PDA

View Full Version : Dont Expect To Run This On A Low/Mid Range PC



Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 03:12 AM
So I've been reading a lot on these forums and a few others that people are having problems running at max settings etc...
Now I run this game no problem all settings at max at a constant 60fps and I have no problem that the game is locked to 60 fps either, Although an unlocked cap would be nice.

The one thing I keep seeing on forums is people expecting a game that uses - Wave Simulation, Tesselation, Complex Shadow Systems, TXAA, Accurate God Rays, Ambient Occlusion and High Resolution Textures in a good number of places and expect it to run on a mediocre gaming PC or even less in a lot of cases that I've seen.

I see this all the time across many forums people moaning that the newest AAA game with great graphics wont run on their off the shelf or low to mid range PC, If you want great performance, Spend some money and upgrade your rig.

/rant over.

ace3001
11-26-2013, 03:32 AM
You have no idea what you're talking about. Most complaints are from people with relatively higher end rigs due to not getting 60 FPS.

I'm playing this on a low end machine, and am quite satisfied with how it looks and performs, since 30 FPS is quite enough for me. Most low end users don't scream about framerates like higher end users do, since they're used to relatively lower framerates.

Christicide
11-26-2013, 03:34 AM
Yeah... My specs blow away the recommended requirements, and my game crashes on the very first screen.

Edit: So don't expect it to be able to run on a beastly new gaming rig either... Basically just don't expect AC4BF to run on any rig.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 03:41 AM
You have no idea what you're talking about. Most complaints are from people with relatively higher end rigs due to not getting 60 FPS.
I do know what I'm talking about so keep that BS to yourself, I've been building rigs and gaming for nigh on 14 years now and listening to people who claim to have beastly rigs complain when their old rigs cant play the latest titles.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 03:43 AM
Yeah... My specs blow away the recommended requirements, and my game crashes on the very first screen.

Edit: So don't expect it to be able to run on a beastly new gaming rig either... Basically just don't expect AC4BF to run on any rig.

The recommended requirements mean that you can play the game, Not that you can play at full settings, If your game crashes at the start screen then it's 99.999% of times a user created error i.e you've edited something you shouldn't have, You don't have the required updates for the game, Direct X, Drivers, Windows Updates etc...

hypergtabro
11-26-2013, 03:43 AM
So I should not expect to cover the recommended system requirement and even have a bit more in terms of hardware and get more that 17-18 fps? While Crysis 3 runs at 40+ pretty much maxed out? BS, the game is extremely unoptimized for most hardware. And my GPU is nVidia...
I'm basically stuck here playing multiplayer (not that the mode is bad, it's quite fun) while waiting for a patch to play the game I bought 5 days ago. How can I not be frustrated?

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 03:46 AM
So I should not expect to cover the recommended system requirement and even have a bit more in terms of hardware and get more that 17-18 fps? While Crysis 3 runs at 40+ pretty much maxed out? BS, the game is extremely unoptimized for most hardware. And my GPU is nVidia...
I'm basically stuck here playing multiplayer (not that the mode is bad, it's quite fun) while waiting for a patch to play the game I bought 5 days ago. How can I not be frustrated?

Crysis 3 and AC4 use different engines, What works with 1 doesn't mean it should work with another.

Christicide
11-26-2013, 03:54 AM
The recommended requirements mean that you can play the game, Not that you can play at full settings, If your game crashes at the start screen then it's 99.999% of times a user created error i.e you've edited something you shouldn't have, You don't have the required updates for the game, Direct X, Drivers, Windows Updates etc...

A) those would be the minimum requirements that you're referring to
B) I can't even start the game, even at the lowest settings
C) I've all the new drivers/updates installed, even manually installed DX, vcredist, and dotnet framework
D) Haven't edited anything, and it doesn't work on a fresh re-install.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 03:59 AM
A) those would be the minimum requirements that you're referring to
B) I can't even start the game, even at the lowest settings
C) I've all the new drivers/updates installed, even manually installed DX, vcredist, and dotnet framework
D) Haven't edited anything, and it doesn't work on a fresh re-install.


No, Minimum just means barely able to run, Anyone who's been gaming on PC for a few years knows this, Required means able to run on the lowest settings or middle of the road.

What are your specs if you don't mind me asking ? CPU, GPU, Ram, OS etc...

MnemonicSyntax
11-26-2013, 04:00 AM
Low end is minimum specs. Required is mid to high end.

Christicide
11-26-2013, 04:03 AM
Just because you can run it, doesn't mean that we all have crappy PCs, or that we just don't know what we're doing. The game simply doesn't launch for some people. That's just the way it is.

Specs: GPU - GTX 680 ftw 4gb w/ 331.82 drivers
CPU - AMD FX 8350 4.1ghz
RAM - 12gb
OS - Win7 64bit

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 04:07 AM
Low end is minimum specs. Required is mid to high end.

Yes but the recommended configuration for this game isn't high end, It's middle of the road at best.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 04:08 AM
Just because you can run it, doesn't mean that we all have crappy PCs, or that we just don't know what we're doing. The game simply doesn't launch for some people. That's just the way it is.

Yes and 9 times out of 10 it's because of a user created problem I'm not saying that's your case I'm just repeating what I've seen over the years of pc gaming.

ace3001
11-26-2013, 04:46 AM
I do know what I'm talking about so keep that BS to yourself, I've been building rigs and gaming for nigh on 14 years now and listening to people who claim to have beastly rigs complain when their old rigs cant play the latest titles.

You building gaming rigs has nothing to do with it. I'm guessing you've probably been using high end rigs all your life. You have no idea what a low end rig is even like. Go take a good look around the forums and see who is complaining. Show me some people with actual low end rigs complaining. And no, specs like Core i5 + GTX 660 do not count as low end.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 04:59 AM
You building gaming rigs has nothing to do with it. I'm guessing you've probably been using high end rigs all your life. You have no idea what a low end rig is even like. Go take a good look around the forums and see who is complaining. Show me some people with actual low end rigs complaining. And no, specs like Core i5 + GTX 660 do not count as low end.

Building gaming rigs has got a lot to do with the subject as building and configuring them gives you experience and knowledge of how PC's work practically and theoretically with games and programs.
Totally wrong on all account there, I haven't been using high end rigs all my life, I actually own a low end rig from back in the socket 775 days and it was considered low end even then.
And as for a core i5 and 660 ? If you own those 2 then you shouldn't be looking to play this game smoothly, Not knocking those 2 parts as they are great but if you want to play a game that is "unoptimized" then you have to go way over the recommended spec so that it is actually playable most of the times annoyingly.

Christicide
11-26-2013, 06:01 AM
GPU - GTX 680 ftw 4gb w/ 331.82 drivers
CPU - AMD FX 8350 4.1ghz
RAM - 12gb
OS - Win7 64bit

Given these specs the game should at least start... I run ARMA III (arguably the most scaled graphics to date) on ultra/high. My rig is sufficiently powerful. I'm on a fresh install of windows and i've tried everything except putting the game on my C:drive. I simply don't have the space, and re-isntalling windows and everything with it for this game is out of the question. It should work on my G: drive as well, period.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 06:07 AM
GPU - GTX 680 ftw 4gb w/ 331.82 drivers
CPU - AMD FX 8350 4.1ghz
RAM - 12gb
OS - Win7 64bit

Given these specs the game should at least start... I run ARMA III (arguably the most scaled graphics to date) on ultra/high. My rig is sufficiently powerful. I'm on a fresh install of windows and i've tried everything except putting the game on my C:drive. I simply don't have the space, and re-installing windows and everything with it for this game is out of the question. It should work on my G: drive as well, period.

Even though you have a good rig it isn't good enough to run the game smoothly, A GTX 680 is a good card but this game likes raw horsepower mainly because it's not fully optimized and that's why I'm guessing it was launched alongside the GTX 700 series.

drakkar321
11-26-2013, 06:09 AM
So I should not expect to cover the recommended system requirement and even have a bit more in terms of hardware and get more that 17-18 fps? While Crysis 3 runs at 40+ pretty much maxed out? BS, the game is extremely unoptimized for most hardware. And my GPU is nVidia...
I'm basically stuck here playing multiplayer (not that the mode is bad, it's quite fun) while waiting for a patch to play the game I bought 5 days ago. How can I not be frustrated?

