PDA

View Full Version : Still 20 FPS -_-



Zarmr
11-29-2014, 04:25 PM
Hello, I want to ask... I have FX-8320, R9-280X, 8 GB RAM and 7 OS... and WHY it is locked at 15-25 fps? No matter what settings ultra or low... still 15-25 FPS. Three patches are out and I am still waiting... pleas donť tell me "buy nvidia" or somthing like this... This rig beats minimum HW. So I didn't bought AC:Unity Gold Edition I just bought some free game from Ubisoft... Is that right ? I don't want to play game at 20 FPS when I should be able play at 50...

Sorry for my bad English...

helvetiimiles
11-29-2014, 06:52 PM
You'll never be able to play with 50 fps wit minimum hardware requirement. Not even at low.

Zarmr
11-29-2014, 07:21 PM
Hmm 8-core CPU overclocked at 4.2 GHz and R9-280X overclocked too, I think that this is not potato... I beat even recommended... As I can see, you has no knowledge about hardware... And than, how it is possible that most of people runs it on lower quality hw or what about the thing that it is absolutely same with ultra or low settings? I asked for some intelligent answer. Not for same ******** told by someone who knows nothing about this things. Maybe this is no best possible rig but still pretty good.

helvetiimiles
11-29-2014, 07:59 PM
Well, my english is bad too, but you have o old (or lowprice) machine.
btw, the FX-8320 is a Quad Core, not 8.

compare here with a 3 years old i7 processor:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1782&cmp[]=903

you can still blame me, i'm not a pro.
but im sure there is not much they can do.

pesonen789
11-29-2014, 08:28 PM
Well, my english is bad too, but you have o old (or lowprice) machine.
btw, the FX-8320 is a Quad Core, not 8.

compare here with a 3 years old i7 processor:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1782&cmp[]=903

you can still blame me, i'm not a pro.
but im sure there is not much they can do.

You smoked something ? FX-8320 is 8-core... http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/index.php?pid=1143&cpu=FX-8320 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8320+Eight-Core and yes... i7 is better... and 4x more expensive...

pesonen789
11-29-2014, 08:33 PM
Old and lowprice ? Haha you are funny bro. It isn't best but it is very good. I bet that he can play most of games at ultra with no problem.

Jdeadevil
11-29-2014, 08:40 PM
The main thing stopping me from playing the game is my Raedon HD 7800. My CPU (AMD FX(tm)-6300 Six-Core Processor) can go up to 4.1ghz with turbo boost.

Afflictio.on
11-29-2014, 08:48 PM
You smoked something ? FX-8320 is 8-core... http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/index.php?pid=1143&cpu=FX-8320 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8320+Eight-Core and yes... i7 is better... and 4x more expensive...

uhm i think fx 8320 is an 8 core with 6 cores working and 2 sub cores, if im right. Though the game hasnt been touch as for graphics and optimisation, only fixed bugs etc.

helvetiimiles
11-29-2014, 08:59 PM
You smoked something ? FX-8320 is 8-core... http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/index.php?pid=1143&cpu=FX-8320 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8320+Eight-Core and yes... i7 is better... and 4x more expensive...

No of Cores: 4 (2 logical cores per physical)
in your link above. taht mean you have 4 cores + 4 virtual cores

i dont know why the name is "eight-core", pearhaps AMD do something diffrent in the names.

Skipan00
11-29-2014, 09:02 PM
You smoked something ? FX-8320 is 8-core... http://www.game-debate.com/hardware/index.php?pid=1143&cpu=FX-8320 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8320+Eight-Core and yes... i7 is better... and 4x more expensive...

Acuatlly he is kinda right.
AMDs bulldozer design was a atempt to copy intels hyperthreating technology.

With HT 1 physical core provides 2 logical cores. During a cache miss (core runing iddle cause its wating for RAM data) the second logical core+ increases the efficency.

AMD tried the same by using 1 Module that consists of 2 physical cores which comes with a problems (google it if you're interested).
A older Phenom 2 with 6 cores is actually faster then a Bulldozer with 3 modules and 6 cores at the same clockrate.

Bulldozer is a massive fail and while 8 cores it actually correct it's marketing ********. Talking of 4 modules is adequate.

RVSage
11-29-2014, 09:07 PM
Ubi told in plain English that FPS issues will be fixed in patch 4... Dunno why still posting such threads for rant.. If after patch 4 if issues persist you can rant.. But not when they have said patch 4 will fix it... duuuuh

Blackred689
11-30-2014, 12:29 AM
While the 8320 is not the best CPU on the planet its certainly good enough. Would place below the 8350
http://uppix.com/f-Assassins_Creed_547a540300180cf6.jpg

From all my time looking at CPUs, in a worst case scenario an AMD should still be able to do 30-40fps in a CPU heavy game

I would look at your GPU drivers and settings, make sure your not using MSAA. In the GPU bench MSAA brought it down to 20fps in Unity on a 280x. Also see what 1.4 patch does.

Frag_Maniac
11-30-2014, 01:24 AM
Old and lowprice ? Haha you are funny bro. It isn't best but it is very good. I bet that he can play most of games at ultra with no problem.Not to twist your undies even tighter, but a 280x is really just a 7970 like I have, which, yes, is pretty old now, and min spec for Unity

It doesn't excuse Ubi's crappy coding, but it IS min spec. I'm starting to get huge artifacts now as my game session grows longer, even just on Murder Mystery missions like Killed by Science. My CPU is a i7 950 and I have 8GB RAM. I can handle most any other game fine except for another of Ubi's crap coded tittles, FC4, which is a stuttering mess even with good frame rates.

Ubi spent over 3 and a half years making this game and it plays like a one year rush job. Ubi always have pretty good game concepts, and they even implement most of them well, but they're so crappy at the tech and QC end, esp on PC, they ought to let someone more capable develop for them.

SeifSamir1
11-30-2014, 02:23 AM
the new patch .. did nothing