PDA

View Full Version : AC 4, Low - 13 fps, Very High - 12 fps...WTF!



Milenchy
11-22-2013, 07:01 PM
This is unbeliavable. There is only ONE frame diffrence between very high and low. Are you ****ing kidding me ?

LOW

http://i.imgur.com/0bbSiSq.jpg

HIGH

http://i.imgur.com/EgYLGpu.jpg

MnemonicSyntax
11-22-2013, 07:04 PM
You've made three threads on the issue and not one of them has your specs posted. Tell us what you're running. Also, did you try D3Doverider and disabling V-Sync? Update drivers? Help us help you mate.

AnthonyA85
11-22-2013, 07:04 PM
What are your system specs? Your CPU might not be powerful enough (this game is apparently very CPU heavy)

Milenchy
11-22-2013, 07:07 PM
I double posted this one, sorry :( And I just found out about the framerate.

i5 4 cores tubo boost 3.2GHz
8 Gb RAM
AMD Radeon 7670 2Gb GPU

I am pretty sure it's a driver issue. A friend just installed the new Nvidia drivers made for AC4 and it ran just like mine, then he rolled back to his prveious drivers and the game runs buttery smooth on him.

MnemonicSyntax
11-22-2013, 07:14 PM
I double posted this one, sorry :( And I just found out about the framerate.

i5 4 cores tubo boost 3.2GHz
8 Gb RAM
AMD Radeon 7670 2Gb GPU

I am pretty sure it's a driver issue. A friend just installed the new Nvidia drivers made for AC4 and it ran just like mine, then he rolled back to his prveious drivers and the game runs buttery smooth on him.

You know, I noticed that too. The driver rollback actually made AC4 run better for me. Interesting.

AnthonyA85
11-22-2013, 07:16 PM
Well, drivers side, AMD haven't released any new drivers yet, though i'm hoping Ubisoft will add Mantle support, though the fact that you're getting so low a framerate in a 7000 series card is worrying, i'm using a 7950 3GB, and a Q6600 2.4 CPU, i'm gonna have to try and overclock it, and hope i don't fry it.

Try disabling Vsync,

Milenchy
11-22-2013, 07:27 PM
Well, drivers side, AMD haven't released any new drivers yet, though i'm hoping Ubisoft will add Mantle support, though the fact that you're getting so low a framerate in a 7000 series card is worrying, i'm using a 7950 3GB, and a Q6600 2.4 CPU, i'm gonna have to try and overclock it, and hope i don't fry it.

Try disabling Vsync,
Will this Mantle thing work on lower-end video cards ?

BruhmisNapton
11-22-2013, 09:47 PM
which drivers exactly did you guys roll back to?

Milenchy
11-22-2013, 10:05 PM
which drivers exactly did you guys roll back to?

331.82

BruhmisNapton
11-22-2013, 10:16 PM
331.82

but that's the newest driver there is

Milenchy
11-23-2013, 05:59 PM
but that's the newest driver there is
It's not.

BruhmisNapton
11-25-2013, 05:38 PM
It's not.

http://i.imgur.com/xKLzAUe.jpg

Milenchy
11-25-2013, 06:19 PM
http://i.imgur.com/xKLzAUe.jpg

Who gives a crap about the name of the driver :D It just has to work.

MnemonicSyntax
11-25-2013, 06:21 PM
I think I was using 331.58

ace3001
11-25-2013, 07:13 PM
I'm getting solid framerates on the AMD side of things by staying at Catalyst 13.9. Though I haven't tried anything higher to begin with. Didn't bother since it runs well on this.

UdyrXinTheHouse
11-25-2013, 07:33 PM
Read this thread(Just my top post)

I'm getting 55-60 FPS and I have only a GTX660 OC

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/811784-Having-troubles-running-Assassin-s-Creed-READ-before-posting!?p=9397574

Milenchy
11-25-2013, 07:59 PM
Read this thread(Just my top post)

I'm getting 55-60 FPS and I have only a GTX660 OC

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/811784-Having-troubles-running-Assassin-s-Creed-READ-before-posting!?p=9397574
Don't think I didn't try these things.

