Assassin's Creed Unity system requirements (Confirmed)

This game really scary me. Is it a singular occasion of bad optimization or should we start facing games that not even a 980m can max out ?

I blame consoles.

 

Ubisoft can't optimize for consoles either. PS4 runs Unity at 20 FPS. XB1 runs at 25 FPS. That's at 900p and High settings.

Also remember downgraded Watch Dogs is 900p30 and 792p30 on PS4 and XB1 respectively.

 

This seems like the worst Assassin's Creed yet. A coincidence that Yade Raymond left Ubisoft right before the release of Unity? I'd leave too if I saw the franchise that I helped create get run into the ground by a company's gross incompetence.

 

IMO if you're looking to upgrade now get a 290 if running single card. Dual cards or above probably better to go with 970 unless you're ok with the heat or running a watercooling setup.

 

Nah. Not with Pirate Islands and GM200 coming so soon.

As far as multi-GPU goes, it seems Hawaii still scales better at 4K. XDMA really doin' its thing.

 

That was supposed to be a generic statement. I think we all know how much you loathe 28mm by now.

 

Oops, my bad. Thought you were talking to me. And yeah, you know how I feel about tired old 28nm.

I used to upgrade GPU's every 3 years. It would be like 2 full nodes and a half node between upgrade cycles. Then physics happened.

 

About 28nm? I think he hates every non-advanced, non-epic tech on the market... which is basically all of it. He wants some 20nm GM200 Titan X cards with some Skylake-E 7930K 8-core 16-thread CPU that's stock at 3.8GHz. Tomorrow. :laugh:

 

LOL.

I'm just dismayed at the slowing down of progress the last few years.

 

lol the 850m only gets 30fps all low. looks alot worse than crysis 3 and plays like crap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3W4Fz4ei80

 

Nvidia recommends Low for a desktop 680 because, you know, it's the "minimum requirement."

Assassin's Creed Unity Graphics & Performance Guide | GeForce

Spoiler

Guess anybody with less than a 970M won't be able to play this PoS.

 

You're confusing him with Mr. Fox (and to a certain degree me as well, although I'm more budget conscious)

It'll be interesting to see what Intel does to the desktop lineup over the next couple years, especially considering they had plans for BGAing mainstream Skylake chips.

 

No no, Mr. Fox wants THREE GM200 chips with a 7960X 12-core 24-thread CPU... in a laptop XD.

 

Exactly. I have no such delusions of grandeur. :laugh:

 

Seriously, we need to try playing offline. Many PS4 users and some PC users were saying it helped a lot.

 

anyone worried about farcry 4

 

Haha I love NBR. Really do. My delusions of the ultimate P370SM3, Mr. Fox wanting to rip apart tri-SLI GTX Titan Black systems with a laptop, n=1 waiting to do that on his desktop, and you just wanting a huge performance leap in everything XD.

 

The question is: what are you going to do with all that power?

Me I'd probably get into computational chemistry again. I still remember that time I asked my 740QM to run some calculations on benzene (or glucose, can't remember but it was something simple) and godamn that thing took over 5 hours.

And if you thought hardware was expensive, think again. (yes the software is actually called Spartan. pretty awesome eh)

 

Not too worried TBH. Far Cry isn't a franchise exceptionally well-known for its performance and optimization issues like AC is. If FC4 still has a DX9 option, I think we'll be fine. But it's Ubisoft so you never know.

I'd stop going to school to use their Xeons for my Maya renders. It just takes too damn long at home without a 6 or 8 core Intel.

You damn right it is: Buy Maya 2015 | Autodesk Store

However, Quadros and Xeons are definitely up there too.

 

Well before Unity, I was "Be happy don't worry" about FC4, now I'm "Be worry, don't happy".

 

oh my gawd I did not realize it was a real thing

Yeah my old department had some mad computational clusters for running very high level calculations on complex molecules. But of course we "stinkin organic chemists" (actual words) weren't worth their time lol. (they were mostly devoted to protein folding, so Folding@school I guess)

 

Smelly science, eh? That actually makes sense.

 

Heh that actually did, literally.

Too bad the utterer was not being literal. Oh well he was a mean old fart that wasn't too popular around the department anyway.

 

I'd be recording, editing, pumping my game graphics as high as possible and playing in 3D while getting my requisite super high FPS, livestreaming, etc. I explained most of what I do already and why a 4800MQ is basically "bare minimum" for me n=1

 

Yep you sure did. Although I would suggest investing in a good AC before plunging into all that hardware, if just for your own sake. XD

But seriously my room temp went up by 2C after 2 hours of gaming on my desktop. I don't want to imagine what 2 GM200 in tow would do.

