PDA

View Full Version : For all you worried about running Assassin's Creed Unity.



Fatal-Feit
10-26-2014, 04:27 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49tN_PnpES8

Here's a benchmark of an E3 demo running on a PC with similar performance to an X1. The E3 version of the game have clearly not been optimized, nor will the final product be as good (this one is from experience). I don't know what the exact specs are, but if its performance is anything close to an X1, you can expect budget graphics cards like the 750 Ti or R7 260X to be just fine.

The game will certainly be more demanding than AC:IV, but it's not going to break your systems like Crysis.

nultma
10-26-2014, 05:18 AM
I don't want to break your heart but Ubisoft hasn't had the best track record lately translating the E3 version of games to what we see at release.

strigoi1958
10-26-2014, 05:41 AM
Still it is a good find. Thanks Fatal Feit :D

Fatal-Feit
10-26-2014, 07:08 AM
I don't want to break your heart but Ubisoft hasn't had the best track record lately translating the E3 version of games to what we see at release.

The games' visual qualities are usually downgraded, which is my point. --> The final version shouldn't be nearly as demanding. And that's alongside a somewhat more optimized game.

@stigoi1958 - You're welcome!

RaulO4
10-26-2014, 07:14 AM
this scares me even more, normally they use beast pc to make sure it run solid in good news the main game will be easier to run because this is not how the final version would look like...

Johny-Al-Knox
10-26-2014, 07:15 AM
Gonna be interestning to see how it performs i guess

oliacr
10-26-2014, 11:01 AM
Faith has been restored. AGAIN. Thanks for posting this :D :D

jantherocker
10-26-2014, 11:36 AM
well two things.. first we dont know what "Hardware simmillar to X1" means when Ubisoft says it

but lets say its something like an AMD FX 6300 6gb Ram and a R9 270 ... leads me to second.... then why the hell did they post such crazy requierements if a unfinished build runs at 30fps easily on a much weaker PC than their min? are those min, specs really for 4k then? or at least 1440p?

its a glimmer of hope,thank you for posting

but the "official" reuqierements now make even less sense...

Fatal-Feit
10-26-2014, 12:16 PM
well two things.. first we dont know what "Hardware simmillar to X1" means when Ubisoft says it

Especially when Ubisoft says it. These are the same people who claims 30fps to be superior to 60fps.


but lets say its something like an AMD FX 6300 6gb Ram and a R9 270 ... leads me to second.... then why the hell did they post such crazy requierements if a unfinished build runs at 30fps easily on a much weaker PC than their min? are those min, specs really for 4k then? or at least 1440p?

but the "official" reuqierements now make even less sense...

Someone suggested in another thread that the requirements could be for 1080p at 60fps. Honestly, that wouldn't be unreasonable considering the fact that Black Flag, at max settings (excluding physx effects), already has a difficult time running at a consistent 60fps in 1080p on a GTX 980.

My theory is that Ubisoft, being Ubisoft, simply upped the requirements to hide the fact that the game is as poorly optimized, despite the obvious.

[EDIT] Basically, it WILL run like crap, but it's not going to be far worse than the usual ports. If anything, this is Ubisoft taking a gamble. Like, which is worse? People complaining about the over-the-top requirements now, or about how mislead and terribly optimized the game is on release?

jantherocker
10-26-2014, 12:52 PM
Especially when Ubisoft says it. These are the same people who claims 30fps to be superior to 60fps.



Someone suggested in another thread that the requirements could be for 1080p at 60fps. Honestly, that wouldn't be unreasonable considering the fact that Black Flag, at max settings (excluding physx effects), already has a difficult time running at a consistent 60fps in 1080p on a GTX 980.

My theory is that Ubisoft, being Ubisoft, simply upped the requirements to hide the fact that the game is as poorly optimized, despite the obvious.

[EDIT] Basically, it WILL run like crap, but it's not going to be far worse than the usual ports. If anything, this is Ubisoft taking a gamble. Like, which is worse? People complaining about the over-the-top requirements now, or about how mislead and terribly optimized the game is on release?

