[ GamesPot ] Huge Assassin's Creed Unity Patch Coming Next Week

[caswow]

Two 970s to achieve 60FPS on the game and it is AMD's fault?



Is not continue improving performance, is fixing the performance of the game for the wast majority of the cards.



With two 970s... awesome optimization.








Many guys with Nvidia rigs blaming the game for poor performance.

nope. intel nvidia(kepler) and game runs like crap on my rig even on low.

 

[Black Octagon]

I might pick this up when it's $5-10 and on its 13th patch.

Pretty much my policy for all PC games these days. Most first adopters seem to never learn

 

[DeathReborn]

No, i ve heard nothing of the sort with Gaming Evolved, AMD provide the necessary libraries for their specific features like TressFX.





I would go as far as saying that Nvidia hardware is generaly inferior and that it s all Gameworks purpose to give Nvidia 10-15% advantages here and there such that when games scores are averaged they ll be always on top by a little margin, just look at Hardware.fr Maxwel review, without the titles using Gameworks the 980/970 would be barely at 290/290X level.

Weren't the TressFX libraries released later than the game itself & required patching to work properly on other IHV hardware? Hardly a ringing endorsement. I'll leave the other conspiracy theories alone as that's a huge can of rotten worms.

As for "inferior hardware" the 2048 shader 256bit 980 competes/beats rather well with the 2816 shader 512bit 290X. I will be buying "inferior hardware" if it gets results in future no matter the brand (except XFX).

My AC:Unity "gift" order was delayed and only arrived a few days ago so I have missed most of the major issues and thanks to 1.3/1.4 & Omega I should get reasonable performance. I will probably install it after Xmas though as I have other things to do first.

 

[cbrunny]

So can this thread be about the patch now?

 

[Rezist]

nope. intel nvidia(kepler) and game runs like crap on my rig even on low.

It probably takes along time to get a stable driver with a game so poorly done, I imagine nVidia will look at Kepler when they have time.

 

[cbrunny]

I had the chance to play Unity this morning for a bit. with 1.3 and the omega drivers, the game ran much smoother than normal on my 7970cf. Looking forward to what 1.4 has to offer.

Right now my biggest gripe is draw distance/pop-in. Not sure why but it seems to have gotten worse since launch. Maybe they're reducing that to open bandwidth to assist with other problems.

 

[Red Hawk]

Do most AMD GE games run like crap on NV hardware? Nope. Some even run faster on NV hardware. So regardless of what is said, the results speak for themselves.

I find it odd that some here gloat and come up with absurd statements like AMD drivers are bad because they run poorly in NV sponsored games, when the entire purpose of TWIMTBP and now GameWorks is A) ensure games run well on NV and B) ensure AMD gets no access during development to optimize.

Sometimes. Dragon Age 2 was a Gaming Evolved game, and when it first came out it ran like crap on Nvidia. After a couple months Nvidia had optimized their drivers for it, and was actually beating AMD in the game.

 

[ocre]

Sometimes. Dragon Age 2 was a Gaming Evolved game, and when it first came out it ran like crap on Nvidia. After a couple months Nvidia had optimized their drivers for it, and was actually beating AMD in the game.

absolute crap

If you turned on advance DX11 features it was unplayable even with Nvidia's flagship. It was unplayable with 2 GTX 480s/580. Even with 3 gtx 480s in 3 way SLI, framerates were so low it was pretty much unplayable.

yet it looked beautiful and played perfect with a single HD5850.

People seem to have really really really short memories around here.
google search and right off the bat:

https://forums.geforce.com/default/...errible-performance-on-nvidia-480-51-way-sli/

Playing the full game of Dragon Age 2 on DX11. All settings maxed in game at 2560x1600. Using 267.24 drivers and GTX 480 3-way SLI.
SLI is active and all cards are at gaming clocks and show utilization. Each card is pegged around 40-50% utilization per Afterburner.
Getting between 15-25fps at all times. Terrible performance. All other games are running fine.
When can we expect a fix for the issues with Nvidia cards and/or SLI and Dragon Age 2 ?
Friend is running AMD 6950 Crossfire and getting great framerates.
A Radeon 5850 and any other AMD card above that, such as 6950 or 6970 is faster than a GTX 580 in this game.

