AC Unity PC tech trailer

[Carfax83]

At the time ACIV came out, there was no 970 SLI. You had GTX770 SLI. ACIV doesn't run at 60 fps constant in that game, not even with SMAA, nevermind MSAA.

AC IV needed 780 SLI to run at 60 fps minimum at 1080p

Yep, as you said, thats at the time the game came out. Driver optimizations and patches increased performance significantly in the months after the game released.

I think by the end, I was getting between 50 and 60 FPS on my GTX 770 4GB SLI @ 1440p with SMAA..

 

[RussianSensation]

Nope. Non K 4770 (3.7GHz to 3.8GHz in game) and a 780Ti Ghz were enough to max the game at a solid 60FPS at 1200p with AA disabled and shadows turned down a notch. Can't remember if Vysnc was on or off. Very smooth. Optimization aside this will always play better on PC simply because you can throw more hardware at it.

So what you are saying is lowering shadow detail gave you a boost of 15 fps on a 780Ti? Also, what kind of a context is that when you are stating that you had to lower shadows and remove AA on a $700 GPU as support that the game was well optimized?

^ GameGPU didn't even test the heaviest sections either. Most gamers don't have $700 780Ti when AC IV came out last year. Looking at the performance of mainstream GPUs like $250 760 and $300 280X and $350 770 shows how much of an unoptimized turd AC IV was.

Computerbase:

AC IV - 1920x1080 with AA
980 = 51.8 fps average (hardly faster than 780Ti)
780Ti = 49.1 fps average
770 = 34.4 fps (!)
280X = 29 fps
760 = 27.8 fps

Up the resolution, in the heavy scenes the game was unplayable on anything but the flagship GPUs.

AC IV - 2560x1600 with AA

295X = 45.1 fps on a $1500 GPU. :whiste:
980 = 35.5 (essentially almost no scaling from 780Ti)
780Ti = 34.9
780 = 28.9 fps (!) sub-30 fps on a $650 GPU from May 2013
770 = 23.7 fps
280X = 20 fps
http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/...vidia/7/#diagramm-assassins-creed-4-2560-1600

 

[RussianSensation]

Yep, as you said, thats at the time the game came out. Driver optimizations and patches increased performance significantly in the months after the game released.

I think by the end, I was getting between 50 and 60 FPS on my GTX 770 4GB SLI @ 1440p with SMAA..

And why then Computerbase gets < 24 fps average on a single 770 in their GTX980 review?

 

[BSim500]

Good Lord. Some of those PS4 screenshots look far worse than some 2006 era PC games... 😱 Is that earlier pic for real? 😕

 

[RussianSensation]

Good Lord. Some of those PS4 screenshots look far worse than some 2006 era PC games... 😱 Is that earlier pic for real? 😕

This is beta from August on consoles.

Crysis laughs at that.

 

[Fire&Blood]

The gif carfax posted earlier does look good but that's from the Ubi released material. That could have been BS, a vertical slice running on a SLI rig or offline rendered like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VnfcoHPAJk

 

[Carfax83]

And why then Computerbase gets < 24 fps average on a single 770 in their GTX980 review?

High resolution plus 4x MSAA = massive hit to frame rates, who'd have thought :biggrin:

Using MSAA results in a large performance hit in this game due to the large amounts of foliage.

Even TXAA is better than MSAA in AC IV performance wise.

 

[RussianSensation]

Read from a forum user that Unity will be bundled with 970/980 starting next week. Pretty awesome game bundle and also means a chance to pick up some of those coupons on the cheap.

 

[chimaxi83]

It's hilarious how much Ubisoft, teasers of amazing PC gaming/graphics, who continue to let us down with substandard turds, are being defended here. The only way this game is going to look as good as they're touting is if it gets the Watch_Dogs mod treatment. Ubisoft has been crapping on PC gamers for a long time now.

AC more detailed than Witcher? Roflmao

 

[monstercameron]

It's hilarious how much Ubisoft, teasers of amazing PC gaming/graphics, who continue to let us down with substandard turds, are being defended here. The only way this game is going to look as good as they're touting is if it gets the Watch_Dogs mod treatment. Ubisoft has been crapping on PC gamers for a long time now.