Cornik22
11-25-2013, 08:14 PM
I have around 15fps in the lowest resolution

Boemundus
11-25-2013, 08:51 PM
I've done some tests...I can confirm that AC4 uses only 2 of 4 cores (quad core CPU). That's the big issue, which is the same that afflicted AC3. Poor CPU optimization on one side, on the other too much CPU-centred engine that doesn't take advantage of GPU power.

Milenchy
11-25-2013, 09:46 PM
For some reason AC3 ran great for me, (except Boston, ofcourse) but this... I hope Ubisoft release a patch soon or AMD move their butts and release a driver already.

Ayven95
11-25-2013, 10:00 PM
I've tried EVERYTHING mentrioned, really. My FPS is still 14, and dropping. Ridiculous. I've never experienced such problems with any other game before, this is a complete disgrace. I cannot play this game without patch.

PS: I feel like I'm using a mobile phone, not PC. Really? I can't beleive it.

j0kay
11-25-2013, 10:11 PM
(Multiplayer only)
Same for me. I played ACB with around 25 FPS, ACR 22FPS and AC3 30 FPS.
AC4 on the same resolution is UNPLAYABLE.
I'd be fine with this cause it's a next gen game (though it should be scalable from current gen to next gen on PC). But it's even unplayable on the lowest resolution, and i do NOT gain any FPS by lowering the settings.
This prooves BAAAAD optimisation.
My PC isn't the very best, I know, but there's no way that the game runs at 10-13 FPS at 1024x800 or whatever with lowest settings.


I've done some tests...I can confirm that AC4 uses only 2 of 4 cores (quad core CPU). That's the big issue, which is the same that afflicted AC3. Poor CPU optimization on one side, on the other too much CPU-centred engine that doesn't take advantage of GPU power.
I think you got this wrong. Yes it uses only 2 cores and the CPU optimisation is bad but didn't you mean that it doesn't take advantage of the CPU power?

Milenchy
11-25-2013, 11:34 PM
I've tried EVERYTHING mentrioned, really. My FPS is still 14, and dropping. Ridiculous. I've never experienced such problems with any other game before, this is a complete disgrace. I cannot play this game without patch.

PS: I feel like I'm using a mobile phone, not PC. Really? I can't beleive it.
Smartphones and tablets run their games really well, don't compare it to that :D

Ayven95
11-26-2013, 12:44 AM
Smartphones and tablets run their games really well, don't compare it to that :D
I know, I know mate :P I even played some 3d game that looked completely like a PC game and was recently ported to PC too.
But what I'm talking about, is the god-d***ed AC4...

Boemundus
11-26-2013, 01:50 AM
J0kay, I meant that it's too CPU-centered, and having a powerful graphic card (GPU) doesn't really matter much, unfortunately. I just played BF4 on ultra setting constant 60 fps. Running AC4 high settings on 30-35 fps.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 03:32 AM
i5 4 cores tubo boost 3.2GHz
8 Gb RAM
AMD Radeon 7670 2Gb GPU

Theres your problem right there, Having a 4GHZ clocked CPU is the standard norm in gaming PC's nowadays anything lower starts to show and your GPU is very low end, Laptop I'm guessing ?, It has 480 stream processors running at 600MHz and a 128 Bit memory interface/bus, The very minimum is an AMD 4870 which has 800 SP's running at just over 900MHZ and a 256bit memory interface/bus, In other words your very lucky you can even run this game.

MnemonicSyntax
11-26-2013, 03:51 AM
Theres your problem right there, Having a 4GHZ clocked CPU is the standard norm in gaming PC's nowadays anything lower starts to show and your GPU is very low end, Laptop I'm guessing ?, It has 480 stream processors running at 600MHz and a 128 Bit memory interface/bus, The very minimum is an AMD 4870 which has 800 SP's running at just over 900MHZ and a 256bit memory interface/bus, In other words your very lucky you can even run this game.

