PDA

View Full Version : A thread about the PC and next-gen performance of ACU



AherasSTRG
03-22-2014, 12:04 PM
This is one of the rare occassions in which I choose to create a thread, post my thoughts and ask for the help of the community.

So, in the very recent past, we had 3 Assassin's Creed games, whose optimisation varied greatly. On 2011, we had Assassin's Creed Revelations, a graphical marvel of the time, which was capable to be played more than smoothly in all mid-end machines. Then comes Assassin's Creed 3, which, if it weren't for Darksiders 2, I 'd consider it the worst port in my gaming history (which is not much, but it is notable). The bad optimisation even touched the console versions, which also suffered from FPS drops and lag in several places of the game (like Boston's port and the Northeastern part of New York). And then, we got our beloved Assassin's Creed 4. Contrary to what most people believe, the game was running exactly as intended, it was optimised to run as the developement standards dictated. And that is 30 frames per second. You can easily understand that from the absence of Tripple Buffering techniques, the fact that Nvidia proposes settings to maintain 30 frames per second instead of its usual 40 to 60 and also of course from personal experience, which would need a video to be shown.

You 'd say that this is a thread I should have posted in the PC section and you may be right, but I posted here for 2 reasons:
1. The optimisation is a matter that affects both the PC and the PS4/X1 consoles. With the current gen being actually a low-end PC with the performance of a mid-end one (not PC vs Consoles war here, just stating some facts), the optimisation is much more important now than in the previous gen. We wouldn't want the same thing that happened to Thief and Watch_Dogs* to happen to ACU as well.
2. Because of the fact that most people (including myself), although PC gamers, rarely look up the PC forums and just stick with the console ones.

So, with ACU coming this year for the PS4, X1 and PC and if the graphical fiddelity of the final title ends up being anywhere near what the trailer showed, then optimisation steps are gonna be required for the game to play well on both our consoles and PCs. There is just so much the new consoles can do with their limited hardware and PC gamers do not have the funds to keep upgrading their computer with every new AC game that comes out. That means that on the consoles' part, Ubisoft should try their best to create a good-looking product, without offering empty promises and perhaps try to achieve 60 frames per second. On the PC's part, I consider the pressence of Tripple Buffering essential, if this game wants to be called AAA and the effort to achieve 60 frames per second there as well. All in all, a well optimised product with high developement standards.

I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter. There recently was a petition on better optimisation of the next game on the PC. No petition is gonna do anything. Ubisoft will only listen to our voices through these forums.

*There has recently been a trailer about the PS4 exclusive features. The trailer looked better than the recent gameplay videos, but not as good as the trailers and gameplay shown some time ago. Also, can a single trailer really change the impression that 1 previous trailer + 2 gameplay videos have given you?

jayjay275
03-22-2014, 12:22 PM
Well, at least this time development isn't being constrained by 8 year old hardware. I suppose that this should mean the game runs much more smoothly and looks delightful, though I won't hold my breathe with that teaser, as I am unsure whether it is 100% "game footage", though I hope it is.

Skelface
03-22-2014, 12:23 PM
Being developed only on better hardwares, Assassin's Creed Unity will have multi-core support on PC.

Right?

RIGHT?!

AherasSTRG
03-22-2014, 12:37 PM
Well, at least this time development isn't being constrained by 8 year old hardware. I suppose that this should mean the game runs much more smoothly and looks delightful, though I won't hold my breathe with that teaser, as I am unsure whether it is 100% "game footage", though I hope it is.
Up until now, we haven't had a next-gen only title. The only titles I currently know of that are going to be next-gen only, are Witcher 3 (which was delayed until February 2015), Assassin's Creed Unity and Batman Arkham Knight, which is supposed to come around the same time as ACU, so we don't have much experience in that matter.

jayjay275
03-22-2014, 12:40 PM
Up until now, we haven't had a next-gen only title. The only titles I currently know of that are going to be next-gen only, are Witcher 3 (which was delayed until February 2015), Assassin's Creed Unity and Batman Arkham Knight, which is supposed to come around the same time as ACU, so we don't have much experience in that matter.