 

Oh you know I must. My word it was like... 25 degrees today (rained all day)... I played BF4 at a solid 68 degrees on my CPU and 55 degrees on my GPUs... at 125fps 1080p mix of ultra and low (for visibility) settings.

#P370SM3CoolingOP.

Imagine an AC. I guarantee you I would be running at 3.9GHz constant haha.

 

wow those are some seriously unreal temps. I don't know what it is with me but every year I seem to lose a bit of heat tolerance. Conversely I'm perfectly happy going out in shorts when it's 18C outside. Maybe I spent too much time in Canada...

 

I have a gut feeling this trend going going to ruin pc gaming

 

This trend has been going on for a LONG time. A. LONGGG. TIME. Every couple years a company does this with virtually all of their games. Last round up was EA from 2011 to 2014, ending with Titanfall. Ubisoft began with AC3 in 2012 and is going strong with AC Unity... the problem is that they have been on-the-fence-terrible-PC-ports for ages.

Most AAA devs focus on consoles though, and will develop for the console of their choice first then port elsewhere. This leaves bad ports for PC on the whole, and even bad ports for the unloved console too. The things I know about CoD's development and the PS3, lawl.

If a publisher or developer says "PC is our primary platform" and that game hasn't had ~3 years or more to itself for development (I.E. see how BF3 --> MoH Warfighter --> BF4 and DICE produced all, but said BF4 was lead dev on PC) then don't listen. Likely chance is that even if they began on PC, finishing for the consoles is *FAR* more important because the consoles require being finished a minimum of 6 weeks before the printed release date to pass MS & Sony certification, then distribute physical copies around, etc. PC doesn't need to worry about physical copies as the only thing that really matters is the key these days; the disc could have 80's jazz for all they're concerned.

So... AAA titles have been screwing PC over for a long time. Indie devs and smaller studios are much better at making sure things work better on PC, and you can bet they will work for their cash because they don't have the coattails of either a name or a running brand to work with.

In other words: PC gaming is just fine for the most part... just people usually only look at the AAA titles for what they want. I'm having loads more fun with binding of isaac rebirth right now, for example. And it's a far nicer PC version than that AAA advanced warfare lol.

What needs to happen though, is AAA titles need to come out with a certain standard and quality again. The kind that existed in the PS2 era, where it meant your game was top notch; best of the best. Right now it only means "how much money did we put into it?". AAA gaming needs to crash and rebuild, and to be honest, EA is leading the pack, with how good peoples' experiences with Dragon Age Inquisition are, and how much effort has gone into fixing BF4, and all the delays BF:Hardline is getting to make sure it's up to snuff and not rushed at all, incorporating all the fixes that DICE put into BF4.

 

BF4 is not bad. Most issues are related to mp and it take full advantage of the CPU/GPU. Another thing is DICE is supporting the game pretty well with Patches.

 

On launch it was awful. You are right that most of the issues were with MP, but the fact is that MP is the meat of the game; all the DLC is for MP, Co-Op was removed, the SP campaigns had no FoV slider and lacked a bunch of other features, all DLC is for MP, etc. BF4 is doing infinitely better right now, it's more than playable though still a couple bugs... but the real problem is that it took a full year for BF4 to be mostly bug free.

The amount of bugs were staggering; burstfire weapons would Jam, the sights and reticles would bounce and recoil separate from the gun's actual recoil/spread (meaning if you kept the dot on someone, you'd be missing your bullets). Stuff like helicopters pulling themselves toward the floor and ramming themselves to death. Revives don't work on people who died on stairs. Allll sorts of crap. And the netcode was such balls; it had such a difference from beta to final release that it broke my entire ability to snipe people... in the beta I was going 25/4 with the CSLR all day. 6x scope 150-200M marksman headshots across siege of shanghai. After release? LOL WHAT'S A SNIPER? THIS THING THAT MISSES 24/7? NAH DON'T SNIPE BRO. DON'T SNIPE.

Anyway, the it did get better, but it seems BF4's failure at launch got EA a new president who actually is working for the games. I'm glad to see it. If they want to lead the pack in what AAA titles are supposed to be, then great. Fantastic. I will welcome it with open arms. SO FAR they seem to be doing well enough.

