PDA

View Full Version : Assassins Creed Brotherhood [PC] multicore optimization



discy1987
11-17-2010, 05:14 AM
I had to buy a whole new CPU & overclock it just to run the assassins creed 2 engine in eyefinity.

I read they used the AC2 engine as a basis for AC3.. I certainly hope they fixed this issue.

Razrback16
11-17-2010, 05:31 AM
Really? What CPU are you running? AC2 doesn't need much cpu overhead, or even gpu overhead.

discy1987
11-17-2010, 06:03 AM
I ran a Quad Core Q6600 and got around 25fps with my Radeon 6870. Now, since I got my i5 760, I get around 50fps with the same graphics card.
Also with both Quad Core CPU's only one core was stressed to the fullest..

ps. we are talking about a resolution of 5760x1080. But still; using only one core in a Quad Core machine is a missed opportunity if you ask me.

Razrback16
11-17-2010, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by discy1987:
I ran a Quad Core Q6600 and got around 25fps with my Radeon 6870. Now, since I got my i5 760, I get around 50fps with the same graphics card.
Also with both Quad Core CPU's only one core was stressed to the fullest..

ps. we are talking about a resolution of 5760x1080. But still; using only one core in a Quad Core machine is a missed opportunity if you ask me.

Very strange indeed. I would've thought the Q6600, while an older cpu, would've been plenty of cpu for that game. I only run a Phenom II 955 Quad with a liquid cooled 5870 1GB and both AC1 & AC2 are flawless -- now I'm also NOT using multiple monitors, but like you inferred, I wouldn't think the higher resolution would have any impact on cpu utilization. That would almost be entirely gpu-based load.

Question for you with your eyefinity setup -- how much of the area around Ezio can you see in that resolution with 3 monitors? Can you see most of the way around him?

discy1987
11-17-2010, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Razrback16:
Very strange indeed. I would've thought the Q6600, while an older cpu, would've been plenty of cpu for that game. I only run a Phenom II 955 Quad with a liquid cooled 5870 1GB and both AC1 & AC2 are flawless

AC1 is flawless with me too (it's multicore optimized). AC2 was flawless without multi-monitor


Originally posted by Razrback16:
how much of the area around Ezio can you see in that resolution with 3 monitors? Can you see most of the way around him?

Quite a lot more than with one monitor: Check out this video http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtyCbErQYE4) ...but be carefull not to fall in love http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

caswallawn_2k7
11-17-2010, 07:05 AM
to be fair having problems with performance in eyefinity (that can be solved by a CPU upgrade) say's that the problem lies with the ATI drivers not optimising for the multi core CPU making it cause a bottle neck stopping the graphics cards running at full power. (I assume you have more than one if you are ruining eyefinity)

so this looks more like a case of making sure your CPU actually has the bandwidth to handle the graphics card(s) that is in the PC.

some people think if you put the latest graphics cards in a PC with a older CPU they will get full performance from the card, but you don't and this problem get's so much worse when you go into crossfire and SLi. this is what your problem sounds like not a problem with the game.

discy1987
11-17-2010, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
to be fair having problems with performance in eyefinity (that can be solved by a CPU upgrade) say's that the problem lies with the ATI drivers not optimising for the multi core CPU making it cause a bottle neck stopping the graphics cards running at full power. (I assume you have more than one if you are ruining eyefinity)

so this looks more like a case of making sure your CPU actually has the bandwidth to handle the graphics card(s) that is in the PC.

some people think if you put the latest graphics cards in a PC with a older CPU they will get full performance from the card, but you don't and this problem get's so much worse when you go into crossfire and SLi. this is what your problem sounds like not a problem with the game.

Well I can not fully agree since with the other games I did not see that much of an FPS boost. (Crysis for example).

If I run AC2 only one core is fully stressed and the others are not. With Crysis and even AC1 the load is evenly spread over all the cores. Seeing that, I would conclude that the AC2 engine does not use all the cores, which in my view should be optimized in the upcomming release. By now, almost everybody has a quad/dual core and most people would like to take advantage of it.

Multi core optimization in my opinion is a good thing, and a must for new games. Whether someone has a CPU vs GPU bottleneck or not.

caswallawn_2k7
11-17-2010, 07:23 AM
my point is if you are only seeing one core in use your graphics card drivers are not making use of multiple cores either, I use geforce cards but when I play AC2 my computer uses both cores of the dual core CPU that is in.

so this means either game is using two cores (since it's basic requirements is a dual core there is no reason it wouldn't) or my video drivers are using the second core to pass the GPU data about. as no matter how many GPU's you have all data going to and from the graphics cards needs to run through the CPU.

discy1987
11-17-2010, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
my point is if you are only seeing one core in use your graphics card drivers are not making use of multiple cores either, I use geforce cards but when I play AC2 my computer uses both cores of the dual core CPU that is in.

so this means either game is using two cores (since it's basic requirements is a dual core there is no reason it wouldn't) or my video drivers are using the second core to pass the GPU data about. as no matter how many GPU's you have all data going to and from the graphics cards needs to run through the CPU.