Try reading this. Most of the issues people have with performance in AC4 are due to minor issues, that can be worked around.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/810775-Improving-Performance-Frame-Rates-in-AC4-Black-Flag-with-mid-high-Nvidia-cards

Christicide
11-26-2013, 06:14 AM
Even though you have a good rig it isn't good enough to run the game smoothly, A GTX 680 is a good card but this game likes raw horsepower mainly because it's not fully optimized and that's why I'm guessing it was launched alongside the GTX 700 series.

It does NOT run at all. There's no "smoothly" about it. The game doesn't get past the "multicultural disclaimer"!

ace3001
11-26-2013, 06:16 AM
Building gaming rigs has got a lot to do with the subject as building and configuring them gives you experience and knowledge of how PC's work practically and theoretically with games and programs.
Totally wrong on all account there, I haven't been using high end rigs all my life, I actually own a low end rig from back in the socket 775 days and it was considered low end even then.
And as for a core i5 and 660 ? If you own those 2 then you shouldn't be looking to play this game smoothly, Not knocking those 2 parts as they are great but if you want to play a game that is "unoptimized" then you have to go way over the recommended spec so that it is actually playable most of the times annoyingly.
But i5 + 660 can maintain 30 FPS nicely with most settings at high, so I don't know what you're talking about. High end hardware is only necessary if you're planning to use things like MSAA and HBAO high in combination. Stakes will go even higher if you want to achieve 60 FPS with those.
But like I said before, 60 FPS is not the standard that low-end/mid-range users go by. Many of us don't even use MSAA. I make do with SMAA myself, since I don't have high end hardware. But the point is, I can play the game smoothly. The user just needs to possess some common sense to make it happen.

Christicide
11-26-2013, 06:22 AM
But the point is, I can play the game smoothly. The user just needs to possess some common sense to make it happen.

Well that's just ignorant. "It runs on my machine, therefore there is nothing wrong with the game. You all just lack common sense..."

ace3001
11-26-2013, 06:28 AM
Well that's just ignorant. "It runs on my machine, therefore there is nothing wrong with the game. You all just lack common sense..."

I'm not saying nothing is wrong with the game. It could have been handled better, especially on higher end quad core CPUs. But the point is, some people have very high standards and expect it to be matched by every game. In this forum itself, I've seen people complaining that it stays at 60 FPS on 120 Hz monitors. What the hell are they expecting? 120 FPS?

Christicide
11-26-2013, 06:30 AM
I've tried just about everything, and I just expect the game to run.... I'll play at 30fps or whatever. I'm just amazed that for a lot of people (with high end PCs) the game simply doesn't get past the first screen.

ace3001
11-26-2013, 06:35 AM
I just expect the game to run.... I'll play at 30fps or whatever. I'm just amazed that for a lot of people with (with high end PCs) the game simply doesn't get past the first screen.

Define "a lot of people." Sure, it happens to some people, and it sucks, but they're a minority. AC IV is not nearly as bugged as, say, Skyrim was when it came out. But everyone was salivating over it like hungry dogs. Having a few bugs is a normal thing with newly released games, especially these days. It sucks, but Ubisoft games are not the only thing this happens to. And after all, it's just been a week since the game was out. Just give it some time.

Coming here and making a thread like "don't expect to run this on a low/mid range pc" isn't going to help anyone, especially since high end users are mostly who are complaining about lack of optimization.

ProletariatPleb
11-26-2013, 06:40 AM
I'm not saying nothing is wrong with the game. It could have been handled better, especially on higher end quad core CPUs. But the point is, some people have very high standards and expect it to be matched by every game. In this forum itself, I've seen people complaining that it stays at 60 FPS on 120 Hz monitors. What the hell are they expecting? 120 FPS?
They are expecting that they don't get framelocked due to poor decisions and ubisoft in general not knowing PC game standards.
>No 16:10 support.
>No FOV slider.
>No Windowed mode support.
>No anisotropic filtering this time(?)
>120hz monitor users cannot enjoy the benefits of it such as game running at higher framerate than 60 and actually being able to see the extra frames.

Christicide
11-26-2013, 06:40 AM
Define "a lot of people." Sure, it happens to some people, and it sucks, but they're a minority. AC IV is not nearly as bugged as, say, Skyrim was when it came out. But everyone was salivating over it like hungry dogs. Having a few bugs is a normal thing with newly released games, especially these days. It sucks, but Ubisoft games are not the only thing this happens to. And after all, it's just been a week since the game was out. Just give it some time.

Coming here and making a thread like "don't expect to run this on a low/mid range pc" isn't going to help anyone, especially since high end users are mostly who are complaining about lack of optimization.

Woah woah woah... First of all, I didn't make this thread...
Second of all. At least I was able to PLAY skyrim, buggy or not.
Third, by a lot I mean quite a bit more people than just me... obviously not a majority of the people that bought this game.
The issue is, this is the first AAA title that wasn't a simple fix to get running. This requires a patch to get the game to run, for some of us it may as well not even have been released.
Lastly, what's worse? everyone else gets to play it and I get nothing but threads about how my PC sucks, or people telling me I lack the common sense to run an .exe.

Now I don't want to wait, but I'm going to have to be patient, I understand that. The problem isn't going to fix itself however, and it needs to be addressed. Saying that there isn't a problem at all isn't going to get us there, so do tell me, what are you doing to help? arguing your OPINION all over a forum? The fact remains... this needs a fix

ace3001
11-26-2013, 07:10 AM
Woah woah woah... First of all, I didn't make this thread...
Second of all. At least I was able to PLAY skyrim, buggy or not.
Third, by a lot I mean quite a bit more people than just me... obviously not a majority of the people that bought this game.
The issue is, this is the first AAA title that wasn't a simple fix to get running. This requires a patch to get the game to run, for some of us it may as well not even have been released.
Lastly, what's worse? everyone else gets to play it and I get nothing but threads about how my PC sucks, or people telling me I lack the common sense to run an .exe.

Now I don't want to wait, but I'm going to have to be patient, I understand that. The problem isn't going to fix itself however, and it needs to be addressed. Saying that there isn't a problem at all isn't going to get us there, so do tell me, what are you doing to help? arguing your OPINION all over a forum? The fact remains... this needs a fix
Again, I'm not saying it's perfect. It's far from that. I'm just addressing the point brought up by the creator of this thread. Saying that you can't expect to run this on a low/mid range PC is just outright wrong. In fact, most optimization problems are on high end machines, due to the game not using all the power that high end machines can provide. For many of us with lower end machines, the game easily runs at the level of performance that we would expect.

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 07:11 AM
You are absolutely wrong if you think this game runs poorly on mid - to high end rigs because it runs many complex techs. The truth is it barely utilizes all the resources it needs and instead rely on the raw power of the hardware. This is a case of "your rig is too overkill that you can run the game even if it's poorly optimized."

Read my post
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/811959-Tested-everything-and-still-getting-low-fps

WHATS WITH THE LARGE TEXT ?

My point was don't expect a game to run with all the bells and whistles when you have an off the shelf rig, and when it comes to PC's there's no such thing as "Overkill" :P

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 07:48 AM
My frames drop to 40s, when in grassy areas even with my GTX 760 / i5 3570 combo @high settings. With a card 3 times as powerful as the recommended and updated drivers, I should have been able to maintain a solid 60 framerate. It's not playing the game what most people are concerned about, it's the reason why their rigs. while powerful cannot maintain a solid frame rate.

ace3001
11-26-2013, 09:06 AM
My frames drop to 40s, when in grassy areas even with my GTX 760 / i5 3570 combo @high settings. With a card 3 times as powerful as the recommended and updated drivers, I should have been able to maintain a solid 60 framerate. It's not playing the game what most people are concerned about, it's the reason why their rigs. while powerful cannot maintain a solid frame rate.

GTX 760 is three times as powerful as GTX 470? Since when? On what basis are you making that claim to begin with?

GTX 760 is a powerful card, no one is denying that. However, expecting 60 FPS maxed out is foolish.

On what settings are you playing, anyway? Care to provide a screenshot of the graphics settings page?

oberonqa
11-26-2013, 09:34 AM
Color me silly then... all this time I was thinking I had a decent mid-range rig. Never would have pegged it for a high-end rig... but going by your definition (playing the game at 50-60 FPS), I must have a god rig.

