• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AC: Unity - GTX 680 or above minimum, 780 recommended+

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
That may be true, but I'm a PC gamer. I like a mouse, and I'm not buying it on console. I've considered getting back into AC, but I will not consider it if will run to poorly that it requires a 680 at a minimum, and may be locked at 30 FPS.
 

davie jambo

Senior member
Feb 13, 2014
380
1
0
That may be true, but I'm a PC gamer. I like a mouse, and I'm not buying it on console. I've considered getting back into AC, but I will not consider it if will run to poorly that it requires a 680 at a minimum, and may be locked at 30 FPS.
Playing this game with a mouse and keyboard sounds awful

controller only for me
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
That may be true, but I'm a PC gamer. I like a mouse, and I'm not buying it on console. I've considered getting back into AC, but I will not consider it if will run to poorly that it requires a 680 at a minimum, and may be locked at 30 FPS.
Why do you assume it runs poorly because it requires a GTX 680?

For all we know, the 680/7970 may be for high settings @ 1080p 60 FPS and the 780/R9 290x for ultra settings 60 FPS..

If the system requirements reflect the game as how the developer intends for it to be played, then they may be fully justified.

Why should the developer list low end hardware that can't even offer a similar experience as the PS4 and Xbox One? And why on Earth would someone with such feeble hardware expect to play such a cutting edge game anyway?

This game is CURRENT gen only, so the bar of entry is much higher than previous games that were designed with last gen in mind.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Playing this game with a mouse and keyboard sounds awful

controller only for me
You won't get a lot of support on this forum, but we all have our preferences. I am fairly certain that most PC users prefer a mouse and keyboard.

I find it has a different immersive feel. Joysticks make me feel as if I'm controlling my character by remote control. I press a button and the avatar turns in that direction until I let go of the button. With a mouse, my avatar follows the path of my hand movements.

It is an opinion, but that is mine.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Why do you assume it runs poorly because it requires a GTX 680?

For all we know, the 680/7970 may be for high settings @ 1080p 60 FPS and the 780/R9 290x for ultra settings 60 FPS..

If the system requirements reflect the game as how the developer intends for it to be played, then they may be fully justified.

Why should the developer list low end hardware that can't even offer a similar experience as the PS4 and Xbox One? And why on Earth would someone with such feeble hardware expect to play such a cutting edge game anyway?

This game is CURRENT gen only, so the bar of entry is much higher than previous games that were designed with last gen in mind.
Experience tells me that a minimum requirement almost always reflects low to medium settings at 30-40 FPS and in many cases, much worse.

I will also add that with such a small performance window between the min and max, it suggests they made zero attempt to scale the graphics. As in, they probably put in zero effort for the PC, which may be reflected in the performance. I understand having difficulties scaling CPU usage, but graphics should be much easier to scale.
 
Last edited:

Hauk

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2001
2,808
0
0
Playing this game with a mouse and keyboard sounds awful

controller only for me
AC is one of the more difficult games to work with keyboard/mouse, still prefer them though.

Love me a good quality mechanical keyboard and laser mouse..
 

Mondozei

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2013
1,043
40
86
There's just no way that you'd need even a 760 on minimum. That's 2-3x the GPU horsepower of the Xbox(TFLOPS don't perfectly scale to performance, something the 980 vs 780 Ti showed us).

Either way, if you really need this then that means that the game is exceptionally crappily optimised, and that's that.

We could be looking at another Watch Dogs here.
I just don't know what the f**k Ubisoft is doing right now.
And judging from their actions; neither do they.

P.S. This could be a replay of Titanfall's "ultra textures" that gave nothing. Wouldn't be surprised if you could use a 760 on high@1080p/60fps for AC:U.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,078
1,217
126
It's ubisoft, they release crap on the PC consistently. Another over hyped turd like Watch Dogs is what this game will be.
 

TechFan1

Member
Sep 7, 2013
93
0
66
If the game makes use of a high amount of draw calls, does that have the same kind of impact on the GPU as CPU? The game is supposed to have lots of people on screen and such, could this combined with the GI they're using be the reason for the high requirements?
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
Experience tells me that a minimum requirement almost always reflects low to medium settings at 30-40 FPS and in many cases, much worse.
It is extremely unlikely that a 680/7970 represents low to medium settings in AC Unity. Both GPUs are much faster than the GPUs found in the consoles which represents the baseline, and should be capable of high settings.

The GTX 780 and R9 290x should be for very high/ultra..

I will also add that with such a small performance window between the min and max, it suggests they made zero attempt to scale the graphics. As in, they probably put in zero effort for the PC, which may be reflected in the performance. I understand having difficulties scaling CPU usage, but graphics should be much easier to scale.
Either they made zero attempt, or they didn't think it was worth the effort. I'm banking on the latter..

Again, why would someone with a low end system play this kind of game to begin with? Being current gen only, AC Unity shouldn't be playable on anything less than mid range hardware.

Gamers with low end hardware either need to upgrade, or get a console..
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
It is extremely unlikely that a 680/7970 represents low to medium settings in AC Unity. Both GPUs are much faster than the GPUs found in the consoles which represents the baseline, and should be capable of high settings.

The GTX 780 and R9 290x should be for very high/ultra..



Either they made zero attempt, or they didn't think it was worth the effort. I'm banking on the latter..

Again, why would someone with a low end system play this kind of game to begin with? Being current gen only, AC Unity shouldn't be playable on anything less than mid range hardware.

Gamers with low end hardware either need to upgrade, or get a console..
I am assuming minimum means minimum. That is usually how it works. Things can change, but I'm basing my current desire based on what is given.