My GTX 460 2-way SLI is having bad performance with the beta driver, too. While my friend's single AMD 5850 is getting 40-45 FPS with everything but Ambient Occlusion maxed and 4xAA at 1920x1080, I am only getting 20-30 FPS. In other games my setup usually outperforms his by 10 FPS.

Good afternoon. I do not know where to write in support of Bioware or here. Hence the problem is that the game is at a very high produces 12-14 FPS and high - 20. I have a card GTX 465 (full config in your signature). Driver version 267.24. I'm wondering one thing for a comfortable game, we just need to wait for new drivers, WHQL, that magically add 20-30 fps and becomes comfortable playing, or need 2 high-end videocards?

and the last one i will quote,

EVGA 570 Superclocked

i9 @ 3.0GHz
6GB RAM
1920x1080 single monitor
DX11: 2-5 FPS at starting fight, with black textures everywhere. Unplayable. All other games fly.

F****ing $60 USD down the drain and I get a big pile of useless bytes on my HDD.

People have very short/selective memories. The issues with Dragon age 2 came directly from AMD and their "assisting" the developer with adding advanced/DX 11 features.

It took months for Nvidia to sort it out. Nvidia has since brought up the fact games have launched leaving them totally blindsided cause they never seen the code.

The Dragon Age 2 example stands up at the top as one of the extreme cases you can name from either side. And it was an AMD sponsored title, which Nvidia had no access to the actual release product until after it launched.
The same with Tomb raider and even TressFX. Only after the games launched could Nvidia see the final product and it took longer still before TressFX code finally was released. After Nvidia had already optimized the performance.

I just would like people to at least try now. Please try not to continuously spread folly. Folly is getting all over the place, everywhere. Why cant there be one single thread that isnt crammed full of Folly.

 

[tential]

absolute crap

If you turned on advance DX11 features it was unplayable even with Nvidia's flagship. It was unplayable with 2 GTX 480s/580. Even with 3 gtx 480s in 3 way SLI, framerates were so low it was pretty much unplayable.

yet it looked beautiful and played perfect with a single HD5850.

People seem to have really really really short memories around here.
google search and right off the bat:

https://forums.geforce.com/default/...errible-performance-on-nvidia-480-51-way-sli/

and the last one i will quote,
People have very short/selective memories. The issues with Dragon age 2 came directly from AMD and their "assisting" the developer with adding advanced/DX 11 features.

It took months for Nvidia to sort it out. Nvidia has since brought up the fact games have launched leaving them totally blindsided cause they never seen the code.

The Dragon Age 2 example stands up at the top as one of the extreme cases you can name from either side. And it was an AMD sponsored title, which Nvidia had no access to the actual release product until after it launched.
The same with Tomb raider and even TressFX. Only after the games launched could Nvidia see the final product and it took longer still before TressFX code finally was released. After Nvidia had already optimized the performance.

I just would like people to at least try now. Please try not to continuously spread folly. Folly is getting all over the place, everywhere. Why cant there be one single thread that isnt crammed full of Folly.

Dragon Age 2 was a very optimized game and ran extremely efficient. You just didn't have the hardware necessary to play it.

 

[RussianSensation]

absolute crap

If you turned on advance DX11 features it was unplayable even with Nvidia's flagship. It was unplayable with 2 GTX 480s/580. Even with 3 gtx 480s in 3 way SLI, framerates were so low it was pretty much unplayable.

yet it looked beautiful and played perfect with a single HD5850.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence for user error and broken rigs if they were getting 2-5 FPS on a 570, unless they turned on MSAA and ran into VRAM bottlenecks. The game initially launched on March 8, 2011 and when reviews on March 15, 2011, there was no magical 2-3X advantage for HD5000/6000 series over GTX400/500 series. Sure, AMD cards punched above their weight class but it was nowhere near the situation we see in Unity.

