PDA

View Full Version : Some positive comments on GPU usage



b00gjuice
11-13-2014, 05:34 AM
The game looks fantastic. I love how my GPU is actually @ 100% while playing this game and uses nearly all of my Vram. The cpu threads seem well balanced among the cores. With AC4, one core would be at 100% with my GPU @ appx 60%. A lot of players complained about that last year, it seems Ubisoft fixed it for ACU, so great job.

I can run the game at 1440P on Ultra with AA off and get appx 45-55 FPS using a gsync monitor.

I know a lot of PC players are unhappy with the FPS and I hope Ubisoft can help speed things up for them.

My system:

GPU: Titan Black
CPU: 4930K six core
Ram: 16G PC1600

MrFisse
11-13-2014, 05:41 AM
Furmark also uses all your gpu power. Does not look very good because of that. Getting under 60fps with a titan without aa would not make me happy. But i guess i am happy that your are happy... The cpu threading is nice though !

mcketten
11-13-2014, 05:49 AM
I think this actually may be part of many people's problems. For me, with a GPU that, according to them, does not meet minimum requirements - the game is also rarely, if ever, using it at close to 100%.

It doesn't make much sense to me. It is also sad that there is no SLI support whatsoever.

dbgager
11-13-2014, 05:51 AM
People who purchased Titans for $1000+ where just throwing money to the wind. Currently a $330 GFX 970 will outperform them as well a GTX 780 ti ( $500) and a GFX 980 ($550).

MrFisse
11-13-2014, 06:04 AM
People who purchased Titans for $1000+ where just throwing money to the wind. Currently a $330 GFX 970 will outperform them as well a GTX 780 ti ( $500) and a GFX 980 ($550).

Well then you cannot buy any high end graphics card. They all get replaced within a year or two. Same thing with expensive cars (expect the limited production runs). If you want the best for the moment you will have to pay top dollar (or whatever currency you use). Overpriced perhaps but the best stuff often is...

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-13-2014, 07:10 AM
The game looks fantastic. I love how my GPU is actually @ 100% while playing this game and uses nearly all of my Vram. The cpu threads seem well balanced among the cores. With AC4, one core would be at 100% with my GPU @ appx 60%. A lot of players complained about that last year, it seems Ubisoft fixed it for ACU, so great job.

I can run the game at 1440P on Ultra with AA off and get appx 45-55 FPS using a gsync monitor.

I know a lot of PC players are unhappy with the FPS and I hope Ubisoft can help speed things up for them.

My system:

GPU: Titan Black
CPU: 4930K six core
Ram: 16G PC1600

From what I've noticed, the main issues with performance, for me at least, stem from the Nvidia hair effects (maybe cloth too, not sure) on the GPU side, and the lighting/environmental effects on the CPU side of things. I've noticed that, when using eagle vision, that the game tends to run a bit better. From what I can tell, the lighting effects are reduced when using eagle vision.

Other than that, it's the rendering of all of the buildings and the large crowds. Settings to reduce the quality of the building meshes in the distance, reduce the number of people in crowds (by removing npcs from the exterior and having much smaller crowds), and reduce the lighting effects and maybe even shadows would help boost performance for those who meet only the minimum requirements.

AWKNiggi
11-13-2014, 02:03 PM
With my GTX 650 Ti 1GB Vram at 720p, my GPU Usage is only 30% :/

b00gjuice
11-13-2014, 06:53 PM
People who purchased Titans for $1000+ where just throwing money to the wind. Currently a $330 GFX 970 will outperform them as well a GTX 780 ti ( $500) and a GFX 980 ($550).

No, I love my Titan Black GPU and its 6GB vram and I love how Shadows of Mordor and ACU use nearly all my Vram. I don't think the GTX 970; though a great price/perf card it is, can outperform my Titan Black in ACU.

My point in the original post is that Ubisoft fixed a problem with CPU/GPU usage that was in AC4 where one CPU core would max out at 100% usage holding back a high-end GPU and that this was very positive for me.

pleb87
11-13-2014, 06:59 PM
http://s1.postimg.org/8mi1afzin/Screenshot_2014_11_13_17_55_58.png

Sorry but Titan Black is under 970, 780ti and 980.

Johny-Al-Knox
11-13-2014, 07:06 PM
Yeah gpu usage is nice. My problem is i guess that i am CPU bound. got 2x 970's. So when im city with alot of ppl, my CPU usage is 100% on all cores. And i cant use all that sweet gpu power. And i drop to 45 ish fps. Wish i had dat G-sync monitor!

Got 3570k 4,2GHz btw.. :/

b00gjuice
11-13-2014, 07:18 PM
I'm not familiar with pass mark, is it a synthetic benchmark? If so, then this is irrelevant. Try Shadow of Mordor with the Ultra HD texture pack @ 1440p and compare to GTX 970 4GB including minimum fps. Also, I don't mean to disrespect to your opinion but I would rather my original topic not be hi-jacked. I agree that high-end video cards will eventually be replaced by low-end models that are cheaper so hopefully that settles it.

dbgager
11-13-2014, 07:22 PM
Not exactly true since the GFX 970 is current generation, the 3rd fastest GPU that exists and has a suggested retail price of $329..

dbgager
11-13-2014, 07:27 PM
Read some reviews. It definetelly outperforms your card. Not by much but it does. I would say about equal. Here are some benchmarks if your interested.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

We are talking also about the difference beween $330 and $1200 for perfomance that is nearly equal.. And a GFX 980- clearly outperfoms a Titan..and its only $550. ALl I am saying is NVIdia took people for a ride with that GPU. Now they have wised up and the current generation of NVIdia GPUs is much less expensive. Top of the line now is a $500-$600 purchase.