PDA

View Full Version : Game is Unplayable due to lag



larsconwall
11-11-2014, 12:24 PM
I have played all AC series game but this one is almost complete unplayable due to lag

My specs are

AMD Radeon HD 6670
Processor Name: AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
Processor Speed: 2.8 GHz


My computer is a dell studio xps 7100

It's old but i have NEVER had a problem running any game this is the first. The graphic lag is so intense AC is not optimized at all, Even with all graphics turned to low and even in windowed the game is still unplayable.

If anyone knows a way to make it run better please let me know, But im really disappointed in how AC is running, i get it is "next gen" but this is just ridiculous

AherasSTRG
11-11-2014, 12:29 PM
It has begun.

larsconwall
11-11-2014, 12:30 PM
It has begun.

What has? asking for help on how to potentially play the game?

Rekalty
11-11-2014, 12:31 PM
If only they had a subforum for Tech Issues, like, Oh I Don't Know: http://forums.ubi.com/forumdisplay.php/189-Assassin-s-Creed-Community-Technical-Support

And your rig doesn't even seem to meet the Minimum Requirements, of course it's going to run like dung, what did you expect?

OppaRex
11-11-2014, 12:31 PM
I have played all AC series game but this one is almost complete unplayable due to lag

My specs are

AMD Radeon HD 6670
Processor Name: AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
Processor Speed: 2.8 GHz


My computer is a dell studio xps 7100

It's old but i have NEVER had a problem running any game this is the first. The graphic lag is so intense AC is not optimized at all, Even with all graphics turned to low and even in windowed the game is still unplayable.

If anyone knows a way to make it run better please let me know, But im really disappointed in how AC is running, i get it is "next gen" but this is just ridiculous

Hey there!
Ur Specs are way too low buddy... Both ur GPU and CPU are below the minimum specs... or should I say way below..... M sorry mate... but i dont think u wud be able to run it... unless u upgrade ur rig...

wichking
11-11-2014, 12:31 PM
May the father of understanding PC optimization guide you Ubisoft!

Tully__
11-11-2014, 12:32 PM
You are way under spec (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/937186-Assassin-s-Creed-Unity-Minimum-amp-Recommended-PC-Requirements):

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM

64-bit operating system required
Supported OS: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8/8.1
Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz
RAM: 6 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 (2 GB VRAM)
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card with latest drivers
Hard Drive Space: 50 GB available space
Peripherals Supported: Windows-compatible keyboard and mouse required, optional controller
Multiplayer: 256 kbps or faster broadband connection
RECOMMENDED

64-bit operating system required
Supported OS: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8/8.1
Processor: Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.4 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or better
RAM: 8 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 or AMD Radeon R9 290X (3 GB VRAM)
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card with latest drivers
Hard Drive Space: 50 GB available space
Peripherals Supported: Windows-compatible keyboard and mouse required, optional controller
Multiplayer: 256 kbps or faster broadband connection

Supported Video Cards at Time of Release: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or better, GeForce GTX 700 series; AMD Radeon HD7970 or better, Radeon R9 200 series
Note: Laptop versions of these cards may work but are NOT officially supported.

soccer06
11-11-2014, 12:33 PM
Just for comparison: I have an AMD FX-6100, GTX 770 and 8GB ram. I'm playing 1920x1080, everything on high, except environment quality which is on ultra high. Everything is smooth, except there is sort of a one frame stutter every 5-10 seconds.

strigoi1958
11-11-2014, 12:34 PM
eventually even quad titan systems will be old and unable to play a game but until that point they will never have had a problem running a game.... all our systems get old at some point and no longer meet requirements :(

Having looked at the dell studio xps 7100 all of your specs are below minimum by quite a distance. I think other games out now will still play but you may find more and more games will struggle. I assume you have turned all settings to as low as possible or off and lowered the resolution as low as you can ?

larsconwall
11-11-2014, 12:35 PM
Hey there!
Ur Specs are way too low buddy... Both ur GPU and CPU are below the minimum specs... or should I say way below..... M sorry mate... but i dont think u wud be able to run it... unless u upgrade ur rig...

well the point im trying to make is that this is the first game in history i have ever had troubles running. This is a fault of the optimization of this game even in the graphics settings you get 6 broad options that dont really change much.