That's not true in the least. Speed hasn't meant much since the removal of the Front Side Bus. Sure, a higher speed can be better, but I have a 4770k @ 3.5 Ghz and it runs just fine, max everything except Low Godrays because it keeps defaulting back to that with Eagle Vision.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 04:02 AM
That's not true in the least. Speed hasn't meant much since the removal of the Front Side Bus. Sure, a higher speed can be better, but I have a 4770k @ 3.5 Ghz and it runs just fine, max everything except Low Godrays because it keeps defaulting back to that with Eagle Vision.

Yes but having a higher clock lessens any bottleneck, May I ask why in gods name you have one of the best gaming CPU's at stock speeds ????

MnemonicSyntax
11-26-2013, 04:09 AM
Yes but having a higher clock lessens any bottleneck, May I ask why in gods name you have one of the best gaming CPU's at stock speeds ????

Because I don't want to overclock?

FSB was pretty much the only bottleneck when it comes to CPUs. There's at least one post on here that has a guy overclocking his CPU to resolve his "issue" with no gain whatsoever.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 04:12 AM
Because I don't want to overclock?

FSB was pretty much the only bottleneck when it comes to CPUs. There's at least one post on here that has a guy overclocking his CPU to resolve his "issue" with no gain whatsoever.

Not saying overclocking would resolve your issue I'm just saying having a 4770K CPU at stock speeds is a total waste of an unlocked processor, It's like buying a lamborgini and only ever doing 30 mph.

MnemonicSyntax
11-26-2013, 04:17 AM
Not saying overclocking would resolve your issue I'm just saying having a 4770K CPU at stock speeds is a total waste of an unlocked processor, It's like buying a lamborgini and only ever doing 30 mph.

I got a good deal on it.

I just don't think overclocking brings any sort of varied results. I'm happy how it is.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 04:24 AM
I just don't think overclocking brings any sort of varied results. I'm happy how it is.

I actually had to look twice to see if I read your comment correctly, Overclocking can give significant improvements in games and applications
Especially if the program/game your running is CPU bound, Seriously you should go look up some info and you'll be surprised that overclocking your CPU can give you some very nice FREE performance increases.
And again, Getting a "K" series chip and not overclocking is like wearing boots in the shower.. It just doesn't make any sense.

Loucmachine.Joe
11-26-2013, 05:21 AM
Man a 4770k is MEANT to be overclocked... Its a waist of K chip !!

My i7 920 2.66ghz is rocking 4ghz for 5 years now... :o

Overclocking a cpu does make a big difference, but in times you need you CPU. If you run GPU only intensive programs you wont see the difference, but when you run an application that actually use you CPU its gonna make a big difference.

drakkar321
11-26-2013, 07:57 AM
I've done some tests...I can confirm that AC4 uses only 2 of 4 cores (quad core CPU). That's the big issue, which is the same that afflicted AC3. Poor CPU optimization on one side, on the other too much CPU-centred engine that doesn't take advantage of GPU power.

I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that AC4 only uses 2 cores. I just checked my system and it was using 47 threads and actively utilizing all 8 cores on my system (i7 quad with HT for a total of 8 virtual cores). None of them were running at 100%. in fact they did not appear to be under heavy stress at all, so it certainly appears to be optimized fine for the CPU. 4 cores were running around 50% or so and 4 were around 10-20%. The game also takes full advantage of my GPU. I have most of the settings maxed out on a Nvidia GTX 570, which is 2 years old now. Even in heavy foliage, it is maintaining a smooth frame rate. If it wasn't taking complete and total advantage of my GPU, it would not be running that well, if at all. If you ever want to test the impact your GPU really has, try running a game with software rendering. You won't ever have doubts again about where the biggest workload is.