Dont know about 60fps but i agree i think its for at least 1080p

Well i kinda could imagine that after the Watch Dogs debacle they had two ways to go.. either put a whole lot more work into optimzing... or just scare off people with Hardware under a certian Level so not so much people will have problems running it ok and it seems they chose the second path

one Problem with PC optimization is the infinite amount of different PCs... so if you scare off those "low end" people the chance is greater that the ones with powerfull PC will have less Problems.. and thus less complains

You can easily see what the X1 needs as an PC counterpart when you look at Ryse.. you need a GPU in the range between a GTX 570 and a 660 about 4gb Ram and a solid not too old(or if older highly overclocked) Quad Core CPU no matter the Game... this is what you need to run Ryse on High... so you can bet thats at least X1 Level...

so even if AC:U is a Open World Game... it doesnt change what "equals" an X1 .. so at least at 900p/30fps you will get most likely medium to High Graphics out of AC:U with a lets say 3ghz Quad Core//4gb Ram//GTX660 2gb

the requierements totally jump up if you need 1080p or more and need 60fps... so yeah.. your 1080p/60fps idea seems solid after all

topeira1980
10-26-2014, 01:08 PM
Dont know about 60fps but i agree i think its for at least 1080p

Well i kinda could imagine that after the Watch Dogs debacle they had two ways to go.. either put a whole lot more work into optimzing... or just scare off people with Hardware under a certian Level so not so much people will have problems running it ok and it seems they chose the second path

one Problem with PC optimization is the infinite amount of different PCs... so if you scare off those "low end" people the chance is greater that the ones with powerfull PC will have less Problems.. and thus less complains

You can easily see what the X1 needs as an PC counterpart when you look at Ryse.. you need a GPU in the range between a GTX 570 and a 660 about 4gb Ram and a solid not too old(or if older highly overclocked) Quad Core CPU no matter the Game... this is what you need to run Ryse on High... so you can bet thats at least X1 Level...

so even if AC:U is a Open World Game... it doesnt change what "equals" an X1 .. so at least at 900p/30fps you will get most likely medium to High Graphics out of AC:U with a lets say 3ghz Quad Core//4gb Ram//GTX660 2gb

the requierements totally jump up if you need 1080p or more and need 60fps... so yeah.. your 1080p/60fps idea seems solid after all

im not sure what you're getting at.
yuo dont know how demanding RYSE is on the X1. RYSE could be easier to run on the X1's CPU but ACU has tons of NPCs and co-op with tons of NPCs so it might require a better CPU than RYSE. same with draw distance. RYSE looks fantastic with all the distant stuff looking great but the backgrounds in ryse are all fake. not streamlined real gameplay assets. Ryse is a very shallow last-last-gen game. could have happened on the PS2. it just has pretty graphics. ACU is more complex. it should require better hardware.

i do assume you mean that ryse DOES streatches the limitation of X1 so it cant run on more than 900p so it means that it IS a demanding game, but im not sure i agree. not every company can squeeze the same amount of performance from the same platform.

however i DO feel you might be right about the WD approach. i thought about it myself - instead of allowing ppl to run the game on older hardware they claim they shouldnt even try so all the ppl who run ACU on the minimum will be surprised on how well it performs on minimum specs and how nice it looks. while the game MIGHT still work on lower than minimum reqs UBI simply isnt supporting it officially... but that on intself is bad enough. ppl with 660 or 7950 arent supported? that's a great shame.
besides UBI might get less complaints about how the game looks on minimum but also get more complaints about how nobody can run the game... not to mention less sales.... so which is worse for UBI?

jantherocker
10-26-2014, 01:29 PM
im not sure what you're getting at.
yuo dont know how demanding RYSE is on the X1. RYSE could be easier to run on the X1's CPU but ACU has tons of NPCs and co-op with tons of NPCs so it might require a better CPU than RYSE. same with draw distance. RYSE looks fantastic with all the distant stuff looking great but the backgrounds in ryse are all fake. not streamlined real gameplay assets. Ryse is a very shallow last-last-gen game. could have happened on the PS2. it just has pretty graphics. ACU is more complex. it should require better hardware.

i do assume you mean that ryse DOES streatches the limitation of X1 so it cant run on more than 900p so it means that it IS a demanding game, but im not sure i agree. not every company can squeeze the same amount of performance from the same platform.

