PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed Performance Summary i5 750, 560 ti



tjh108
11-26-2012, 11:40 AM
Hi All,

There's a lot of talk on various forums about how poor the performance of AC3 is on PC. I wasn't quite sure whether or not to buy it because of this, as I couldn't find any reports from someone with my system specs. Anyway, I took the plunge so I thought I'd feed back my impressions.

I have an i5 750 (overclocked to 3GHz) and a 560 Ti GTX (overclocked to 920 MHz on the core) + 4 GB ram.

The game is running at 1080p, and at maximum settings, with the exception of AA, which is down one notch. Vsync is set to adaptive in the drivers, so it's switched on when 60 fps can be maintained, and is otherwise off.

I've been playing for a few hours and have now got to Boston, which has been reported widely as the first performance "choke-point".

Prior to Boston (opera house, ship) the performance is mostly great and capped at 60 fps, although the initial "Desmond" scenes occasionally dipped a bit lower.

Once in Boston the fps is consistently 40-60 fps, with very occasional, almost instantaneous drops to around 30 fps. My impression is that these drops are due to assets loading in rather than genuine performance dips, as they are very short lived (< 1 sec). While I'd like to be getting 60 fps, I'd say that it's a smooth experience when using mouse and keyboard, and even better if using a gamepad, where the camera movements are less rapid.

If I max out the AA, then I'm looking at 30-40 fps. That is perfectly playable, but I'd rather opt for the slightly smoother experience with a relatively small change in image quality.

It's clear to me that it's not a particularly well optimised game at the moment, as the engine itself doesn't appear to justify mediocre performance. I think this is confirmed by reports from people with much more powerful PCs than mine seeing similar fps (albeit with AA set to max maybe). ATI problems may exist too, which I can't comment on.

It;s also worth saying that although the engine itself isn't that amazing the world design etc is fantastic, and has a real feeling of time and place. For me this compensates for the average performance to a degree.

So in conclusion: If you have specs similar to, or better than mine, you should be fine!

metux1
11-26-2012, 12:28 PM
I do have the same specs as you, and the game does run fine in certain areas, but its not acceptable that the game drops fps in a specific area. Pc release was delayed to make it perfect, yet its not even decent at this moment. I have to avoid certain areas to keep my interest in this game, right now i'm just playing naval missions and avoid any contact with Boston/Frontier and any place that runs ****.

tjh108
11-26-2012, 01:42 PM
Sorry, I think you may have missed what I was trying to get across. As yet I haven't found any areas that "run like ****". I'm not saying the performance is great - it's not, but the 40-60 fps I'm getting produces a smooth experience. Perhaps the frontier will be worse than Boston - I'll let you know.

To be honest it's only recently that a constant 60 fps has been what the PC community expects. I remember a few years ago gfx card reviews would look at fps higher than 40 as a "good" level of performance. I find 60 fps noticeably better, but I can cope with less.

Anyway, I guess what I put up wasn't for you, as you clearly have your own standard of acceptability. I was merely posting to advise people who were thinking of purchasing the game what to expect which is a fairly poorly optimised port, but one that runs fine on my hardware.

AffirmedTie4
11-26-2012, 05:08 PM
Yes so this is why I have 30 fps on normal (most of the time drops to 4 FPS) with a gtx 660 ti and an amd phenom ii x4 965
Seems legit

tjh108
11-26-2012, 05:27 PM
Sorry - are you suggesting I'm making up the numbers? Why on earth would I bother...

Clearly there are some weird things going on if your system is performing worse than mine (and with lower settings). It does suggest that there are some serious bugs in addition to a general lack of optimisation. I'm using the latest beta drivers BTW, don't know if that is making any difference.

Anyway, bad luck on your part, but it definitely isn't the same for all hardware configurations.

AffirmedTie4
11-26-2012, 06:06 PM
Sorry man didn't mean to be mean...
Just upset,that's all.I finished the game on the 360,but the **** console scratched my disk!So I began playing the pc version....(3 hours in and already on sequence 6 like a boss :D).****it...we need a patch

adburt
11-27-2012, 03:22 AM
I just wanted to say my experience is very similar to the OP's.

i5 2500, GTX 560 Ti, 8 GB ram, no overclocks, 1080p 2D.

Almost always 60 fps (including Boston and Frontier), with just momentary dips where the game seems to be loading things in (perhaps hard drive related, but it's too minor to worry about). I'm not using the newest beta drivers, I'm still using the latest release version. I have anti aliasing and environment quality set to high. I didn't notice a visual difference between high and very high environment quality. I could experiment with turning those up to very high, but I'm very happy with the quality I get at high and I like to leave in a little performance slack in case of unforeseen challenges. I hope people aren't complaining about performance without first turning those down to high (I suspect some are, some aren't).

eburkman
11-27-2012, 03:55 AM
Hi All,

There's a lot of talk on various forums about how poor the performance of AC3 is on PC. I wasn't quite sure whether or not to buy it because of this, as I couldn't find any reports from someone with my system specs. Anyway, I took the plunge so I thought I'd feed back my impressions.

I have an i5 750 (overclocked to 3GHz) and a 560 Ti GTX (overclocked to 920 MHz on the core) + 4 GB ram.

The game is running at 1080p, and at maximum settings, with the exception of AA, which is down one notch. Vsync is set to adaptive in the drivers, so it's switched on when 60 fps can be maintained, and is otherwise off.

I've been playing for a few hours and have now got to Boston, which has been reported widely as the first performance "choke-point".

Prior to Boston (opera house, ship) the performance is mostly great and capped at 60 fps, although the initial "Desmond" scenes occasionally dipped a bit lower.

Once in Boston the fps is consistently 40-60 fps, with very occasional, almost instantaneous drops to around 30 fps. My impression is that these drops are due to assets loading in rather than genuine performance dips, as they are very short lived (< 1 sec). While I'd like to be getting 60 fps, I'd say that it's a smooth experience when using mouse and keyboard, and even better if using a gamepad, where the camera movements are less rapid.

If I max out the AA, then I'm looking at 30-40 fps. That is perfectly playable, but I'd rather opt for the slightly smoother experience with a relatively small change in image quality.

It's clear to me that it's not a particularly well optimised game at the moment, as the engine itself doesn't appear to justify mediocre performance. I think this is confirmed by reports from people with much more powerful PCs than mine seeing similar fps (albeit with AA set to max maybe). ATI problems may exist too, which I can't comment on.

It;s also worth saying that although the engine itself isn't that amazing the world design etc is fantastic, and has a real feeling of time and place. For me this compensates for the average performance to a degree.

So in conclusion: If you have specs similar to, or better than mine, you should be fine!

If you have read the forums, yes, people have tried adjusting the graphics settings and their screen resoulution to try and increase their performance. Their are individuals with PCs running i7's with GTX 6** experiencing unacceptable frame rate drops that do indeed make it unplayable. From what I can gather from my own experience and other peoples posts, this is an optimization issue. In Boston and other areas, the game is utilizing 15% to 25% of the PC's GPU. My system's CPU is not the most up to date, (Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450) but I should be able to consistantly get at least 40 FPS in Boston running SLI GTX 560's with 8 GB of RAM. I am not saying that you are incorrect about your experience, just saying there are a lot of people with the same issues.