This is the FIRST game from Call of Duty to Far Cry and Crisis Arma 3 , Tomb Raider, BF4 all run perfectly ACU is the first game to ever give me an error and the graphics are not substantially better than any of the games i listed

soccer06
11-11-2014, 12:37 PM
well the point im trying to make is that this is the first game in history i have ever had troubles running. This is a fault of the optimization of this game even in the graphics settings you get 6 broad options that dont really change much.


This is the FIRST game from Call of Duty to Far Cry and Crisis Arma 3 , Tomb Raider, BF4 all run perfectly ACU is the first game to ever give me an error and the graphics are not substantially better than any of the games i listed

This game is also probably CPU intensive. And how much ram do you have?

Rekalty
11-11-2014, 12:38 PM
well the point im trying to make is that this is the first game in history i have ever had troubles running. This is a fault of the optimization of this game even in the graphics settings you get 6 broad options that dont really change much.


This is the FIRST game from Call of Duty to Far Cry and Crisis Arma 3 , Tomb Raider, BF4 all run perfectly ACU is the first game to ever give me an error and the graphics are not substantially better than any of the games i listed
System Reqs for those games are lower than this one... But feel free to resume blaming Ubisoft that your computer isn't good enough to run it.

strigoi1958
11-11-2014, 12:43 PM
if you do not upgrade your pc you will always get to a point when you cannot play a game for the first time.... otherwise I'd still be using a spectrum zx81... progress waits for no man unfortunately... I hope you get it to play at some level but your system really is not a gaming system and if you have managed to play high end games you should be happy in the knowledge it has served you well... I know it is not what you want to hear and I am sorry but everyone is trying to be honest with you.

Tully__
11-11-2014, 12:44 PM
This game is also probably CPU intensive. And how much ram do you have?
This, it's CPU speed that's most under spec. The busy streets and complex AI will be what's dragging your computer down, not the graphics.

OppaRex
11-11-2014, 12:45 PM
well the point im trying to make is that this is the first game in history i have ever had troubles running. This is a fault of the optimization of this game even in the graphics settings you get 6 broad options that dont really change much.


This is the FIRST game from Call of Duty to Far Cry and Crisis Arma 3 , Tomb Raider, BF4 all run perfectly ACU is the first game to ever give me an error and the graphics are not substantially better than any of the games i listed

Ubisoft might not have optimized the game well.... But atm I dont think u point a finger at ubi... coz u dont meet the minimum requirements.... U r way below infact....
The games u mentioned r nt as demanding as ACU....

ZaioFong
11-11-2014, 01:20 PM
Those games don't have to render thousands of npc's and regulate the ai for each at the same time.

Ubi has no fault in this; it's their game, they can optimize it however they want. They released the spec reqs a month in advance. No one but yourself to blame for not learning how to read.

Being just another selfentitled ***** who thinks owning any old pc guarantees running a game that generations ahead of its time not gonna get you any sympathy from us.

Matt.mc
11-11-2014, 01:36 PM
Sorry to sound blunt but, Why are you so surprised? You don't even meet the minimal requirements!

jantherocker
11-11-2014, 01:47 PM
well the point im trying to make is that this is the first game in history i have ever had troubles running. This is a fault of the optimization of this game even in the graphics settings you get 6 broad options that dont really change much.


This is the FIRST game from Call of Duty to Far Cry and Crisis Arma 3 , Tomb Raider, BF4 all run perfectly ACU is the first game to ever give me an error and the graphics are not substantially better than any of the games i listed

I can understand your frustration... im in a simmillar situation.. needed to upgrade my CPU and Ram because of AC:U...

but its not a very good point you make allthough i can understand where youre coming from..