Phenom II X4 955 3.4Ghz
12GB DDR3 1600 RAM
XFX Radeon HD 6870 video card

I think you have a very twisted idea of "top-end", friend... because my rig is mid-range at best. But that doesn't mean squat to me, to be honest. I'm playing the game at a smooth 50-60 FPS at the native resolution of my 32" Vizio TV (1366x768) via HDMI. Game looks great and plays great (have everything set to max except for AA, which I have set to MSAA). May not be 1080p... but honestly who gives a flying hoot. At higher resolutions I can't read the text on the screen anyway due to sitting 6 feet away from the screen (I can crank it up to 1080p and adjust the GPU scaling, but text is so super small I'd need a magnifying glass to see anything).

Moral of the story here is nobody likes a know-it-all... especially when said know-it-all is flat wrong. I read the same posts you read and the people that are having problems are people with top end rigs that should have no problem running the game with their Titan's and 7990's... but they are having problems. People like me (and you, whether you choose to admit it or not) don't have problems because we're using more modest hardware and/or graphics settings.

Christicide
11-26-2013, 10:52 AM
^that... all of that. Well said, Oberonqa.

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 11:03 AM
GTX 760 is three times as powerful as GTX 470? Since when? On what basis are you making that claim to begin with?
Excuse me, I meant to type 2 times (it was 8 am here). And I am making that assumption because the performance of the card is pretty much the same as GTX 470 SLI in most games.


GTX 760 is a powerful card, no one is denying that. However, expecting 60 FPS maxed out is foolish.

On what settings are you playing, anyway? Care to provide a screenshot of the graphics settings page?
I would never even dream of soft shadows and / or TXAA x4. My settings are:
Environment Quality: High
Shadows: High
Reflections: High
Ambient Occulsion: HBAO+ (low)
Volumetric Fog: Off
God Rays: Low
Anti-Aliasing: FXAA
When I am in Havana, on sea, on a fort, underwater or on a small island, everything's well, with a standard framerate between 50 and 60 frames that does not tire the eyes neither corrupts the gameplay experience.
But when it comes to jungles or grassy islands (eg last mission of sequence 3), the framerate dips to 40s in places with dense vegetation. I first thought that the tesselation was bringing my card to its knees. However, soon after that, I realised, that even lowering the settings does not help at all - between low settings and high, the difference was only 2 frames. That's my problem with the game.

ace3001
11-26-2013, 12:04 PM
Excuse me, I meant to type 2 times (it was 8 am here). And I am making that assumption because the performance of the card is pretty much the same as GTX 470 SLI in most games.


I would never even dream of soft shadows and / or TXAA x4. My settings are:
Environment Quality: High
Shadows: High
Reflections: High
Ambient Occulsion: HBAO+ (low)
Volumetric Fog: Off
God Rays: Low
Anti-Aliasing: FXAA
When I am in Havana, on sea, on a fort, underwater or on a small island, everything's well, with a standard framerate between 50 and 60 frames that does not tire the eyes neither corrupts the gameplay experience.
But when it comes to jungles or grassy islands (eg last mission of sequence 3), the framerate dips to 40s in places with dense vegetation. I first thought that the tesselation was bringing my card to its knees. However, soon after that, I realised, that even lowering the settings does not help at all - between low settings and high, the difference was only 2 frames. That's my problem with the game.

Hmm... Could be improper CPU utilization once again. Could you try lowering environment quality while keeping everything else as is, please?
(Not saying this is a solution. Ubisoft does need to do something if an i5 3570 can't handle the foliage. Just saying maybe we could isolate the issue just for curiosity's sake.)

peshu
11-26-2013, 12:24 PM
This game is poorly optimized, because NVIDIA and UBI are in one bed now,doing some dirty stuff, and it's sole purpose is, you buying a shiny new GTX 780Ti.

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 12:27 PM
Hmm... Could be improper CPU utilization once again. Could you try lowering environment quality while keeping everything else as is, please?
Yes, of course. I 'll edit this post with my observations on lowering the Environment settings.
EDIT:
Rig: Intel i5 3570 / GTX 760 / 8 GBs of RAM / Windows 8
Location: Standing on top of the first Watchtower you meet, when you enter the mansion in Kingston. Facing the lake to the south-east (very dense vegetation area, crops, trees, moss etc).
Results:
--Very High Environment Quality: 43 frames per second (between 42 and 43 - mostly 43, the dips to 42 must have been random)
--High Environment Quality: 44 frames per second (steady)
--Normal Environment Quality: 44 frames per second (steady)
--Low Environment Quality: 58 frames per second (steady)
--Very Low Environment Quality: 58 frames per second (steady)

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 12:48 PM
This game is poorly optimized, because NVIDIA and UBI are in one bed now,doing some dirty stuff, and it's sole purpose is, you buying a shiny new GTX 780Ti.
I doubt Nvidia's in need of any more cash tbh... Splinter Cell was a great port and so was Batman AO (which btw looks amazing, Gotham's locations actually feel really realistic).

ProletariatPleb
11-26-2013, 12:53 PM
This game is poorly optimized, because NVIDIA and UBI are in one bed now,doing some dirty stuff, and it's sole purpose is, you buying a shiny new GTX 780Ti.
Just like Batman...oh wait!

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 12:58 PM
The large text is for people to see what the REAL REASON is. I don't have anything against you. I was just highlighting it so everyone would know that Ubisoft was lying through their teeth when they said AC4 was optimized for PC.

No such thing as overkill ? So when you have a monitor that has a max resolution of 1366x768 and you have a quad 780Ti, an i7 4960x, 32GB of RAM, 1TB SSD and 10TB of HDD just to play minecraft. You wouldn't say that's overkill coz you are playing it on PC ? hmm....

If someone has this hardware and is playing at 1366x768 with that hardware then that person is a true idiot lol

Voyager456
11-26-2013, 01:03 PM
This game is poorly optimized, because NVIDIA and UBI are in one bed now,doing some dirty stuff, and it's sole purpose is, you buying a shiny new GTX 780Ti.

You just took the words out of my mouths LOL

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 01:05 PM
Just like Batman...oh wait!
Batman was really well made. Especially after the last PhysX update by Nvidia, the game runs like butter on a GTX 760. With all settings turned up to the highest and FXAA (High) enabled, you get 70 FPS on its built-in benchmark test. And that benchmark test is put up by extreme conditions, seriously extreme conditions, that never occur in the actual gameplay (trust me, I have played the single-player for over 80 hours). And it was optimized by Nvidia, just like AC4 was. So, a deal in Nvidia's part is highly unlike to have happened.

Kabor19
11-26-2013, 01:15 PM
The same here i cant start game its freeze when connecting ubiserver, but multiplayer i can play. And Joke is that after waiting for 4 days help i downloaded pirat version with patch to chek my comp and its worked great with allmost full grafic.

ProletariatPleb
11-26-2013, 01:18 PM
Batman was really well made. Especially after the last PhysX update by Nvidia, the game runs like butter on a GTX 760. With all settings turned up to the highest and FXAA (High) enabled, you get 70 FPS on its built-in benchmark test. And that benchmark test is put up by extreme conditions, seriously extreme conditions, that never occur in the actual gameplay (trust me, I have played the single-player for over 80 hours). And it was optimized by Nvidia, just like AC4 was. So, a deal in Nvidia's part is highly unlike to have happened.
Exactly what I meant, I like how people just want to jump and make Nvidia the bad guy.

UBISOFT CANNOT DO ANY WRONG! IT MUST HAVE BEEN NVIDIA! Fanboy damage control.

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 01:24 PM
Exactly what I meant, I like how people just want to jump and make Nvidia the bad guy.