Activision doesn't do much with their studios. They just really get a budget or something and are supposed to use it to the best of their ability, which is why Treyarch COD games are great for PC and IW (and now sledgehammer) are awful for the most part. There's no real guidelines as long as it works sufficiently, pretty much. And working like it does on a console is working sufficiently.

Ubisoft... well we've seen enough outta them.

2k games seem to be ok for the most part.

Bethesda will release the buggiest, most broken cows you'll ever see, then let the modders have free reign, while never implementing any bugfixes modders come up with themselves. I don't like them very much anymore.

I can't remember many other big-name publishers right now. But that's pretty much how it goes for the AAA crowd. We need AAA to crash and revamp itself with value over cash cowing

 

I never experienced some of your BF4 issues, but I agree it's bit broken initially. But it's not unplayable like AC:U and Dice/EA keep updating the game and listening to players. Miracle need to happen if you want to get update from Ubisoft 4 months after relese.

 

Playing offline had no improvements for me, at least

 

I just looked at Dragon Age: Inquisition 's requirements and damn, let's talk about optimization. Ubisoft has much to learn from EA I guess.

OS: Windows 7 or 8.1, 64-bit
Processor (AMD): Quad core @ 2.5 GHz
Processor (Intel): Quad core @ 2.0 GHz
Memory: 4 GB
Graphics Card (AMD): Radeon HD 4870
Graphics Card (NVIDIA): GeForce 8800 GT
Graphics Memory: 512 MB
Hard Drive: 26 GB
DirectX: 10
Internet: 512 kbps up and down

Recommended:

OS: Windows 7 or 8.1, 64-bit
Processor (AMD): Six core @ 3.2 GHz
Processor (Intel): Quad core @ 3.0 GHz
Memory: 8 GB
Graphics Card (AMD): Radeon HD 7870 or R9 270
Graphics Card (NVIDIA): GeForce GTX 660
Graphics Memory: 2 GB
Hard Drive: 26 GB
DirectX: 11
Internet: 1 Mbps up and down

 

At least Far Cry 4 reviews are already out - Ubi must have confidence in at least one of their big releases it seems. All super positive.

Far Cry 3 ran well, and it's the same engine. Here's hoping.

 

Almost all the reviews are from the sites who gave AC:U good ratings. Bit suspicious about those reviews.

 

Why our Far Cry 4 review is delayed - PC Gamer

Totalbiscuit said he got no review code yet either.

 

I just read the Farcry 4 review from trustedreview and they gave AC:U 9/10 score....

 

Trusted Reviews my butt, more like Paid Reviews.

 

Yeah this reeks of Ubisoft. If only good AC:U reviewers get review code, and the rest had "technical difficulties", it'd be mighty convenient for Ubisoft right? XD

 

Damage control method from Ubisoft to recover the share market downfall

 

Here is PC gamer giving it a 65: Assassin's Creed Unity review - PC Gamer

 

I got it on PS4, (my lowly £2k+ lappy apparently cant handle it...) and it sucks. Laggy, clippy, glitchy, everything.

Just gunna leave this right here...
This is How You Review a Masterpiece Like Assassin's Creed Unity - Cheezburger

 

Btw, aside from the choppy framerates (cinematic experience next, CEN ) + illogical frame drops at in-game cinematics (wth are they doing I don't know, it seems pretty in-game to me + less number of objects moving during cinematics as well, something is seriously weird and wrong there for sure) + nonstop crashing (got my first crash 30 minutes into the game), I think Paris is gorgeous even at 720p with High settings. I wouldn't recommend buying it now, BUT during the holidays this game will go down to 30, then I think it is worth it (provided that Ubi patches the s*** out of it, but seems like they are working on an AMD-machines focused patch at least).

 

720p30... might as well get on a console, at least it's 900p30 there.

 

They are blaming AMD for their issues. Both nVidia and AMD cards suffering from their lazy optimisation. They just don't want to point finger to nVidia, because nvidia paid them huge amount of money to optimise the game for their cards.

 

True enough. But I just don't like consoles I will suffer my 765m (it actually did a better job than I thought it would) until I get the new laptop (btw are you following the desktop cpu capable clevo machine p750zm, it looks gorgeous, plus, did I mention desktop cpu )

Bro, after all "the way its meant to be played"

 

Paying anything more than $7.50 USD for an Ubisoft AAA title on PC is a crime against video games.

 

According to early reports and benchmarks, Nvidia cards do seem to be doing better than comparable AMD ones:

Spoiler

And AMD CPU's get wiped by Intel, what else is new:

Spoiler