AC:U is the first open world Next Gen only Game.. it was totally to be expected that the requierements where gonna jump up

and while it is not nearly as demanding as the official requierements indicate(otherwise you would not even be able to start the game)
its still a demanding Game

Its the hard cold truth.. everyone comes to a point where an Upgrade is just needed... its a sad moment... but thats the life of a PC Gamer

del160901084246
11-11-2014, 01:48 PM
Those games don't have to render thousands of npc's and regulate the ai for each at the same time.

Ubi has no fault in this; it's their game, they can optimize it however they want. They released the spec reqs a month in advance. No one but yourself to blame for not learning how to read.

Being just another selfentitled ***** who thinks owning any old pc guarantees running a game that generations ahead of its time not gonna get you any sympathy from us.

I don't know, why so many people defend Ubisoft. Are you in love with Ubisoft? Of course they can optimize their game like they want, but these requierements are just too high. It can't be possible that you can't play a game smoothly, if you have a mid-range GPU (like a 760). If everybody takes every dicission from them and stays calm, they never learn that they need to optimize their PC-Ports more. Even if the game could run on a 760 - Ubisoft then lied at us and just released some rash PC-Specs.

The specs were released on the 23th october, so it wasn't a month earlier. Ubisoft should have given us a hint, that the specs could be very high, but they said nothing. Look at other Next-Gen games with a similar quality. They run even on lower-end cards. ACU doesn't look that great to need a 680 as minimum. Ubisoft can do what they want, but I just want them to be honest and say that the console versions have a higher priority. Even people who upgraded their PC this year can't achieve the min-specs. It shouldn't be normal to force people to buy expensive GPU's and furthermore Ubisoft don't made any statement to this specs. Specs like this need some explanation, because it's not ordinary to assume a 680 as minimum. The 680/770 is still an expensive card. In my opinion Ubisoft has taken the thrown from EA and is now the badest Publisher for me.

Rekalty
11-11-2014, 01:52 PM
Ubisoft posted the Spec Reqs, and there were tons of articles about it, and specs are listed on the store pages. What more do you want them to do? It's your own damn fault if you somehow managed to miss it.

Matt.mc
11-11-2014, 01:58 PM
@Yesin I don't think they needed to say anything, it was implied that this game would be demanding. Anyway, there's really no point talking to you if you're gonna be immature about it.

ZaioFong
11-11-2014, 02:01 PM
I don't know, why so many people defend Ubisoft. Are you in love with Ubisoft? Of course they can optimize their game like they want, but these requierements are just too high. It can't be possible that you can't play a game smoothly, if you have a mid-range GPU (like a 760). If everybody takes every dicission from them and stays calm, they never learn that they need to optimize their PC-Ports more. Even if the game could run on a 760 - Ubisoft then lied at us and just released some rash PC-Specs.

The specs were released on the 23th october, so it wasn't a month earlier. Ubisoft should have given us a hint, that the specs could be very high, but they said nothing. Look at other Next-Gen games with a similar quality. They run even on lower-end cards. ACU doesn't look that great to need a 680 as minimum. Ubisoft can do what they want, but I just want them to be honest and say that the console versions have a higher priority. Even people who upgraded their PC this year can't achieve the min-specs. It shouldn't be normal to force people to buy expensive GPU's and furthermore Ubisoft don't made any statement to this specs. Specs like this need some explanation, because it's not ordinary to assume a 680 as minimum. The 680/770 is still an expensive card. In my opinion Ubisoft has taken the thrown from EA and is now the badest Publisher for me.

20days is as good as a month with all the rage threads and articles flying around. And before you try to make comparisions to other new gen games, how many of those are pure open world with thousands of concurrent ai regulated for social events on top of real rendered backdrops?

del160901084246
11-11-2014, 02:30 PM
@Yesin I don't think they needed to say anything, it was implied that this game would be demanding. Anyway, there's really no point talking to you if you're gonna be immature about it.