Very true indeed. Though, we've seen the Witcher 3 gameplay shots and it looks stunning, and perhaps we could expect ACU to look similar to it.

AherasSTRG
03-22-2014, 12:50 PM
Very true indeed. Though, we've seen the Witcher 3 gameplay shots and it looks stunning, and perhaps we could expect ACU to look similar to it.
But what's the cost in computer hardware to play these games at high settings? Will the consoles manage to maintain constant 30 fps without a graphical downgrade?

Skelface
03-22-2014, 12:58 PM
Up until now, we haven't had a next-gen only title.

NBA Live 14. :rolleyes:

jayjay275
03-22-2014, 12:59 PM
But what's the cost in computer hardware to play these games at high settings? Will the consoles manage to maintain constant 30 fps without a graphical downgrade?

In cost, I do not have a clue, though I believe that PS4 and PC should easily be capable of running 60FPS, though Xbox One I am unsure of, based on previous titles like COD Ghosts and Ryse.

AherasSTRG
03-22-2014, 01:14 PM
though I believe that PS4 and PC should easily be capable of running 60FPS, though Xbox One I am unsure of, based on previous titles like COD Ghosts and Ryse.
I believe so as well. Though, Ubisoft has stated that their target for the next gen is 30 fps.

AherasSTRG
03-22-2014, 01:15 PM
NBA Live 14. :rolleyes:
Riiiight :p.

Dome500
03-22-2014, 03:00 PM
The new consoles being more similar to PC hardware will also help.

thewhitestig
03-22-2014, 03:35 PM
I'm concerned about the work that the Kiev studio is doing on porting the game considering all that has happened in Ukraine for the past 4 months.

Will_Lucky
03-22-2014, 04:09 PM
No need for 60fps on a title like AC for a decent experience. I hope Ubisoft drop Nvidia partnership because that kind of siding is just annoying in general preferably neutrality is a good thing. But then again it actually pushed the PC version (Nvidia are desperate for partnerships after every console manufacturer dropped them.) but its a double edged sword for gamers.

Going to use this from Neogaf...one is Witcher 3 the other is AC Unity from that trailer.
http://i.minus.com/ibqJVlYcIrxHxF.gif

To me they look pretty comparable, so what we have is possible its just a case of whether Ubi can pull it off. No offence to Ubi but I trust CD Projekt to be able to pull it off.

Now with Unity being Next-Gen only that changes things somewhat. PC Developers no longer need to waste time making 360/PS3 assets, so the specs are raised up. So what do I advise? Forget the AC4 minimum benchmark, look at the recommended.

The PS4 is powered by a 7870 underclocked, and the XB1 by a 7790. If you were to try comparing that is.
Both have at max 5gb of RAM available to them to share between standard RAM and Graphics. (The other 3gb is used by the OS)
CPU wise both have the exact same with minor differences, an Octa-Core at 1.5-1.75ghz. Six Cores dedicated to the game, the other Two the OS in both cases apparently but a good guess regardless. Its equivalent to a ehh a Phemon 2 x4...a modern i7 is around 4x as powerful.

So there is a theoretical base, obviously it entirely depends on how this port goes the PS4 and XB1 are both x86 with comparable parts to a PC they could have an easier time of it. Will they optimize for the low end or not? How much threading? It entirely depends on how they do this so to put it simply wait and see. I'd put my minimum somewhere between the minimum and recommended specs of AC4, but lets wait and see I wouldn't go out and impulse buy one now thats for sure.

pknot8
03-22-2014, 04:41 PM
If a gtx 770 cant max settings the game, its a bad port

D.I.D.
03-22-2014, 04:51 PM
If a gtx 770 cant max settings the game, its a bad port

A standard GTX770 is a 2GB card. That's why it can't max the settings. Video memory is taxed dramatically by their AA choices, for example, as it is by high resolutions - it's not just there for textures. PhysX is incredibly demanding, especially if it's used for particle-based environmental effects, as it is in AC4. And open world games are the most difficult games to make. It's not so long ago that it was a given fact: if your game is open world, it won't look as good as a fixed environment game. Recently, we've been spoiled by phenomenal open world experiences, but rather than celebrate that, we get upset about small matters.

