Assassins Creed 3 PC performance thread
- Thread starter hlhbk
- Start date
Gouda Jouji
Member
I've been reading multiple accounts that the game is crashing/freezing constantly if you have a GTX 570.. is that true? Cause that's my card... ;_;
IcyBlueStrawberry
Member
Update to newest drivers to resolve artifacting, and going with high AA instead of very high boosts performance 30-50%.
should i actually use the 12.10 or 12.11 beta? still not familar as to what we should consider the newer driver
IcyBlueStrawberry
Member
Why does this changelog mentions DMC5?
http://www.guru3d.com/files_details/amd_catalyst_12_11_beta_download.html
thanks. thats the one that i have been using for the past 2 weeks. everything is ok till sequence 2; and goes to shit once it hits boston.
Cannon Goose
Member
Looks nice. What sort of performance are you getting?
IcyBlueStrawberry
Member
Yeah, I gave up a while ago and capped my fps to 32 lol
The game runs smoothly now, just not as smoothly as I would like/it should.
Game looks nice improvement from the flat looking environments from the older AC games, but yeah once I hit Boston with my 580GTX, it's probably 25-40 fps. Playable but definitely not as smooth as the older ones that were consantly 60fps.
Tbh I'd rather have worse looking games @ 60fps on DX9 than all these DX11 games that bring modern cards to their knees. At least it runs a little better than NFS MW.
Tbh I'd rather have worse looking games @ 60fps on DX9 than all these DX11 games that bring modern cards to their knees. At least it runs a little better than NFS MW.
I'd say it looks quite a bit better though, and has a lot more going on. With latest nvidia beta patches on my 670 and i5 3750 stock, I get 60 just about everywhere, never drops below like 50.
Good to know, though performance is pretty poor in Boston even at high AA.
Radeon 7970 @ 1100/1500
i5 2500k @ 4.8 ghz
16 GBs DDR3
RAID 0 SSDs
Acording to this thread, people with slower cards are getting better performance with the new Nvidia drivers. Hopefully AMD is working on it.
Runs perfect for me. I finished the game and rarely had any performance issues. I will say with my setup the game ran ok on max most of the time but towns the game drops. So that is why I dropped down. Honestly aside from a few nicer textures I didn't see a whole lot more of an advantage but I'm no pc spec wiz.
Digital-Hero
Member
Throw a few screenshots in here people. (A console owner wants to see a cleaned up version of the game.)
IcyBlueStrawberry
Member
Use the features of our cards properly *gasps*
The game is inefficiently designed. It puts most CPU stuff into a single thread on a single CPU core, chokes it, and drags FPS down with it.
If you disable AA, the game runs liquid smooth on a single AMD 6950. If they optimize CPU threading by using 4 cores, something like a GTX 680 would run at 300 fps.
We already know what games will look like next year, and it's wayyyy beyond this. Next gen consoles (other than Wii U which is obviously weak sauce) will use derivatives of the same GPUs we're using right now. The same bottlenecks with CPU and GPU balance will be hit, and they'll be fixed. We'll continue to scale up IQ. Hopefully we'll all enjoy games on better hardware console or not.
Guys, seriously just drop the AA. I hardly notice the aliasing with the game running 60-120 fps.
Don't know if this was posted earlier, but it's the reason why I decided to axe AA and sure enough the framerate got drastically better. Also disable multi GPU.
Besides the CPU threading issue, this is a solid engine. I imagine they'll have to fix the CPU threading because more likely than not PS4 and Xbox3 will use many, weaker cores than Intel's i5/i7.
Besides the CPU threading issue, this is a solid engine. I imagine they'll have to fix the CPU threading because more likely than not PS4 and Xbox3 will use many, weaker cores than Intel's i5/i7.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Can a GTX570 pull 60fps at 2560x1440 no anti-aliasing?
Anyone have Vram usage stats at that resolution for any card?