UBISOFT CANNOT DO ANY WRONG! IT MUST HAVE BEEN NVIDIA! Fanboy damage control.
For me, Nvidia and Intel are something like the Gods of personal computers. No fanboyism though, I strongly critisize Nvidia for its performance instability each time a new driver comes out, as well as for some of its marketing policies. Intel... well, I guess that Intel is just godly...

peshu
11-26-2013, 01:26 PM
Ubisoft are as greedy as Electronic Arts.

x___Luffy___x
11-26-2013, 01:38 PM
these are my in game settings

http://i.picpar.com/SJ0.jpg

and i get fps around 30-50 depending on the location. the jungle and more foilage areas gets the lowest fps. i even played with soft shadows at low. it very rarely in the most demanding places made the game little heavy. i am happy to play at these settings as long as it plays smoothly.

and one other thing i tried the latest driver which nvidia released ( 331.82 ) but it wasn't using my gpu at full. it s usage was between 60-85 and i got fps in mid 20s.
so i reverted to the previous driver ( 331.65 ) and my gpu usage remained at 99%. and i got fps ranging from 28- 50. and it plays very smoothly.

for people who are having problem with fps do try different drivers.

and this game too don't use other cores. first at max and the rest very low to no usage. this should not happen if it is properly optimized.

my specs :

i5 3550 @ 3.3ghz
660 ti
8 gb ram

helmert7
11-26-2013, 01:46 PM
Works fine for me on high (all settings) with a Intel Core I5-3350 3,10 GHz, a AMD Radeon HD 7770 and 6 GB RAM still got around 60 fps

Dicehunter
11-26-2013, 01:47 PM
Why would we call him an idiot ? because it's overkill. My point, exactly

I'd call him an idiot because no one ever would spend about 5000 on a PC and then spend 20 on a crappy little 1366x768 monitor, Seriously, No one would do that, You would have to have an IQ of 0 to do such a thing OR know absolutely nothing about computers.
Your argument is pointless.

helmert7
11-26-2013, 01:49 PM
I'd call him an idiot because no one ever would spend about 5000 on a PC and then spend 20 on a crappy little 1366x768 monitor, Seriously, No one would do that, You would have to have an IQ of 0 to do such a thing OR know absolutely nothing about computers.
Your argument is pointless. Your coin is useless! use € or $. nothing else :P

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 01:51 PM
I'd call him an idiot because no one ever would spend about 5000 on a PC and then spend 20 on a crappy little 1366x768 monitor, Seriously, No one would do that, You would have to have an IQ of 0 to do such a thing OR know absolutely nothing about computers.
Your argument is pointless.
No name calling, people.

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 01:55 PM
http://i.picpar.com/SJ0.jpg
These are the settings proposed by the official geforce performance guide, aren't they?

Still, noone seems to be commenting on my observations, which I believe are quite crispy.

Rig: Intel i5 3570 / GTX 760 / 8 GBs of RAM / Windows 8
Location: Standing on top of the first Watchtower you meet, when you enter the mansion in Kingston. Facing the lake to the south-east (very dense vegetation area, crops, trees, moss etc).
Results:
--Very High Environment Quality: 43 frames per second (between 42 and 43 - mostly 43, the dips to 42 must have been random)
--High Environment Quality: 44 frames per second (steady)
--Normal Environment Quality: 44 frames per second (steady)
--Low Environment Quality: 58 frames per second (steady)
--Very Low Environment Quality: 58 frames per second (steady)

peshu
11-26-2013, 02:06 PM
Same thing with my GTX 760 and I bought it just for this game after seeing the requirements. I think I will put back my two old GTX 295s.

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 02:08 PM
Same thing with my GTX 760 and I bought it just for this game after seeing the requirements. I think I will put back my two old GTX 295s.
Plays pretty well generally speaking. It's just that the frame drops make you feeling like "why the ****?"

peshu
11-26-2013, 02:38 PM
Plays pretty well generally speaking. It's just that the frame drops make you feeling like "why the ****?"

I think If the engine used the CPU more efficient , it can manage even better. And NVIDIA can improve some things with future drivers. I mean ok, looking at the jungle, trees,grass, heavy tessellation blah blah, I get 35 FPS but I am on the ship staring at the calm ocean, clear weather, no sun, nothing going on and my FPS is still not 60FPS, around 50.

organizator2007
11-26-2013, 03:53 PM
I'm not saying nothing is wrong with the game. It could have been handled better, especially on higher end quad core CPUs. But the point is, some people have very high standards and expect it to be matched by every game. In this forum itself, I've seen people complaining that it stays at 60 FPS on 120 Hz monitors. What the hell are they expecting? 120 FPS?
no, i expect a much better (more calm) picture. its a real shame this game has no 120hz option. all the AAA games have this nowadays

abohamed2013
11-26-2013, 04:01 PM
Works fine for me on high (all settings) with a Intel Core I5-3350 3,10 GHz, a AMD Radeon HD 7770 and 6 GB RAM still got around 60 fps

but how ?! i have Asus EAH 5770 CU core , Intel i7 3770 @ 3.90 GHz 8M Cache , Corsair 8 GB DDR3 RAM ... and i get 38 - 45 FPS and i never see 60 FPS even on lowest !!!!

http://www.hwcompare.com/11951/radeon-hd-5770-vs-radeon-hd-7770/

AherasSTRG
11-26-2013, 04:33 PM
but how ?! i have Asus EAH 5770 CU core , Intel i7 3770 @ 3.90 GHz 8M Cache , Corsair 8 GB DDR3 RAM ... and i get 38 - 45 FPS and i never see 60 FPS even on lowest !!!!

http://www.hwcompare.com/11951/radeon-hd-5770-vs-radeon-hd-7770/
He is either trolling or using resolution lower than 1080p.

luciusnetheril
11-26-2013, 04:39 PM
The one who's full of BS is OP, and the game is unoptimized as hell. Furthermore, anyone who advertises Razor is either clueless SOD, Epeen show off, or just an outright sellout traitor to glorious Elite PC Gaming Master Race.



He is either trolling or using resolution lower than 1080p.
So basically, he IS trolling.

helmert7
11-26-2013, 05:57 PM
sure i lie about a performance lol so sad

UdyrXinTheHouse
11-26-2013, 06:48 PM
You have no idea what you're talking about. Most complaints are from people with relatively higher end rigs due to not getting 60 FPS.

I'm playing this on a low end machine, and am quite satisfied with how it looks and performs, since 30 FPS is quite enough for me. Most low end users don't scream about framerates like higher end users do, since they're used to relatively lower framerates.

The first, and last comment I will make in this thread -

Farrel is right. I'm willing to bet 90% of the people who have the higher end PC's don't even know how to run their computer. I'm running AC4 on max settings with 60FPS
and I only have a GTX660 OC, 6core processor, and 8GB ram.. Compared to what they claim to have, this is nothing.

For those of you who require proof, here is me running at 45FPS while recording and running 3 background programs
Make sure to put it in 1080P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hWM5YDdUaQ

Christicide
11-26-2013, 07:41 PM
The first, and last comment I will make in this thread -
Farrel is right. I'm willing to bet 90% of the people who have the higher end PC's don't even know how to run their computer. I'm running AC4 on max settings with 60FPS
and I only have a GTX660 OC, 6core processor, and 8GB ram.. Compared to what they claim to have, this is nothing.

Let me get this straight. You have no issues playing it, therefore you must be some PC whiz, and 9/10 people who are having issues are just computer illiterate? Do you really believe this? That these people with high end rigs "don't even know how to run their computer"? Do yourself a favor... make sure that is your last comment on this thread.

luciusnetheril
11-26-2013, 08:15 PM
*sigh*another one of those, running in lower-than-native res "geniuses," comes to brag...

IDefectedI
11-26-2013, 08:26 PM
Guess I need a 3rd GTX 780 if I want 60 fps.

peshu
11-26-2013, 08:47 PM
I am not sure if GTX 780 could run this beast of a game. Be safe and get 3x780TI.

IDefectedI
11-26-2013, 08:51 PM
I am not sure if GTX 780 could run this beast of a game. Be safe and get 3x780TI.

lol. I own two GTX 780s and overclocked i7 4.5. AC:4 still suffers fps drops. Anywhere from 40 down to 37. I hate this engine with a passion.

Mr_Shade
11-26-2013, 09:31 PM
Guys,

stop the name calling and provoking now..

Some people do have better performance than others - even with similar hardware, it's been posted on many forums across the net - so you should not always label someone a "troll"


I will say, if you are posting your results - make sure they are complete - and correct - with hardware and resolutions..


Now, If you guys are having REALLY bad performance - and remember that each game will be different - just due to having 60 fps on Batman - does not mean you will get the same on AC4, but if it's really bad - and - you have higher than required specs - I hope you are talking to support?


Support can gather all your hardware and compare it to others and see if there is a pattern - and pass this onto the Devs - so they can look into improving things [where possible] - or - suggesting which drivers to use.

And, before anyone says 'Ubisoft said recently they don't optimise for PC' - That was a misquote. The team will try their best to get the game running on the widest range of hardware possible, however since there are so many factors in PC game design / writing - sometimes this optimisation takes time after release.