however i DO feel you might be right about the WD approach. i thought about it myself - instead of allowing ppl to run the game on older hardware they claim they shouldnt even try so all the ppl who run ACU on the minimum will be surprised on how well it performs on minimum specs and how nice it looks. while the game MIGHT still work on lower than minimum reqs UBI simply isnt supporting it officially... but that on intself is bad enough. ppl with 660 or 7950 arent supported? that's a great shame.
besides UBI might get less complaints about how the game looks on minimum but also get more complaints about how nobody can run the game... not to mention less sales.... so which is worse for UBI?

just to be clear.. i didnt compared Ryse directly to AC:U!! i just said: this is about the PC that is as least as good as a Xbox one... at least for one game!.. sure AC:U has other demands then Ryse... but still it doesnt change the roughly estimated PC equivalent of a X1

it cant demand THAT much more then Ryse because the X1 has its limitations.. it cant suddenly transform into an ultra machine... especially not with a more demanding game
i agree that every Game is optimized different but my point simply was that Ryse is at least an indication to what a PC needs to run an Xbox 1 Game... also keep in mind that Ryse is pretty demanding too... it as AC:U runs on 900p/30fps on X1

yeah thats my Point... after W_D their strategy could very well be "our minimum is the Lowest PC we testet wich got at least 1080p and 60fps... we wont support anything under that because if we do... people with lesser Hardware will go crazy again why it wont work.."

Fatal-Feit
10-26-2014, 02:27 PM
If you're using other recent games as an example, entry level graphic cards are perfectly fine.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHDNZqgN-DQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJNipt9u2-A


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py5hHuydm-k

strigoi1958
10-26-2014, 02:41 PM
Great links, they show what can be achieved with affordable cards.... I think a lot of people might be a little less worried viewing this thread. Plus I think even if games come out now that are restricted to certain things, someone somewhere always seems to make a mod or unofficial patch that unlocks it.
I wasn't going to change my gfx card just yet but my grandkids have ordered me an MSI gtx 970 and as anxious as I am to see what it will do.... I'm going to try (really try) not to put it in till I see Unity running brilliantly on my gtx 670 and upload a video to youtube.

Voyager456
10-26-2014, 03:13 PM
Funy thing is every time somebody starts talking about piracy some mod warns them how its not alowed yet ubisoft is pushing
people towards piracy with this kind of req 90% of people who bought the game dont know how will it run or will it run at all on their sytsems
and you expext these people to buy your game what a disgrace also your telling me doritobox can run the game yet card like gtx 760 or r9 280 are below min req
also i bet its going to run like cr.. on consoles too i alerady canceled my peorder an i hope others do the same.

topeira1980
10-26-2014, 04:34 PM
also your telling me doritobox can run the game yet card like gtx 760 or r9 280 are below min req
.

if they said the minimum GPU is 7970 than the 280 is below? i thought the r9 280 IS the 7970.... i was wrong?

Voyager456
10-26-2014, 04:52 PM
As far as i know280 is a rebranded 7950 but its still close to 7970 so you shouldnt wory i supose.

Fatal-Feit
10-26-2014, 04:58 PM
As far as i know280 is a rebranded 7950 but its still close to 7970 so you shouldnt wory i supose.

The thing is, they have the right to worry, and they deserve it (considering how Ubisoft treat their consumers), but at the same time, they shouldn't. I'm 99% sure Unity will run just like Black Flag in areas with high foliage, if not, a little better. :p

The high requirements are an excuse for poor optimization. It's so they can say ''but we warned you weeks ahead, didn't we?'' instead of taking the full fault for incompetent work.

Voyager456
10-26-2014, 05:05 PM
The thing is, they have the right to worry, and they deserve it (considering how Ubisoft treat their consumers), but at the same time, they shouldn't. I'm 99% sure Unity will run just like Black Flag in areas with high foliage, if not, a little better. :p

The high requirements are an excuse for poor optimization. It's so they can say ''but we warned you weeks ahead, didn't we?'' instead of taking the full fault for incompetent work.
Yea i know thats why i included supose xd either way 280 should easily overclock beyond 7970 levels if he has a half decent sample btw im suprised how weak xbone gpu is http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2086/xbox-one-gpu.html thats even weaker than 7770 and when you pair it with that weak amd cpu im supride how did they even manged to run it on doritobox lol what a joke

oliacr
10-26-2014, 05:11 PM
The thing is, they have the right to worry, and they deserve it (considering how Ubisoft treat their consumers), but at the same time, they shouldn't. I'm 99% sure Unity will run just like Black Flag in areas with high foliage, if not, a little better. :p

The high requirements are an excuse for poor optimization. It's so they can say ''but we warned you weeks ahead, didn't we?'' instead of taking the full fault for incompetent work.

Maybe. It's Ubisoft afterall.

Altair1789
10-26-2014, 05:33 PM
It's also possible these system requirements could be for 4k resolution 30fps, (like Ryse) so Ubisoft can cover up their terrible optimization. I know it's easier to optimize the game for consoles but they have terrible optimization.

I think Ryse is a good indicator of how a game like Unity will run. While Unity has a huge city with seamless interiors, Ryse has really good graphics and still some pretty big buildings. Either way, we need some more clarification from Ubisoft's end. I wish we could do some kind of petition or something like that to get them to elaborate and give us benchmarks. That could restore some faith in the eyes of PC gamers

naumaan
10-26-2014, 10:01 PM
its a video benchmark .. not a gameplay benchmark .. i can see the man playing the game in it .. so i dont think it gives any accuracy .. still i wish

Green_Reaper
10-26-2014, 10:17 PM
It's also possible these system requirements could be for 4k resolution 30fps, (like Ryse) so Ubisoft can cover up their terrible optimization. I know it's easier to optimize the game for consoles but they have terrible optimization.

I think Ryse is a good indicator of how a game like Unity will run. While Unity has a huge city with seamless interiors, Ryse has really good graphics and still some pretty big buildings. Either way, we need some more clarification from Ubisoft's end. I wish we could do some kind of petition or something like that to get them to elaborate and give us benchmarks. That could restore some faith in the eyes of PC gamers

Maybe, but I don't really think so. Unity is on a different engine and there's different things going on, like that supposed 5000 npc count with their own unique ai+animations. Plus a bunch of other factors including how the game is played. Games could even be on the same engine but perform differently - For example, people compare the use of Id tech 5 between Wolfenstein & The Evil Within and wondered what the hell happened since Wolfenstein ran pretty well while Evil Within had hiccups on launch. That makes me doubtful to use previous Anvil Next games like AC 3 and AC IV as references because they are different in terms of scale and visual capability.

No other way to tell how Unity will fare until we have the actual game. It'd be great if Ubisoft released a benchmark demo but we know that probably won't happen, ever.

strigoi1958
10-26-2014, 10:32 PM
The trouble is that I find it hard to believe that ubi didn't have any idea how much a jump the minimum specs were going to be until shortly before the specs were released.

Now people have just recently bought new PC's and components in anticipation of playing a game they've had on pre-order, only to find that their brand new cpu, gfx card, mobo bundle or system cannot meet this spec.

Even if the specs were not issued a few months ago but a "leak" somewhere or a statement on the ubi blog had said the specs were probably going to be higher than expected because the game is so good it needs them.... then people might not have wasted money on upgrades that do not meet the minimum spec and waited. With a little advisory notice they might have used that time to save a bit more for better components and it would have avoided all the outrage.

when you save up $160 and buy a gfx card then find the game has jumped beyond that to a $350 gfx card... you lose twice because you have to sell your 1st card for $100... that's what makes people angry. No point anyone saying people should wait till the announcement... this could have been preempted with a hint.

It would have possibly slowed pre-orders coming in but... it would have been the right thing to do.

SixKeys
10-26-2014, 10:48 PM
The trouble is that I find it hard to believe that ubi didn't have any idea how much a jump the minimum specs were going to be until shortly before the specs were released.

Now people have just recently bought new PC's and components in anticipation of playing a game they've had on pre-order, only to find that their brand new cpu, gfx card, mobo bundle or system cannot meet this spec.

