PDA

View Full Version : Can my computer run Unity?



OSantaClownO
11-14-2014, 01:57 PM
GPU : GeForce GT 640M
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3330S CPU @ 2.70GHz
Memory: 8GB RAM
Operating System: Winodws 7 Ultimate

Can my computer run Unity?
Not looking for something fancy, only to play it on low settings.

Tully__
11-14-2014, 02:07 PM
Laptops are not supported. It may run, but there's no guarantee. It should be noted that even for a desktop you're well below minimum requirements on GPU and CPU speed.

OSantaClownO
11-14-2014, 02:22 PM
It is a desktop. Unfortunately I preordered Unity already.
I wondered if my computer is already too old or is it a problem with the game.
I was able to run Black Flag quite okay. But it seems that my computer is not able to handle Unity.

Thanks for the answer.

TheSNE4K
11-14-2014, 02:42 PM
if you have already ordered it, any answer wont really make a difference at this point. If you put everything to low, and turn some stuff off like the AA, you may be able to run it, but who knows how well it will run.

People with very powerfull machines still have problems running Unity at the moment so technically nothing is gonna run it perfectly, especially a older machine. Lets hope patches fix the performace.

Tully__
11-14-2014, 03:17 PM
GPU : GeForce GT 640M...


It is a desktop...
Sorry, conflicting information. 640M is the designation for a mobile (laptop) GPU.

OSantaClownO
11-15-2014, 10:22 PM
Sorry, conflicting information. 640M is the designation for a mobile (laptop) GPU.

I'm quite sure my computer is a Desktop.
And NVIDIA GeForce Experience says at "My Rig" that my GPU is a GeForce GT 640M.

Eymerich
11-15-2014, 10:38 PM
I'm quite sure my computer is a Desktop.
And NVIDIA GeForce Experience says at "My Rig" that my GPU is a GeForce GT 640M.

Then Experience is detecting it wrong. The "M" in GT 640M, indeed, stays for "Mobile". All of the nvidia GPUs with an "M" are laptop cards, which aren't compatible with desktop pcs.

GunnarGunderson
11-15-2014, 10:40 PM
a NASA super computer couldn't run Unity

Tully__
11-16-2014, 12:58 AM
a NASA super computer couldn't run Unity
Of course they couldn't, they don't meet the operating system requirements. They don't run Windows on NASA super computers.

Drummerboy1962
11-16-2014, 02:12 AM
GPU : GeForce GT 640M
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3330S CPU @ 2.70GHz
Memory: 8GB RAM
Operating System: Winodws 7 Ultimate

Can my computer run Unity?
Not looking for something fancy, only to play it on low settings. This game at the moment cant even run properly on low settings with 2 gtx690's a rampage 4 motherboard,a 3960x cpu at 3.7ghz 32gig of ram 1200 watt power supply and a 480gig dedicated gaming ssd.. This game is a total failure and so are the makers of this.Release now fix later.Dont waste your money save it and buy shadow of mordor and you will see what i mean.

gamertaboo
11-16-2014, 05:39 AM
This game at the moment cant even run properly on low settings with 2 gtx690's a rampage 4 motherboard,a 3960x cpu at 3.7ghz 32gig of ram 1200 watt power supply and a 480gig dedicated gaming ssd.. This game is a total failure and so are the makers of this.Release now fix later.Dont waste your money save it and buy shadow of mordor and you will see what i mean.

The game was running great on my computer before patch 1.2. After the patch it stutters ever few minutes, they actually made it worse if you can believe tha.... oh who am I kidding, of course you'd believe that.

FX-8150
EVGA GTX 770 SC 4gb
8GB 1600mhz ram
Win 8.1
Installed and ran off Sata3 SSD

Had the game on Custom/High settings, with HBAO+, FXAA, game ran at a pretty solid 45 fps. It's not 60, but it was smooth enough to enjoy. The fact that they made it worse is more infuriating than how demanding it was to begin with. I know some people can't even play, but still, it's ridiculous.

But to answer your question OP, no, it would most likely not work for ya. The lowest I've seen anyone say that they can play it with 30fps is a GTX 560ti, and even that is a stretch.

playlisting
11-16-2014, 05:46 AM
A simple no. You'd be better off selling it.