Ubisoft aren't the best at PC optimisation, not by a long way, but that doesn't make AC4 a "bad" port. AC4 and Freedom Cry are fantastic in many ways, and have some weak points. They're giving a range of customisation options that were never there before. Look at it as headroom to allow you to play the game in the future on your next card, with it looking much better than when you played it the first time, rather than some crippling disappointment today.

Will_Lucky
03-22-2014, 04:56 PM
If a gtx 770 cant max settings the game, its a bad port

We don't know what the state of PC gaming is going to be 9 months from now. The 570 couldn't max out The Witcher 2 when it was released.

D.I.D.
03-22-2014, 05:00 PM
We don't know what the state of PC gaming is going to be 9 months from now. The 570 couldn't max out The Witcher 2 when it was released.

Seriously. People expecting the ability of dual cards from a single mid-range one, that costs just over 200!

pknot8
03-22-2014, 05:01 PM
A standard GTX770 is a 2GB card. That's why it can't max the settings. Video memory is taxed dramatically by their AA choices, for example, as it is by high resolutions - it's not just there for textures. PhysX is incredibly demanding, especially if it's used for particle-based environmental effects, as it is in AC4. And open world games are the most difficult games to make. It's not so long ago that it was a given fact: if your game is open world, it won't look as good as a fixed environment game. Recently, we've been spoiled by phenomenal open world experiences, but rather than celebrate that, we get upset about small matters.

Ubisoft aren't the best at PC optimisation, not by a long way, but that doesn't make AC4 a "bad" port. AC4 and Freedom Cry are fantastic in many ways, and have some weak points. They're giving a range of customisation options that were never there before. Look at it as headroom to allow you to play the game in the future on your next card, with it looking much better than when you played it the first time, rather than some crippling disappointment today.

I know..
I can max settings ac4 with my gtx 770, but its a bad port.
There are others games, more demanding that run better then all assassin's creed titles.
They need better optimisation.. if you compare my pc specs with a ''next gen '' console.. Well, i really should be able to run ubisoft games better.

Edit: Yeah i know your point about PhysX. But i can run every game at the moment with physx on at max. But i can live without physx in future assassin's creed titles (dont like the way it looks in black flag). If i cant max settings the game WITHOUT physx, you know its a bad port

pknot8
03-22-2014, 05:08 PM
We don't know what the state of PC gaming is going to be 9 months from now. The 570 couldn't max out The Witcher 2 when it was released.

You will be able to run max settings the witcher 3 with a gtx 770.. Maybe not 60 fps, but 30fps you will.
Just look at their forum. They already showed us a demo with a gtx 770. Early stage of the game of course, but at the same time this mean even better optimisation

Will_Lucky
03-22-2014, 05:14 PM
I
They need better optimisation.. if you compare my pc specs with a ''next gen '' console.. Well, i really should be able to run ubisoft games better.


Irrelevent at the end of the day, consoles can be optimized further and further to get the most out of them because its one spec. PC games utilize a broad range of hardware and it has to be compatible with all of it. They won't spend a great chunk of time making sure its optimized on one set of hardware.

Just because your PC is more powerful doesn't mean it should be able to run it. Assassins Creed 4 on the 360/PS3 is running on a GPU equivalent to a 1800x and a GTX 7800. On the PC on the other hand you needed a AMD 4670 or a Nvidia 260. The PS4 and XB1 use a 7870 and 7790 as a base, do the math.

pknot8
03-22-2014, 05:19 PM
Irrelevent at the end of the day, consoles can be optimized further and further to get the most out of them because its one spec. PC games utilize a broad range of hardware and it has to be compatible with all of it. They won't spend a great chunk of time making sure its optimized on one set of hardware.

Just because your PC is more powerful doesn't mean it should be able to run it. Assassins Creed 4 on the 360/PS3 is running on a GPU equivalent to a 1800x and a GTX 7800. On the PC on the other hand you needed a AMD 4670 or a Nvidia 260. The PS4 and XB1 use a 7870 and 7790 as a base, do the math.

I know this, im just saying that with a pc way more powerful then a console, i should run this game better on the pc =/

thewhitestig
03-22-2014, 05:36 PM
Just because your PC is more powerful doesn't mean it should be able to run it. Assassins Creed 4 on the 360/PS3 is running on a GPU equivalent to a 1800x and a GTX 7800. On the PC on the other hand you needed a AMD 4670 or a Nvidia 260. The PS4 and XB1 use a 7870 and 7790 as a base, do the math.

On a Q8200 with an ATi 4830 I barely ran AC4. Everything on low/off at 1680x1050 gave me 17fps avg in Havana and 30-35fps outside the big cities. + AMD dropped support for my GPU a long time ago and I was running it with 13.1 drivers because those ones were giving me the best performance for older games like Medal Of Honor (2010) multiplayer and Bad Company 2 mp. Still managed to go trough the story and most of the side missions in 40 hours. Sooooo you're wrong, you can't run AC4 with a playable framerate on an Ati 4670.

AherasSTRG
03-22-2014, 06:20 PM
Ultra settings are supposed to be a luxury and therefore be reserved for people who can afford that luxury. You need a high-end PC each year to play all games that are released every year on ultra. However, optimisation should be at a point, in which a mid-range PC can play the game at 60 frames per second at a quality similar to that of the consoles.
For example, there is no reason for a GTX 760 - 770 / Intel i7 PC to not run any game better than the PS4 and the X1. Such a PC is at least 2 times more powerful than a PS4. Bypassing the API and straight to the metal programming cannot give more than a 20% boost to the performance of a machine, shortening the gap between consoles and PCs, but maintaining it at a significant level.

Skelface
03-22-2014, 06:29 PM
No need for 60fps on a title like AC for a decent experience. I hope Ubisoft drop Nvidia partnership because that kind of siding is just annoying in general preferably neutrality is a good thing. But then again it actually pushed the PC version (Nvidia are desperate for partnerships after every console manufacturer dropped them.) but its a double edged sword for gamers.

Nvidia is in better situation than AMD and they don't need consoles at all (you can't come their activies down to this). The bad optimisation, PC or consoles, is only Ubisoft's fault, you can't blame Nvidia for adding sweet technologies in most of the AAA games today (these technologies are especially aimed at PC enthusiasts with very high rigs), it's up to the developers to make sure their games run well, not a GPU manufacturer. Far Cry 3 is also an AMD partnership and it runs pretty bad.

I have a few games "Nvidia-branded" and they run better than Black Flag (exemple below).


A standard GTX770 is a 2GB card. That's why it can't max the settings. Video memory is taxed dramatically by their AA choices, for example, as it is by high resolutions - it's not just there for textures. PhysX is incredibly demanding, especially if it's used for particle-based environmental effects, as it is in AC4. And open world games are the most difficult games to make. It's not so long ago that it was a given fact: if your game is open world, it won't look as good as a fixed environment game. Recently, we've been spoiled by phenomenal open world experiences, but rather than celebrate that, we get upset about small matters.

Batman Arkham Origins runs at 60fps with 4xMSAA + 1.3x1.3 OGSSAA, PhysX low, AO low and the rest at max.
Assassin's Creed IV runs at 30fps with 1.3x1.3 OGSSAA, no PhysX, high in the most of settings.

I have a 2GB VRAM GTX 670 slightly overclocked (Gainward model), latest drivers. Both are open world and beautiful, one runs better than the other with higher settings. I don't think the open world is the cause of the terrible optimisation...

egriffin09
03-22-2014, 06:39 PM
I just feel like ACU will have so much improvement will the crowd life, blend animations, and an overall jump in the franchise because it's next-gen only & PC. I think I'm more excited for the game because it's exclusive to next-gen, I'm just excited to see how Ubisoft uses the power of the consoles without being prohibited to worrying about ps3 and xbox 360 version like Black Flag. For the first time, Ubisoft will be able to just focus on next-gen hardware.

AherasSTRG
03-22-2014, 07:20 PM
Irrelevent at the end of the day, consoles can be optimized further and further to get the most out of them because its one spec
That's not true. It's mathematically proven that the performance boost gained by software tweaks cannot surpass one fifth (20%) of the raw perofrmance of a piece of hardware.