Anyone have Vram usage stats at that resolution for any card?
Are you talking about disabling in the .ini or just setting it to 'normal'?
Normal. Does the INI work? May be worth it depending on your CPU and other settings. I generally dislike FXAA too.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I highly doubt it. People with 670s were quoting sub-60fps performance at 1080p.
iNvid02
Member
nvidia posted an article going through the various options with interactive comparisons
they were gushing about its AO
they were gushing about its AO
angular graphics
Banned
Why does this changelog mentions DMC5?
http://www.guru3d.com/files_details/amd_catalyst_12_11_beta_download.html
Because it's been known for a while it's coming to PC.
pretty good comparison attached. are you guys optimistic that this fps issue can be fixed via a patch? or something that we will probably have to live with
http://benchmark3d.com/assassins-creed-3-benchmark
http://benchmark3d.com/assassins-creed-3-benchmark
They are right though, changing Shadows from High to Very High have a significant impact on performance but it also changes the look of the game completely. Their AO implementation is really well done and extremely noticeable unlike some games but the performance is thereafter.
captainnapalm
Member
Just started this baby up. I've maxed out the settings and everything is running smoothly on my 560 so far, though my resolution is a bit lower than most because I sit right in front of my pc and don't need a huge monitor. That always means I can crank up the settings a bit more.
I'll have to wait and see what happens when I reach Boston.
I'll have to wait and see what happens when I reach Boston.
I7 960 @ 3.2ghz
GTX 680 2gb
6gb ram
This is an odd game graphics wise. I have 1920X1080 resolution, everything maxed, including AA which is above Very high, it's on the TXAA option.
I can drop my AA to normal, and there is literally no FPS loss or gain. Normal, High, Very high, TXAA .... all the same FPS lol.
I get like 35 FPS in Boston at worse, if I keep the same resolution and drop all settings low as possible I gain 10 FPS max. Makes me wonder if this is the engine at fault for being poorly optimized, or if it's my CPU. Either way beautiful game, playing with 360 controller so the fps loss is not really a problem for me.
Also running 306.97 official drivers, will try 310.61 beta within the next hour and update. Apparently according to Nvidia's site they improve performance
"An essential upgrade for all GeForce GTX gamers, our new 310.54 beta drivers are loaded with enhancements for over two dozen of your favorite games, including Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Assassin’s Creed III, which receive performance improvements of up to 26% compared to your current driver."
"Assassin’s Creed III (Pre-Release Build): Performance increased by 17.8% at 1920x1080 when using max settings and Normal Anti-Aliasing, by 7.1% at 2560x1600 using the same settings, and by 9.8% at 1920x1080 when using max settings and Very High Anti-Aliasing."
GTX 680 2gb
6gb ram
This is an odd game graphics wise. I have 1920X1080 resolution, everything maxed, including AA which is above Very high, it's on the TXAA option.
I can drop my AA to normal, and there is literally no FPS loss or gain. Normal, High, Very high, TXAA .... all the same FPS lol.
I get like 35 FPS in Boston at worse, if I keep the same resolution and drop all settings low as possible I gain 10 FPS max. Makes me wonder if this is the engine at fault for being poorly optimized, or if it's my CPU. Either way beautiful game, playing with 360 controller so the fps loss is not really a problem for me.
Also running 306.97 official drivers, will try 310.61 beta within the next hour and update. Apparently according to Nvidia's site they improve performance
"An essential upgrade for all GeForce GTX gamers, our new 310.54 beta drivers are loaded with enhancements for over two dozen of your favorite games, including Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Assassin’s Creed III, which receive performance improvements of up to 26% compared to your current driver."
"Assassin’s Creed III (Pre-Release Build): Performance increased by 17.8% at 1920x1080 when using max settings and Normal Anti-Aliasing, by 7.1% at 2560x1600 using the same settings, and by 9.8% at 1920x1080 when using max settings and Very High Anti-Aliasing."