If it would be the drivers, I can't explain why it does work in other games.

By the way, it does use two cores. If I only enable one the FPS drops significantly. Dual vs Quad doesn't change anything.

Maybe the PS3 with his 7 x 3.23GHZ is just way to powerful to just have the same game run on a Quad Core with 2.4GHZ.

caswallawn_2k7
11-17-2010, 07:53 AM
you can't judge a CPU's performance by the number of cores or it's speed, it's all about bandwidth. the PS3 may have 7 or 8 cores at 3.2ghz but the newer top end dual core CPU's will out preform the PS3's cell CPU as they are newer and designed for higher through put.

it's just like an old P$d at 3.2ghz is actually considerably slower than a C2D at 2Ghz, it's more to do with the say the processor is built and it's ability to pass data through than core numbers or speed now. but most people who know PC hardware can tell you once you get past 2 cores there is maybe 1 in 100 games that will actually use any core other than the first two.

so while these quad cores may sound good, in gaming they are more for bragging rights than anything else (it is the same with most high end multi GPU set ups as very few games will actually use that power) it's why most high end dual core systems with a single graphics card can run all games on max detail, as anything above that is just over kill unless you are running something that eats a load of power such the multi display set ups or Nvidia 3D.

discy1987
11-17-2010, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
but most people who know PC hardware can tell you once you get past 2 cores there is maybe 1 in 100 games that will actually use any core other than the first two.

I am sorry but I think that is something that was true for the last 3-4 years but is not really true anymore.
Crysis does use the four cores (check it, it's obvious), and so does Modern Warfare 2.

In fact, name me any popular game from late 2010 which doesn't?

Although, I do agree for now that one or two fast cores are better than four slow ones. That is why Intel and I believe AMD too invented "Turbo". It speeds up one core, when the others are not in use http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

However. I would still like to know if AC3 is going to be optimized for more than two cores. So if anyone has the answer..

Razrback16
11-17-2010, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by discy1987:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Razrback16:
Very strange indeed. I would've thought the Q6600, while an older cpu, would've been plenty of cpu for that game. I only run a Phenom II 955 Quad with a liquid cooled 5870 1GB and both AC1 & AC2 are flawless

AC1 is flawless with me too (it's multicore optimized). AC2 was flawless without multi-monitor


Originally posted by Razrback16:
how much of the area around Ezio can you see in that resolution with 3 monitors? Can you see most of the way around him?

Quite a lot more than with one monitor: Check out this video http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtyCbErQYE4) ...but be carefull not to fall in love http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. Very impressive. You using 30'' monitors? Right now I'm running a single 28'' in 1920x1200. If I could get some more cheap, that would be a nice investment!

discy1987
11-17-2010, 08:16 AM
In fact, I can prove the point with a benchmark http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Dual vs Triple core difference is quite big: http://www.tomshardware.com/re...ore-cpu,2280-10.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280-10.html)

discy1987
11-17-2010, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Razrback16:
Wow. Very impressive. You using 30'' monitors? Right now I'm running a single 28'' in 1920x1200. If I could get some more cheap, that would be a nice investment!

Haha. No not 30", they are way to expensive. Instead I bought 3x 24" 1080p benq displays for 3x 160. But yes it is very nice and pretty immersive! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

In fact, i made a video of myself playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EX8jsHL0Vw) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But before you run of to the store.. let me give you the list of what I needed to buy:
- two extra monitors 320
- Faster graphics card: Radeon 6870 230 (nvidia only works in SLI, AMD can do 3 screens with one card).
- An active displayport to DVI converter 20. (you can only hook up 2 screens on DVI/HDMI, the third has to be on displayport with an active connector)
- 3 monitor stands 3x 30.

So after that, you would have spend around 600 or $800 us dollars http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif. BUT you have greeaaat gameplay (you can't imagine) and three screens for your multitask schoolwork http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

If you already have two displays I would say; go for it!

Razrback16
11-17-2010, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by discy1987:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Razrback16:
Wow. Very impressive. You using 30'' monitors? Right now I'm running a single 28'' in 1920x1200. If I could get some more cheap, that would be a nice investment!