Source

The poor performance reported by some sites was with heavy 8XMSAA settings, not due to DX10/11. That's attributable to NV not optimizing the drivers for AA early on. There were no proprietary AMD settings that crippled GTX400/500 series.

Let's not forget that AMD cards run pretty good in FC4 and The Crew, but Unity is the extremely demanding mess on both NV and AMD hardware. Similar to a huge performance hit on NV cards in DA2, AMD cards suffer nearly a 90-100% performance drop with MSAA in The Crew, however, performance is fine without AA, which means AMD needs to optimize their driver there.

--

'Zero Punctuation': Assassin's Creed: Unity
http://www.onenewspage.com/video/20141203/2320016/Zero-Punctuation-Assassin-Creed-Unity.htm

 

[Red Hawk]

Dragon Age 2 was a very optimized game and ran extremely efficient. You just didn't have the hardware necessary to play it.

DA2 really wasn't terrifically optimized on release, even on AMD. It was rushed and there were gameplay and performance bugs everywhere. I'm pretty sure I can still get it to chug on a 7870/270X during cutscenes if a flame happens to be in a frame.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence for user error and broken rigs if they were getting 2-5 FPS on a 570, unless they turned on MSAA and ran into VRAM bottlenecks. The game initially launched on March 8, 2011 and when reviews on March 15, 2011, there was no magical 2-3X advantage for HD5000/6000 series over GTX400/500 series. Sure, AMD cards punched above their weight class but it was nowhere near the situation we see in Unity.

Eurogamer had problems turning the game up to the "Very High" graphics quality setting (essentially, where all the DX11 level features came into play. the "High" setting was for DX10 level features).

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dragon-age-ii-face-off?page=3

It was getting single-digit frame rates at 720p, and I'm pretty sure top-end Nvidia cards at the time wouldn't run into a VRAM bottleneck just at 720p.

 

[Silverforce11]

Sounds like anecdotal evidence for user error and broken rigs if they were getting 2-5 FPS on a 570, unless they turned on MSAA and ran into VRAM bottlenecks. The game initially launched on March 8, 2011 and when reviews on March 15, 2011, there was no magical 2-3X advantage for HD5000/6000 series over GTX400/500 series. Sure, AMD cards punched above their weight class but it was nowhere near the situation we see in Unity.

Thank you again for using facts to dispel anecdotal evidence. I did recall DA2 ran well on AMD hardware and it had a few texture bugs that needed a post release patch to sort out for NV GPUs.

The same for Tomb Raider, even with fancy hair, the lead wasn't a blow out.

But there was one AMD GE game that did have a huge advantage for AMD, Company of Heroes 2 and their usage of DX11 compute to render snow physics. I think NV still performs very poorly relatively in that game.

 

[tential]

DA2 really wasn't terrifically optimized on release, even on AMD. It was rushed and there were gameplay and performance bugs everywhere. I'm pretty sure I can still get it to chug on a 7870/270X during cutscenes if a flame happens to be in a frame.

Was a joke in response to AC Unity being well optimized. Forgot my /sarcasm tag.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Optimized condition isn't met just because a game hits 60 fps. It's about what level of hardware is required for a given level of technical prowess/graphics and performance combined. If it takes a 760 to get 30 fps and 980 to hit 60 FPS in PacMan or original Mario Super Bros., according to you, the game is well optimized. It is no wonder people say Trine2, Alien Isolation or Crysis 3 are well optimized because they run well relative to their hardware demands relative to their graphics -- among the best optimized games on the PC compared to other games.