Now, lets get back to comparing specs and results - but please DO contact support.

MnemonicSyntax
11-26-2013, 09:44 PM
Excuse me, I meant to type 2 times (it was 8 am here). And I am making that assumption because the performance of the card is pretty much the same as GTX 470 SLI in most games.


I would never even dream of soft shadows and / or TXAA x4. My settings are:
Environment Quality: High
Shadows: High
Reflections: High
Ambient Occulsion: HBAO+ (low)
Volumetric Fog: Off
God Rays: Low
Anti-Aliasing: FXAA
When I am in Havana, on sea, on a fort, underwater or on a small island, everything's well, with a standard framerate between 50 and 60 frames that does not tire the eyes neither corrupts the gameplay experience.
But when it comes to jungles or grassy islands (eg last mission of sequence 3), the framerate dips to 40s in places with dense vegetation. I first thought that the tesselation was bringing my card to its knees. However, soon after that, I realised, that even lowering the settings does not help at all - between low settings and high, the difference was only 2 frames. That's my problem with the game.

I have a 760 and I play at Max Settings except Low God Rays. I don't get 60 FPS but I experience no stuttering or lag either.

Milenchy
11-26-2013, 10:01 PM
Guys,

stop the name calling and provoking now..

Some people do have better performance than others - even with similar hardware, it's been posted on many forums across the net - so you should not always label someone a "troll"


I will say, if you are posting your results - make sure they are complete - and correct - with hardware and resolutions..


Now, If you guys are having REALLY bad performance - and remember that each game will be different - just due to having 60 fps on Batman - does not mean you will get the same on AC4, but if it's really bad - and - you have higher than required specs - I hope you are talking to support?


Support can gather all your hardware and compare it to others and see if there is a pattern - and pass this onto the Devs - so they can look into improving things [where possible] - or - suggesting which drivers to use.

And, before anyone says 'Ubisoft said recently they don't optimise for PC' - That was a misquote. The team will try their best to get the game running on the widest range of hardware possible, however since there are so many factors in PC game design / writing - sometimes this optimisation takes time after release.


Now, lets get back to comparing specs and results - but please DO contact support.

Well at least now we know that you read these forums and that you are doing something about it. But please, take your time faster. :D

Mr_Shade
11-26-2013, 10:06 PM
Well at least now we know that you read these forums and that you are doing something about it. But please, take your time faster. :D
Well since you are new, you may not know that the dev team also read the forums :) - HOWEVER - you should always contact support directly, should you have issues with games.


Posting on the forums, is a good way to highlight a problem, however it's not a replacement for contacting support, since they can get more information from you about your system, and collate it better than the odd post on a forum can ;)

Only then - can the team fix somethings.

MnemonicSyntax
11-26-2013, 10:14 PM
Well since you are new, you may not know that the dev team also read the forums :) - HOWEVER - you should always contact support directly, should you have issues with games.


Posting on the forums, is a good way to highlight a problem, however it's not a replacement for contacting support, since they can get more information from you about your system, and collate it better than the odd post on a forum can ;)

Only then - can the team fix somethings.

Thank you! I keep telling others this.

It should be stickied or something.

Mr_Shade
11-26-2013, 10:17 PM
Thank you! I keep telling others this.

It should be stickied or something.
We answer threads as we see them - since people ignore the pinned threads… a few advise you to contact support, however people still miss that advice as you may have seen..

;)

VikMorroHun
11-26-2013, 10:21 PM
Well, I've tweaked around the config options a bit 'cause I want to play this game. :)
I don't know if my rig is mid or low end (I'm pretty sure it does not qualify to high end) but I don't think this game should have problems. Core i5 2500K at 4.1 GHz, GTX 660 Ti with latest driver (331.82) installed, 8 GB RAM (of those max. 2 GBs are used by the game). My goal is not constant 60 FPS just smooth gameplay and good graphics. Ok, maybe awesome graphics. :)

So I tried almost maxed settings. The game run for a while (not lagged at all) but used only the first core of the CPU with 100% load and then it crashed.
Then I figured why not give a try to Geforce Experience's optimized settings? The game runs well but this means my customized controls were reset (I like running set to the right mouse button), AA is set back to FXAA from 4x TXAA, environment is set to HIGH instead of VERY HIGH, godrays are set to LOW instead of HIGH, reflections are set to Normal instead of High, ambient occlusion is set to SSAO instead of HBAO+ (high) and volumetric fog is disabled. The game does not crash with these settings and it uses TWO cores instead of ONE. Yay!

Further tests followed. Switching to HBAO+ (high) from optimized settings: two cores still in use, no crash. Environment set to very high: two cores still in use, no crash. Godrays set to high: other three cores equally in use, no crash. Volumetric fog turned on: other three cores equally in use, no crash. Reflections set to high: other three cores equally in use, no crash. During these tests the first processor core was at constant 100% load and the fourth core showed significant degrading in load until it reached the second and third core's load (none of them exceeded 50%). When I switched anti aliasing to CSAA 4x(8x) the game crashed (first core at 100% load, other three cores equally in use). MSAA 8x: game started stuttering, but didn't crash. Solution: turning off volumetric fog increased the load of fourth core, thus avoiding game crash. This way the game runs well with CSAA 4x(8x) too. (Submitted this to Ubisoft support.)

luciusnetheril
11-26-2013, 10:34 PM
Guys,

stop the name calling and provoking now..

Some people do have better performance than others - even with similar hardware, it's been posted on many forums across the net - so you should not always label someone a "troll"


I will say, if you are posting your results - make sure they are complete - and correct - with hardware and resolutions..


Now, If you guys are having REALLY bad performance - and remember that each game will be different - just due to having 60 fps on Batman - does not mean you will get the same on AC4, but if it's really bad - and - you have higher than required specs - I hope you are talking to support?


Support can gather all your hardware and compare it to others and see if there is a pattern - and pass this onto the Devs - so they can look into improving things [where possible] - or - suggesting which drivers to use.

And, before anyone says 'Ubisoft said recently they don't optimise for PC' - That was a misquote. The team will try their best to get the game running on the widest range of hardware possible, however since there are so many factors in PC game design / writing - sometimes this optimisation takes time after release.


Now, lets get back to comparing specs and results - but please DO contact support.

Can I just link DSOGAMING analysis article to support instead? If anything, I think it clearly illustrated that there were no misquotes involved during interviews...

kalo.yanis
11-27-2013, 01:09 AM
My specs are:
Intel i5 2.7Ghz
4GB RAM
GF 425M

Right, I realise that my laptop is a bit dated now and the specs weren't even that great for gaming to begin with, but I ran AC3 at 1080p with most setting on high and some on medium (sans AA and V-sync) and I got around 21-24 fps, which is good enough for me . I know some people on this forum would scratch their eyeballs out with such a framerate, but I don't mind it.

AC4, on the other hand, runs at around 11 fps with similar settings. Unbelievable. Turning everything to the lowest setting possible and the resolution to 720p bumps it up to 14 fps, but that's quite unplayable even for me...

I might need to bet on a new machine in the end and make my wallet scream.

Loucmachine.Joe
11-27-2013, 06:24 AM
DSOGAMING Analysis is flawed. Its pre-multigpu support drivers and they use a pretty old CPU with prolly some ddr2 ram..
And the dual gpu card they use demand too much CPU power to be used 100% anyways. ( I remember having the QX9650 CPU before... An ES version too :D.... I liked it alot but it was the worst 1000$ investment of my life... I changed it for the i7920 and it owned it hard...:) )

I ve made my own videos.

Running :
i7 920 @3.94ghz (HT off/no HT support for this game)
6gb ram @1600mhz triple channel
(single) EVGA GTX 780 SC @1124mhz on core and 7ghz on memory. (no overvoltage)
Installed on Muskin Chronos deluxe 120 GB SSD
Win8.1 (thanks to BF4)

Recorded on shadow play.

In-game settings are shown at the beginning of the video.

EVGA precision's first % is gpu load and 2nd % is fan %
Mem = Vram

https://imageshack.com/user/Loucmachine (copy/paste if it dosnt work)<-------for CPU load pictures. (I was in game when i took them but print screen wont see Ac4, this is why you see my desktop) (NBP prefix means ''no background process. I added these because someone wanted to know if the results were the same without recording program running.)

