaa working as intended?

Appears to be. What's the issue?

 

[CyberPunked]

Morning.

If you boot up GeForce Experience and check for updates (with the profile checkbox ticked), you should download an updated Assassin's Creed Unity SLI profile.

You can then manually verify in NVIDIA Inspector if you so wish:

Thanks. Is this profile any different/improved from the profile that came with the new drivers on Monday?

 

[CyberPunked]

I'm in the UK - Ubisoft games are not on Steam.

I can currently pick up the game for £14.99, which seems reasonable.

Where can you get the game for that price in the UK?

 

[icecold1983]

Appears to be. What's the issue?

doesnt do much of anything to combat temporal aliasing and shimmering in this title. txaa has always produced a 99% rock solid/stable image with the exception of the crew beta so i figured there was a chance it was bugged.

 

[ISee]

But there is far more evidence that this game is poorly optimised, no to mention buggy as hell, than the other games you mentioned.

Unity is not 2014's Crysis.

I think he is not specific to AC:U. He is talking about general performance in gaming vs. expactations. And I agree with him.
Even if Unity is 'just' unoptimized some people new to PC gaming tend to have increadible high expactations. With good gaming hardware like a 970 and a good i5 you can get stable 30fps in 1080p with much higher settings then on consoles. And we are talking about stable 30 fps and not stable console 30 fps a.k.a drops to 20 fps in Unity. So you get a much better looking and much better running game on PC. On those settings the consoles would run the game with maybe 1-2 fps in 1080p. But some people are still disappointed because "the game doesn't run in 1440p with 4xmssa". Oversampling, high mssa settings, ultra tessellation, ultra shadows etc. always were and still are options for the minority of PC gamers. For the reall expansive stuff and the enthusiasts. But people want their "normal level" gtx 970 to perform in mysterious ways.

Again I am not defending AC:U or saying the gtx 970 is bad. I bought one myself.

 

[RVinP]

For anyone interested in below minimum specs (at least for GPU): I'm using GTX 660 2gb, 8gb ram, AMD fx-8350.

I'm on the lowest settings, at 1080p. I've just gotten to Paris, and it's pretty stuttery so far depending on the situation. The game has been playable, at around 30fps, sometimes lower sometimes higher. The stutter is most frequent in cut scenes, as well as doing stuff quickly like climbing down buildings...

So the performance is directly related to the CPU then?
Game would only run better on Intel i5's?

 

[Sickbean]

Where can you get the game for that price in the UK?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=928906

 

[Sickbean]

I think he is not specific to AC:U. He is talking about general performance in gaming vs. expactations. And I agree with him.
Even if Unity is 'just' unoptimized some people new to PC gaming tend to have increadible high expactations. With good gaming hardware like a 970 and a good i5 you can get stable 30fps in 1080p with much higher settings then on consoles. And we are talking about stable 30 fps and not stable console 30 fps a.k.a drops to 20 fps in Unity. So you get a much better looking and much better running game on PC. On those settings the consoles would run the game with maybe 1-2 fps in 1080p. But some people are still disappointed because "the game doesn't run in 1440p with 4xmssa". Oversampling, high mssa settings, ultra tessellation, ultra shadows etc. always were and still are options for the minority of PC gamers. For the reall expansive stuff and the enthusiasts. But people want their "normal level" gtx 970 to perform in mysterious ways.

Again I am not defending AC:U or saying the gtx 970 is bad. I bought one myself.

The problem is that my 970 runs Crysis 3 on High/Very high 1080p 60fps and looks much, much better than AC:U.

I understand that one is open world and one is not, but that's where the expectations are coming from.