Quality/Performance Issues in Assassin's Creed: Unity [WCCF]

[SperglordActual]

I doubt it's SweetFX. They're capable screenshots, that bunch...but not that good.
Although images are downsampled from 3200x1800

@RussianSensation
my wish is that Witcher 3 looks at least as good technically as AC:U (my bet is it won't), and yet it performs like Witcher 2
it should be better looking though, because of more magic/nature scenery

Its going to look far better because its a far better engine and not a horrid mess of a console port.

 

[RussianSensation]

Seriously, I'm done talking to RS about this subject. He just keeps rehashing the same argument over and over again no matter how many times I discredit them.

Using MSAA in this game, depending on the level, can result in an up to 20 FPS hit in performance. For the slight boost in image quality that you get over FXAA, that is totally unwarranted and only a fool would run the game with MSAA turned on; especially at high resolutions.

Maybe performance with MSAA will improve after the next patch, or the one after, but I doubt it. MSAA in a deferred rendering engine always results in a very large performance hit. The more complex the lighting, the greater the hit.

Even AT's overview commented on how poorly optimized the game is and how it has issues scaling with higher end CPU and GPU hardware. They also tested with MSAA. Some of us hate post-processing filters like FXAA/MLAA in 95% of games since it blurs the picture too much. I'd rather play with no AA then.

The point still stands that nearly everyone, including the developer, think that Unity's code is crazy unoptimized. You are here defending this game even now. You also think just because a game has billions of NPCs and a large Paris, it automatically looks amazing. That's not how graphics work.

It's ok to say that this is the best looking AC game but compared to graphical powerhouses like Metro LL or Crysis 3, this game has nothing on them.

 

[RussianSensation]

PC version of Unity is a lost cause, the lighting is worse than in FC4 and the game runs nearly 50%+ slower than FC4. The developer even mentions that reducing the number of NPCs does nothing to improve performance which highlights a major game engine code bottleneck elsewhere. Regardless, I doubt Ubisoft cares much as Unity is going to sell millions of copies on consoles, and I wouldn't be surprised if it hits 7-8 million on consoles because the hottest XB1 bundle is the $329-350 AC Bundle, available everywhere from Target, to Walmart to BestBuy, you name it.

If there will be an award for the worst optimized game of 2014 this year, Unity will win it hands down.

 

[cytg111]

Because of all their past years mistakes, I will not buy Far Cry 4.

- Yup, I enjoyed FarCry3, but will not get this one.

 

[sxr7171]

Still too expensive. R9 270 with free games is $90 AR and $10 visa checkout discount. At these prices 750Ti would need to drop to $60-70 given how much faster the 270 is.

--

PC version of Unity is a lost cause, the lighting is worse than in FC4 and the game runs nearly 50%+ slower than FC4. The developer even mentions that reducing the number of NPCs does nothing to improve performance which highlights a major game engine code bottleneck elsewhere. Regardless, I doubt Ubisoft cares much as Unity is going to sell millions of copies on consoles, and I wouldn't be surprised if it hits 7-8 million on consoles because the hottest XB1 bundle is the $329-350 AC Bundle, available everywhere from Target, to Walmart to BestBuy, you name it.

If there will be an award for the worst optimized game of 2014 this year, Unity will win it hands down.

That engine is a joke. It seems like it isn't really meant to scale. I just put on Unity post patch and while it's playable for me, the graphics are nothing to write home about. Nothing can tame the aliasing in that game as nothing can tame the tree shimmering in Far Cry 4. The only solution to these problems is DSR yet these relatively unimpressive games can barely hold 60fps on a 980GTX. You can't even think of running DSR on this as I can easily do with Dragon Age Inquisition or COD AW or even BF4. AC unity doesn't even offer 4x TXAA and in Far Cry 4 TXAA seems broken. I really don't like texture shimmering as for me it breaks immersion.