Of course they have to say nothing, but it would be a sign that they care for PC-gamers. They should additionally have released specs to reach the same quality level as the consoles (900p/30fps). If they done so nobody should have gone crazy. It needed just some instinctive feeling from Ubisoft.

I have seen the specs on day one and decided not to buy the game, so why I'm immature? I just said that this is the first game that needs such high specs and wished to hear from the devs why.

I said that other Next-Gen-Titles run with cards that are far far away from a 680. Are the graphics from ACU far far away from them? I think no. Even if there are many things rendered at one time it should'n demand a 680. I really don't understand why you guys defend Ubisoft. You guys can't clarify these specs either. If tehy put some effort in the optimization a 660 Ti could have been the minimum. But they don't and now a lot of people have to upgrade their PC the second time this year. But there are always people who wants to explain decissions from companys without knowing a reliable explanation.

Matt.mc
11-11-2014, 02:41 PM
@Yesin "I don't know, why so many people defend Ubisoft. Are you in love with Ubisoft?"
That's what you said and it's immature.

Devst8nDscoDve
11-11-2014, 02:46 PM
Learn the proper meaning of lag.

ZaioFong
11-11-2014, 02:50 PM
You don't think the consoles and pc would run the exact same way if they are using the same settings do you? Ubi already mentioned that they had to lower the crowd density on consoles by like 30% in most parts of the game aside from crucial scenes. Consoles also don't get the hd textures, fancy aa, ao, lighting, and shadow effects that pc does. Those are the real fps killers that when rendered for thousands of models at a time would cause a 660 to implode even if it's made with titanium. I had no issues running Skyrim with base textures on max settings with a 620M @ 40+ fps. Then I add in hd pack and a sweetfx mod for brighter and softer colors and the frame drops to under 8 average. Desktops has the advantage of being able to attain a level of graphical quality unattainable by consoles only due to being unrestricted by hardware imitations. But that means you need to have the neccessary hardware to attain that level rather than having just a desktop.

del160901084246
11-11-2014, 03:02 PM
@Yesin "I don't know, why so many people defend Ubisoft. Are you in love with Ubisoft?"
That's what you said and it's immature.

Oh, sorry. You're right in this case. I apologise. :(

soccer06
11-11-2014, 03:02 PM
Of course they have to say nothing, but it would be a sign that they care for PC-gamers. They should additionally have released specs to reach the same quality level as the consoles (900p/30fps). If they done so nobody should have gone crazy. It needed just some instinctive feeling from Ubisoft.

I have seen the specs on day one and decided not to buy the game, so why I'm immature? I just said that this is the first game that needs such high specs and wished to hear from the devs why.

I said that other Next-Gen-Titles run with cards that are far far away from a 680. Are the graphics from ACU far far away from them? I think no. Even if there are many things rendered at one time it should'n demand a 680. I really don't understand why you guys defend Ubisoft. You guys can't clarify these specs either. If tehy put some effort in the optimization a 660 Ti could have been the minimum. But they don't and now a lot of people have to upgrade their PC the second time this year. But there are always people who wants to explain decissions from companys without knowing a reliable explanation.

You also seem to be forgetting the fact that this is also a CPU intensive game. So it is not just about the graphics card.

ZaioFong
11-11-2014, 03:12 PM
Should also mention that the minimum and recommended gpu are 2.5 and 1.5 years old respectively. So anyone who's upgraded their pc in the last 2 years should be able to run it. And by upgrade I mean to latest hardware and not to a 4 year old piece. So NO, going from x- gpu to a 660 this year is NOT a real upgrade. Don't even try to use that as a point.

jantherocker
11-11-2014, 03:15 PM
Should also mention that the minimum and recommended gpu are 2.5 and 1.5 years old respectively. So anyone who's upgraded their pc in the last 2 years should be able to run it. And by upgrade I mean to latest hardware and not to a 4 year old piece. So NO, going from x- gpu to a 660 this year is NOT a real upgrade. Don't even try to use that as a point.

agreed.. 6 months ago i upgraded from my ancient HD4890 to a GTX 660 2gb OC.. i like the card and because i play in 1280x1024 i still can run anything on high-max
but still.. if i knew better at the time i would have saved a bit more and got a 770 or a 280x

del160901084246
11-11-2014, 03:35 PM
Should also mention that the minimum and recommended gpu are 2.5 and 1.5 years old respectively. So anyone who's upgraded their pc in the last 2 years should be able to run it. And by upgrade I mean to latest hardware and not to a 4 year old piece. So NO, going from x- gpu to a 660 this year is NOT a real upgrade. Don't even try to use that as a point.