1st video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSMVwt1tzq8

Note that when there is alot of people on the screen (in town) the CPU gets utilized more. This is the reason of the drop @ 40Sec. (50-55 fps with 80% GPU load), On ''CPU City'' picture, the 78% is about the average i get in the city(standing still), but it can go from 60% to >90% depending on whats happenning.

Note also that when I go into the vegetation (after the funny bug) when my fps drops below 60fps my GPU load is always >90% (96-98 most of the time) The cpu is about @ 60% in this case if you look at CPU jungle picture.

Also (I can take another video if you absolutely want a proof) when i put everything to low on the same place, I get 62 fps and about 60% GPU load, witch makes it about double performances.

My theory is that many people get bottlenecked by their CPU in cities and get bottlenecked by their GPU in vegetaion (vegetation is hard on about any GPU atm), so they seems to always get poor framerates.
I also think with different balances in hardware, some people get more out of low settings than others.

2nd video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0HQlTogOWg

This is a rain scene. This scene is very demanding on CPU and GPU.
Note that I posted 2 CPU pictures, one looking at people, and one not looking at them. The difference is from 32% to 75% load on CPU, and you can see in the video that GPU load get closer to 99% when looking at people and drop to 65% range when not.

Also its important to note that when there is lightning, global illumination kicks in and gpu fluctuate from 85 to 98% and there is some drops to 55fps from time to time.

I wanted to take a video in naval combat with Epic waves vs a heoric ship, but for some reason Shadow play only recorded sound in the ''open world'' part, Aka. sea. I still have uploaded the CPU screenshot.
I feel naval part is the lightest part... unless you provoke 5 ships and there is a ton of smoke, in these extreme cases I can drop in the low 40s, high 30s, but its dosnt really affect the gameplay.

P.s. shadow play looks good and dont take much performances, but youtube on 1080p looks like caca, and Ubi screenshots too :(

P.s.s I dont know who ''prove'' that this game utilize only one cpu, but here, beside HT, it utilise it in a pretty normal manner.

luciusnetheril
11-27-2013, 07:52 AM
Your picture link is invalid.

Loucmachine.Joe
11-27-2013, 08:22 AM
Your picture link is invalid.
is it working now ? otherwise just copy/paste, it should work.

rrebe
11-27-2013, 08:32 AM
Well, I've tweaked around the config options a bit 'cause I want to play this game. :)
I don't know if my rig is mid or low end (I'm pretty sure it does not qualify to high end) but I don't think this game should have problems. Core i5 2500K at 4.1 GHz, GTX 660 Ti with latest driver (331.82) installed, 8 GB RAM (of those max. 2 GBs are used by the game). My goal is not constant 60 FPS just smooth gameplay and good graphics. Ok, maybe awesome graphics. :)

So I tried almost maxed settings. The game run for a while (not lagged at all) but used only the first core of the CPU with 100% load and then it crashed.
Then I figured why not give a try to Geforce Experience's optimized settings? The game runs well but this means my customized controls were reset (I like running set to the right mouse button), AA is set back to FXAA from 4x TXAA, environment is set to HIGH instead of VERY HIGH, godrays are set to LOW instead of HIGH, reflections are set to Normal instead of High, ambient occlusion is set to SSAO instead of HBAO+ (high) and volumetric fog is disabled. The game does not crash with these settings and it uses TWO cores instead of ONE. Yay!

Further tests followed. Switching to HBAO+ (high) from optimized settings: two cores still in use, no crash. Environment set to very high: two cores still in use, no crash. Godrays set to high: other three cores equally in use, no crash. Volumetric fog turned on: other three cores equally in use, no crash. Reflections set to high: other three cores equally in use, no crash. During these tests the first processor core was at constant 100% load and the fourth core showed significant degrading in load until it reached the second and third core's load (none of them exceeded 50%). When I switched anti aliasing to CSAA 4x(8x) the game crashed (first core at 100% load, other three cores equally in use). MSAA 8x: game started stuttering, but didn't crash. Solution: turning off volumetric fog increased the load of fourth core, thus avoiding game crash. This way the game runs well with CSAA 4x(8x) too. (Submitted this to Ubisoft support.)


I too am running i5 2500K 3.3GHz, GTX660Ti and 16GB RAM, 1920x1080 resolution monitor. I'd like to think it as a mid range rig.

I have every setting maxed out except anti-aliasing at MSAAx2, motion blur turned off (it both eats a lot of FPS and gives me a headache..), god rays on low and vsync turned off and set to adaptive in the nvidia control panel (as instructed in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/810775-Improving-Performance-Frame-Rates-in-AC4-Black-Flag-with-mid-high-Nvidia-cards). I get 30-60 FPS depending on where I am and what I am doing, and it's been good enough for me. Boarding in sea battles drop my FPS closer to 30 but most of the game it's been very smooth and graphics are gorgeous.

Loucmachine.Joe
11-27-2013, 08:09 PM
You are wrong to say that dsogaming.com gets low FPS because they use an old CPU.
A. They use the old CPU to know if games are finally using the full potential of quad core CPU's. This is stated in one of their performance analyses.
B. They use the old CPU because new CPU's have too much raw power that it can give high FPS even though a game is not optimized to use the CPU's full potential like AC 4

Also you didn't use their method of emulating a dual core or tri-core to see if the game really utilizes the CPU's full potential. Coz from my tests, even though the CPU usage is high on my quad core CPU it only gives very little performance gain than when you emulate a dual core. So in other words, CPU usage is only high but it doesn't really give you any performance gain. Which means, people with older CPU's, like me, but should have been enough to run AC 4 is getting bottlenecked because AC 4 isn't optimized to use a quad core properly.

People who have modern i7 and i5's are also complaining because only 1 core is being used to 100% while other cores only have 10-20% load. From what I know, all cores should share the load so the game will give you high FPS.

Alright, want me to add pics and a video on emulated dual core ? Lets go !

Loucmachine.Joe
11-27-2013, 08:32 PM
Uhh... why are you asking me ? just do what you want ~__~
Im uploading right now.

You ll see !!

Loucmachine.Joe
11-27-2013, 09:12 PM
Done !!
https://imageshack.com/user/Loucmachine (https://imageshack.com/user/Loucmachine) CPU images uploaded (Dual-prefix added for those print screen)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewSPD7YA9uQ Dual core emulated video

There is a HUGE difference in performances between 2 and 4 cores.
(note that Cpu usage is keeping itself in the 85% range to keep some room for the windows process, but dosnt go down either because its already not enough to only feed the gpu)

The max GPU load I can see is 75% (about 40%in city cuz cpu calculate AI) (98% on GPU with quadcore CPU) and dosnt even always clock to its max speed, so dont tell me dsogaming are able to feed a 690 with a Q9650 dual core emulated !!!
My framerate only goes up when there is about nothing on the screen, otherwise in town i have 20 to 35 fps (25-30 most of the time) except when i look at the sky or a wall, while I was @ 60fps almost 100% of the time on quad core.

Also to note, I get a little bit better performances in the vegetation compared to town now because there is no AI and the CPU can focus all its power just to feed the GPU. But still, the GPU dosnt get fed enough to be loaded 100%. I still get worst performance than with the Quad.
Also to note I get bad stuttering and overall gameplay on dualcore
I wanted to point out too that the first reason why I think their analysis is flawed is that they use the PRE-multi gpu support drivers on a GTX 690 to make their test witch have been proven multiple times to hurt performances instead of enhancing them ! A 690 normally does 60fps EZ in this game.
btw, with latest nvidia drivers Ac4 is one of the best game for SLI scaling

So yes, this review is flawed and is copy/pasted everywhere to feed anger ... or because people are ignorant and go blind parrot.

@againhuh this review is bad journalism sorry... It came out before latest Nvidia drivers and never been updated with them... so its useless.

Loucmachine.Joe
11-27-2013, 09:21 PM
I bet nobody will agree with me because truth hurt too much and its easier to blame the devs than ourselves.

ORIGINALPREY1
11-27-2013, 10:17 PM
Running fine for me...


http://youtu.be/SzL-RoONHMM

1920x1080
Directx 11

Graphic Settings: See 3:55 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzL-RoONHMM#) of video.