It's hard to argue with a poster who keeps defending the AC franchise and thinks Unity is the best looking / next gen game on the PC. Unity can't be next generation for starters when it doesn't look a generation beyond Crysis 3, Metro LL or Tomb Raider. How many times does this need to be repeated? In many ways even Uncharted 4 and Infomous Second Son look better than Unity. Again, a next generation game today would need to look better by 1 generation compared to anything out. It also implies that Unity must look as good as any PS4 game for the entire PS4 generation because Crysis 1, a true next generation game at that time, did look as good as any PS3 game for all of Ps3's life. Unity fails miserably in this regard by failing to look 1 gen above PC games and not matching ISS and U4, nevermind 2016-2019 PS4 games. You keep saying how those Unity screenshots weren't pre-rendered but are in-game engine. There are no such graphics in any section of the game in real time. It's like ND claiming the E3 trailer of U4 was in-game. So what? It's easy to make a scripted 2 minute scene using the game engine and it would have 0 to do with real world real time graphics of the same game.

What's interesting is nearly every professional review, nearly every PC and console gamer thinks Unity is unoptimized (ie, it does NOT look great given the hardware demands and scales poorly based on various professional analysis such as Digital Foundry and AT), here we have 1 guy who disagrees with almost everyone. This game doesn't have a divided opinion of optimization like Crysis 1 or Metro games do. Instead, almost everyone with experience of PC gaming thinks the game is an optimized mess. Also, there are several issues with LOD in draw distance, low polygon character models, primitive physics, very poor shadow and lighting model, poor character hair, low resolution textures, etc. These factors contribute to exacerbate how poorly optimized Unity is. None of this is surprising since the last 3 AC games have been unoptimized on the PC. It's a track record. For example why does Unity run so much worse than FC4, but looks worse in many areas? How broken is the game that reducing NPC count does nothing to raise FPS?

There are way too many screenshots on our and other forums which highlight that while in some areas the game looks good, in others it looks downright like a 2010-2011 game. Over the years I have noticed you cheer the AC franchise over and over and defend its horrible performance on the PC. Ok, it's your opinion but most gamers disagree based on what one can read on forums and reviews of AC U. I also remember you denying how ugly AC3 looked, especially in the snow levels, and I once again called out primitive lighting and shadow model and low polygon character models:

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassins-creed-iii-test-gpu.html

Let's not even forget that Ubisoft accused AMD of poor performance and bugs as if AMD causes horrible performance and bugs on NV hardware too:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...e-of-assassins-creed-unitys-poor-performance/

Later Ubisoft themselves admitted that the code is not optimized and they will be releasing "performance patches" for everyone, not just AMD users. Complete contradiction to their earlier damage defense, huh?


Anyways, looking forward to this magical 1.4 performance patch and many more to go so that hopefully by the time the game hits $5-10 it won't require 970 G1@ 1.4Ghz in SLI to hit 60 fps with blurfest FXAA.

It's hilarious Crysis has destructible buildings back in 2007 but yet FC4 doesn't in 2014 and then we have GPU hardware whores here comically missing the point of graphical fidelity to hardware ratio. Don't gimme that nonsensical apologetic rubbish about making games is hard, because that is only the hard thing in this whole world.

 

[ocre]

I do not disagree about Unity. After its finally fixed i plan on buying it.

Cant wait to play DA: Inquisition too. Just so hard to find anytime at all to play games anymore.

Life is pretty full

 

[Carfax83]

Two 970s to achieve 60FPS on the game and it is AMD's fault?

You're not looking at the full context. Thats two 970s to max out the game at 1440p and sustain 60 FPS..

The vast majority of the time, new games like this don't run at 60 FPS right off the bat after launch when they have such high IQ and detail..

In fact, no game has ever rendered as much detail as AC Unity to my knowledge and still manage to run this fast..

Is not continue improving performance, is fixing the performance of the game for the wast majority of the cards.

Ubisoft have already narrowed down the performance issue, and it had to do with the instruction queue getting overloaded. That to me sounds like a CPU issue rather than a GPU issue.

With two 970s... awesome optimization.

The GTX 970 is an entry level high end card, and nothing more. You're acting as though it's a super high end card when it isn't.

Many guys with Nvidia rigs blaming the game for poor performance.

And there's lots of people that aren't having any issues. There's also a ton of people with both AMD and Nvidia cards that are playing the game on systems well below minimum specs.

Most of them are the ones that are complaining about performance issues, but if you buy a game knowing that your system does not even meet the required minimum specs, who's fault is that?

