PDA

View Full Version : Lets Try again: Proof of [Possible] Bad Optimization on PC [Video]



rmartinezdl
02-21-2013, 10:23 PM
So I made this video, as polite as possible, comparing

Lowest Settings Framerate

vs

Higuest Settings Framerate

I know I know I said bad optimization, it could be some kind of leak, or IDK, but theres definetly something wrong.
The results...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9FXw2zOTEg

Kaldire
02-21-2013, 10:41 PM
there are huge major leaks due to the " hall of mirrors" and mobs being below or over or under .. try securing a convoy watch the dead bodies..

i havce mine on max all and I get great framerate most games with ATI you will not want anti... I force antiail to be disabled on all games, and man your res is WAY to high,
30= FINE.. good... great fps.
even 12 can be ok

but with that card and that res... what would you expect.

but mem leaks in the dlc are huge.. play for a few min and check out just the exe if you know how to look at it.
its pretty.. well it builds up lots of memory.. as for your card.. I have 7950 hd and run a bit better than you do... its all the build and the game..
if it were me id force anti aliasing down a notch *in ac3 this causes tesselation which offsets everything, making the game look like the matrix
this is common glitch and why MOST new games have toggle checkboxes FOR tesselation ... say hitman absolution. and read up on amd and ati with anti ail and scopic. Most say use the ati center to disable anti ail' . just saying

i love ati .. but just which physx woulda taken off a bit more..
the game looks lush and nice even at the lower end res, but with high res just try the option of turning that anti ail down to say low;.. or middle.. not high.. bet it will give you those fps back
as for dlc memory leak well

hall o mirrors... all I have to say.

rmartinezdl
02-21-2013, 10:57 PM
I am not saying I want to run at ultra, its just a comparison, of course I know I dont have a state of the art pc, my point is how theres little to none difference from ULTRA LOW, to ULTRA HIGH. 4 fps is just insanely unacceptable.

Even at lowest settings and 720p the game goes below 30 fps. I dont know about you but thats unacceptable.

Kaldire
02-21-2013, 11:30 PM
I have the game running max all with "state of the art pc"
and again the anti ail.. try it..
just lower that... nothing else.. bet it will fix most issue

below 30 is unacceptalbe? lolol

know most xbox games CAP at 30? just sayyying.. thats like max.. was for long time for most pc games to.. until people complained and hence the vsync era before that toggle existed.
this is the next era of tesselation toggles.. which needs to be in this game.. imo

i still cant run ac3 with anti on max.. or it tesselates ... 720p lol .. its not a movie but, luckily i know what you mean. and yea if you have vsync on it should hit your 60-80 whatever the monitor is.. but really anything past 30 in this kind of game.. not really, well needed..
15 fps.. still farging ok... as long as thats not the entire game chuggin that way :P
but again i use my catalyst control center to TURN OFF anti ail on all games.. works like a charm.. and if you are computer savy, and you seem to be, google about ATI with anti and anti together.. it rarely mixes well, hasnt since oh forever :P

not to say it WONT work.. but.. yea.. some games just REALLY dont like it esp on oc'ed rights

rmartinezdl
02-22-2013, 01:44 AM
did u see the video? lowest looks like crap, and I mean LOWEST OF LOWEST, RES SHADOWS, AA, EVERYTHING. to gain 4 fps? OH GAWD.

eburkman
02-22-2013, 03:17 AM
So I made this video, as polite as possible, comparing

Lowest Settings Framerate

vs

Higuest Settings Framerate

I know I know I said bad optimization, it could be some kind of leak, or IDK, but theres definetly something wrong.
The results...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9FXw2zOTEg

This was nicely done. Evidence is right here. Unfortunately Ubi$oft is not acknowledging this issue. As much as it kills me because I want Splinter Cell black list so bad, I will never buy another Ubi$oft game. We are blatently being ignored.

Kaldire
02-22-2013, 05:36 AM
not at that resoulition you shouldnt get 60..

again.. did you try just AA to MEDIUM .. .like i suggested ..
and your ram is bare min, but yea

fix ... what is my question.. the fact you try to run games in odd insanely high res expecting 60 fps? but you get 24 vs 30?