If they didn't think it was worth their effort, that doesn't change that they made no attempt. So I agree, but there is no point in saying it was the latter, as both are true if the latter is true.
 

davie jambo

Senior member
Feb 13, 2014
380
1
0
If they wanted us to buy it on console, they wouldn't waste their time implementing PC technologies such as PCCS, HBAO+, TXAA, hairworks, enhanced surface tessellation etcetera.
It's probably people from nvidia that do that for them

They want use to buy on console as they make more £s , hence the high min specs
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
It is extremely unlikely that a 680/7970 represents low to medium settings in AC Unity. Both GPUs are much faster than the GPUs found in the consoles which represents the baseline, and should be capable of high settings.
How many times are people on this forum are going to repeat this complete nonsense? Comparing console to PC specs is not even remotely close to a 1:1 comparison on what kind of PC you can expect to run a game.
 

escrow4

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2013
3,333
113
106
No one seems to get that this is the jump that PCs will need to play next gen only ports. Simple. Your old trash Core 2 and 560 Ti will not play it. At all. Forget about it. If Ubisoft actually did a decent job on the port and it runs beautifully on a 780 with 60FPS solid then everyone moaning will know. You want to game on PC in 2014 you need lots of grunt. Of course if its Watch Dogs v2 - oops?
 

poohbear

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2003
2,284
5
81
You won't get a lot of support on this forum, but we all have our preferences. I am fairly certain that most PC users prefer a mouse and keyboard.

I find it has a different immersive feel. Joysticks make me feel as if I'm controlling my character by remote control. I press a button and the avatar turns in that direction until I let go of the button. With a mouse, my avatar follows the path of my hand movements.

It is an opinion, but that is mine.
Huh? I play as many games as possible on my controller on my pc. My wrist starts hurting if i play too much on pc with a mouse, w controller no wrist pain.:)

Only exception is fps where precision is needed, but the only one i play is bf4 & even then for 30 min at a time. Assasins creed 4 is awesome on controller!
 

x3sphere

Senior member
Jul 22, 2009
722
24
81
www.exophase.com
No one seems to get that this is the jump that PCs will need to play next gen only ports. Simple. Your old trash Core 2 and 560 Ti will not play it. At all. Forget about it. If Ubisoft actually did a decent job on the port and it runs beautifully on a 780 with 60FPS solid then everyone moaning will know. You want to game on PC in 2014 you need lots of grunt. Of course if its Watch Dogs v2 - oops?

Yep. PS4 GPU performs similar to a 7870, I believe. And that is not enough to run this game @ full 1080p. It is running 900p on the consoles.

If the minimum refers to 1080p res, then the requirements make sense. That's a 33% resolution jump, and the 7970 is what 40-50% over the 7870? It wouldn't make sense for them to publish specs based on 900p, as most PC gamers run at 1080p (or at least the target market for big-budget games like AC).
 
Last edited:

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Huh? I play as many games as possible on my controller on my pc. My wrist starts hurting if i play too much on pc with a mouse, w controller no wrist pain.:)

Only exception is fps where precision is needed, but the only one i play is bf4 & even then for 30 min at a time. Assasins creed 4 is awesome on controller!
From what you typically see on a PC forum, you are not the norm, but the exception.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
745
126
No one seems to get that this is the jump that PCs will need to play next gen only ports. Simple. Your old trash Core 2 and 560 Ti will not play it. At all. Forget about it. If Ubisoft actually did a decent job on the port and it runs beautifully on a 780 with 60FPS solid then everyone moaning will know. You want to game on PC in 2014 you need lots of grunt. Of course if its Watch Dogs v2 - oops?
Right but when programming choices are made such as running global illumination on a CPU instead of using far faster Direct Compute on a GPU, you are left scratching your head. Then there is the fact that these are the highest minimum system requirements out of any PC game I believe but if you looked at gameplay online, this game looks nowhere near as good as Metro Last Light, Ryse Son of Rome or Crysis 3 or Witcher 3. So where is all that CPU/GPU power going to? Look at games like Watch Dogs, Far Cry 3, AC Black Flag. All of them required high end hardware and yet none looks like the pinnacle of PC gaming graphics. In FC3 and Watch Dogs, even with flagship hardware today you can often experience stutter. Based on Ubisoft's track record in the last 3 years:

1) The released PC game never lives up to the graphics hype (Far Cry 3, Watch Dogs 3 E3 gameplay / trailers);

2) Every Ubisoft game released in the last 3 years is poorly optimized on the cpu and gpu side.

Why would this game be different?

Like I said, look at various gameplay of AC U, this game looks good but does not look amazing. There is only 1 month left to launch. It's not like some magic will happen to its graphics. It will probably look just marginally better than AC Black Flag but run like crap on a 680.

And even when I look at Far Cry 4, I don't see a major leap in graphics over Far Cry 3. It's basically more of the same. Ubisoft just loves to hype up their games as the next revolution but it isn't from a graphics standpoint at least. In some ways, the foliage in FC3 wasn't even as advanced physics wise as
in 2007 Crysis 1.
 
Last edited:

DarkKnightDude

Senior member
Mar 10, 2011
981
44
91
I wish the team that did Splinter Cell Blacklist did their every game. That was pretty good even on PC.
 

bononos

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,727
69
91
Did something go disastrously wrong at Ubisoft to have such high min requirements? Its almost like they want the game for only the leet player with high end rigs.
Were the development team too understaffed or underqualified which caused the tuning portion to be mostly left out, to be brute forced by hardware?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY