PDA

View Full Version : AC3 horrible FPS on a good PC



M4RHUN
12-04-2016, 01:15 AM
I7 6700k
GTX 1060 6gb
16GB DDR4
Win10
Okay, on my old pc this game had really bad fps. Now even on THIS pc i had 35-55 fps in boston. GPU usage is at 50% at best and 1 core is maxed on the cpu. Don't you dare tell me that my pc is not good enough, if i can play Batman arkham knight on high settings with a fixed 60fps. I know this is a really bad port but come on i should have better performance with this computer.
Any suggestion? Why Ubisoft....

Lysette88
12-04-2016, 01:26 AM
I read that Ubisoft would be targeting 30 fps steady instead of 60 fps and rather put more detail into a game than to keep fps high. Even in games from 2016 like Far Cry Primal the effective fps are nearer to 30 than to 60 fps with very high or ultra settings. And those fps you are getting look like they would follow this target scheme as well - more than 30 fps steady.

MetalBeetle
12-04-2016, 02:42 AM
How? I ran this game in over 100FPS. Have you Installed the latest patch? You manually have to install them one at a time starting with the first one

strigoi1958
12-04-2016, 05:07 AM
what does it matter?
1 it is not a super fast flying or racing game.
2 it is not a super fast twitch run and gun game like CSGO
3 No bad game immediately became awesome by having an extra 100, 200 or even 1000 FPS the same goes for epic games like the AC series, they're awesome and no amount of extra FPS will change that.
4 if there were no FPS counters in existence people would just play good games without looking for unimportant things.
There are people playing games at 720p and getting 17 to 25 FPS because they really want to play a game and cannot afford a few thousand for a system. I think an i5 and a 750 ti / 760/ 960 with 8gb of ram is a good gaming system. so you and I should be happy with our pc's :)

I just completed Mafia 3 at 30 fps and it was amazing... I bought Elite Dangerous that runs well in excess of 100 FPS and (for me) it was an awful game.
To my knowledge game companies do not guarantee it will be XX FPS so why we set an expected amount I have no idea.
I think in future games will be locked to 30 FPS because as Lysette said... Game companies are increasing the standard of graphics and also the size of games and that has to have an impact somewhere, usually when quality gains, performance is lost.... and AC3 is quality in more than just graphics... it is a quality game that I have enjoyed for hundreds of hours :)

I have a similar system to you
i7 6700k @4.6Ghz
16GB DDR4 @3000Mhz
GTX980 ti (waiting for the 1080 ti)
M.2 drive for fast read access
2 monitors @2560 x 1440
and I don't care how it performs, I bought it to play around in photoshop and play games. As long as they run and are fun..... nothing else matters :)

To misquote Bruce Lee...... gaming on a pc is like a finger pointing away to the moon, don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory ;)

Lignjoslav
12-04-2016, 01:32 PM
LOL, "Don't you dare..."

Well, this game dares! And you noticed everything correctly. It's got unoptimized CPU code that does almost all calculations in the same thread, overburdening one processor core, which makes even i7 machines sweat. If the game doesn't stutter noticeably, count your blessings and play on.

P. S. If I remember correctly, some places in Tyranny of King Washington are even more demanding.

@Metal Beetle: Installing patches manually? I think you have some things mixed up. Latest patch is 1.06 and it should only be installed manually if Uplay somehow fails to do it automatically (source Ubisoft (https://support.ubi.com/en-GB/Faqs/Details/kA030000000eTKXCA2?name=patch-links-and-information-for-assassins-creed-iii)).

M4RHUN
12-04-2016, 02:21 PM
Everything is up to date, 1.06 patch installed. I think there are no solutions for this but if anyone knows any fix or something to mess with i'm all open for that.

strigoi1958
12-04-2016, 05:57 PM
But it runs, it's brilliant fun and that's more than good enough. If Ubisoft said we guarantee AC3 will run at 60 fps on every pc that would be different but they do not. The game is exactly how it is and is sold as is. That's fine for the majority, if other want to not just play a game, but set a figure or standard that they feel it should reach on their pc, well... they should get a better PC or just turn off the FPS counter and enjoy the game as intended.

What would you suggest Ubisoft do to a game that probably started development 8 years ago and is over 4 years old?
stop current projects to please a few people?
What would you suggest in the future?
1 they can lower the quality and quantity of the game but why should 99.9% suffer because 0.1% of people obsess over a figure in the corner of the screen?
2 they could set minimum specs for games really high (o/c Titan x in SLI CPU running at 5Ghz ) but why should the vast majority of gamers be excluded from playing a game to please the FPS chasers?
3 they can spend a lot more money on development to please a very small percent of people who probably will look for something else to complain about.
We PC gamers want unbelievable things from every game, it is not enough that they are great games, we set more demands without the slightest consideration of how long it takes to develop a game, how much technology will change during that time and possible last minute problems that might impact performance or quality....

There are games with little gameplay and great graphics and FPS but they are not always fun or great value for money. AC games give long campaigns and are enjoyable, for me those are the most important things that help me decide when I buy games. I've never considered FPS when buying a game and never will.