24 is fine .. but the stutters arent..

try lowering AA.. just one notch.. im curious to see if it effects it much/at all. on ATI cards this solves the issue..

but to lower it to 800x600 lol well well.. that should read much higher if the cap WAS OFF.. cap is 30 just fyi..

so what is wrong with 24fps? juuust curious.. the game is NOT hd.. in that standard.. was console ported.. try using a real resolution, 1280x1024 would be recommended by me.. and AA medium..
or keep the res and try AA medium..

it also has to do with the cards management setup.. esp on newer cards.. some drviers will make slower benches or faster.. fps does not always term out as expected (not turn) term.. pan.. or work out..

doubtful you are being ignored I talked to ubi about the fps issue, though i cant replicate it.. but i never run that high of resolution. on any games from a console.. to pc..

just expect it to not be tested as well on EVERY setup you can think of etc.

just try it for me mate.. if nothing else.. AA medium.. and see what up
then if that doesnt work try 1280 x1024 or near that depending on wide screen etc.

Anykeyer
02-22-2013, 06:08 AM
Your problem is AMD CPU.
With the same GPU and i5 Im getting 45-60 in places like this (everything on max). If you're using older drivers then try installing latest 314 drivers, they boosted my fps by about 10.

rmartinezdl
02-22-2013, 11:31 PM
text

Just one question, if changing settings to 800x600 and everything on low only increased fps by 4, WHY ON EARTH WOULD LOWERING JUST AA to MEDIUM SETTING, INCREASE FPS?

If it doesnt run good on low I dont see how it would run better on high, I think you are not paying attention here, I DID NOT said I wanted to run the game on 1080p on ultra settings, IM FINE PLAYING ON LOWEST AT 1280x720 but the game runs like crap even at that resolution..


Your problem is AMD CPU.
With the same GPU and i5 Im getting 45-60 in places like this (everything on max). If you're using older drivers then try installing latest 314 drivers, they boosted my fps by about 10.

This is not a GPU problem its a CPU leak or something what do I know.

And if this game was designed for Intel CPU's ONLY why would they allow us to buy it, AS I SAID, cant they release a statement THIS GAME DOESNT WORK ON AMD CPU's then. I get my money, I get off this forums, and go buy something else.

Ferrith
02-22-2013, 11:49 PM
below 30 is unacceptalbe? lolol

know most xbox games CAP at 30?
...and that's why we don't own XBox but a PC, which is far better and superior. Get it?

guifisilva
02-23-2013, 12:31 AM
but to lower it to 800x600 lol well well.. that should read much higher if the cap WAS OFF.. cap is 30 just fyi..


He clearly changed the resolution to 800x600 60hz, so the cap IS 60 fps. Proof of this is that he showed the menu at stable 60 fps.

And to everyone else, I'm sorry to say it. My hardware isn't top of the line, but it can run most games with 50+ FPS with many settings on max. I rarely even reach 30 FPS in AC3...

By the way, thank you for the video. It is simple and displays accurately this major FPS issue. Regardless if you use AMD or Intel, 4 fps of difference between best settings and worst settings IS relevant. Even more so because 800x600 is actually worse than playing on a video game (just saying this because some people love to compare them to PCs).

Anykeyer
02-23-2013, 07:45 AM
This is not a GPU problem its a CPU leak or something what do I know.
Thats what I said



And if this game was designed for Intel CPU's ONLY why would they allow us to buy it, AS I SAID, cant they release a statement THIS GAME DOESNT WORK ON AMD CPU's then. I get my money, I get off this forums, and go buy something else.

If AMD CPUs suck so much (it does in all games, but usually only to the point of being barely playable) then why AMD allows you to buy them and even run games on them?

Assassin_M
02-23-2013, 08:33 AM
Thats what I said



If AMD CPUs suck so much (it does in all games, but usually only to the point of being barely playable) then why AMD allows you to buy them and even run games on them?
I don't know you and you don't know me, also this is completely random and off topic...

Congratulations on your thousandths post :|

Kaldire
02-23-2013, 09:22 AM
sigh.. read the thread someone else made about drivers

amd suck? lol odd, last i checked all rocked lately, esp in benches.

i change back n forth depending on the times, but saying this is all due to ..
sigh first
the menu is stale.. static.. not dynamic.. 60fps is what his MONITOR is at.. so yes.. a stale screen even a desktop will net you 60 fps.. if that is the hz of the monitor..
saying you have a older rig running 50+ fps on most games is great! really! but to say its this games fault? well
I have ran into a few leaks but again, most were fixed or exist in the dlc now..
outside of that, I have tessellation issues with my card and driver combo.. until the latest driver now all works on top everything at a great frame rate... never ran slow until the dlc

but again to point fingers at ubi or ac3 saying oh how dare this fps slowness... they tested this game mates.. and trust me, they know what they know and you know what you know. but they cant test everyones rigs for them.. nor teach them about manually setting stuff or drivers etc.