AC more detailed than Witcher? Roflmao

hawx games weren't so bad...and maybe rainbow 6 wont so so borked.

 

[Mondozei]

The AC franchise is like COD at this point. They excrete a reskin out every year as a full product. Ubisoft has eclipsed Activision as the pinnacle of failure 'AAA' devoloper. Have they confirmed this won't have the 30fps lock they said provides a superior experience to 60fps because 30fps has a 'cinematic feel' ?

Not for BLOPS, which is still the CoD game that a lot of people play. Compare how many play Ghosts and BLOPS 2 on Steamgraph, you have 2x people playing the latter despite it being the older game. At least on PC. Don't know about consoles. Haven't bought a non-BLOPS game since World at War and I'm thankful for that because I haven't missed anything.

But for the mainstream, non-BLOPS, series, yes, basically.

 

[Mondozei]

I guess Ubisoft is at this stage so undercounted and disparaged that the only way to rise is up?

Nevertheless, they have a history of terrible PC ports so there is a lot of justified skepticism. I never bought into the Watch Dogs hype and I'm thankful that I didn't. Still wouldn't buy it, even on sale.

The only PC game from Ubi that I have actually bought was Far Cry 3, for mere pennies on a Steam Sale and that game was good, at least the co-op part.
Rainbow Six: Siege is really the only Ubisoft game that I'd even consider paying a full price for.

Also, the Assassin's Creed games seem more naturally suited to a console. Sure, you can play with a controller/gamepad on a PC, but still, not the same.

 

[tential]

So what you are saying is lowering shadow detail gave you a boost of 15 fps on a 780Ti? Also, what kind of a context is that when you are stating that you had to lower shadows and remove AA on a $700 GPU as support that the game was well optimized?

(wall of text continues)

I'm failing to understand the discussion in this thread about AC4. One camp says AC4 is unoptimized and the other camp says it runs great?

From what I'm reading in the thread, one user said that you would need a GREAT rig to run this game at 60 FPS and then BOTH responses to people getting "great" frame rates with this game are a GTX780 and a GTX 780TI?

I don't know if I would call a game optimized when I would need a FLAGSHIP Gpu, just to hit 60 FPS at 1080p.

The only way this discussion is making sense to me is if we're considering a GTX 780Ti to be a GPU for the "masses". Otherwise, stating you got just BARELY 60 FPS with a flagship GPU and a "high end" CPU is essentially reaffirming the point that AC4 does not run well...... especially at 1080p.... and with no AA....

Am I missing something here?

 

[2is]

I have no personal experience with AC3, but AC IV which was done by Ubisoft Kiev ran very well on my system. Constant 60 FPS basically..

I've played all the AC titles and IV is by far the most horrible port. Not the most horrible edition of the series, that goes to III, but quality of the port is certainly lacking.

 

[RussianSensation]

The only way this discussion is making sense to me is if we're considering a GTX 780Ti to be a GPU for the "masses". Otherwise, stating you got just BARELY 60 FPS with a flagship GPU and a "high end" CPU is essentially reaffirming the point that AC4 does not run well...... especially at 1080p.... and with no AA....

Am I missing something here?

Ya, that was my point. All AC games are unoptimized. Even though AC IV was better than 3, it was still unoptimized.

Gamers on console forums are also complaining about how ugly AC Unity looks on PS4:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=192625&page=1


here is 1 min video from PS4 of the finished game.

http://vimeo.com/110518121

Even for a PS4 game claiming to be "next gen" this is a disaster

^ Low polygon character models - check
^ Poor/broken shadow model - check
^ Low resolution textures - although consoles are limited to 900p

Even if PC version has better graphics due to GW features, there is no way the shadows and low character polygons are going to be fixed since that requires a complete game engine redesign. Sorry, but the game does not look like a true next generation game. This is going to be a repeat of Watch Dogs with overhyped graphics failing to live up to expectations and poor performance on last gen's flagship cards like 680/7970GE.

Look at Infamous Second Son on PS4. This is one of the first attempts at PS4's hardware early on in the console's life.

I honestly think Ubisoft just optimized the game for Xbox One and just stopped. Then NV provided them the code for some GW features, they threw that in and that's it. It's basically an Xbox One game with GW.