As far as Batman Arkham Origins is concerned, this game was developed on UE3, so it's just natural for a GTX 770 to play this game lightly. A better comparison can be done between AC4 and BF4, which both have very demanding engines. A GTX 770 can maintain a constant 60 framerate on ultra at BF4, but cannot maintain 50 fps on very high (not Nvidia enhanced) settings on AC4.

I usually play my games with FXAA as the AA method, no PhysX and high to very high settings (settings similar to those of a console). This year, I saved some money and bought the GTX 760 to enjoy AC4 at said settings at 60 FPS. Needless to say, I was quite pissed by the fact that I was not able to play the game at high settings at a constant 60 framerate: In jungles the framerate would dip to 50 and even 40s sometimes (Havana, small islands, sea constant 60 frames per second). When there was a single leaf on the screen, the framerate would dive - obvious sign of bad optimisation. Also, I was quite sad to notice that my Intel i5 3570 wasn't even half used during gameplay.

If the above issues also plague AC: Unity, both the PC and console versions are going to be held back in quality levels.

D.I.D.
03-22-2014, 07:28 PM
Batman Arkham Origins runs at 60fps with 4xMSAA + 1.3x1.3 OGSSAA, PhysX low, AO low and the rest at max.
Assassin's Creed IV runs at 30fps with 1.3x1.3 OGSSAA, no PhysX, high in the most of settings.

I have a 2GB VRAM GTX 670 slightly overclocked (Gainward model), latest drivers. Both are open world and beautiful, one runs better than the other with higher settings. I don't think the open world is the cause of the terrible optimisation...

Arkham Origins is not remotely as complex as Black Flag. It has big artificial walls and a trick layout to help the game work on old gen hardware, among other things, and the streets are virtually barren by comparison with BF. Its environmental effects are nothing like those in Black Flag. The lighting is less complex, the sea isn't as good.

Even if Arkham Knight ends up being more complex than ACIV, that doesn't make the latter a bad port. It will simply mean that Rocksteady's Arkham team have made a great one. I've been on PC for decades, and I know what a bad port looks like: Black Flag ain't it.

Locopells
03-22-2014, 07:50 PM
...Batman Arkham Knight...

Wait, what?! *runs to Google*


I hope Ubisoft drop Nvidia partnership because that kind of siding is just annoying in general preferably neutrality is a good thing. But then again it actually pushed the PC version (Nvidia are desperate for partnerships after every console manufacturer dropped them.) but its a double edged sword for gamers.

Doesn't really bother me, Nvidia have always done me good in the past, plus they tend to come in the Toshiba's I use.

Will_Lucky
03-22-2014, 09:09 PM
I don't care if its AMD or Nvidia, I hate it when hardware partnerships happen that can screw over the over side of consumers.

padaE
03-22-2014, 09:32 PM
I have to say, my experience with ACreed games on the PC have been very poor. AC2, AC3 and Liberation had bad performances, especially the latter. And by bad I mean much poorer they than should be. AC Revelations was the least bad, but not a marvel. Played Brotherhood on the 360.

AherasSTRG
03-23-2014, 12:34 AM
I've been on PC for decades, and I know what a bad port looks like: Black Flag ain't it.
It's not a bad port if the target was 30 fps. Because, every PC version that respects itself has got at least tripple buffering. Let alone that it used only one CPU core, hypertasking the GPU. It's not like AC3 or Darksiders 2, of course, but it certainly is not a good port.

Skelface
03-23-2014, 03:02 AM
I've tried to run the game with all settings to the lowest. Still no constant 60fps with stuttering. I don't know how you can say it is not a bad port. Batman Arkham Origins is certainly not as huge as Assassin's Creed IV but it is certainly not an excuse for the game to run bad on my PC (i5-3570k, 2GB VRAM GTX 670, 12GB RAM), no matter the settings. Nvidia technologies are visually better (PhysX is incredible, probably its best integration today) but also less resource intensive. MSAA too.
And I was fine with Assassin's Creed III.