just know , the game runs fine, when set up correctly, and most times you dont have to try to.. its just the luck of the build.

amd .. intel.. doesnt matter..designed for... intel or not.. designed for ,.. and optimized for (not the same)
not in this game anyway..
not ati vs nvid.. well there are some diffs there lately in this game but..

i wont talk benchmarks in here as those dont even accurately reflect gameplay in real world application. onllly benchmark land.

as for the insults calm it down fellas all im trying to do is help, i never got a low frame rate, again until the dlc, which refuses even on lowest to work well..
the leaks abound there and they are memory leaks in the cpu to memory not the gpu itself.

run some exe checkers when you run the game, for love of all gamers!
or even better just hit alt tab open task manager and run the dlc and watch the memory climmmbb

but to say this cant work.. or etc... idk its horrible to blame companies.

to whomever suggested 30fps wasnt ok.. uh
please understand what FPS is...
google vision of the eyes also.. bet you think 100 is better than 50 when it really wont make much diff (unless you are playing quake online :P)
then still its nano seconds off the timin not much but enough to kill first... but in ac3? uhh whaaat?

30 fps solid.. fine.. totally.. nothing to do with xbox.. or pc.. some games pc .. used to CAP at 30.. people like you cats complained constructivly enough for vsync to even be a button now instead of people understanding how to do the same thing OUT of game..

etc..

this could go on for days but Ill end with this

the game runs.. properly.. in all realms with all cpu and many gpu combos. did ubi test all? NO.. hell no.. never would or could! but its been tested..
i suggest learning about fps, and the difference it makes vs tesselation and latency and stutter.. you can get 50+ fps and still have a laggy game.. due to (memory leaks) or (gpu issues) hell even oc and heating issues!

"everyday is a new bowl o fruit "

kal-

guifisilva
02-23-2013, 04:10 PM
the menu is stale.. static.. not dynamic.. 60fps is what his MONITOR is at.. so yes.. a stale screen even a desktop will net you 60 fps.. if that is the hz of the monitor..


How is that relevant? I'm just proving that the game isn't capped at 30 FPS as you said.



saying you have a older rig running 50+ fps on most games is great! really! but to say its this games fault? well


Oh ho ho, fine. Wanna know a game I get 50+ FPS? Arkham City. It has way more effects than AC3 (like snow flakes falling over Batman), higher resolution textures (apparently), and... better models? I don't know, this may be a bit subjective, but the game is recent and it looks a bit better than AC3 overall imo. I can even turn on basic physx on the options, and slowdowns are rare.

Meanwhile we have Assassin's Creed III with okay graphics but without actually many excuses for having constant slowdown. The point is not if Arkham City is better or worst; instead, the point is that Assassin's Creed III should be running a lot smoother. This is the first game I had major FPS issues and, seeing as I'm not alone, oh yes, I'm blaming it on this game. And sorry, I'm not changing my first gen i3 nor my graphic cards because of. A. Single. Game.

BzkGB
02-23-2013, 07:32 PM
sigh.. read the thread someone else made about drivers

amd suck? lol odd, last i checked all rocked lately, esp in benches.

i change back n forth depending on the times, but saying this is all due to ..
sigh first
the menu is stale.. static.. not dynamic.. 60fps is what his MONITOR is at.. so yes.. a stale screen even a desktop will net you 60 fps.. if that is the hz of the monitor..
saying you have a older rig running 50+ fps on most games is great! really! but to say its this games fault? well
I have ran into a few leaks but again, most were fixed or exist in the dlc now..
outside of that, I have tessellation issues with my card and driver combo.. until the latest driver now all works on top everything at a great frame rate... never ran slow until the dlc

but again to point fingers at ubi or ac3 saying oh how dare this fps slowness... they tested this game mates.. and trust me, they know what they know and you know what you know. but they cant test everyones rigs for them.. nor teach them about manually setting stuff or drivers etc.

just know , the game runs fine, when set up correctly, and most times you dont have to try to.. its just the luck of the build.

amd .. intel.. doesnt matter..designed for... intel or not.. designed for ,.. and optimized for (not the same)
not in this game anyway..
not ati vs nvid.. well there are some diffs there lately in this game but..