Boemundus
11-26-2013, 11:01 AM
I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that AC4 only uses 2 cores. I just checked my system and it was using 47 threads and actively utilizing all 8 cores on my system (i7 quad with HT for a total of 8 virtual cores). None of them were running at 100%. in fact they did not appear to be under heavy stress at all, so it certainly appears to be optimized fine for the CPU. 4 cores were running around 50% or so and 4 were around 10-20%. The game also takes full advantage of my GPU. I have most of the settings maxed out on a Nvidia GTX 570, which is 2 years old now. Even in heavy foliage, it is maintaining a smooth frame rate. If it wasn't taking complete and total advantage of my GPU, it would not be running that well, if at all. If you ever want to test the impact your GPU really has, try running a game with software rendering. You won't ever have doubts again about where the biggest workload is.

I tried to disable CORE 1, CORE 2 and CORE 3. FPS dropped from 35 to 15. Then I re-enabled CORE 1 and fps got back to 35. Then I enabled CORE 2, nothing happened, same thing enabling CORE 3: fps remain the same.

I thought this is a proof that the engine uses only two of four cores. But I'm no tech expert... Iif you have a technical explanation I'll gladly read it.

YazX_
11-26-2013, 11:12 AM
I tried to disable CORE 1, CORE 2 and CORE 3. FPS dropped from 35 to 15. Then I re-enabled CORE 1 and fps got back to 35. Then I enabled CORE 2, nothing happened, same thing enabling CORE 3: fps remain the same.

I thought this is a proof that the engine uses only two of four cores. But I'm no tech expert... Iif you have a technical explanation I'll gladly read it.

game only uses two cores of your CPU and no hyper threading support, all other cores are just sitting around doing nothing. so PC was not the lead platform, the game was ported from old gen consoles without any optimization and thrown to it some Nvidia features.

razmat2012
11-26-2013, 02:11 PM
I just have a quick question without opening a new thread. I have an AMD A10 processor 3.7 Ghz. with radeon 8670 integrated graphics. if I get a dedicated graphics card, is it better for me to get another radeon card since I have AMD processor , or get a Nvidia card ? or does it matter?

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 02:23 PM
I just have a quick question without opening a new thread. I have an AMD A10 processor 3.7 Ghz. with radeon 8670 integrated graphics. if I get a dedicated graphics card, is it better for me to get another radeon card since I have AMD processor , or get a Nvidia card ? or does it matter?
AMD cards are supposed to be working better with AMD proccessors. At least, that's how they are advertised. I don't have a personal experience to share.

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 02:25 PM
I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that AC4 only uses 2 cores. I just checked my system and it was using 47 threads and actively utilizing all 8 cores on my system (i7 quad with HT for a total of 8 virtual cores). None of them were running at 100%. in fact they did not appear to be under heavy stress at all, so it certainly appears to be optimized fine for the CPU. 4 cores were running around 50% or so and 4 were around 10-20%. The game also takes full advantage of my GPU. I have most of the settings maxed out on a Nvidia GTX 570, which is 2 years old now. Even in heavy foliage, it is maintaining a smooth frame rate. If it wasn't taking complete and total advantage of my GPU, it would not be running that well, if at all. If you ever want to test the impact your GPU really has, try running a game with software rendering. You won't ever have doubts again about where the biggest workload is.
What's your resolution?

Boemundus
11-26-2013, 02:37 PM
What about opening a thread about a hotfix to add 3rd and 4rth core to the CPU work? Do you think devs could release a patch/ hotfix / tweak to optimize the CPU usage?

peshu
11-26-2013, 03:44 PM
They are busy counting our money :D

abohamed2013
11-26-2013, 04:07 PM
What about opening a thread about a hotfix to add 3rd and 4rth core to the CPU work? Do you think devs could release a patch/ hotfix / tweak to optimize the CPU usage?

do not think so ... bcause its been a year now and AC3 still did not have an optimization patch until now :D

Boemundus
11-26-2013, 05:01 PM
do not think so ... bcause its been a year now and AC3 still did not have an optimization patch until now :D

I disinstalled AC3 months ago (some of you might remember I was quite "active" in the various AC3 optimization / no music threads back in the days :P )... So, did they optimized it for good?