AO is embedded in the Shadows option, dropping that from Very High to just High can have a huge impact, while the overall IQ also takes a dump it's still a performance hog.
However as mentioned, the game is more CPU heavy and if you aren't limited by your GPU then the above option won't do as much.
However as mentioned, the game is more CPU heavy and if you aren't limited by your GPU then the above option won't do as much.
It's your CPU. Just one of those games. If you can get it to around 4GHz you'd probably be good.
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
I'm running the game at 2560 x 1600 with all in-game settings maxed (12.11 beta8 + 12.10CAP1)
It has been silky smooth in Boston so far which surprised me given the comments in this thread.
i7-980x @ 4.1GHz
12GB RAM
7970 x 2
Crucial M4 512MB
It has been silky smooth in Boston so far which surprised me given the comments in this thread.
i7-980x @ 4.1GHz
12GB RAM
7970 x 2
Crucial M4 512MB
I'd like to revise my opinion, the ancient rig performance is actually pretty decent. It dropped a bit here and there, but it pretty smooth throughout, the first arrival in Boston must have some weird shit going on or transition from boat to city must have distorted my view.
God damn, so many glitches though. Enemies stuck in crates, falling off the map into the void, etc..
Having an i5 750 + gtx580, i'm ready to get sub 30 fps.
750 is still very capable. If you haven't already look into overclocking it.
Never felt the need so far, also feel a bit apprehensive about OCing, although i heard that nowadays is far safer to do.
Its really easy to do with SB and IB but a wee bit harder with out 750, but still nothing too complex. I've got mine at 3.8GHz stable, mine wasn't too happy to go any further, or maybe it was my mobo. Either way, easy performance gains to be had.
Same with your 580 too.
It's an AssCreed game. It's almost a franchise "feature" to have a boring start with interesting things coming around the 5 hours mark (except for AC 1, which was boring more interesting at the start than the rest of the game).
I find the start of the game awesome as hell. Maybe it's just me but I love slower starts that introduces you to the world and the pace gradually increases. The scene where you climb the mast of the ship and overlook Boston with that music playing, was glorious.
Hate games that just start out fast, blow their load and 2 hours in they're boring as shit.
captainnapalm
Member
Spoilers much?
What spoilers ?
It's 20-30 minutes into the game and he climbs a mast, let's not descend into making everything "OMG SPOILER!!1". It's glorious because of the view and the music, your experience won't be spoiled because it was written in sentence. The moment I start to revealing story, critical plot twists, characters and critical elements of the game then I'll magic marker it.
It's basically the tutorial of the game.
All that power and the game still runs at low framerates. Either the coding is lacking or you need to optimize your pc. Yes I own a workhorse myself that I built. Anyone know how this game uses the processor? Does it scale with an increase? Your at 4.7ghz dude you should not be at just 60 with that card and ram combo. Are you running raid drives also? More like a lazy port if you ask me.
So my game's running like poop occasionally. Framerate's decent for the most part, but the intro to Boston, as well as a few other areas around boats, have cause maaajor framerate issues. Like, technically playable framerate issues, but somewhere between 10-20.
By comparison, I didn't have a single issue in Brotherhood with the same hardware.
AMD 5850 1GB
Phenom II x4 965
... and admittedly only 4GB of DDR2 RAM.
I dunno, my hardware isn't the greatest. But this is the first game I've ever had issues with on medium-high.
My drivers are kind of out of date. Wonder if that could be the problem? Or is my hardware actually fucking me over for once?
By comparison, I didn't have a single issue in Brotherhood with the same hardware.
AMD 5850 1GB
Phenom II x4 965
... and admittedly only 4GB of DDR2 RAM.
I dunno, my hardware isn't the greatest. But this is the first game I've ever had issues with on medium-high.
My drivers are kind of out of date. Wonder if that could be the problem? Or is my hardware actually fucking me over for once?
Similar threads
- Poll