Haha. No not 30", they are way to expensive. Instead I bought 3x 24" 1080p benq displays for 3x 160. But yes it is very nice and pretty immersive! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

In fact, i made a video of myself playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EX8jsHL0Vw) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But before you run of to the store.. let me give you the list of what I needed to buy:
- two extra monitors 320
- Faster graphics card: Radeon 6870 230 (nvidia only works in SLI, AMD can do 3 screens with one card).
- An active displayport to DVI converter 20. (you can only hook up 2 screens on DVI/HDMI, the third has to be on displayport with an active connector)
- 3 monitor stands 3x 30.

So after that, you would have spend around 600 or $800 us dollars http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif. BUT you have greeaaat gameplay (you can't imagine) and three screens for your multitask schoolwork http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may have to seriously look into this. On your 3 screens, is there a black block section at the top and bottom because of the widescreen resolution or does the game take up all of the screen space on all three screens?

Thx for the advice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I could add a second 5870 1GB for $200-300, the expensive part would be getting 2 more 28'' monitors, lol. Christmas is coming up...

discy1987
11-17-2010, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Razrback16:
I may have to seriously look into this. On your 3 screens, is there a black block section at the top and bottom because of the widescreen resolution or does the game take up all of the screen space on all three screens?

No no problems at all and no black lines. Just check out some eyefinity video's on youtube http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I play: Dirt 2, grid, modern warfare, serious sam, ac etc. and they all make it look great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Sometimes you have to go and fiddle with some settings. In that case Widescreen gaming forum (http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/Essential_Games_List) is your friend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. They give lootss of tips how to play almost every game on triple and widescreen.

Originally posted by Razrback16:
Thx for the advice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I could add a second 5870 1GB for $200-300, the expensive part would be getting 2 more 28'' monitors, lol. Christmas is coming up...
Monitors can be quite expensive.. I sold my old one (for a ripoff price http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ) so I could get 3 the same and less expensive.

I don't even think you need a second HD5870. My 6870 is even a little bit slower then the 5870 and I'm having no problem. In fact, the first video I posted is from somebody with one 5870 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Just be nice until christmas and maybe... it will be one of the best you've ever had http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Razrback16
11-17-2010, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by discy1987:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Razrback16:
I may have to seriously look into this. On your 3 screens, is there a black block section at the top and bottom because of the widescreen resolution or does the game take up all of the screen space on all three screens?

No no problems at all and no black lines. Just check out some eyefinity video's on youtube http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I play: Dirt 2, grid, modern warfare, serious sam, ac etc. and they all make it look great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Sometimes you have to go and fiddle with some settings. In that case Widescreen gaming forum (http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/Essential_Games_List) is your friend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. They give lootss of tips how to play almost every game on triple and widescreen.

Originally posted by Razrback16:
Thx for the advice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I could add a second 5870 1GB for $200-300, the expensive part would be getting 2 more 28'' monitors, lol. Christmas is coming up...
Monitors can be quite expensive.. I sold my old one (for a ripoff price http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ) so I could get 3 the same and less expensive.

I don't even think you need a second HD5870. My 6870 is even a little bit slower then the 5870 and I'm having no problem. In fact, the first video I posted is from somebody with one 5870 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Just be nice until christmas and maybe... it will be one of the best you've ever had http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awesome, thanks for the tips. Will definitely be looking into this!

caswallawn_2k7
11-17-2010, 01:25 PM
Faster graphics card: Radeon 6870 230 (nvidia only works in SLI, AMD can do 3 screens with one card).
not true I have 3 screens I can run off my PC they can all run at the same time 2 are off DVI and one is off HDMI (single geforce GTX470) it's more to do with the quality of the card you buy. budget AMD cards may have the sockets but they will show strain long before a top end card so having a multi screen setup off a single budget card isn't a good idea. if you really want to use this type of thing heavily you want multiple cards.

discy1987
11-17-2010, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Faster graphics card: Radeon 6870 230 (nvidia only works in SLI, AMD can do 3 screens with one card).
not true I have 3 screens I can run off my PC they can all run at the same time 2 are off DVI and one is off HDMI (single geforce GTX470) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you really sure you are speaking the truth? Or are you maybe using your motherboard output?
Because even nvidia says that it's impossible with only one card as you can read here: http://www.nvidia.com/object/3...ound-technology.html (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3dv-system-requirements-surround-technology.html) (except for the dual gpu cards like the GTX 295)

Even though you have three display outputs, the gpu clock can only manage two dvi or hdmi. Just like AMD's. Displayport is a different story, but the GTX 470 doesn't have that.

