PDA

View Full Version : AC3 runs fine and plays fine



kalo.yanis
11-24-2012, 07:46 PM
Hey, guys, I got my copy today and I've spent about 4 hours. Still at sequence 2. I gotta say, I was anxious about the potential performance problems, but the game runs as well as Revelations did on my laptop and the graphics are at least as good, if not better! I don't know why everyone is complaining so much. I mean, my PC is mediocre by most standards.

Here are some other pluses so far:
- Haytham is awesome. I wish I could play as him for the rest of the game.
- Freerun and combat are so fluid! Looks amazing.
- I love the new interface. For the first time I actually enjoy desynchronising. Also, I so missed Shaun and his database! Makes me laugh out loud sometimes!

Johny-Al-Knox
11-24-2012, 07:51 PM
Yeah everything is almost "Good". Expect the freakin buggs.. Ppl popping up and popping out, i had 2 armies of red coats after me, one suddenly dissapeared then some enemy type kept spawning .. I mean the game is good , but the buggs are annoying as hell

I really hope that buggs like this gets fixed cause they really destroy the experience.

(Thoose are not the only buggs i encounter, there are plenty)

kalo.yanis
11-24-2012, 07:54 PM
Well I haven't encountered any bugs so far. Then again, I'm pretty much still in the beginning.

hitman47222
11-24-2012, 07:58 PM
We all had epic FPS until we reached boston. Let us know how much FPS u get there.

Amaral724
11-24-2012, 08:06 PM
Hey, guys, I got my copy today and I've spent about 4 hours. Still at sequence 2. I gotta say, I was anxious about the potential performance problems, but the game runs as well as Revelations did on my laptop and the graphics are at least as good, if not better! I don't know why everyone is complaining so much. I mean, my PC is mediocre by most standards.

Here are some other pluses so far:
- Haytham is awesome. I wish I could play as him for the rest of the game.
- Freerun and combat are so fluid! Looks amazing.
- I love the new interface. For the first time I actually enjoy desynchronising. Also, I so missed Shaun and his database! Makes me laugh out loud sometimes!

Whats your specs and with what settings did you run the game? thanks

kalo.yanis
11-24-2012, 08:24 PM
I'm well past Boston. My fps there are quite in line with the rest of the game, actually. Since I have a rather weak video card - a GF 425M and an i5 processor, I run it on console-quality detail (i.e. normal) and on a 1080p monitor. I get around 20-25 fps, which is what I got with Revelations and I don't mind it.

Truth be told, the game actually lags a bit more when I'm out of the animus.

hitman47222
11-24-2012, 08:30 PM
I'm well past Boston. My fps there are quite in line with the rest of the game, actually. Since I have a rather weak video card - a GF 425M and an i5 processor, I run it on console-quality detail (i.e. normal) and on a 1080p monitor. I get around 20-25 fps, which is what I got with Revelations and I don't mind it.

Truth be told, the game actually lags a bit more when I'm out of the animus.

.... I am getting 22 -32 FPS when i have it on high and 25-35 FPS when on normal. But thats not OKAY. When i have a system thats well beyond the recommended requirements yet i cannot get a stable 30 FPS even on lowest settings. Then then optimization is ****.

kalo.yanis
11-24-2012, 08:57 PM
AC optimisation is generally suboptimal. I'm just saying AC3 isn't a huge deal worse (if at all) than the previous ones.

ih8soup
11-24-2012, 10:49 PM
i highly doubt ac3 is the problem and not your computer. the thing is when you get to boston there is a lot more going on. its quite simple - you are being bottle necked by either a cpu with a slow clock per single core or a gpu without enough stream processors/cuda cores. very simple: lots of calculations to be made (lots of npcs in a large area without load screen separation) = lots of calculations. if you have a huge workload on a small crew of workers (in this case cores) then they simply cannot keep up. so you either need a gpu/cpu with a lot of workers (lots of cores) and or a gpu/cpu with stronger workers (increased core clock per single die) to pick up the slack.

while the gpu is by far the most important component for gaming - if you have a monster gpu and your cpu is some dinosaur with only 3ghz then it will suck. imagine you are a boss (the cpu - brains of the operation) and you need to take file of everything your company does (gpu being the company workers). if your company workers are super qualified and get the job done fast but you (the cpu) are slow at getting their work filed - then the overall performance is still slow despite having a monster work force. its works vice versa if you are a monster boss and you cant afford to hire good employees.

the brand of your components may also be contributing. game devs know the majority of gamers are running gpus from nvidia thus they optimize their games for nvidia. if an nvidia card runs the same as a comparable radeon card for one game that develops with both in mind might not be the same performance for another game that is mainly developed with nvidia in mind. as far as cpus go - lets say a 3.0 ghz quad core intel vs. a 3.0 ghz from amd - the intel will blow it away because of the architecture of the dies. even for two intel cpus - if its the same clock speed and cores - depending on the generation architecture the performance can play a key role (intel ivy bridge performs 3-10% better than sandy bridge on the same clocked cpu due to optimized architecture). the game also plays a role - some games are optimized for quad cores and some for dual core. thus a 6 or 8 core cpu @ 3.4ghz will run worse than a quad core @ 3.5ghz if the game is only optimized for quad core because only 4 cores of that 6 or 8 core cpu will be used.

this game runs perfect 60 fps with vsync on @ 1080p on max settings for me with an overclocked 3570k to 4ghz and a 660 ti on 8gb 1600 ram.

kalo.yanis
11-25-2012, 02:33 AM
I actually get better framerates in Boston than in some other locations...