And finally, what happens if the game reached a figure that FPS chasers finds acceptable, say 60, 80 or 100 fps... that still does not improve the game play and supposing then I came on here and complained that I have a 144Hz monitor and the game needs to be FIXED TO 144 FPS..... Would the now-happy FPS chasers think I was not being reasonable and should enjoy the game at the figure they find acceptable....

that argument can go on forever but...I think it best to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference. :)(And often the things we most need to change exist in us, in our own perceptions, expectations and sense of entitlement)

Lysette88
12-04-2016, 08:50 PM
All what really matters is, if you can play this game smoothly or not - You say yourself that the lower fps is around 35 fps, and from my experience with Far Cry Primal, were I have around 40 fps, but minor drops into the low 30s, this game plays absolutely smoothly nevertheless. So why would I want to complain, if the game plays smoothly and there are no issue gameplay-wise?- AC games are not a competitive shooter, where it would matter more, it is not a racing game either. So for the purpose the game is made for, it runs well enough IMO. Lightning fast reaction is not required in the game, but if it would, one could argue about the fps and I guess, if this would be the purpose, there would be less detail in favor of more fps - but as it is, the game has decent fps in favor of more detail and a higher drawing distance, which allows for these awesome views when synchronizing at a view point. AC had always a focus on highly detailed geometry in the game and less focus on high fps.

strigoi1958
12-05-2016, 12:16 AM
Just to check, I have just downloaded AC3 and went to Boston as Haytham and set all settings to their highest (which makes lots of games look really bad and dark, but some people only want ultra even if it is worse :) ) and playing at 2560x1440 and riding a horse as fast as possible around Boston the FPS counter never dropped once from 60, if you are playing in 1920x1080 with a 1060 you should be getting more than enough FPS.

This shows how dark and ugly Ultra settings make the game

click on the picture to open it then click the top right hand corner to enlarge it.

http://i.share.pho.to/bb435983_c.png (http://pho.to/AXx9v)

M4RHUN
12-05-2016, 12:52 AM
HOW? More than enough? I guess 40fps is enough for me with this system, that should have at least a fixed 60fps, thats all i wanted....

strigoi1958
12-05-2016, 03:51 AM
Our systems are very similar and I am playing in 2560x1440 and getting 60 fps (probably more I play with vsync on all the time) you should be getting 60 if you are playing in 1920x1080. Do you have an M.2 or an SSD drive? because that is worth extra FPS in some games.

You wanting a specific game to play at more FPS is a personal choice, how quickly would gaming companies go bankrupt if they chose to design a game specifically to every single players needs? and as I said, you want 60, what about Freesync owners who have 75hz monitors, if you get 60, why can they not have 75? then 144Hz monitors and 4k and 8k it never ends...

AC3 is an epic game, if 60 FPS is more important to you than the game play then compromise and lower your settings, if you want better FPS AND ultra settings then you will need to invest more in your PC.

People get obsessed with "I want to max it out at 60 FPS" Ultra setting have huge performance issues, they are designed to show Nvidias capabilities, not the games capabilities and the higher settings are often ugly, that is why there are options, otherwise there would only be 1 setting for each card in each game and it would say "This is ultra for your card and pc".

I think it is always better to try all the options and learn what they do and think.... I prefer these settings that I have tried and decided... rather than put everything on ultra and say it should be xx FPS on my machine... we're not really qualified to say what FPS we should be getting, just a magic number that we are told or think we should be getting.

I guarantee if you took a little while, you'd find you could turn some things down or off and you wouldn't even notice or would make the game look better and your FPS would go up. :)

Remember, game companies make games, Nvidia settings lower FPS and we don't complain to nvidia, we complain to the game companies that the game is slower now we've added a lot of extra work for the pc :) if you think about it, it is like buying a Citroen car and adding 1000kg of extra bodywork then complaining to Citroen that it's not fast enough. :)

Different games are affected in different ways but below is a chart showing the effects on Batman arkham city using 2 x titans in sli and you can see msaa 8 cuts the avg fps in half, also the visual difference between 4x and 8x is not noticeable but 8x really impacts FPS. Play with your settings, find what looks nice to you and ignore FPS counters :)



Avg. FPS Max FPS Min FPS
No AA 161 224 57
MSAA 8x 84 166 44
FXAA (high) 154 204 60
TXAA (high) 98 118 67

M4RHUN
12-07-2016, 01:06 PM
Unchecking FXAA in the Nvidia Control Panel Solved the issue and now im getting 100fps everywhere :) So glad i can finally play this game properly after 4 years.
I never had problems with FXAA so it was a bit strange that this solved the horriblem issue for me. My gpu usage rised and everything runs perfectly on max settings with TXAA.

M4RHUN
12-08-2016, 01:32 AM
You can turn off vsync in C:\Documents\Assassin's Creed III\Assassin3.ini
Change the Vsync=1 to 0.
Yes its one of the worst AC console ports, they won't update this game anymore. I heard it runs better on Nvidia cards.