You could create 3 desktops.. but we are talking about surround and eyefinity, which provides <STRIKE>different content</STRIKE> gaming on all three displays. Only AMD supports this with one card, nvidia unfortunately doesn't.

I would have gone Nvidia IF they supported surround on one card. Mostly because their driver support is tend to be better.
But as I've got to choose between two cards in SLI or one card. I'd rather go for one. The GTX 295 could have been an option, but it only supports up to DX10 and I rather have an card that supports DX11 too. So AMD it is.

If you ARE speaking the truth (which I believe is impossible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ) please put a picture up and mail nvidia http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif;
just tell them that their site is wrong and you fixed a big marketing issue for them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. I think you will be greatly rewarded.

caswallawn_2k7
11-17-2010, 02:13 PM
it can definitely run 3 screens with different content on each screen at the same time, if you look up the GTX400 series you will see they all have 3 video output connection. (the 200 series didn't) all 3 outputs can run at the same time (only have two connected at the moment only use a third when I can nick my friends) and can show different images as I have used this in the past to play a game on one screen while playing TV on the second and the internet/messenger on the third. (don't use it they way you do as the boarder of the screens really ruins the look if you span a image over multiple screens)

but then a single dead pixel in a screen annoys the hell out of me so guess it's just a case of if you can put up with the defects where the screen meet.

the only way I could get away with it is something like this (http://www.youtube.com/user/seamlessdisplay#p/u/1/ZWivZEtH6-c) but even then the viewing angle on LCD throws out the colours if you get them setup in a wraparound effect. but then maybe I'm just picky.

discy1987
11-17-2010, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
it can definitely run 3 screens with different content on each screen at the same time, if you look up the GTX400 series you will see they all have 3 video output connection. (the 200 series didn't) all 3 outputs can run at the same time (only have two connected at the moment only use a third when I can nick my friends) and can show different images as I have used this in the past to play a game on one screen while playing TV on the second and the internet/messenger on the third. (don't use it they way you do as the boarder of the screens really ruins the look if you span a image over multiple screens)


Well, maybe it could be possible to run a desktop with three displays and one gtx 470, I have never tested this.

But running a game on three screens is definitely impossible with one GTX 470 or any single GPU nvidia card from any nvidia series on the market today.

The bezels are there and I can't ignore that, but when you're in game you hardly notice it because you're mostly watching the center screen, the two on the side are more for environment.

discy1987
11-17-2010, 02:23 PM
Well you can make 3 desktops, so sorry I doubted you there. But you can only span games over three screens when you have SLI or an AMD card.

For me, support for surround or eyefinity is the whole point of having three screens: to play games.

If you just want to hook up your tv to view movies etc.. then ofcourse it's a different story and nvidia will do as well.

Maridkiller792
11-17-2010, 07:39 PM
I have been an assassins creed fan since number one and love both the storyline and message. The game is amazing in its way that it makes the player feel totally bad-*** but there are some minor details which could greatly improve the gameplay and then sales. There were to major complaints that i heard and spoke myself about Assassins Creed. One was the lack of multiplayer which thanks to Brotherhood has been deposed. The second on the other hand which i have heard form many friends ( five out of the eight who commented) that the reason they are not getting Assassins creed is because it is too easy. This line has been repeated over and over from many players I've met on X-box Live to IGN game reviews. From the knowledge I've gathered it was the reason of at least 30% of sales and that is not an exaggeration. If you ask me however, the solution is simple, I would suggest that Ubisoft continue making the story mode/ free roam the same as they always have yet with one addition; make a mode with a name such as "Realistic Mode" or perhaps some other more bad-*** title such as "Altair's Flight" or some other Syrian reference. This mode I would suggest to be exactly like regular story or free roam except without a health bar. This would force the player to act more like a real Assassin and couldn't just kill the entire army and then go after the target. By making this an optional mode this would not lose the consumers who like it easy, but would gain a huge market of gamers who like to be challenged. I guarantee Ubisoft that if their next game came out with, Real Mode, Multiplayer, the special effect when someone dies in eagle vision their color is drained out (that is a very small thing but would look cool), and perhaps more difficult assassination contracts that would include more guards and defenses requiring stealth), Ubisoft will have turned the Assassins Creed series which, by all means is already fantastic, into something that seriously rivals Halo and Call of Duty. Please if you are a Ubisoft employee give this some thought and even message me if you consider it and if you are just a fellow gamer, comment on this message if you agree and lets help Ubisoft make Assassins Creed a revolution!

Gypsy816
11-17-2010, 07:48 PM
Maridkiller, again, please stop spamming your post. You are also taking topics off-topic which is highly discouraged.