But long story short if you put on Crysis 3 maxed out it becomes instantly apparent that Ubisoft's engines are just a joke. Or even look at Ryse Son of Rome. The engine is on a whole other level (but boring game). Ubisoft has great ideas for games but they can't realize it on this engine. If I'm not mistaken they are variants of cry engine 1 with stuff tacked on over the years. I'm hoping that The Division will finally live up to all this stuff we've been lied to about in Watch Dogs, AC unity and Far Cry 4.

 

[stahlhart]

Keep this thread on topic.
-- stahlhart

 

[psolord]

I just did a couple of custom AC Unity benchmarks (1.30 patch) and recorded them with my camera.

I cried!

(if you decide to watch the videos be warned that I use some sexy nsfw wallpapers)

ASSASSIN'S CREED UNITY 1920X1080 CUSTOM ULTRA RADEON 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i5 2500 @4.8Ghz

ASSASSIN'S CREED UNITY CUSTOM 1920X1080 GTX 570 @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9GHz

ASSASSIN'S CREED UNITY CUSTOM 1920X1080 GTX 570 SLI @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9

7950, environment quality ultra, textures ultra, shadows high, ambient occlusion SSAO, FXAA, 36.5 fps

GTX 570, environment quality v.high, textures low, shadows high, ambient occlusion SSAO, no AA, 19.0 fps

GTX 570 SLI, environment quality v.high, textures low, shadows high, ambient occlusion SSAO, no AA, 16.0 fps

I was not so disheartened by the 7950 result, as I was with my 570s.

Even using lower setting did not help. There's a huge video ram bottleneck. SLI only made things worse, due to the extra data needed.

I mean I have run other vram demanding games on the limited 570 framebuffer, but with the help of the rest of the system (big ram, fast buses) it kind of alleviate it.

For example:

WOLFENSTEIN NEW ORDER CUSTOM ULTRA 1920X1080 GTX 570 @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9Ghz

BATTLEFIELD 4 CUSTOM ULTRA 1920X1080 GTX 570 @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9GHz


BATTLEFIELD 4 CUSTOM ULTRA 1920X1080 GTX 570 SLI @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9GHz


THE EVIL WITHIN 1920X1080 MAXED GTX 570 @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9GHz

It run those quite nicely with framebuffer at maximum, like the Far Cry 4 benchmarks I posted on its thread. ACU won though!

PS I am not even going to try to start it on my 5850s lol.

 

[tential]

I just did a couple of custom AC Unity benchmarks (1.30 patch) and recorded them with my camera.

I cried!

(if you decide to watch the videos be warned that I use some sexy nsfw wallpapers)

ASSASSIN'S CREED UNITY 1920X1080 CUSTOM ULTRA RADEON 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i5 2500 @4.8Ghz

ASSASSIN'S CREED UNITY CUSTOM 1920X1080 GTX 570 @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9GHz

ASSASSIN'S CREED UNITY CUSTOM 1920X1080 GTX 570 SLI @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9

7950, environment quality ultra, textures ultra, shadows high, ambient occlusion SSAO, FXAA, 36.5 fps

GTX 570, environment quality v.high, textures low, shadows high, ambient occlusion SSAO, no AA, 19.0 fps

GTX 570 SLI, environment quality v.high, textures low, shadows high, ambient occlusion SSAO, no AA, 16.0 fps

I was not so disheartened by the 7950 result, as I was with my 570s.

Even using lower setting did not help. There's a huge video ram bottleneck. SLI only made things worse, due to the extra data needed.

I mean I have run other vram demanding games on the limited 570 framebuffer, but with the help of the rest of the system (big ram, fast buses) it kind of alleviate it.