And yeah... here we go again. But this time "devs are not aware", it seems. As long as some people here post things like "it's running smooth on my system", without proving anything.

CalinTM
11-26-2013, 05:12 PM
They will probablu 80% will do nothing about it, just ignore us, pc gamers, consoles are for them on 1st place.

Milenchy
11-26-2013, 06:00 PM
You know, Ubisoft. ANY STATEMENT WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. AND I MEAN ANY. Like you're looking on it or something like that. Hell, even saying to us to go and f*** ourselves would be good just to see that you're aware of it and you're not turning a blind eye.

This.

slimfc
11-26-2013, 08:23 PM
what is wrong with my processor http://systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/assassins-creed-iv-black-flag/11846/?p=a

drakkar321
11-27-2013, 08:49 AM
What's your resolution?

1920x1080

drakkar321
11-27-2013, 09:07 AM
game only uses two cores of your CPU and no hyper threading support, all other cores are just sitting around doing nothing. so PC was not the lead platform, the game was ported from old gen consoles without any optimization and thrown to it some Nvidia features.

Sorry, but this is simply not true. Although it is true that there is no "Hyper Threading support" because that is a function that is handled by the underlying OS. As is load balancing. An application doesn't care one way or the other whether you have HT or not. AC4 is absolutely multi-threaded and does run on more than 2 CPUs if you have them. It is possible that it "can" run on only 2, but that does not mean it is limited to only using 2.

abohamed2013
11-27-2013, 11:07 AM
I disinstalled AC3 months ago (some of you might remember I was quite "active" in the various AC3 optimization / no music threads back in the days :P )... So, did they optimized it for good?

And yeah... here we go again. But this time "devs are not aware", it seems. As long as some people here post things like "it's running smooth on my system", without proving anything.

exactly ... and iam remember these days back then ... good times :D

YazX_
11-27-2013, 03:11 PM
Sorry, but this is simply not true. Although it is true that there is no "Hyper Threading support" because that is a function that is handled by the underlying OS. As is load balancing. An application doesn't care one way or the other whether you have HT or not. AC4 is absolutely multi-threaded and does run on more than 2 CPUs if you have them. It is possible that it "can" run on only 2, but that does not mean it is limited to only using 2.

O.o, Hyper Threading is handled by O.S when you actually use it in your software by using proper multi-threading programming model!!!!

on Intel Core i7 3370k @ 4.6 GHz:

Core 1 is 90%, other cores are just 10% except core 8 is 50%. so you are claiming its multi-core game, sure its multi-core utilizing a TOTAL of 2 cores. O.S is responsible of distributing threads among all cores, so there is a very HUGE thread running on Core1 consuming 90% -which i assume the main game thread- and other smaller threads and tasks running on other cores, this HUGE thread needs to be broken down and multi-tasked to get better performance and fully utilize your CPU which will make a big difference and boost your performance.

Ubisoft claims that Anvil Next engine will utilize all cores until it seems no benefit from it , which is not true, and as this game is heavily CPU bound like previous AC games, the total utilization of any CPU would be two cores also same as previous games, so do you want to convince me and other masses that Anvil Next decision of utilizing a total of 2 cores is sufficient to run this game smoothly and no benefit from utilization the CPU fully??

so it seems that all of these claims are not true and the game is bound to use only a total of 2 cores. numbers and benches dont lie.

try running other PC optimized games and see for yourself how CPU utilization should be, all cores will be 90% at least.

Several benchmarking articles published on the web showing how badly this game is optimized for PC with figures and charts, they also ran the game on Dual core and Quad-Core CPUs and there was little to no difference in performance.