I understand what you mean, but not everybody want's to pay 300 for a GPU. If I don't want to play everything on Ultra a mid-range-GPU from 150-200 should be enough, or not? A 680/770 isn't cheap, even today. Look at screenshots in the NeoGAF-Forum from the PC-Port and tell me then that this visuals justify such a high GPU. Even on High there are LOD problems and pop-ins. Even a 780 can't run the game at a solid frame-rate. We haven't a big range from GPU's that are supported from Ubisoft. What came after the 680/770? We have the 780, 780 Ti, 970, 980 (and the Titans but these are way too expensive). These cards are pretty expensive and for me they are High-End. Not everyone who upgrades his PC goes for the best card at this time. Many people who upgraded their PC's in the last 2 years bought somethng like a 660 or 760. Not everyone needs things like MSAA or SSAA. Not for nothing NVIDIA and AMD have mid-range-GPU's.


@soccer06

I know and that's why I didn't complain about the CPU requierements. I understand them. But I don't understand the GPU requierements.

ZaioFong
11-11-2014, 03:57 PM
Price vs quality vs time is all relative. Take this into consideration. Unity can run at medium setting with a 680 but that's already at the level of ultra/max for games from 2.5 and more years ago. What was once high end is now a upper mid range. The mid range cards in your mind are now low end in relative to the games coming out this month and after.

The pop in problems you mentioned happening on consoles are a given, the consoles are bottle necked by cpu. And that one guy on neogaf who had it on pc was using 2600(k or not doesn't matter. He didn't OC)

People need to get out of the delusion that high end cards will retain that title for more than 2 years straight.

ryan8374
11-11-2014, 04:04 PM
My 650Ti is embarrassingly slow. Anyone able to play at max settings? What are you using?

It looks like I may need to build a new system. Time has escaped me. I thought that it was just last year that I had built my current system. It was Feb 2012! I'm currently running a Q67 board with an i7-2600.
I get to build a new computer. Yaaaaay!!! :D

Zylkito
11-11-2014, 04:09 PM
Well this games does run indeed like crap on lower Hardware things then the minimum.

Well for AMD Graphics do seemsto run crappier. On low settings on lowest resoultion which is HD the fps drops to 20

My Intel Core i5-760 has a usage about 50-60 %
and my HD 7870 OC 1170Mhz/1300 usage 99%
and 8gb ram

Yeah this game is GPU intensive

Fatal-Feit
11-11-2014, 04:09 PM
I don't know about you guys, but this game runs surprisingly well after a couple manual fixes. My GTX 970 runs at 40-80 fps.

Don't use V-SYNC, PCSS, or anything above FXAA.

AmathusUkx
12-04-2014, 08:04 PM
Guy comes on for some help and all he gets is condescending answers. If its any consolation Lars my rig far exceeds the min spec, in fact i'm running Sli with GTX 760's 16gb of ram, and i'm having lag issues with this unpolished turd of a game:mad: Wheres the ubisoft response?

Altair1789
12-04-2014, 09:44 PM
well the point im trying to make is that this is the first game in history i have ever had troubles running. This is a fault of the optimization of this game even in the graphics settings you get 6 broad options that dont really change much.


