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

[happy medium]

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.

Hey good post and that's twice I agree with you.
Holy god in heaven! ()

 

[tential]

Hey good post and that's twice I agree with you.
Holy god in heaven! ()

I mean, if a person is buying a $200 GPU, chances are, they haven't played a game at 1080p/60 FPS ultra maxed out. Or don't care about doing that. They just want to play a game at enjoyable settings.
But, I think the popularity of the GTX 960 (Living off the performance of it's bigger brethern), is that it gives the experience that you've found enjoyable. It does this at under $200. It also does this at a low hit to system power usage, meaning you can throw it into your rig without thinking about your PSU.
That extra $80 just doesn't seem to be worth it to this camp of gamers to get the performance level of the 970/290.
Once you recognize that, then really it makes sense... Tons of people played these games that we've deemed "unplayable" or that "tanked on kepler", etc. So it must be that people must be willing to turn settings down.
Not to mention the 960 is flexible in that if you optimize for AMD over Nvidia first, you're kind of stupid. The whole market is Nvidia, so you're forced to consider their GPUs and Maxwell has a large amount of people on that architecture. Most games work better on Nvidia at first if you're a person who plays games at launch.

From what I've seen on gaming forums like Neogaf, there is a LARGE group of gamers that couldn't care less about pushing GPU performance boundaries and couldn't care less if there were 15 year GPU cycles. They just want to play games, and want to spend as little on hardware as humanly possible to get acceptable performance to do so.

Me personally though, I just would get an R9 390... But I've found most people who are primarily gamers just would rather save those dollars and buy another game (or multiple games on a steam sale).

 

[Azix]

This could be interesting. I want to see what happens to the 970. Depends on what their recommended settings actually are.

 

[happy medium]

They just want to play games, and want to spend as little on hardware as humanly possible to get acceptable performance to do so

Happy looks at signature ..........that's me.

 

[Zodiark1593]

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.

My TV I use as a monitor is only 720P, so a 960 basically stomps anything at that res.

That said, when I had my last two laptops, one with an Intel GMA, the other with a Radeon 5470, I was happy to just play a game at all, let alone cranking visual settings to high.

 

[Zstream]

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.

Weren't you just telling me that you care more than ever about visuals and frame rates? Lol whatever dude.

 

[3DVagabond]

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 !!!!!!!!!

Thread crap much?

 

[LTC8K6]

This could be interesting. I want to see what happens to the 970. Depends on what their recommended settings actually are.

Well, the 970 does have 4gb of vram. It's just that .5gb of it is really slow vram.

 

[Innokentij]

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.

1. Extra high ress texture pack only so fair enough this is a good port and one of the first real games to take use of more then 2GB for a good thing.
2. Horrible engine by design that can scale fancy shadow map numbers and lazy map generation with extreme size but the quality is sub par most engines i know off.
3. Barley noticeable texture quality from high to insane and a 660TI can run that game from what i see on gamegpu and that only had 2GB in the test.
4. Broken port (Ubisoft)
5. This game is broken, it chugs 4GB vram at full HD tv resolution atm if u check gamegpu so might as well add 3GB cards DOA.
6. Broken port (Ubisoft)
7. Broken port (Ubisoft)
8. Ubisoft so broken port? :thumbsup:

Your point is valid that 2GB cards are not "future" but if u take away the bad broken ports it seems that u can play 99,9% of all video games atm.

 

[AtenRa]

At the end of 2015, 2GB video cards should only be at $150 and bellow. Next year at 14/16nm Video Card era, they should only be at $100 and bellow.

 

[Mondozei]

Next year at 14/16nm Video Card era, they should only be purged

FTFY.

 

[ShintaiDK]

With 14/16nm 4GB gonna be lowest end. 8GB for mainstream and 12-24GB or whatever for high end.

2GB GTX960 was also discontinued some time ago.

 

[Magic Carpet]

With 14/16nm 4GB gonna be lowest end. 8GB for mainstream and 12-24GB or whatever for high end.

Same thinking. Surprised that were stuck for so long with 2-3gb cards.

2GB GTX960 was also discontinued some time ago.

True, but how many those 2GB cards have been sold since launch time, still find it funny how some review sites recommended those for purchase in January 2015. Oh well, one can always upgrade or play older games... But some games do like to use VRAM as cache but the video ram has never been as cheap as system ram. Or as easy to upgrade. Anyway, in GTA 5 you can clearly see the difference in textures between normal vs high vs very high. Pain in the butt to figure out what to use on a 2gb limited card. Heh.