i wont talk benchmarks in here as those dont even accurately reflect gameplay in real world application. onllly benchmark land.

as for the insults calm it down fellas all im trying to do is help, i never got a low frame rate, again until the dlc, which refuses even on lowest to work well..
the leaks abound there and they are memory leaks in the cpu to memory not the gpu itself.

run some exe checkers when you run the game, for love of all gamers!
or even better just hit alt tab open task manager and run the dlc and watch the memory climmmbb

but to say this cant work.. or etc... idk its horrible to blame companies.

to whomever suggested 30fps wasnt ok.. uh
please understand what FPS is...
google vision of the eyes also.. bet you think 100 is better than 50 when it really wont make much diff (unless you are playing quake online :P)
then still its nano seconds off the timin not much but enough to kill first... but in ac3? uhh whaaat?

30 fps solid.. fine.. totally.. nothing to do with xbox.. or pc.. some games pc .. used to CAP at 30.. people like you cats complained constructivly enough for vsync to even be a button now instead of people understanding how to do the same thing OUT of game..

etc..

this could go on for days but Ill end with this

the game runs.. properly.. in all realms with all cpu and many gpu combos. did ubi test all? NO.. hell no.. never would or could! but its been tested..
i suggest learning about fps, and the difference it makes vs tesselation and latency and stutter.. you can get 50+ fps and still have a laggy game.. due to (memory leaks) or (gpu issues) hell even oc and heating issues!

"everyday is a new bowl o fruit "

kal-

Honestly don't think I've ever seen so much crap condensed down into one single post. Unbelievable.

t0mmili
02-23-2013, 11:47 PM
sigh.. read the thread someone else made about drivers

amd suck? lol odd, last i checked all rocked lately, esp in benches.

i change back n forth depending on the times, but saying this is all due to ..
sigh first
the menu is stale.. static.. not dynamic.. 60fps is what his MONITOR is at.. so yes.. a stale screen even a desktop will net you 60 fps.. if that is the hz of the monitor..
saying you have a older rig running 50+ fps on most games is great! really! but to say its this games fault? well
I have ran into a few leaks but again, most were fixed or exist in the dlc now..
outside of that, I have tessellation issues with my card and driver combo.. until the latest driver now all works on top everything at a great frame rate... never ran slow until the dlc

but again to point fingers at ubi or ac3 saying oh how dare this fps slowness... they tested this game mates.. and trust me, they know what they know and you know what you know. but they cant test everyones rigs for them.. nor teach them about manually setting stuff or drivers etc.

just know , the game runs fine, when set up correctly, and most times you dont have to try to.. its just the luck of the build.

amd .. intel.. doesnt matter..designed for... intel or not.. designed for ,.. and optimized for (not the same)
not in this game anyway..
not ati vs nvid.. well there are some diffs there lately in this game but..

i wont talk benchmarks in here as those dont even accurately reflect gameplay in real world application. onllly benchmark land.

as for the insults calm it down fellas all im trying to do is help, i never got a low frame rate, again until the dlc, which refuses even on lowest to work well..
the leaks abound there and they are memory leaks in the cpu to memory not the gpu itself.

run some exe checkers when you run the game, for love of all gamers!
or even better just hit alt tab open task manager and run the dlc and watch the memory climmmbb

but to say this cant work.. or etc... idk its horrible to blame companies.

to whomever suggested 30fps wasnt ok.. uh
please understand what FPS is...
google vision of the eyes also.. bet you think 100 is better than 50 when it really wont make much diff (unless you are playing quake online :P)
then still its nano seconds off the timin not much but enough to kill first... but in ac3? uhh whaaat?

30 fps solid.. fine.. totally.. nothing to do with xbox.. or pc.. some games pc .. used to CAP at 30.. people like you cats complained constructivly enough for vsync to even be a button now instead of people understanding how to do the same thing OUT of game..

etc..

this could go on for days but Ill end with this

the game runs.. properly.. in all realms with all cpu and many gpu combos. did ubi test all? NO.. hell no.. never would or could! but its been tested..
i suggest learning about fps, and the difference it makes vs tesselation and latency and stutter.. you can get 50+ fps and still have a laggy game.. due to (memory leaks) or (gpu issues) hell even oc and heating issues!

"everyday is a new bowl o fruit "

kal-

Dude, first of all, after reading a few of your posts, not only in this thread, I say you come off as Ubi employee. Really!