Amghammon
11-16-2014, 08:17 AM
Coulsd XFX Radeon HD 7850 with i3570k run this? It doesn't meet the minimum requirements, but it ain't too far away I think?

Eymerich
11-21-2014, 03:00 PM
Sorry, conflicting information. 640M is the designation for a mobile (laptop) GPU.

I think i figured out it.
He probably has an AIO pc. All-In-One are basically laptops in terms of hardware.

dericslab
11-21-2014, 03:50 PM
I see people mention specs and Windows versions like Ultimate or Pro, but remember that the edition also needs to be 64bit for it to run.

I agree with Eymerich - I have seen some AIO units mention the M on graphics card designations also. Very odd that a PC would list it though.
(You can also check under device manager to see the card model)

Drummerboy - The only problem I see with your PC is the model graphics card. I had a client running it on medium settings on a GTX 660, so it should be able to run on your system.
A bigger graphics card would be more beneficial for you though.

GrungePunk
11-21-2014, 06:04 PM
This game at the moment cant even run properly on low settings with 2 gtx690's a rampage 4 motherboard,a 3960x cpu at 3.7ghz 32gig of ram 1200 watt power supply and a 480gig dedicated gaming ssd.. This game is a total failure and so are the makers of this.Release now fix later.Dont waste your money save it and buy shadow of mordor and you will see what i mean.

How many cores is that CPU you mentioned? I'm going to assume it's an AMD since it isn't an Intel class I recognize. (Intel man myself) I must say though that your computer is pretty beastly. The 32 gigs of RAM may be a bit excessive currently but nonetheless it's a really good setup. I'm running a mid range setup myself. GTX 760 OC 2GB as main, GTX 560 OC 1GB as dedicated PhysX (which doesn't seem to make a difference in this game since it runs on Havok although I did hear someplace before launch they were going to be using PhysX so IDK) I'm eventually looking to SLI the 760 in the future and keep the 560 as a dedicated. What kind of performance boosts do you get in most games (not this one) with two cards using SLI as opposed to one on it's own? The rest of my rig is only 8 GB RAM, an i5 clocked at 3.4 ghz that runs at 3.8 ghz because of turbo boost, and some really old PSU that's only like 700 or 800 watts and has been causing voltage spikes on my graph in my GPU Tweak utility from ASUS. (Probably need to replace that before it fries my mobo and graphics card.) Oh and I have 6 TBs in SATA drives but unfortunately no SSD. Is it worth the price tag?

Anyways something I have noticed is that no matter whether somebody has 2 760s, 1 760, or no matter what card they have they still all generally get the same framerate in game. I actually did a little testing and discovered that the game runs the same at the lowest resolution on low settings as it does on 1080p with everything on high other than the AO and AA. With the AO and AA turned all the way up I'm lucky if I get 15 FPS but turning them to SSAO and FXAA respectively I stay above 30 FPS most of the time except in videos. The problem is that even on low with a much lower resolution I can't get much above 30 FPS either. Like 33 is where it tops out while playing. If I walk up to a wall on either low or high I can get up to 40 FPS while staring at the wall. The second I look away from the wall it drops back down. Now I have been building gaming computers, PC gaming, and the likes since I was 12. I am now 28. (Luckily I had a father that worked with computers that helped me get started young. From there I taught myself.) But that entire time the only time I have seen lowering the graphics settings not make an FPS difference was when I tried to put my GTX 560 into my friends computer after getting my 760 so that he could play Planetside 2 online with me. It ran fine on Medium on my computer but unfortunately I was using an i5 and his computer was using a Core 2 Quad with a much lower clock speed. Same amount of RAM as me. Now we put it on Medium settings at 1080p which would have been running at 60 FPS on my rig when I had that card in it and he was getting around 25 - 30 FPS. So we tried lowering the graphics settings and the resolutions to as low as they would go. Turning down the view distance. The whole nine yards. Low and behold he was still only getting 25 - 30 FPS MAX! Not only that but when I play Planetside 2 on my laptop with my 840M I notice that playing it at 720p on High the FPS counter kept showing two things to the left of it. It kept showing [GPU] but then it would change back and forth between that and [CPU] as I played. My friends computer never showed [GPU] and instead just displayed [CPU] nonstop. So I did a bit of research and discovered that it displays what's holding back your framerate. The fact that the [CPU] was being displayed constant meant his CPU was bottlenecking and not even a GTX 980 would have improved his graphics. So I told him he can have my GTX 560 to use for free once he upgrades his CPU which in turn means upgrading his mobo and RAM as well. He's on a budget and I've been shopping around for him. I noticed they have some amazing deals on Newegg for AMD dual core CPUs that run at 4.0ghz and I can't help but think that for the price he might want to ditch the crappy quad core he's got in there and use the dual core that has more than twice the clock speed. I'd be interested to hear whether you think that would be a smart move or whether you think he should wait and get a better quad core? I know at one point games weren't even using all 4 cores but I think that time is long gone so I'm just wondering what others think.

But anyways. Back to the reason for my reply. You have a beast of a rig and I have a mid range rig. Our CPUs however(assuming yours is a QUAD core) are similar. Yours is obviously a bit better if it's running at that clock speed without Turbo Boost or whatever the AMD equivalent is. But even so your computer should way outperform mine in this game although I'd be willing to wager that if you used my exact same settings you'd probably end up with the same frame rate within 5 FPS of mine. I think the atrocious performance we're all experiencing with this game (minus the cutscenes which is just because they are using too many polygons for their cutscene character models. They should have prerendered CGI cutscenes like Shadow of Mordor did. Or like they did for that scene at the beginning right after you get done playing as the Templar.) But other than that the thing that is slowing everybody down in game is the CPU usage. Has nothing to do with the graphics cards (unless they're under spec which then performance would be worse) but at a certain point everybody is bottlenecking on their CPU no matter what card they have. That's why we're hearing from people with 980s that are getting the same FPS as my 760. Ubisoft went too big and tried to make the city and the NPCs to vast. The amount of people in the game along with enemies probably requires so much CPU to process the AI that it's not even funny. Ubisoft said in a post that crowd sizes weren't affecting performance. They never said that crowd and NPC AI wasn't though. I think a majority of the bottlenecking comes down to poorly optimized and coded AI for the NPCs in the game. Admittedly I could very well be wrong about the cause but I'm relatively certain I'm dead on about the bottlenecking. AC Unity should not be bottlenecking i7 processors. If it had bottlenecked the processors in the XBOX One and the PS4 which forced them to cap their frame rate at 30 FPS then that would be one thing since they all have matching hardware from one console to the next. But to bottleneck quad core CPUs between 3 and 4 ghz (which is the average CPU currently) and then release it for PC was a horrible idea because people go and drop a ton of money on a nice graphics card only to discover that their CPU that has worked just fine for every other next gen game (Ran Alien Iso, The Evil Within, Shadow of Mordor, etc at 1200p Max Settings just fine on mine) is holding them back which is a huge kick in the nuts. Until they find a way to fix the game's CPU usage all of our graphics cards won't be able to work to their full potential. I imagine 6 or 8 core processors might have a better time running this game but who's going to get one of those at top dollar JUST to play this game when the one they currently have works perfectly fine for every other next gen title that's come out for PC recently? Ubisoft tried to make too big and too advanced a game in too short a time. They were trying to wow us with their first next gen games while at the same time rushing them out the door to make money. Had they taken their time the game would run better. Had they not tried to do so much with so little time the game would run better. The truly unfortunate thing though is that most of the people complaining about the game running horribly don't even know it's because it's bottlenecking pretty much every quad core CPU on the market currently and that they end up just thinking the game is made poorly. While that's also the case the true culprit is most likely bottlenecking CPUs dragging the rest of the computer's hardware down.

And just a heads up. I had my friend install his FarCry 4 on my computer to test it out using his uPlay account (to see how it ran since I got burned preordering AC Unity, Also for the record it's perfectly legal since my friend was over and not playing it at the same time at his house and it was uninstalled before he left.) and it runs just as crummy as Unity and doesn't look nearly as good even maxed out. It's a good looking game but I've seen better looking next gen games on PC that run a heck of a lot better on my setup. You better believe that I uninstalled it after only 30 minutes of having it on my computer. Personally wish they released demos still especially given that these last 2 next gen games were practically released as early access without the label but I'm just glad I was able to determine that FarCry 4 was not worth giving them another $60 dollars. I personally think that Ubisoft only cares about making the games work upon release for consoles and that PC is just an after thought for an extra buck since they assume the PC version will get pirated like crazy. Why dedicate time and effort custom tailoring a version of the game for PC if it's not going to sell as well? I mean they'll make it but they're obviously going to do the bare minimum to get it working. They're not going to optimize it for PC. Unfortunately though Ubisoft has even been screwing up their console releases though because of their yearly release schedule and because, like Creative Assembly did with Alien Isolation, they're testing on more powerful developer consoles. At least Creative Assembly took their time to work out a lot of the bugs. I hear the console releases were a mess and the videos had horrible frame rates just like Unity. The difference though is that Alien Iso ran smooth as butter maxed out on my PC and barely had any bugs though and Unity runs horrible and has a ton of bugs. Apparently the Shadow of Mordor developer was the only one of these next gen developers to realize you can make CGI videos that look so much like in game videos that the difference isn't noticeable unless you're monitoring your GPU usage while playing. (It's the only way I was able to tell.) and that way you get a solid 60 FPS throughout the video even using higher poly models that look better than the in game models like AC Unity does. I get with AC Unity there are custom outfits and weapons to take into account so CGI videos is hard to do. But they didn't even bother to do it in Versailles before we had the ability to customize our loadout. Heck they could make CGI and just snap back to in game whenever it's showing Arno. There are ways around it. Or they could pull an AC3 and just show him in his default outfit in every single video no matter what outfit or color he's wearing in game. I personally would prefer to see the default outfit in every video (and possibly a different version of the video for each outfit color so it's not as noticeable that it's not actually the outfit he's wearing in game.) to watching every video at 14 FPS just so I can see Arno in the custom outfit I have him in. Just my 2 cents though.

GrungePunk
11-21-2014, 06:22 PM
I see people mention specs and Windows versions like Ultimate or Pro, but remember that the edition also needs to be 64bit for it to run.

I agree with Eymerich - I have seen some AIO units mention the M on graphics card designations also. Very odd that a PC would list it though.
(You can also check under device manager to see the card model)

Drummerboy - The only problem I see with your PC is the model graphics card. I had a client running it on medium settings on a GTX 660, so it should be able to run on your system.
A bigger graphics card would be more beneficial for you though.

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-690-vs-GeForce-GTX-660

Drummerboy's graphics cards at $1000 a piece on Newegg and he has two of them in SLI. His cards alone should chew up this game and spit it out. Just one of his 690s probably outperforms even my 760 OC or a 780. In fact let me go check.

My 760 OC vs. a one 690
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-690-vs-ASUS-GeForce-GTX-760

Just one of his cards outperforms my overclocked 760 easily

780 vs 690
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-780-vs-GeForce-GTX-690

This one is a lot closer. It still holds up well against the 780 though.

You have to remember that the first number whether it's a 600 series or 700 series has to do with generation of the graphics card. When it was made, what features it supports, shader models, directx versions, etc.

The last two numbers whether it be 40, 60, 80 (the common ones for GeForce) or any of the other numbers has to do with the tier of the card within that generation. So a 580 is going to run better than a 660. A 660 is probably going to run better than a 740 and so on. The only problem is if you go back far enough you lose DirectX 11 support and some games won't run. But seeing as how he has the top tier cards of the 600 series and two of them at that he should be able to run this game maxed out especially with whatever else he has in his comp.

And if you were talking about the original poster OSantaClownO and accidentally listed Drummerboy as the person you were responding to then my apologies. You're right about SantaClown's card MAYBE running it if it was him you were talking about and if that is the case then i just wasted a ton of time writing up this response... :mad:

pureplayin2
11-21-2014, 06:36 PM
This game at the moment cant even run properly on low settings with 2 gtx690's a rampage 4 motherboard,a 3960x cpu at 3.7ghz 32gig of ram 1200 watt power supply and a 480gig dedicated gaming ssd.. This game is a total failure and so are the makers of this.Release now fix later.Dont waste your money save it and buy shadow of mordor and you will see what i mean.

Sorry, but it runs great on my pc so I don't know what you're talking about. So it must be something on your end. I5-4670k, GTX 970, 8GB ram.. Maxed out settings with fxaa I get 50-60fps (closer to 60 and 60 on the rooftops) most of the time. In crowds I get mid to high 40's... If i choose msaax4 I get 40's and in the crowd I get high 30's.. So you are wrong with what you are saying.