Moral of the story, more RAM is better. Nothing new here. Heh.

 

[Erenhardt]

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.......

Get the console then. Previous gen at that.

 

[master_shake_]

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

mostly kepler users.

 

[Makaveli]

Still loving the longevity of this 7970

 

[happy medium]

Get the console then.

I have just about every decent console made since the Atari 2600.
Coleco, intellivision, 3DO, Atari 5200,7800, Nintendo, super Nintendo, N64, Sega genesis,Saturn, Dreamcast. Ps1 , ps2 ,ps3, ps4, Xbox , xbox 360 and Xbone.

Been playing games on PC's since the Com 64 and Apple IIe.

I'm getting old.


ANy way here are the minimum spec to play this game.

Minimum
Supported OS
Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10(64bit versions)

Processor
Intel Core i5 2400s @ 2.5 GHz or AMD FX 6350 @ 3.9 GHz

RAM
6GB or more for Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 10

Video Card
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 or AMD Radeon R9 270 (2GB VRAM with Shader Model 5.0)

DirectX
DirectX June 2010 Redistributable

Sound
DirectX compatible sound card with latest drivers

 

[iiiankiii]

The crippling of Kepler is real.

 

[boozzer]

1. Extra high ress texture pack only so fair enough this is a good port and one of the first real games to take use of more then 2GB for a good thing.
2. Horrible engine by design that can scale fancy shadow map numbers and lazy map generation with extreme size but the quality is sub par most engines i know off.
3. Barley noticeable texture quality from high to insane and a 660TI can run that game from what i see on gamegpu and that only had 2GB in the test.
4. Broken port (Ubisoft)
5. This game is broken, it chugs 4GB vram at full HD tv resolution atm if u check gamegpu so might as well add 3GB cards DOA.
6. Broken port (Ubisoft)
7. Broken port (Ubisoft)
8. Ubisoft so broken port? :thumbsup:

Your point is valid that 2GB cards are not "future" but if u take away the bad broken ports it seems that u can play 99,9% of all video games atm.

basically stay the hell away from ubisoft games.

 

[PPB]

The same way Ubisoft games are disregarded because of their lackuster performance associated with lack of optimizations, they also should be disregarded because of inflated requeriments.

Taking this game at face value for their VRAM recommended spec but then disregard this one and several others because they are unoptimized turds is just a case of double standards and confirmation bias. Ubisoft's history is enough to warrant the VRAM requeriment are inflated because, as they cant optimize performance, they cant optimize VRAM usage either. Its both or neither, not cherry picking to suit the OP's clear agenda against 2GB cards.

 

[BHZ-GTR]

Why Needed This is Game (8 GB Memory) ?

I do not understand

 

[Silverforce11]

The same way Ubisoft games are disregarded because of their lackuster performance associated with lack of optimizations, they also should be disregarded because of inflated requeriments.

Hey I wish they were disregarded, but no, they are the most often used titles in most review site benchmarks.

Just look at Far Cry 4, ACU and Watch Dogs and how popular they were for reviewers.

 

[Blitzvogel]

3 GB VRAM for maxed out settings 1080p isn't surprising at all.

 

[PPB]

Hey I wish they were disregarded, but no, they are the most often used titles in most review site benchmarks.

Just look at Far Cry 4, ACU and Watch Dogs and how popular they were for reviewers.

I meant by the OP in his usual arguments seen on this subforum.

You cant be objective and say that for X subject those games are unoptimized turds and disregard their performance characteristics (which IMO too are really poor), but at the same for Y subject take them at face value and as a show for some king of "trend". The trend in fact exists, and it is the trend of releasing unoptimized games. If those unoptimized games have consecuences as poor overall performance and unusual levels of VRAM for the IQ/resolution played, the culprit is the same.

 

[happy medium]

ANy way here are the minimum spec to play this game.

Minimum
Supported OS
Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10(64bit versions)

Processor
Intel Core i5 2400s @ 2.5 GHz or AMD FX 6350 @ 3.9 GHz

RAM
6GB or more for Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 10

Video Card
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 or AMD Radeon R9 270 (2GB VRAM with Shader Model 5.0)

DirectX
DirectX June 2010 Redistributable

Sound
DirectX compatible sound card with latest drivers

wrong thread