Second of all, rmartinezdl made a good point with this video. AC3 optimization is poor like hell. My rig is Core2Quad Q9400, 4GB RAM, Geforce GTX 650 Ti and I get the same FPS results with low and high settings as rmartinezdl. I suggest you read some AC3 reviews on console versions. Sometimes you'll have to deal with FPS drop, because it's poorly optimized even there.

I agree that 30 FPS is ok for playing, but a lot of people here in this forum talks about 15-25 on average. For me it's not acceptible to pay 50$ and get almost unplayable game. I think of my rig as decent. Specially that I can get solid 60 FPS with maxed setiings in DevilMayCry. And this is a game with huge support for AMD cards (mine is NVIDIA). While AC3 have very low FPS, it's laggy and crash for no reason. And I know it may sound funny but often I need 2 runs to start the game, because at first it hangs before the menu. I know that these two titles are not directly comparable but give you some view I hope.

To sum up. If you don't see the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, please look at this video:
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/7hwwq5/dmc--devil-may-cry-60fps-comparison

Best!

TurtleOne_
02-24-2013, 12:43 AM
equal 30fps... Seems like double vsync, try turning it off via config files, then talk about optimalisation.

Kaldire
02-24-2013, 12:56 AM
@Dean I dont see any constructive anything from you, stop trolling cheers

@guif who said this game was capped at 30?? not me.. i was pointing out that some pc games put that as the cap, to make it smooooth even if it could reach over
and im with you on the arkham, but again its a shoddy port as well just optimized alot better? know why? I do but seems my input isnt welcome and is creating trolls instead of helping so ill leave it at that.

I do agree AC3 should run better or = to the frame rate of the insane pc ver of arkham. That I do. Im pointing out that people have just become to obsessed with fps

@tommil nice you made another account? lol but you are one person i actually agree with .. 30 fps is OK for playing, 15-25 on avg id agree is not a great or acceptable thing.
issue here is, all the work arounds .. work..
least from a testers end

no i dont work for ubi never have, but many other game companies and .. again intel, its my job to test boards and cpus with combos of all sorts of cards n ram.. all are ES chips etc (engineer samples) aka unlocked

solid 60fps in dmc, I get that too if i force vsync yep. If i allow it to be what it wants it hangs around 50 and thats solid. but the game compared to arkham and ac3 is very small.. (in terms of loading mobs ,. items etc) they come in waves in dmc instead of spawning an entire map first like ac3 or arkham

sigh, thanks for the input all
try to stop trolling it wont make the fps better.
if you dont like what I say it wont offend me, im beyond that in forums, hell in life really.
If you dont want the input just dont take it.. im giving it out freely and offering to help all i can, and so far, how many have you helped? got quite a few working with great fps now just editing some configs and driver settings and knowing most rigs are oc'ed and some games just dislike certain timings on gpu and ram and cpu..

and i will again say.. i NEVER suggested this game was 30fps CAP. rather that any static menu will ALWAYS read 60 or whatever your hz is or what you set it to.

ive never gotten one crash in AC3 also... have in many other ac games .. shudder ACR ahh :P

to sum up :P
i think you misunderstand half of what I say, showing a video about 30-60 fps difference is also not exact.. but i got your point, this doesnt devalidate what I suggested as fixes nor what I say about frame rate (seems most here are ok but some in these threads want 100 fps every game) this was the target I was pointing after .. not the 30-60 fps difference cats like yourself.

i believe it was oblivion that had the 30fps cap originally.. one of the few, you could tweak it .. then later they did fix it, but more to the point drivers fixed it..more so than a patch

thanks for the input. keep it clean folks no need to bash the head in of someone trying to help, just say urmm nothing if anything. always best
ill leave you all be pm me if anyone DOES want help, ill not be the cause of trolling. nor feed into it.
keep truckin and
again every day is a new bowl o fruit

t0mmili
02-24-2013, 01:14 AM
@tommil nice you made another account? lol

Dude, you said something like that before. I think you're confusing me with someone else.
This is the only account I have here. Btw, the picture is real, I have nothing to hide;)

Kaldire
02-24-2013, 01:24 AM
someone else had that same picture forgive me if that was my mistake,
thank you for your VALID input here btw. thats no tongue in cheek or joke
seriously

cheers :cool:

rmartinezdl
02-24-2013, 05:30 AM
were getting a little off topic here. from low to high 4 fps gain = BAD period.

