Assassin's Creed Unity system requirements (Confirmed)

Keep in mind that the 4 GHz CPU in question is the FX-8350, which is a subpar gaming CPU for anything that's not highly multi-threaded, in which case it performs about on-par with an i5/i7 underlocked to 2.5 GHz...when it's overclocked to 4.5 GHz. The lower-clocked Phenom II alongside it in the minspec should be very telling.

One of the best soundtracks too, and alas it was also an example of the typical Ubi$oft optimization unless you ran the DX9 path.

 

The CPU requirements don't surprise me. I expect 4 [preferably physical] cores at 3-3.3GHz to be the norm PC requirement during this console generation.


...the GPU requirement is too close to the new mobile GPU for comfort.

 

I expect higher CPU requirements for stronger GPUs, but technically that game should be runnable at 900p 30fps high settings on a underclocked GTX 480 with an 8-core APU at 1.8GHz.

If you're going to be using a 680, a 3.3GHz i5 should be required to push enough frames... but for min spec that's obviously a joke lol. But then again, I've been singing these songs about Ubi**** for a long time.

 

Going to Tom's charts... performance-wise its 8-33% in games... and 31% in AC4 according to Google. Maybe you are quoting synthetics?

Still, in comparison to the more typical difference between min and recommended, 30-50% is a narrow margin.

 

My bad, 50% at most.

290X vs. 7970

780 vs. 680

Could mean that Unity isn't very scalable (another sign of poor optimization), so good luck running it if you don't meet at least the beefy minimum requirements.

FYI, laptop system requirements for Assassin's Creed Unity (extrapolated from official desktop requirements):

Min
CPU: i7-3610QM
GPU: GeForce GTX 970M, Radeon M295X (speculative)

Recommended
CPU: i7-4900MQ
GPU: Overclocked GeForce GTX 980M

 

..might want to pick up AC: Brotherhood instead, if you really want to give Uplay a go. Last game in the series the guy who wrote the Far Cry 3 story worked on. After that, they've employed a committee of right-wing bloggers to come up with "something cool", or something like that, I don't know..

 

That will be great!
Rumors says it will increase Draw Calls number 10 times or more!
X10 to scene size and complexity...Amen to that.

 

That's all well and good, but it doesn't help a weak GPU much. Remember; low-level access allows the GPU's full strength to shine, but if the CPU isn't really limiting the GPU, the benefit will be about none, except low CPU usage per game (which isn't exactly bad, but it doesn't mean your FPS will skyrocket either if you've already got a great CPU).

Unless... DX12 has other improvements in the way GPUs render stuff on the whole that adds more performance to everything? But they'd have told us about this already, right?

 

so funny, like 970M/980M are the only card that may run medium details ! hhhhhhhhhhh meanwhile in da ps4/xb1 you got a HD 7850/7790 running it !

 

So the internet is going all ape sh** over this.

Reminds me of the good old amazing port of Watch Dogs.. jesus

 

Ubisoft did it again!

 

That doesn't mean it runs well. It's just like most of current gen games, your choice is to play two crap versions, just which one you find less crappy, which is pretty much always going to be the PC version.

 

980M should be able to run high-ultra as it matches a desktop GTX 780 at 1080p resolutions.

 

Yeah, I think he is just joking due to the "recommended requirements" being so high

 

At smooth cinematic 30fps...

 

I rather think the cinematic feel is overrated. Slideshowic is the new hotness. For that comic book feel.

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

Praying to the flying spaghetti monster they don't pull this 30fps 780ti minimum crap with Far Cry 4.

 

Nah that game will have the exact same system requirements as far cry 3, its basically reskinned far cry 3

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Oh c'mon, you don't believe Ubi call pull it off?

 

Ironically, or whatever, FC3 ran pretty great on my lappy. I could crank it up to high at DX9 and for the most part it ran great (except few intense fights where I had to lower post processing to medium). But as far as I know people complained that FC3 was unoptimized piece of turd too.
Now FC3BD, that was another story. I could barely run it at low. But I struggled through, because it was just too damn amazing! Hope I get a new rig in time for BD2 .

The only new Ubi game which had no problems was South Park. But that was developed by Obsidian. Imagine if Ubi actually made the game. I think one would need a super computer to run it.

 

FC3 also ran pretty nicely on my envy 15, not the highest settings of course, but was quite playable with HDAO and a few other settings maxed at 1080p. IIRC there was some kind of foilage anti aliasing I had to turn off.

Cutscenes were super choppy, though, and any areas with fire in the background were slow.

 

it would be great if the spec are the same cause it run 30-40fps with max settings(without msaa) on my 760OC..but i think it wont happen

 

You mean FXAA. Yeah I heard that a lot of people prefer to turn it off.