This is the FIRST game from Call of Duty to Far Cry and Crisis Arma 3 , Tomb Raider, BF4 all run perfectly ACU is the first game to ever give me an error and the graphics are not substantially better than any of the games i listed

Even if they optimized it really well, I'm not sure you'd be able to run it :/. This game does a lot


Guy comes on for some help and all he gets is condescending answers. If its any consolation Lars my rig far exceeds the min spec, in fact i'm running Sli with GTX 760's 16gb of ram, and i'm having lag issues with this unpolished turd of a game:mad: Wheres the ubisoft response?

This game's really inconsistent, some people run it with 750 Tis, and some people can't with 780 Tis :( It might be a problem with SLI, but I think they'll fix your issue in patch 4

I don't think we should even be referencing the system requirements anymore, they're very inaccurate. I play with much less than a 680 and i5 2500K, and I can play with ultra high textures (I compromise with the FPS, but 25 doesn't bother me) 900p

Majjiks
12-16-2014, 11:25 AM
eventually even quad titan systems will be old and unable to play a game but until that point they will never have had a problem running a game.... all our systems get old at some point and no longer meet requirements :(

Having looked at the dell studio xps 7100 all of your specs are below minimum by quite a distance. I think other games out now will still play but you may find more and more games will struggle. I assume you have turned all settings to as low as possible or off and lowered the resolution as low as you can ?

CPU: Intel Core i7-3770K (Ivy Bridge-DT, E1)
3500 MHz (35.00x100.0) @ 1608 MHz (16.00x100.5)
Motherboard: ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77
Chipset: Intel Z77 (Panther Point DH)
Memory: 16384 MBytes @ 804 MHz, 11.0-11-11-28
- 8192 MB PC12800 DDR3 SDRAM - Super Talent SUPERTALENT02
- 8192 MB PC12800 DDR3 SDRAM - Super Talent SUPERTALENT02
Graphics: ASUS GTX660-DC2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660, 2048 MB GDDR5 SDRAM
Graphics: ASUS GTX660-DC2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660, 2048 MB GDDR5 SDRAM
Drive: M4-CT064M4SSD2, 62.5 GB, Serial ATA 6Gb/s @ 6Gb/s
Drive: V4-CT256V4SSD2, 250.1 GB, Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Drive: Hitachi HDS721010CLA332, 976.8 GB, Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Drive: SAMSUNG SSD PM800 2.5" 128GB, 125.0 GB, Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Drive: WDC WD10EARS-00Y5B1, 976.8 GB, Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Drive: ATAPI iHAS124 D, DVD+R DL
Drive: WTWT SHIF49QBC, BD-ROM
Sound: Intel Panther Point PCH - High Definition Audio Controller [C1]
Sound: NVIDIA GK106 - High Definition Audio Controller
Sound: NVIDIA GK106 - High Definition Audio Controller
Network: Intel 82579V (Lewisville) Gigabit Network Connection
OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (x64) Build 7601

I find this game is not playable because I can't even get past the intro. Trying to chase down the assassin and it just systematically goes off course by itself. I'll be running in a straight line then next thing I know I'm heading off to the right or left it's random. There is a small frame jump and I'm all of a sudden going the wrong way. Every once in a while I see the guys hair go stupid as well like he streams his hair backwards this happens even at low settings. The 2 Asus cards are in SLI mode. Never had any of this happen in any game I've ever played. I hope they come out with a patch to fix this I love this series so far.

eelnico09
12-16-2014, 11:40 AM
Game is not unplayable, your pc is ****ty, what did u expect with a 6670? LOL


I play at pretty much constan 60fps with a 3570k @4.3Ghz and a gtx 970.

Problem is that people are using MSAA instead of FXAA, and here's proff of FXAA being totally good and giving great performance:

FXAA:

http://i781.photobucket.com/albums/yy91/eelnico09/FXAA_zps4477ce01.png

MSAAx8

http://i781.photobucket.com/albums/yy91/eelnico09/MSAAX8_zps19444492.png

Wrath2Zero
12-16-2014, 12:06 PM
The pre-sets are just rubbish, inflating the requirements because of MSAA, it's a dirty little trick they like to play and then claim consoles run at high-ultra.