Kaldire
02-24-2013, 08:53 AM
off topic? not much, we just had a mutal misunderstanding, or rather I did.
but on topic..
im not sure what your sentance means mate
from low to high ? settings?
you gained 4fps? yea sometimes some cards run better in HIGHER res.. such is the way of the benchmarkins

but 4ps gain im thinking you mean it dropped not gained but yea, 4fps is REALLY not much when changing from 800x600 to that insane 1920 or whatever the guy did lol
4fps way fine.. imo

im sure that would even make the poster happy if it was only a 4 drop.
but its much more, as he shows

id still like to know if he tried what I offered..or suggested

medium AA and or a rollback driver or an updated one, and if you manually OC .. whats your temp(ok im sure but does it spike?)
tons of questions for ya mate
tester point of view pm me if ya wants

eiksto
02-24-2013, 12:18 PM
Running mine with 314.07 drivers still not very good performance compared to Crysis 3 where i get close to 120fps at all times in multilayer and single player above 60FPS most of the time apart from the rope SLI bug that causes massive FPS drops on first level because of physics on highest settings and AA on FXAA. I Don't really see how 30FPS is acceptable for some people here, also i would expect my hardware to run this game above 60FPS at all times on high settings. On low settings this game looks like absolute crap and still does not hit as good of the FPS as Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 on max settings. Would give the link to my old post on Far Cry 3 with FPS screens but my account was hacked so it has bunch of random posts and old ones are deleted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpD1EDispyA&feature=youtu.be

marcoolio_lv
02-24-2013, 03:45 PM
off topic? not much, we just had a mutal misunderstanding, or rather I did.
but on topic..
im not sure what your sentance means mate
from low to high ? settings?
you gained 4fps? yea sometimes some cards run better in HIGHER res.. such is the way of the benchmarkins

but 4ps gain im thinking you mean it dropped not gained but yea, 4fps is REALLY not much when changing from 800x600 to that insane 1920 or whatever the guy did lol
4fps way fine.. imo

im sure that would even make the poster happy if it was only a 4 drop.
but its much more, as he shows

id still like to know if he tried what I offered..or suggested

medium AA and or a rollback driver or an updated one, and if you manually OC .. whats your temp(ok im sure but does it spike?)
tons of questions for ya mate
tester point of view pm me if ya wants

English! Use it. So many posts and none of them make sense.

On topic: I understand your frustration and I think that it IS the developers fault. We can't blame the game, it can't change itself.
I have i7 2600 and GTX580 and same thing with frames.

Of course no game is released perfect, but no game is released quite as broken as this one.

AherasSTRG
02-24-2013, 05:42 PM
I believe it is the new engine's fault. 30 FPS on a PC with GTX 6xx or Radeon HD 7xxx bundled with an i5 or i7 proccessor of 3+ GHz is not well. Just look at the lowest requirements for the game and you 'll see that such a setup should be more than enough to play the game flawlessly. "But consoles CAP at 30 FPS, man." They cap at 30 FPS, but consoles use different technologies and tricks to smoothen the appearences of their games. For example, a form of motion blurring and shades around the objects. This is not present on PCs which have double or triple the power of a PS3 or a 360 anyway.

PS. please, do not argue with trolls, it just disvalues the forum.

eiksto
02-24-2013, 06:37 PM
Agree consoles don't look that bad all through they run at lower frame rates. Most people here should have no problem running this game on high settings maybe just without TXAA aa but they should not have to play on lowest settings and make game look like absolute crap all through even on max settings game does not look very impressive to me compared to Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3.

rego00123
02-24-2013, 07:46 PM
its not the optimization, its the engine this game was built on.
there is a reason every version of the game runs with the same behaviors and it ISNT hardware related

rmartinezdl
02-24-2013, 08:10 PM
Im sorry I meant from MAXED OUT to LOWEST only 4 fps gain.

I wouldnt mind playing at 30 fps, im not of those guys that say "OMG ULTRA SEETTINGS AT 1080p",

I dont mind playing on low settings at 1280x720p at 30 fps, but the problem is the game never stays above 30 NO MATTER THE SETTINGS.

jun1or3x
02-24-2013, 11:59 PM
The facts are: it's impossible run AC3 with the CPUs that Ubisoft recommends and a lot of others above

Anykeyer
02-25-2013, 07:20 AM
I believe it is the new engine's fault. 30 FPS on a PC with GTX 6xx or Radeon HD 7xxx bundled with an i5 or i7 proccessor of 3+ GHz is not well.