Up to seq. 6. Loving the game so far!

ace3001
11-25-2012, 03:23 AM
The game is pretty good on lower end PCs using the Normal setting for some reason. I tried it on an i3-530+GeForce GT 520 combo (that's as low as you can go in terms of GPU power and still have DirectX11), at 1366x768 resolution, everything on Normal except for textures which I left on High, and I get solid 30 FPS almost all the time. Interestingly, some drops happen in parts of the Frontier, but no issues in Boston.
However, being a console game that was optimized to run at 30 FPS, I guess getting 30 FPS is easy. Issue is for those who absolutely don't play unless they have 60 FPS. Personally, I am quite satisfied with 30 for SP games, but people have different opinions on that matter.

Tsuzukie
11-25-2012, 07:30 AM
i highly doubt ac3 is the problem and not your computer. the thing is when you get to boston there is a lot more going on. its quite simple - you are being bottle necked by either a cpu with a slow clock per single core or a gpu without enough stream processors/cuda cores. very simple: lots of calculations to be made (lots of npcs in a large area without load screen separation) = lots of calculations. if you have a huge workload on a small crew of workers (in this case cores) then they simply cannot keep up. so you either need a gpu/cpu with a lot of workers (lots of cores) and or a gpu/cpu with stronger workers (increased core clock per single die) to pick up the slack.

while the gpu is by far the most important component for gaming - if you have a monster gpu and your cpu is some dinosaur with only 3ghz then it will suck. imagine you are a boss (the cpu - brains of the operation) and you need to take file of everything your company does (gpu being the company workers). if your company workers are super qualified and get the job done fast but you (the cpu) are slow at getting their work filed - then the overall performance is still slow despite having a monster work force. its works vice versa if you are a monster boss and you cant afford to hire good employees.

the brand of your components may also be contributing. game devs know the majority of gamers are running gpus from nvidia thus they optimize their games for nvidia. if an nvidia card runs the same as a comparable radeon card for one game that develops with both in mind might not be the same performance for another game that is mainly developed with nvidia in mind. as far as cpus go - lets say a 3.0 ghz quad core intel vs. a 3.0 ghz from amd - the intel will blow it away because of the architecture of the dies. even for two intel cpus - if its the same clock speed and cores - depending on the generation architecture the performance can play a key role (intel ivy bridge performs 3-10% better than sandy bridge on the same clocked cpu due to optimized architecture). the game also plays a role - some games are optimized for quad cores and some for dual core. thus a 6 or 8 core cpu @ 3.4ghz will run worse than a quad core @ 3.5ghz if the game is only optimized for quad core because only 4 cores of that 6 or 8 core cpu will be used.

this game runs perfect 60 fps with vsync on @ 1080p on max settings for me with an overclocked 3570k to 4ghz and a 660 ti on 8gb 1600 ram.

Well put... This is exactly the issue with most games... The bad thing is that some people don't understand the basics of computers and instead blame the game makers who are trying to progress their games to the newest formats to in turn make better games... People don't upgrade their computers but expect to run the newest games on a 5 year old computer. Worse yet all the complaining just makes game companies make games for consoles only so they do not have to worry about all the different configurations available in the pc. I love the pc and I too want to play all the newest games but I realize that I have to continue to spend on upgrades to continue to keep up with the newest trends. I do think that companies should test for all major brands of video cards to make sure that the game can utilize them. From what I have read on the forums here the problem might be radeon cards. I switched to nvidia after years with radeon and am very happy. Game runs great for me...you don't have to buy a new computer every two years but some more ram and a new video card here and there can do wonders. This is exactly why kids/people buy consoles... Buy once and just spend on games but sooner or later the games will suffer under the same platform and they will all look the same. Kinda like every FPS looking same with a different cover pulled over. As for the "next gen" you will end up buying a new console before the games will progress.. I'm not bashing consoles because even when you go to buy the next new console it will still probably be cheaper then the pc I've been spending on. But I like to see things progress with my upgrades. Anywho just my two cents.

ace3001
11-25-2012, 08:59 AM
Well put... This is exactly the issue with most games... The bad thing is that some people don't understand the basics of computers and instead blame the game makers who are trying to progress their games to the newest formats to in turn make better games... People don't upgrade their computers but expect to run the newest games on a 5 year old computer. Worse yet all the complaining just makes game companies make games for consoles only so they do not have to worry about all the different configurations available in the pc. I love the pc and I too want to play all the newest games but I realize that I have to continue to spend on upgrades to continue to keep up with the newest trends. I do think that companies should test for all major brands of video cards to make sure that the game can utilize them. From what I have read on the forums here the problem might be radeon cards. I switched to nvidia after years with radeon and am very happy. Game runs great for me...you don't have to buy a new computer every two years but some more ram and a new video card here and there can do wonders. This is exactly why kids/people buy consoles... Buy once and just spend on games but sooner or later the games will suffer under the same platform and they will all look the same. Kinda like every FPS looking same with a different cover pulled over. As for the "next gen" you will end up buying a new console before the games will progress.. I'm not bashing consoles because even when you go to buy the next new console it will still probably be cheaper then the pc I've been spending on. But I like to see things progress with my upgrades. Anywho just my two cents.People with specs like Core i7 2600K + Radeon HD 6870 are having these issues. You and the person you're quoting have no idea what you're talking about.

iamfr3e
11-25-2012, 09:34 AM
Yea i have a 3.6 ghz 6 core, and a 7970 8 gigs of ram everything as high as it can go and i still get 25-35 fps.even when i put the settings down to low i still only get 25-35 fps. hell some times and i mean some times i go from max of 35 fps to around 45 fps and that's when i am having fun playing the game.