[Ubisoft] Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate -- Recommended Spec requires 3GB VRAM for 1080P

[RussianSensation]

RECOMMENDED

Supported OS
Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64bit versions only)
Processor
Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.5 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz

RAM
8GB

Video Card
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (4GB) or the newer GTX 970 (4GB) or AMD Radeon R9 280X (3GB) or better

DirectX
DirectX June 2010 Redistributable

Sound
DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card with latest drivers

Hard Drive
50 GB available space

Technical note from the developer:

For a recommended experience, the game requires a video card with at least 3GB of VRAM when playing at a full HD resolution. While we encourage you to fiddle with the advanced options to fully customize your gaming experience, please keep an eye out for the VRAM meter usage when you adjust these settings.
http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-syndicate-pc-specs/

The game comes out November 19th.

The list of AAA games that have outdated 2GB videocards is just getting larger. I am sure I am missing some games from this list.

1. Shadow of Mordor
2. Wolfenstein NWO
3. Titanfall
4. Watch Dogs
5. Black Ops 3
6. Dead Rising 3
7. AC Unity
8. AC Syndicate (soon)

I expect VRAM requirements to move into 3-4GB range in 2016 with 16nm GPU. It's actually surprising it took this long.

 

[Techhog]

For recommended specs, this seems fine. I'm usually on your site here, but it's too early to call it crippling...

 

[thesmokingman]

3GB vram at 1080 is going to be a serious problem for some.

 

[tential]

But did graphical fidelity increase....

 

[RussianSensation]

For recommended specs, this seems fine. I'm usually on your site here, but it's too early to call it crippling...

My point was merely that VRAM requirements will continue to grow due to either more demanding next gen PC games or poorly optimized console-to-PC ports. For anyone who still hasn't purchased a new GPU and is looking to play newer gamers, I strongly suggest staying away from all 2GB cards.

But did graphical fidelity increase....

Unity more or less stuttered/chugged on 2GB cards at 1080P. This is just making the requirement official.

 

[Techhog]

3GB vram at 1080 is going to be a serious problem for some.

It's not like we're talking about minimum here. Just turn textures down a notch and you should be fine...

 

[alcoholbob]

But did graphical fidelity increase....

I think its mostly an issue of draw distance and texture pop-in which you see much more of in these multi-plat games on older consoles. I mean 256MB of VRAM apparently is enough to run these games so its hardly like the games actually require that much. It just means less memory swapping with more RAM.

 

[tential]

I think its mostly an issue of draw distance and texture pop-in which you see much more of in these multi-plat games on older consoles. I mean 256MB of VRAM apparently is enough to run these games so its hardly like the games actually require that much. It just means less memory swapping with more RAM.

increasing draw distance and reducing texture poppin would count as increasing graphical fidelity...

Both are essential to game immersion....

 

[Techhog]

I think its mostly an issue of draw distance and texture pop-in which you see much more of in these multi-plat games on older consoles. I mean 256MB of VRAM apparently is enough to run these games so its hardly like the games actually require that much. It just means less memory swapping with more RAM.

This game is current-gen exclusive.

 

[RussianSensation]

I think its mostly an issue of draw distance and texture pop-in which you see much more of in these multi-plat games on older consoles. I mean 256MB of VRAM apparently is enough to run these games so its hardly like the games actually require that much. It just means less memory swapping with more RAM.

Unity was one of the most demanding/poorly optimized games last year. Even today when turning everything up + MSAA, it wipes the floor with every single-GPU videocard of this generation, including a 1.4Ghz 980Ti. Syndicate is based on the same game engine. I am expecting most of the performance improvements to come from lower NPC count and downgraded lighting system but the game should still be fairly GPU demanding.

 

[tential]

SLI Fury X/980Ti can play Unity at 4K it seems. So next gen Pascal/Arctic Islands, I will try myself some 4K Unity. Game looked pretty nice at 4K.
If Syndicate runs better, might even be able to play that too!