 

[Grooveriding]

It will be just another unoptimized turd. This is Ubisoft's consistent track record. They are a terrible PC developer and keep proving this. FC3 was decent but even that title needed to be patched several times because it was broken at launch on the PC. Stuttering, no FOV controls, mouse acceleration etc. Stuttering has now become a feature of Ubisoft games 😛

They don't even bother for PC. Nvidia pays them with free labour by sending a few software engineers over to add features to their games so they can win benchmarks and Ubisoft then claims 'next gen'.

Watch Dogs all over again.

This is a developer that claims 30fps is better than 60fps because of its 'cinematic feel'. They actually try to equate the frame rate experience of live action cinema with natural motion blur to a 3D game rendered real time...

 

[RussianSensation]

Even their explanation is inconsistent:

"The game is so huge in terms of rendering that it took months to get it to 720p at 30fps. The game was 9fps 9 months ago. We only achieved 900p at 30fps weeks ago."

If you had trouble moving from 720P to 900P until recently and you discuss how large the game is due to rendering, you are basically GPU limited. Yet he says that on PS4, they could only achieve 1-2 fps more due to a 50% powerful GPU later in the interview. How does that even work? You have 32 ROPs vs. 16 ROPs on XBox and 50% more shading power and 176GB/sec memory bandwidth and you got 1-2 fps increase at the same graphics? Alternatively why didn't they use the excess GPU power to increase textures, details, shadow detail? I mean it's just sitting there. And I mean basically they admitted to doing pre-baked lighting on the CPU instead of using DirectCompute for dynamic global illumination on the GPU. That's mind-boggling considering how much faster the GPU is for lighting and considering they are stating how the lighting used up 50% of the PS4's CPU power. So why in the world would you underutilize your excess GPU power in PS4 for lighting and overburden the CPU? It's literally admitting indirectly that they made the game for Xbox One and did nothing with PS4's extra GPU power.

Secondly, if your game ran at 9 fps 9 months ago on HD7850 hardware and barely got 30 fps at 900p "weeks ago", how broken is the game engine? Holly cow. If they managed 30 fps on 1.6Ghz Jaguar, we should expect like 100 fps+ on a Core i7 4790K without a GPU limitation. Did they not even play Infamous Second Son before they made claims of a "next generation experience"?

 

[tential]

Even their explanation is inconsistent:

"The game is so huge in terms of rendering that it took months to get it to 720p at 30fps. The game was 9fps 9 months ago. We only achieved 900p at 30fps weeks ago."

If you had trouble moving from 720P to 900P until recently and you discuss how large the game is due to rendering, you are basically GPU limited. Yet he says that on PS4, they could only achieve 1-2 fps more due to a 50% powerful GPU later in the interview. How does that even work? You have 32 ROPs vs. 16 ROPs on XBox and 50% more shading power and 176GB/sec memory bandwidth and you got 1-2 fps increase at the same graphics? Alternatively why didn't they use the excess GPU power to increase textures, details, shadow detail? I mean it's just sitting there. And I mean basically they admitted to doing pre-baked lighting on the CPU instead of using DirectCompute for dynamic global illumination on the GPU. That's mind-boggling considering how much faster the GPU is for lighting and considering they are stating how the lighting used up 50% of the PS4's CPU power. So why in the world would you underutilize your excess GPU power in PS4 for lighting and overburden the CPU? It's literally admitting indirectly that they made the game for Xbox One and did nothing with PS4's extra GPU power.

Secondly, if your game ran at 9 fps 9 months ago on HD7850 hardware and barely got 30 fps at 900p "weeks ago", how broken is the game engine? Holly cow. If they managed 30 fps on 1.6Ghz Jaguar, we should expect like 100 fps+ on a Core i7 4790K without a GPU limitation. Did they not even play Infamous Second Son before they made claims of a "next generation experience"?

It's a rush job it looks like.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is a yearly release series? I think the yearly release cycle of games is failing for many games. It's time to step back and wait for the game to be ready.

From reading the interviews of many of these devs it's clear they're scrambling for some "excuse" as none of their stories really make sense. At the end of the day, it seems time is a major issue....