Im getting 50-60 most of the time after finally installing latest 314 drivers to play SP DLC. I checked fps in vanialla game as well. I could find (well, I found them long ago, so I just re-checked them actually) only 2 places where fps drops just a little bellow 30 (and only if Im running). All settings maxed, i5 (not even overclocked) and single gtx 660. What am I doing wrong?

Mostly its not an engine fault. Its level designers and artists fault and thats why its so hard to fix. Engine itself actually fares well enough if you consider how much animated geometry is on the screen sometimes. Its very CPU intensive task. Also in most city localtions you have to deal with huge overdraw which you cant get rid completelly in open-space areas. That overdraw mostly comes from the fact that AC3 cities have many small buildings instead of just a few big ones. A lot of that stuffs also affects lighting and shadowing, both are too CPU intensive.

There is simply no place in whole Crysis 3 when you can find so many NPCs and something approaching that kind of overdraw. (Yes it also looks much prettier than AC3)

Designers fault is that they didnt pay much attention to performace budget. Every game project has that thing, performance budget. Usually it is set in stone even before any actual artwork is done. When designers build levels they should check with how many poligons, textures and shader instructions they use in any given place/scene. Otherwise you will face major fps drops or even be unable to run your game at all (with current consoles very limited memory sizes). If a game has publicly availbale level editor then usually it also has those counters exposed, No matter how good your engine is, it always has its limits and of course hardware has its limits.



amd suck? lol odd, last i checked all rocked lately, esp in benches.

What benchmarks are you talking about?
http://www.overclockers.ru/lab/51737_3/V_pogone_za_proizvoditelnostju_processory._Yanvar_ 2013_Vypusk_4.html#25
Just scroll down to comparision charts (showing average fps across 20 games) and see for youself

rmartinezdl
02-26-2013, 12:03 AM
What benchmarks are you talking about?
http://www.overclockers.ru/lab/51737_3/V_pogone_za_proizvoditelnostju_processory._Yanvar_ 2013_Vypusk_4.html#25
Just scroll down to comparision charts (showing average fps across 20 games) and see for youself

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=443

an FX-8350 ($200) vs an Intel Core i7 3960X ($1,000), 5x times the price for barely 50% more performance, if it were 5x faster I would say Intel is the king but it is not. so fail.

gggggreg
02-26-2013, 03:42 AM
i have recentally puchased an alienware - it amazing - 3.4ghz - 10gb ram - super fast - 1920x1280 - and i also puchased assassins creed 3, But when i run it at its lowest settings (still on 1920x1280, but that shouldnt really matter) but everything normal my game only works at 26fps - 10fps!!! and when on ULTRA SETTINGS MY GAME RUNES AT 2 TOO 4 FPS!!!!!!!!!!! its stupidly low and unplayable!! please someone help if anyone can do anything i would be very gratefull! i have looked on internet for days and have found out that some old drivers fo navida work better than new ones , but im on amd and dont want to break or change to much of my laptops stuff, someone please help or tell me if there is a patch comeing out for this! it would be very help ful!! thanks. greg

my computer can run bf3 at 76fps on ultimate dont tell me assassins creed should be lower than 20fps on min settings , plz help

specs- i7 3630 3.4ghz
ram 10gb ddr 16000
windows 7-
amd 7970 2gb graphics card,

please email me if anyone one has any idea how to fix this at [email removed] thankyou very much

Anykeyer
02-26-2013, 06:14 AM
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=443

an FX-8350 ($200) vs an Intel Core i7 3960X ($1,000), 5x times the price for barely 50% more performance, if it were 5x faster I would say Intel is the king but it is not. so fail.
Oh, cmon, not another AMD fanboy. Where are you coming from?
Top AMD CPUs are on par with Intel's i3 ($120-130) in games. THAT is fail.
Of course high end is overpriced. This applies to any idustry and any manufacturer, the closer you are to the top the less you gain for paying extra.



specs- i7 3630 3.4ghz
ram 10gb ddr 16000
windows 7-
amd 7970 2gb graphics card,

please email me if anyone one has any idea how to fix this at [email removed] thankyou very much

So instead of searching you decided to spam 5 times? This was already discussed, drivers. Beta drivers. That will help. A bit.
And no, I wont bother sending you anything to your email. Forums work this way, answers are supposed to be on the same forum in the same freaking topic, not in someone's inbox.