Assassin’s Creed Unity: Early User Talks About PC Performance, Low vs. Ultra Image Comparison

GearNuke: "Assassin’s Creed Unity is apparently out in the wild for the PS4, Xbox One and now the PC. If the early impressions are anything to go by, this doesn’t sound like a good port on PC."

[kiz2694]

this is straight from GAF

i7 4790k @ 4GHz
GTX 970 (Gigabyte G1)
8 GB System Ram

Game is now set to Ultra settings (max settings) with PCSS shadows.
1080p.
FXAA

http://www.twitch.tv/badgro...
no Vsync.

The game runs at 40 - 50 fps in Paris (ground level free running) with drops to 35 fps (very high npc density). CPU load is at 60%. But keep in mind the guy is streaming without any kind of special hardware. FPS without streaming/recording should be higher.

60 fps with mixed high/very high settings + high shadows instead of PCSS shadows etc. seems to be possible

[yewles1]

This is the biggest mess of optimization yet, it's ridiculous.

[ABizzel1]

This is getting ridiculous.

It seems like they're trying to force people to buy new rigs. I was thinking about selling my 760's and buying a 970 now, and one later, but I'm starting to think I might as well stick with my 760's, since games are so unoptimized that I need all the performance gains I can get, until I get both.

[starchild]

That's pretty reasonable performance. About what I expected. It seems pretty well optimized if CPU load is only at 60% and isn't bottlenecking anything. Of course this game was going to be demanding on the GPU side of things. Running all settings at max--especially the PC exclusive features--is going to put a huge load on the graphics card.

[Magicite]

problem with ubisoft games is that they put very huge load on a single cpu core while other cores are not being utilised, also gpu isnt being fully loaded.

[Plagasx]

Jesus christ.... Ubisoft with a badly optimized PC game... No f&^king surprise there..

[Psychotica]

Satan, that's true..

[chaldo]

Greenmangaming.com sent out keys ahead of it's release date.

Anyway, I don't have a "super" PC, but this is running pretty damn well i must say!

Everything high with fxaa and vsync. Haven't experienced the "stutters" that people mention.

[Plagasx]

Whats your setup??

[chaldo]

@Plagasx

Windows 7 ultimate
GTX 670
i5 2500k sandy bridge (ik im still stuck on 2nd gen lol)
SSD 256GB
8GB RAM

My brother has a different setup and it runs fine as well:

gtx 770
i7 haswell
8GB RAM
SSD 256gb

[MLP_Littlepip]

So, you have close to what I have in my PC, yet I get maybe 25fps average with everything on Low and downscaled to 900p (1080p being my native). What is your definition of "pretty damn well"? Because I get close to unplayable frame-rate at all times, not including the 10-15fps cutscenes.

[Sir_Simba]

I have realised something, We gamer are insane
We see these f**kers do the samething everytime and we always expect a different result.
Ubisoft has been doing this for a long and people always expect something to change.

[Aleithian]

Well, I've yet to buy Watch Dogs and I won't be getting this for awhile.

I'm done buying their games early.

[pumpactionpimp]

I've said the same thing for years about ea. I bought far cry 3 for PC through steam last year. I had to lower the settings dramatically to get it to run at consistent frame rates. I had the same problem with far cry 2. Mind you my PC isn't a $4000 beast, but it's mid to high end setup. I saw people complaining about other ubisoft games for PC, and have done the same thing I do with ea... I don't buy their games.

People need to learn when you want a game to change, or a company to fix things, you need to tell them with your cash. Buying a new game just to have it, then complaining about it, just shows the developers they don't have to change anything to make a buck. So they never will.

[sungam3d]

What? Ubisoft making a bad PC port?

LIES! LIES AND SLANDER!

/sarcasm

[aquamala]

bad PC port? is it running only at 900p 30 fps on PC like on consoles? what am i missing?

[starchild]

Certain PC gamers just expect every game to run at 60fps on their mid-range PCs. It's ridiculous.

Unity looks way better than Shadow of Mordor, for example, but it doesn't seem to be drastically more demanding. I can't max out Shadow of Mordor and get 60fps, despite the fact the game is a cross gen game and doesn't even look THAT impressive.

It's like some people want to bitch no matter what. They bitch if developers don't push our PCs, but then if a developer does make a game with cutting edge graphics (with exclusive graphical features) that does push our PCs they bitch that they can't get 60fps. It's a lose-lose situation for developers.

[Aleithian]

Seriously, why 5000 NPCs? That is completely unnecessary for any event other than, say, the storming of the Bastille.

[starchild]

@Aleithian

Speak for yourself. I've been wanting to see things like this in games for a long time. This game is the most "next gen" looking game I've seen yet. Not just a shinier version of a last gen game like most games we've got so far this gen.

@Wyesvin

That's patently false. Far Cry 3, Splinter Cell Blacklist and AC4 all looked significantly better on PC than on the consoles. I had the PS4 version of AC4 until I sold it when I got the PC version and realized it looked so much better and still ran better too. Far Cry 3 and Splinter Cell Blacklist on PC are like a half generation ahead of the PS3 and 360 versions. Ubisoft is one of the few developers that actually bothers to make their PC versions significantly better than their console versions.

[Aleithian]

You might misunderstand my comment - I'm not sure. My point is that in a game like this, there are very rarely any events that would require the rendering of 5000 NPCs. Even a large event like an execution could use between 1000-1500 and still fill a public square. The most obvious case of an event needing 5000 is the storming of the Bastille.

I agree with you that, all things being equal, the ability to render 5000 active NPCs on screen is great. My point is that it's entirely unnecessary in a game where the vast majority of the time is spent running around streets or rooftops. At any given time in game, your field of view will likely include just 100 people, if not far less.

So in other words, cutting other aspects of the game, like framerate, for the sake of rendering 5000 NPCs on a small handful of occasions in the story makes no sense to me.

[Wyesvin]

Everybody should know that Ubisoft will not make the game look and run better on the pc than the ps4 or the xbone despite what nvidia says.

[bixxel]

I'll do the most daring thing possible.I did it with Watch Dogs.I'll try and run AC Unity in 4 GB RAM,Core i3 with and AMD RADEON HD 5450.I know I'll get a beautiful slideshow or a big black screen with a memory error message or worse.

[Warbutt]

Depends on your build really... I do have to admit the average machine does get wrecked pretty hard.

Here is my gameplay so far I only do intro commentary. Running i7 3770k, 16gb ram, and gtx 980 on 1440p maxed settings between 40-60fps. I did have to change my codec after the first few videos to smooth it out and get a little better quality so watching Sequence 2 Memory 2 or 3 and after runs very smooth and great quality =)

www.youtube.com/playlist?list =PLe80Ox7i8ZfcvsiDpKz_iSG_WfUFW -zOc