"We only achieved 900p at 30fps weeks ago." this screamed red flag to me as if it wasn't through work to make it better to get to 900p 30fps but rather a lot of concessions made as well.

Some publishers will milk a franchise for all it's worth but it seems Ubisoft is starting to overmilk the cows....

 

[monstercameron]

It's a rush job it looks like.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is a yearly release series? I think the yearly release cycle of games is failing for many games. It's time to step back and wait for the game to be ready.

From reading the interviews of many of these devs it's clear they're scrambling for some "excuse" as none of their stories really make sense. At the end of the day, it seems time is a major issue....

"We only achieved 900p at 30fps weeks ago." this screamed red flag to me as if it wasn't through work to make it better to get to 900p 30fps but rather a lot of concessions made as well.

Some publishers will milk a franchise for all it's worth but it seems Ubisoft is starting to overmilk the cows....

the yearly releases aren't the issue, activision has stated that they would release cod on a yearly basis. They rotate the 3 dev studios and that makes for a 3 year cycle.

 

[Grooveriding]

Battlefield 4 is 900p, 60fps and 64 players on PS4 - all that and it looks a lot better than this. The takeaway is Ubisoft is not a high caliber developer capable of that sort of achievement. It's all PR and franchise milking fodder.

 

[Fire&Blood]

There is some footage here: http://www.gamersyde.com/thqstream_assassin_creed_unity_gameplay-WbwjiWqH4ArGSLvc_en.html

Looks better than the screens, thought that pop in was annoying.
PC version footage still not available.

 

[Carfax83]

I've played all the AC titles and IV is by far the most horrible port. Not the most horrible edition of the series, that goes to III, but quality of the port is certainly lacking.

I thought the port was pretty good. Optimization wise, the biggest thing was the lack of a multithreaded renderer, but because the title was crossgen that can be somewhat excused.

A multithreaded renderer would have increased the frame rate significantly, even though the game could easily become GPU bound with the right settings..

Looks wise, it was definitely the best looking AC to date, especially on the PC which had a significant edge over the consoles.

 

[Carfax83]

Even if PC version has better graphics due to GW features, there is no way the shadows and low character polygons are going to be fixed since that requires a complete game engine redesign. Sorry, but the game does not look like a true next generation game. This is going to be a repeat of Watch Dogs with overhyped graphics failing to live up to expectations and poor performance on last gen's flagship cards like 680/7970GE.

Lots of armchair developers around here it seems. Anyway, you're flat out wrong in the above statement.

It has already been verified that the PC version will have better shadows, textures and better ambient occlusion than the console versions. Those three alone will be a HUGE improvement over the PS4 and Xbox One.

PC was also the lead platform, so the overall asset quality should be much higher; including character detail. Judging by the NVidia trailer, the PC version is a more refined version of the E3 demo, which was also done on PC minus the GW effects..

So the final PC version will look amazing, with terrain tessellation, HBAO+, PCSS etcetera..

It's the console versions which are getting screwed, not the PC.. And bringing up Infamous SS is irrelevant as Infamous SS is practically barren compared to AC Unity, which has a megaton more stuff to render.

 

[Carfax83]

It's a rush job it looks like.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is a yearly release series? I think the yearly release cycle of games is failing for many games. It's time to step back and wait for the game to be ready..

The franchise is on a yearly release cycle, but the development cycle per game is the standard 3 year cycle..

AC Unity has been in development for almost 4 years (it's a massive game), so they've had plenty of time. Again, the problem isn't with the PC version, it's with the console versions, and that likely stems from the fact that the game was in development before the specs of the current gen consoles became known.

Same thing happened with Watch Dogs, which was why Ubisoft removed or adjusted a lot of the detail and effects in the game with the extra 6 months of development time to make it more optimized for the PS4 and Xbox One..

 

[Carfax83]

There is some footage here: http://www.gamersyde.com/thqstream_assassin_creed_unity_gameplay-WbwjiWqH4ArGSLvc_en.html

Looks better than the screens, thought that pop in was annoying.
PC version footage still not available.

All of the E3 footage was done on PC, and of course the latest NVidia trailer is PC footage. I think we've seen enough to conclude that the PC version has not been downgraded at all.

In fact, it's been upgraded due to the addition of GameWorks..