 

Nope, alpha to coverage (transparency MSAA) is the foliage AA setting he's referring to.

FC3 and Blood Dragon both ran great for me in DX9. DX11 however was very sub-optimal.

 

Whoops, my bad. I can't tell all these new fancy abbreviations apart. MSAA, FXAA, SSAO, etc., I just leave them off for the most part.

 

I don't care much about FC4 (though I am eagerly waiting for it), though what if The Division?!?!

 

Already downgraded from the trailers...

 

No the FXAA didn't really reduce frame rate.

There was a special setting something like "foilage AA" - had to disable this one in the config file IIRC.

EDIT:

yep alpha to coverage - was really bad for my poor hp laptop

 

I don't know if it's just me, but I ran Watchdogs on my laptop again last night for the first time in like 4 months and it ran really nicely. Night and day difference from when it came out.

 

MSAA = Multisample AA
FXAA = Fast Approximate AA (sort of blurs whole scene; helps in-texture jaggies)
SMAA = Sub-morphological AA (MSAA + MLAA + temporal filter minus much of the blur. Seemingly unable to use temporal filter with multi-GPU setups for some reason; may have been updated to do this since last I checked)
CSAA = Coverage-Sample AA (nVidia's supposedly more efficient MSAA)
MLAA = Morphological AA (in practice, sort of like a better FXAA but less efficient)
TXAA = Temporal AA (temporal filter + MSAA, essentially. Looks awful in motion though.)
MFAA = Multi-frame AA (nVidia's new shiny toy)
SSAA = Super Sample AA (basically, render the game internally above the selected resolution. Usually comes in 2.25x and 4x variants; off a base of 1080p this grants 3k and 4k resolutions respectively)

And now you shall never forget =D.

Basically if you don't mind the blur, FXAA is free anti aliasing (performance-wise) and so is 1x SMAA. They both usually have a performance hit of 1-2fps at most.

 

I guess it's time to play at 480p on consoles now?

 

Yeah, probably gonna be more cinematic that way.

 

Good, because 720p/1080p are too mainstream. Hipsters gonna adore new consoles!

 

You probably never heard of it, but I'm playing AC Unity at 8-bit resolution, 5fps on my fisher price typewriter now. Trying to stay true to the artists vision #UbisoftArtisan

 

Apparently 8-bit graphics and pixel art are no longer just for indie sidescrolling platformers?

 

Next thing you know Ubi will require a Titan SLI setup to run that 8-bit wonder.

 

Kinda of off topic, but is AC: Rouge going to come out at same time?

 

Assassin's Creed "Red"?

 

So if the minimum specs require a GTX 680 or HD 7970, how does that factor in consoles? I mean the PS4 is equivalent to a downclocked 7870, with the Xbox1 even further behind - they wouldn't be able to play the game.
That says to me either one of two things, these specs are wrong, or AC5 is another unoptimized mess like Watch_Dogs.

 

Actually, the PS4's GPU (1.84 TFLOPS) is much closer to a 7850 (1.76 TFLOPS) than a 7870 (2.56 TFLOPS).

 

Ubi (prolly M$ and $ony gave the idea) tries to alienate low budget PC segment. We already saw that there are cheap PC setups which in theory should be able to run games as good as consoles. "But guess what guys, you can't now" - Ubi. "If you really want to experience the game how it's meant to be(1080p...oh, I'm sorry, is it 900p? 30FPS... Sometimes...), you should buy a console. You won't need no overclocked Titans for that!"
Let's just be happy they didn't cap the max resolution at 900p, because you know, 900p truly made for the most ultimate cinematic experience.

 

Assassin's Creed® Rogue - Pre-order On Xbox 360, PS3 & PC | Ubisoft (US)

 

I read on a site early 2015 as release date.So i guess it will be late january or erly february like assassins creed liberation which came out also after the new year

 

Jeez, how many AC games are there?

 

8 including Rogue. Another 13 spin-offs with sub characters etc... well well

Ubisoft is not taking it slow.

AC Wikipedia Games table

 

Wait, Ubi is releasing two AC games at the same time? Not to mention AC about radio towers (at least for consoles).


Damn, now I want to play AC . And I just bought Sniper Elite 3 yesterday. Gona search for cheap ACIII key now .

 

AC:Black Flag is OK. At least game is bit unique , but it's not properly optimised. Never buy a AC game until they release 3-4 patches.

 

that 30 fps is cinematic sentence is real?! I thought it was a joke! Jesus Ubi, you are one of a kind

 

Rouge would've made more sense seeing as Ubisoft is a French/Canadian company.