Fps when recording = 25-30fps
Fps when not recording = 40-50fps

AMD Radeon HD 7770 1GB (1GHz)
AMD Catalyst 13.11 Beta 9.2
AMD Phenom II X4 B50 Quad 3.2 Ghz
Asus M5A78L-MLX
OCZ-SOLID3 ATA Device
8GB DDR3 G-Skill Ram
OCZ 620W PSU
Windows 8.1 x64

Loucmachine.Joe
11-27-2013, 10:22 PM
Running fine for me...


http://youtu.be/SzL-RoONHMM

1920x1080
Directx 11

Graphic Settings: See 3:55 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzL-RoONHMM#) of video.

Fps when recording = 25-30fps
Fps when not recording = 40-50fps

AMD Radeon HD 7770 1GB (1GHz)
AMD Catalyst 13.11 Beta 9.2
AMD Phenom II X4 B50 Quad 3.2 Ghz
Asus M5A78L-MLX
OCZ-SOLID3 ATA Device
8GB DDR3 G-Skill Ram
OCZ 620W PSU
Windows 8.1 x64

You have a more ''balanced'' PC than most of the people. We get used to games that use only the gpu so all the cpu power can go to feed the GPU. But AC4 use the cpu alot too, so people who have alot ''bigger'' GPU than what they have in term of CPU get bottlenecked. Your performance in this game will be equal to your less powerful hardware piece.

Voyager456
11-27-2013, 11:33 PM
I bet nobody will agree with me because truth hurt too much and its easier to blame the devs than ourselves.

Im gonna do the same test with my 4670k at 4.2 ghz just to confirm if i end up getting diffrent results than i dont know LOL

Loucmachine.Joe
11-27-2013, 11:37 PM
Im gonna do the same test with my 4670k at 4.2 ghz just to confirm if i end up getting diffrent results than i dont know LOL
do it, I am curious
I posted all my results on video and screenshots ( if you seen my previous posts too)
I cant hide anything :)

luciusnetheril
11-28-2013, 12:22 AM
I'm curious how your pc is going to behave with all the settings maxed out, including god rays n highest anti-aliasing

Loucmachine.Joe
11-28-2013, 12:30 AM
I'm curious how your pc is going to behave with all the settings maxed out, including god rays n highest anti-aliasing

1.Godrays High are not optimized and will be soon... probably at same time they implement physics.
2. If your definition of maxing out a game is by putting at least 4xMSAA............................................ ..............................................

Also if i put 4xMSAA on my GPU is @98% always... It just heavy.... the more object there is in your screen the more MSAA will be heavy...

drakkar321
11-28-2013, 03:25 AM
I bet nobody will agree with me because truth hurt too much and its easier to blame the devs than ourselves.

I know you are correct. I just feel like I am beating my head on the wall trying to explain it to people, so more power to you for it lol. You have been more kind to that VERY flawed article than I have been. It is more than just flawed, that article is complete nonsense. His testing methods are flawed, as well as the conclusions he draws from his results. I don't know if the author lacks the technical knowledge or if he just has some sort of a grudge against Ubisoft/AC, or both. First he quotes a statement by Ubisoft, when they said that the game would SCALE to the number of processors that are NEEDED. Then he says that he just can't figure out why they list the requirements as needing 4 cores to run when it can run on 2. He "simulates" a dual-core and then says it maxed out his 2 cores and caused stuttering lol. Then he concludes that it must be badly optimized because there is a 15 fps difference. Considering most of the heavy lifting is done on the GPU and not on the CPU, I would say his 15 FPS difference, maxed out 2 cores and forced stuttering all point to faulty testing methods, faulty reasoning and faulty conclusions. But, myths on the internet spread like wildfire, especially when people feel that the source of the information should be reliable. So yes I agree with you and I can see that your testing methods were far more conclusive and logical that the ones done in that article. There is more nonsense to that article than I have mentioned, or care to, but I think I have made my point. I don't think it is likely that the myths will stop now, even if I wrote an entire technical paper on it lol. Besides, you have done a fine job doing what the article author did not, not just showing results, but explaining the logical conclusions from those results and how you arrived at your conclusions.

I truly apologize if it sounds like I am ranting. I just don't like to see injustice or false information propagated and I really do feel, that article is completely unfair to Ubisoft/AC4 and appears to be based on very little fact. I am not saying that AC4 is perfect, there are some minor issues, but it is a great game and runs fine for most people. Like any new game of this size and complexity, it will take some time to work out the rough edges. But honestly, compared to most other games of this size and type, it is fairly well polished for the amount of time it has been out.

drakkar321
11-28-2013, 03:37 AM
1.Godrays High are not optimized and will be soon... probably at same time they implement physics.
2. If your definition of maxing out a game is by putting at least 4xMSAA............................................ ..............................................

Also if i put 4xMSAA on my GPU is @98% always... It just heavy.... the more object there is in your screen the more MSAA will be heavy...

I would highly recommend that if you want to use MSAA that you set the in-game setting to MSAAx2 and using your driver control panel to enhance the application setting, or you could override it altogether. The MSAA implemented by your video driver runs more efficiently, which shouldn't come as a big surprise since Nvidia and AMD know their own hardware better than anyone. If you have a Nvidia Card you can follow the link down below, in my signature for more information.

CatFlusher
11-28-2013, 03:46 AM
I have no idea what you're talking about, OP. i have a $500 PC and it runs fine on almost all high/very high settings SP and MP.

Loucmachine.Joe
11-28-2013, 08:25 AM
Well if you compare the first videos i made (quad core) vs this one you ll se a HUGE difference in framerate and gpu load. Also there is so much stuttering that you can see it on youtube...In reality its not even playable...

You can go here http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/812794-I-think-DSOGaming-review-is-Flawed-Here-are-my-results
The 3 videos and every explainations you missed are on there.

Look at the top left of the videos, of course toutube quality is ****, but you can see the FPS, Vram usage, Clocks, GPU usage, GPU temperature, Voltage and GPU fan speed.
'''''''CPU images uploaded (Dual-prefix added for those print screen)''''
All pictures names are explained on my posts...

''the driver they used was the one that was available at that time.'' the driver that support multi gpu came out few hours after they released the review... they prolly made the review on pre release or pirated version of the game... maybe THEY should have waited... or update the review ? Nah lets spread misinformation !

drakkar321
11-28-2013, 09:34 AM
Uhh... which part of these video and images is the proof that using quad core gives you big performance gain ? All you have are images that has charts of different CPU utilization. The images even says 4 cores and 4 logical processors and do not show that you have emulated a dual core or a tri-core. The video only shows graphical settings and a few gameplay ~__~ . Which part of those are the comparisons ?

All you have are words which can be easily said. All the websites I have seen have charts that shows the performance comparison ~__~

No, it's not bad journalism coz the driver they used was the one that was available at that time. And besides, it's not like changing from 331.65 to 31.82 will give you 30 FPS gain. The FPS you will gain is only little. Ask all of the members who know how to measure FPS gain and they will tell you the same

You don't seem to really understand that the CPU and GPU function very differently. With modern video games, they are very GPU heavy and rely a great deal on the GPU. The GPU is usually the limiting factor in most cases. The load on the CPU on the other hand, is what it is. You can't just take leftover CPU cycles and convert them into higher video performance. Let me try to explain this another way with an example. If the game is requiring 50% of all 4 cores and you suddenly disable 2 of them and force the load to the remaining 2, you will end up with 2 cores running at full throttle, which would be a bad thing and could end up crippling performance. That's a simplistic example and the CPU load is dynamic. Allowing it to run on all of the cores, that it needs at the moment, only means that the load on the CPU will be better balanced and additional resources are available if they are required. As long as the CPU is powerful enough for the task it will run the application. Try to run an old game from around 10-15 years ago and look at how much power from the CPU it requires, and you will see what I mean, unless it is using software rendering.

What I don't understand, is why you believe that "simulating" a dual core CPU is relevant? (3 cores is most certainly not relevant, since he is using an old Intel CPU and Intel never made a 3-core CPU and the AMD triple core had very different performance from what you can expect from 3 Intel cores. Apples and Oranges) That is the one thing missing from the one website that tried to state their case on it and one reason why I take issue with the article. He states his opinions based off of data that appears to mean nothing and doesn't give any reason as to how he drew those conclusions from the data. You said yourself that words can be easily said, and that is very true. That website is showing you a comparison of meaningless data, which make the conclusions equally as meaningless. Anyone can write an article and post it on a website, whether it is true or not. It is quite likely that about 90% of the people that read that article don't have any reason to doubt it or to believe it's nonsense. However, there are going to be a few people out there who read it, and realize that something is not right, and a few who will know better.