 

[Carfax83]

Looks like the same old and tired misconceptions are being propagated in this thread, especially about programs like GameWorks and Gaming Evolved, and game optimization in general.

Gameworks for example isn't primarily about making sure that a game runs well on Nvidia hardware and ensuring that AMD has no access to the game code like one poster erroneously put it.

The primary purpose of Gameworks is to improve the gaming experience for PC gamers, especially those with Nvidia hardware by implementing PC specific technologies to differentiate the PC version from the console versions..

As such, optimization doesn't really factor in it, because on the PC platform, developers don't optimize their games for any one vendor or architecture. The only performance benefit that something like Gameworks can provide, is earlier access to the game code so they can start tuning their drivers before launch.

Which brings me to my next point. PC game performance is the responsibility of not just the game developer, but the IHV as well. The developer codes their game for whatever rendering API they are using (in the case of AC Unity, DX11), but it's up to the IHV to tune their drivers specifically for their hardware..

So the drivers obviously play an enormous role in extracting performance from these games. AMD's performance in AC Unity likely stemmed from having later access than Nvidia to the game code, as well as having inefficient drivers generally speaking.

There were some people getting a 100% performance increase in certain circumstances, which is way more than what driver optimizations typically yield; especially when Ubisoft hadn't even rolled out the performance patch yet.

 

[WittyRemark]

You're not looking at the full context. Thats two 970s to max out the game at 1440p and sustain 60 FPS..

The vast majority of the time, new games like this don't run at 60 FPS right off the bat after launch when they have such high IQ and detail..

In fact, no game has ever rendered as much detail as AC Unity to my knowledge and still manage to run this fast..



Ubisoft have already narrowed down the performance issue, and it had to do with the instruction queue getting overloaded. That to me sounds like a CPU issue rather than a GPU issue.



The GTX 970 is an entry level high end card, and nothing more. You're acting as though it's a super high end card when it isn't.



And there's lots of people that aren't having any issues. There's also a ton of people with both AMD and Nvidia cards that are playing the game on systems well below minimum specs.

Most of them are the ones that are complaining about performance issues, but if you buy a game knowing that your system does not even meet the required minimum specs, who's fault is that?

Pretty much this ^^^
But Unity was an un-optimized mess at launch though,and people really took it too another level by outright bashing it.

 

[96Firebird]

So can this thread be about the patch now?

Evidently not, judging by all the posts... But the PC Gaming forum would have been the place to put this to avoid all the complaints about poor AMD performance before the Omega driver.

I had the chance to play Unity this morning for a bit. with 1.3 and the omega drivers, the game ran much smoother than normal on my 7970cf. Looking forward to what 1.4 has to offer.

Right now my biggest gripe is draw distance/pop-in. Not sure why but it seems to have gotten worse since launch. Maybe they're reducing that to open bandwidth to assist with other problems.

This is good news, sounds like AMD fixed their issues with their newest driver. So I'm assuming CF is working for you? Do you get the same performance with crossfire disabled?

I haven't had the chance to try out this newest patch yet, waiting on my step-up 970 FTW to arrive this week.

 

[RussianSensation]

Hopefully tomorrow some sites will cover the performance difference with the new patch. Unity really bombed on the PC. Crappy sales and didn't get nominated for anything at GameSpot.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pc-best-games-of-2014-nominees/1100-6423905/

At this point the poor performance and bugs in Unity did enough PR damage that most who didn't buy it already will now wait until the game hits $5-20. DAI will take a lot of people's time and it's probably going to win PC game of the year. Really hope the Quebec team does a much better job with Victory.

 

[sxr7171]

Ok let's just wait for the patch. Knowing Ubi this won't run right for 6 months. With AC BF I played through about 2-3 months after release. And it was reasonably playable with some stutters. But when I run it today it's about as butter smooth as an Ubi game gets. Watch Dogs also runs pretty decently now. Could be better though.

 

[raghu78]

Looks like the same old and tired misconceptions are being propagated in this thread, especially about programs like GameWorks and Gaming Evolved, and game optimization in general.