 

[happy medium]

Shadow of Mordor 1080p ultra with high textures. Avg 60fps with a 2gb r9 285.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqhrV3wnoe8

Wolfenstein NWO ultra settings with a 2gb gtx770. Seems fine to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar2uXQB11o

Titanfall - 2gb Nvidia GTX 770 - Ultra Settings at 1080p
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VULbtEpSZWI

Watch Dogs - PC GTX 770 2GB VRAM framerate test 1080p , not totally maxed out but very high settings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsqNjTrcpK4

Black ops 3 - this game is so messed up no one really knows.
but 1080p looks doable with a gtx285 or gtx960 or 380 2gb

Dead Rising 3 On Gigabyte GTX 770 OC - Max Settings+45/60 FPS - Full HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGJO7c4McQM

Assassin's Creed: Unity - Patch 1.2 Performance - 2gb GTX 770 ultra settings
24min 38 avg 64 max. that's video looks very playable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0eBxJVUYbQ&feature=youtu.be

AC syndicate, cant find a good video,

To me all these games seem fine with a 2gb card. The videos show true gameplay not a nano second drop to 17fps and call it a minimum. The actual recording of these videos take a few frames away also I'd imagine.

 

[Silverforce11]

@happy medium
Some of those games you can't enable ultra textures with 2GB cards, so it isn't "maxed" even at 1080p. I know Watch Dogs cos its a classic example at the time I still had a 7950 and gtx670, the 670 could not enable Ultra Textures, the 7950 did and ran it faster at better settings (both OC). Same for Mordor.

The others are known to cause major stutters during intense scenes.

 

[happy medium]

@happy medium
Some of those games you can't enable ultra textures with 2GB cards, so it isn't "maxed" even at 1080p. I know Watch Dogs cos its a classic example at the time I still had a 7950 and gtx670, the 670 could not enable Ultra Textures, the 7950 did and ran it faster at better settings (both OC). Same for Mordor.

The others are known to cause major stutters during intense scenes.

wow you watched all those videos in 2 min? no you didn't!
I know what I watched and I saw games running maxed or real close to max
on a 2gb 285 or 2gb gtx770.

In most games you cant even tell the difference from high to ultra textures.
Such BS its not even funny. Get real man.

there are no 7950's or 670's in the videos.

On most 2gb cards, in most games, you run out of gpu power before you run out of vram.

 

[Techhog]

Shadow of Mordor 1080p ultra with high textures. Avg 60fps with a 2gb r9 285.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqhrV3wnoe8

Wolfenstein NWO ultra settings with a 2gb gtx770. Seems fine to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar2uXQB11o

Titanfall - 2gb Nvidia GTX 770 - Ultra Settings at 1080p
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VULbtEpSZWI

Watch Dogs - PC GTX 770 2GB VRAM framerate test 1080p , not totally maxed out but very high settings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsqNjTrcpK4

Black ops 3 - this game is so messed up no one really knows.
but 1080p looks doable with a gtx285 or gtx960 or 380 2gb

Dead Rising 3 On Gigabyte GTX 770 OC - Max Settings+45/60 FPS - Full HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGJO7c4McQM

Assassin's Creed: Unity - Patch 1.2 Performance - 2gb GTX 770 ultra settings
24min 38 avg 64 max. that's video looks very playable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0eBxJVUYbQ&feature=youtu.be

AC syndicate, cant find a good video,

To me all these games seem fine with a 2gb card. The videos show true gameplay not a nano second drop to 17fps and call it a minimum. The actual recording of these videos take a few frames away also I'd imagine.

You can't find a Syndicate vid because it's not out yet. Also, RS is talking about max settings, so that first vid doesn't really count. I also would like to see frame times.

 

[happy medium]

You can't find a Syndicate vid because it's not out yet. Also, RS is talking about max settings. I also would like to see frame times.

To me when I watch a video and it looks good, I can care less about frame times. Looks smooth it is smooth is my motto.
:thumbsup:

The truth is the 670,680,760,770, r9 285 hardly have the gpu power to use settings in these games to use more than 2gb of vram. Its a very fine line.