Loucmachine2 is trying to provide data results that do have some relevance and taking the time to explain how it is relevant.

As far as the video drivers go, it is relevant for SLI configurations because Nvidia states in the driver release notes that the SLI profile for AC4 was added to driver version 331.82, which is applicable to a Geforce GTX 690 (in addition to others).

Loucmachine.Joe
11-28-2013, 11:04 AM
1. GPU is running 90-99% when i am not @ 60fps (and its not a CPU bottleneck like @ 40 sec. of the first video, as explained)

2. If you are disabling 2 cpu and your gpu is not too powerful enough, the CPU will only get more load on the 2 activated gpu and you ll notice minimal difference.
But if like me and your CPU is just enough to feed your gpu and preocess AI, weather etc, you ll see a HUGE difference (look at all the videos FFS), from solid 60fps with very occasionnal drops to 55 to 20-30fps with not even 40% gpu load in town, and from 50-60fps and 98% on GPU load@50fps to 30-45 fps with 75% gpu load MAX in vegetation. The only reason i get better load on GPU and overall perf. in vegetation compared to town w/dual core is because cpu dosnt need to calculate AI and have more power to feed the GPU.

The thing with the GSOGaming article is that they dont see the difference in framerate between 2 and 4 cores because even if the cpu is working hard to feed the gpus, the driver eat it all up and slow everything down because it cant handle multi gpu with this game. A program dosnt magically know how to scale on many gpus. If you try multi gpu anyway, sometimes it works fine, sometime it just dosnt give + or - performances and sometimes (like AC4) it HURTS performances. If they were using the good drivers, they would have seen a HUGE difference between 2 and 4 cores as their old Q9650 dual core mode would have bottlenecked everything. The same that happens here with a i7-920 dual core mode no HT and a 780...
Sorry for the big text, but I had to highlight this part witch is the one i think you dont understand.

Btw I cant simulate 3 cores. its 1,2 or 4.

Loucmachine.Joe
11-28-2013, 11:06 AM
Now I've seen it. And there's already someone who posted a reply that is having the same results as what I am saying. "1core is at 99% second at 50% and other two are barely used"
http://s8.postimg.org/um3oo3ndx/Capture.png
Using dual core will only give stuttering but emulate a tri-core and it will be gone and using all 4 cores will give you no performance gain.
the guy is using a 760 and dont know his gpu load... He s running 50 avg with same graphics as me + high godrays... I bet his cpu on 2 cores is just enough to feed a 760 >90%

You ll get gain by adding CPUs as long as your cpu is the bottleneck, after that there is no difference.

drakkar321
11-28-2013, 11:15 AM
"You don't seem to really understand that the CPU and GPU function very differently. With modern video games, they are very GPU heavy and rely a great deal on the GPU. The GPU is usually the limiting factor in most cases."

--Do not assume that I don't understand that some games rely on GPU heavily. I fully understand that. I even made a thread about how a fully optimized software for PC uses 90-99% of the GPU all the time while AC 4 only uses 60-65%. See the thing is, AC 4 isn't really utilizing GPU's full potential too. From my tests and from the websites I've found online. GPU usage drops all the time even when there's something that GPU should be rendering thus giving players low FPS. And when you lower your graphical settings, instead of gaining more FPS GPU usage only drops and will give you very little to no performance gain. I mean a 780 Ti cannot run this game in solid 60 FPS in max settings. It's not like AC 4 is the most technologically advanced game out there.

"Let me try to explain this another way with an example. If the game is requiring 50% of all 4 cores and you suddenly disable 2 of them and force the load to the remaining 2, you will end up with 2 cores running at full throttle, which would be a bad thing and could end up crippling performance. That's a simplistic example and the CPU load is dynamic." --

-- See the thing here is, when you emulate a dual core for AC 4, instead of crippling the performance you will only lose very minimal FPS and using all 4 cores will gain you back that performance loss but won't give you any more higher. In my case I lost 3 FPS. Of course it will vary in other CPU's but it will still be very minimal.

"What I don't understand, is why you believe that "simulating" a dual core CPU is relevant? (3 cores is most certainly not relevant, since he is using an old Intel CPU and Intel never made a 3-core CPU and the AMD triple core had very different performance from what you can expect from 3 Intel cores. Apples and Oranges) That is the one thing missing from the one website that tried to state their case on it and one reason why I take issue with the article. He states his opinions based off of data that appears to mean nothing and doesn't give any reason as to how he drew those conclusions from the data. You said yourself that words can be easily said, and that is very true. That website is showing you a comparison of meaningless data, which make the conclusions equally as meaningless. Anyone can write an article and post it on a website, whether it is true or not. It is quite likely that about 90% of the people that read that article don't have any reason to doubt it or to believe it's nonsense. However, there are going to be a few people out there who read it, and realize that something is not right, and a few who will know better. "

[B]-- You are missing the point of why I was asking him to emulate a dual or tri-core. I wasn't asking him so that we can see the performance difference between Intel and AMD ~__~ . WOW! I can't believe you're idea is sooo far. I was asking him to emulate a dual or tri-core to see if AC 4 really utilizes all cores efficiently.
And what do you mean pointless ? how was our tests pointless ? is it pointless to test if modern games are finally utilizing the full potential of quad core CPU's ?
Just because CPU's have different structures it doesn't mean that testing only 1 kind of CPU is pointless. Again, they were using that CPU because they were testing if games are finally utilizing the full potential of quad-core CPU's. And again, even players with modern i5 and i7's are complaining about 1 core having 100% load while other cores only have 10-20% load.

"As far as the video drivers go, it is relevant for SLI configurations because Nvidia states in the driver release notes that the SLI profile for AC4 was added to driver version 331.82, which is applicable to a Geforce GTX 690 (in addition to others). "

--That only applies to dsogaming.com's performance analysis. But what about other website that only used a single card configuration but having the same low FPS ? or players with only single card configuration but having the same low FPS ?

I can't remember the german website that analyzed AC4's performance. If someone knows please post the link

I am really sorry, but perhaps someone else can take the time to explain it another way. You seemed to misunderstand just about everything that I said, so I am not really sure how else to explain it to you. You took everything said in a different context than was meant.

I of course was only speaking about the article from that site, which you seem to be basing your information on and keep referencing. I cannot speak about every problem experienced, by every person, since everyone's situation is different. However, If you are experiencing low frame rates with a Nvidia GTX card and you really do want help with it, you can follow the link at the bottom of my post, which covers some of the most common issues and some ways to work around them.

Good Luck

Loucmachine.Joe
11-28-2013, 11:10 PM
What is you setup againhuh?

I know AMD CPUs seems to really have optimization issues in this game.
i7 cant simulate 3 cores... its just like that.
Did you already owned a dual gpu card ?
Disabling one gpu does not always act exactly like it was a normal single gpu card.
I would have liked to see them use a real 680.
what other article are you basing yourself on ?
from what i ve seen they put more higher settings to be able to compare gpus with eachother...
on http://www.pcgameshardware.de (http://www.pcgameshardware.de/) for example, they have a 780 doing 43 avg and 39 min with all details (including unoptimized godrays AKA. High, and soft shadows high) and 4xMSAA.
Srsly i think these are normal performances.... unless your ego cant take lowering some features that you dont even see the difference in game anyway...
(btw ''your'' is not directed to you, it was just a general statement)

luciusnetheril
11-30-2013, 02:36 PM
I've tested my system for a few days, and in my case -it's ALWAYS bottlenecked.

I've used different AA(maxed out to strain my pc)+God Rays high with the rest of settings maxed and every time my fps would dip down to ~40fps, my 3/4 CPU cores would work at 20-30% each, whereas my SLI GPUs would work at 70-80%.

In rare cases when all three of my cores are maxed out, the game still refuses to use fourth core, all the while GPU stays at 70-80%. Funny thing-turning off god rays didn't do a jack to my FPS, when under heavy load, like storming Hard Fort, under heavy storm with twisters flying around.

But, oh don't get me wrong, sometimes, when the stars align it switches to fourth core and uses it to the max....WHILE LOWERING UTILIZATION OF CORES 2-3 DOWN! WTF?!

So yeah, this game is unoptimized and hell, with graphical quality this game has, IT SHOULDN'T BE SO DAMN DEMANDING IN THE FIRST PLACE!