Gameworks for example isn't primarily about making sure that a game runs well on Nvidia hardware and ensuring that AMD has no access to the game code like one poster erroneously put it.

The primary purpose of Gameworks is to improve the gaming experience for PC gamers, especially those with Nvidia hardware by implementing PC specific technologies to differentiate the PC version from the console versions..

As such, optimization doesn't really factor in it, because on the PC platform, developers don't optimize their games for any one vendor or architecture. The only performance benefit that something like Gameworks can provide, is earlier access to the game code so they can start tuning their drivers before launch.

Which brings me to my next point. PC game performance is the responsibility of not just the game developer, but the IHV as well. The developer codes their game for whatever rendering API they are using (in the case of AC Unity, DX11), but it's up to the IHV to tune their drivers specifically for their hardware..

So the drivers obviously play an enormous role in extracting performance from these games. AMD's performance in AC Unity likely stemmed from having later access than Nvidia to the game code, as well as having inefficient drivers generally speaking.

There were some people getting a 100% performance increase in certain circumstances, which is way more than what driver optimizations typically yield; especially when Ubisoft hadn't even rolled out the performance patch yet.

you are going to be proven wrong and quite badly . HWC has an upcoming article on AC Unity 1.3 performance impact on Nvidia GPU, AMD GPU, APUs and Intel IGPs. SKYMTL says the patch impacted performance across the board.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-performance-comment-thread-4.html#post782686

"First and foremost AC Unity 1.3 was the reason for the performance updates. Not the AMD drives. Improvements were seen across the board. "

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-performance-comment-thread-4.html#post782693

"I have pre and post v1.3 results for Radeon, GeForce, APUs and Intel integrated GPUs for an upcoming article. Trust me, it was an across the board increase.

Unfortunately, it hasn't done much for the crashing that seems tied to the game engine.... "

 

[96Firebird]

So what would your conclusion be if the game patch increased performance for all GPUs 10%, and then the latest AMD drivers increased AMD's performance another 10%?

 

[RussianSensation]

Assassin's Creed Unity Patch 4 Delayed

""As stated last week, we'd expected to release the patch today (and we know that many are anticipating its release), but we are choosing to hold off until we can give you the improvements we've promised," Ubisoft went on. "We are committed to delivering major performance improvements, which requires that we refurbish the Paris map and that will take a few more days to hit the high level of quality our players deserve."
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/assassin-s-creed-unity-patch-4-delayed/1100-6424231/

Boom, 2nd time that Ubisoft confirms the game code / game engine optimization was broken. If it wasn't for gamers criticizing Ubisoft, this patch would have never happened. Glad some of us don't just accept launch performance as "well optimized" when it takes 970 SLI to get good frames at 1080p with MSAA.

 

[Carfax83]

you are going to be proven wrong and quite badly . HWC has an upcoming article on AC Unity 1.3 performance impact on Nvidia GPU, AMD GPU, APUs and Intel IGPs. SKYMTL says the patch impacted performance across the board.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-performance-comment-thread-4.html#post782686

"First and foremost AC Unity 1.3 was the reason for the performance updates. Not the AMD drives. Improvements were seen across the board. "

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-performance-comment-thread-4.html#post782693

"I have pre and post v1.3 results for Radeon, GeForce, APUs and Intel integrated GPUs for an upcoming article. Trust me, it was an across the board increase.

Unfortunately, it hasn't done much for the crashing that seems tied to the game engine.... "

Right, so even though AMD themselves claim that the Omega drivers improves AC Unity performance, you still seem hellbent on believing that patch 1.3 was responsible for the massive performance gains even though Ubisoft didn't explicitly state that patch 1.3 was a performance enhancing patch.. Fine logic there

While it's possible that 1.3 did improve performance across the board like SKYMTL says, there is no way that it can explain the huge increase in performance for AMD rigs.

I mean, I haven't heard any Nvidia users saying that patch 1.3 increased their performance by leaps and bounds.. Have you?