 

[tential]

Shadow of Mordor 1080p ultra with high textures. Avg 60fps with a 2gb r9 285.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqhrV3wnoe8

Wolfenstein NWO ultra settings with a 2gb gtx770. Seems fine to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar2uXQB11o

Titanfall - 2gb Nvidia GTX 770 - Ultra Settings at 1080p
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VULbtEpSZWI

Watch Dogs - PC GTX 770 2GB VRAM framerate test 1080p , not totally maxed out but very high settings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsqNjTrcpK4

Black ops 3 - this game is so messed up no one really knows.
but 1080p looks doable with a gtx285 or gtx960 or 380 2gb

Dead Rising 3 On Gigabyte GTX 770 OC - Max Settings+45/60 FPS - Full HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGJO7c4McQM

Assassin's Creed: Unity - Patch 1.2 Performance - 2gb GTX 770 ultra settings
24min 38 avg 64 max. that's video looks very playable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0eBxJVUYbQ&feature=youtu.be

AC syndicate, cant find a good video,

To me all these games seem fine with a 2gb card. The videos show true gameplay not a nano second drop to 17fps and call it a minimum. The actual recording of these videos take a few frames away also I'd imagine.

This just shows what you find to be playable vs what other people find to be playable.
I don't need to see a video showing 40 FPS to decide if it's playable or not to me. It simply isn't playable to me. Maybe with Freesync I'll change my mind.

Sure, Youtube can show you gameplay framerates of specific areas, but it still doesn't change the framerate for me.

So really, it's all dependent on what you find acceptable. For me, I'd prefer a GTX 980/R9 390at minimum to play the AC Unity scene shown at 1080p.

 

[Silverforce11]

In most games you cant even tell the difference from high to ultra textures.
Such BS its not even funny. Get real man.

Educate yourself and tell me you can't tell the difference:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...formance_image_quality_review/12#.Vj6S07crKUk

 

[HeXen]

Does this use the Anvil 2 engine? Because to me it just doesn't seem to look quite as good as Unity did to me anyway.

 

[happy medium]

So really, it's all dependent on what you find acceptable.

I agree, mabe I'm just one of the people who can't tell the difference while I'm playing a game between 40 and 60fps. Now when it dips below 30 or so I notice.

 

[happy medium]

Educate yourself and tell me you can't tell the difference:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...formance_image_quality_review/12#.Vj6S07crKUk

SO your saying while I'm actually playing a game and running around shooting like a mad man, I should be able to tell the difference between high and ultra textures based on that?

Good luck, I honestly doubt I'd notice.

Like I said............ do these gpu's have the raw gpu power to even use more than 2gb of vram?

Tential seems to think these fps are not playable.
I'll take your link as a example.......

 

[tential]

I think in general happy_medium, most gamers are in your camp. They are willing to play on high/medium as usually, you don't notice in a shooter. In fact, in a game like Crysis 3, I didn't notice much myself my first time. Or rather, Medium still looked AMAZING.

I don't think a person with 2GB of VRAM is targeting Ultra textures....
They're targeting a playable and enjoyable experience by dropping whatever settings they need to and they are not targeting 60 fps. They are targeting a fun experience. Having watched people who aren't gamers review game play experience, they're in your camp. They are happy with 40 FPS, and really it's the 20 FPS to 15 FPS drops that are jarring, but as long as the game is mostly at 45 FPS framerate or so, they're ok. So it all depends on how sensitive you are to things, and high end gamers have to realize t here are necessary tradeoffs in the $150-250 market that must be made that they wouldn't dream of making in their markets.
So I think 4GB of VRAM is the minimum for people who want to play with the big textures. But for lowend cards, I agree with you happymedium, you're turning down settings.... I don't even see why people bench lowend cards below the 970/290 at ultra settings. I feel Medium/High(if even high) is the most relevant for those users.
Edit: Also testing below 1080p, as it seems there are a LOT of users below 1080p. I have no idea why... but people have monitors that aren't 1080p for some reason, or game below 1080p.

 

[happy medium]

I have this feeling that at any minute I will receive a huge wall of texts and graphs, prices and the numbers 290 and 390 written a thousand times.

Happy hold hands over head. here it comes !!!!!!!!!

 

[jpiniero]

TBH considering the consoles have basically 6 GB it's kind of surprising I am still seeing threads like this 2 years in.

 

[happy medium]

TBH considering the consoles have basically 6 GB it's kind of surprising I am still seeing threads like this 2 years in.

mabe consoles don't stream their textures like PC's do?
Some games on PC's just use whats available whether its 2 gb 4gb 6gb or even 8gb. Depends on the game and the card.

Good question.