For example:

WOLFENSTEIN NEW ORDER CUSTOM ULTRA 1920X1080 GTX 570 @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9Ghz

BATTLEFIELD 4 CUSTOM ULTRA 1920X1080 GTX 570 @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9GHz


BATTLEFIELD 4 CUSTOM ULTRA 1920X1080 GTX 570 SLI @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9GHz


THE EVIL WITHIN 1920X1080 MAXED GTX 570 @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @3.9GHz

It run those quite nicely with framebuffer at maximum, like the Far Cry 4 benchmarks I posted on its thread. ACU won though!

PS I am not even going to try to start it on my 5850s lol.

Thanks for the benches. This is exactly what I'd been saying when the HD7950 came out. It was very good of AMD to put 3GB VRAM in that card. It's held up VERY well with time. Too bad I don't have that high of an OC on my i7 (no OC actually so maybe I'll OC and see what I get to).

 

[krumme]

Thanks for the benches. This is exactly what I'd been saying when the HD7950 came out. It was very good of AMD to put 3GB VRAM in that card. It's held up VERY well with time. Too bad I don't have that high of an OC on my i7 (no OC actually so maybe I'll OC and see what I get to).

Just a correction. It was good for consumers. Bad for amd. Consumer memory is limited. Brand value always beats memory. Feelings beats objective facts (and sensing beats feelings btw). Thats how our brain works.
Look how people buy today.

 

[psolord]

Thanks for the benches. This is exactly what I'd been saying when the HD7950 came out. It was very good of AMD to put 3GB VRAM in that card. It's held up VERY well with time. Too bad I don't have that high of an OC on my i7 (no OC actually so maybe I'll OC and see what I get to).

You are welcome.

The second part of the benchmark, the one on the rooftops, did seem to put quite a strain on the cpu as well. All four cores were at around 75% or thereabout and that's on 4.8Ghz 2500 with a framerate result of 36fps. I don't know what it would take for 60fps.

Maybe a driver with lower overhead (ahem, do you hear AMD)?

 

[RussianSensation]

But long story short if you put on Crysis 3 maxed out it becomes instantly apparent that Ubisoft's engines are just a joke. Or even look at Ryse Son of Rome. The engine is on a whole other level (but boring game). Ubisoft has great ideas for games but they can't realize it on this engine. If I'm not mistaken they are variants of cry engine 1 with stuff tacked on over the years. I'm hoping that The Division will finally live up to all this stuff we've been lied to about in Watch Dogs, AC unity and Far Cry 4.

That's been my point for a while now. Ubisoft doesn't have a true next generation game engine so it's basically impossible for them to make a PC game with next generation graphics. WD, Unity, FC4 all failed graphically to set any benchmarks.

Crysis 2 came out on March 22, 2011 and Crysis 3 followed up on Feb 19, 2013. First, Crysis 3 is almost 2 years old and none of Ubisoft's games in 2014 even come close to it graphically. Second, Ryse Son of Rome was made 1 year ago. Imagine how much better a Crytek game made for the PC would look like by now since nearly 2 years passed since Crysis 3.

Dunia 2 engine powering FC4 is dated, and the Anvil Next engine powering Unity is completely broken in its current state even after Patch 1.3:

"While we fully believe that Assassin's Creed Unity sees certain boosts to performance in specific scenarios, what's clear is that overall frame-rates only see a small improvement overall across the run of play. In our clips this amounts to a 1.95 per cent boost in single-player (25.07fps average vs the pre-patch 24.59fps) and only 1.6 per cent in co-op (24.29fps vs 23.90fps). As gameplay isn't absolutely matched, we consider this to be within the margin of error.

Usually we prefer not to post average frame-rate metrics as the 30fps caps in console titles tend to make rolling averages meaningless (the longer the sample, the more the cap skews the results). However, in the case of Assassin's Creed Unity, it is valid because our test clips rarely hit the 30fps limit at all. More important than the average though, we note that lowest recorded frame-rates remain unchanged - that means that we're still looking at sub-20fps gameplay in some scenarios." :thumbsdown:


The next AC game, Victory, will also be based on the Anvil Next engine but at least their Quebec studio has 12 months to optimize it.