Even if the specs were not issued a few months ago but a "leak" somewhere or a statement on the ubi blog had said the specs were probably going to be higher than expected because the game is so good it needs them.... then people might not have wasted money on upgrades that do not meet the minimum spec and waited. With a little advisory notice they might have used that time to save a bit more for better components and it would have avoided all the outrage.

when you save up $160 and buy a gfx card then find the game has jumped beyond that to a $350 gfx card... you lose twice because you have to sell your 1st card for $100... that's what makes people angry. No point anyone saying people should wait till the announcement... this could have been preempted with a hint.

It would have possibly slowed pre-orders coming in but... it would have been the right thing to do.

^ This. Ubi waited until 2 weeks before release to even give people an indication of the required demands. I don't think people would be nearly this pissed off if they had found out a few months in advance so they could start saving up.

oliacr
10-26-2014, 10:52 PM
The trouble is that I find it hard to believe that ubi didn't have any idea how much a jump the minimum specs were going to be until shortly before the specs were released.

Now people have just recently bought new PC's and components in anticipation of playing a game they've had on pre-order, only to find that their brand new cpu, gfx card, mobo bundle or system cannot meet this spec.

Even if the specs were not issued a few months ago but a "leak" somewhere or a statement on the ubi blog had said the specs were probably going to be higher than expected because the game is so good it needs them.... then people might not have wasted money on upgrades that do not meet the minimum spec and waited. With a little advisory notice they might have used that time to save a bit more for better components and it would have avoided all the outrage.

when you save up $160 and buy a gfx card then find the game has jumped beyond that to a $350 gfx card... you lose twice because you have to sell your 1st card for $100... that's what makes people angry. No point anyone saying people should wait till the announcement... this could have been preempted with a hint.

It would have possibly slowed pre-orders coming in but... it would have been the right thing to do.

Totally agree.

pleb87
10-26-2014, 10:55 PM
The trouble is that I find it hard to believe that ubi didn't have any idea how much a jump the minimum specs were going to be until shortly before the specs were released.

Now people have just recently bought new PC's and components in anticipation of playing a game they've had on pre-order, only to find that their brand new cpu, gfx card, mobo bundle or system cannot meet this spec.

Even if the specs were not issued a few months ago but a "leak" somewhere or a statement on the ubi blog had said the specs were probably going to be higher than expected because the game is so good it needs them.... then people might not have wasted money on upgrades that do not meet the minimum spec and waited. With a little advisory notice they might have used that time to save a bit more for better components and it would have avoided all the outrage.

when you save up $160 and buy a gfx card then find the game has jumped beyond that to a $350 gfx card... you lose twice because you have to sell your 1st card for $100... that's what makes people angry. No point anyone saying people should wait till the announcement... this could have been preempted with a hint.

It would have possibly slowed pre-orders coming in but... it would have been the right thing to do.

I kind of know what you mean, but I figured when I ordered my new PC about a month or so ago I decided to go all out - bought an i7 4790k with a GTX 980 and 16GB RAM, despite being advised this was overkill for a gaming PC. I assumed this would be future-proofing it so I wouldn't need to upgrade for a while. But I'll admit I had a nice budget to work with and not many people can afford to spend this kind of money. So it's pretty bad of Ubisoft to price people out of buying ACU. Hopefully these specs will end up being rubbish because otherwise people will have to decide whether it's worth upgrading their PCs or buying a PS4 or XB1...

oliacr
10-26-2014, 10:58 PM
I kind of know what you mean, but I figured when I ordered my new PC about a month or so ago I decided to go all out - bought an i7 4790k with a GTX 980 and 16GB RAM, despite being advised this was overkill for a gaming PC. I assumed this would be future-proofing it so I wouldn't need to upgrade for a while. But I'll admit I had a nice budget to work with and not many people can afford to spend this kind of money. So it's pretty bad of Ubisoft to price people out of buying ACU. Hopefully these specs will end up being rubbish because otherwise people will have to decide whether it's worth upgrading their PCs or buying a PS4 or XB1...

Yes, not everyone can afford a PC like that. You are one of the lucky ones. I still don't want to understand Ubi on this. They didn't want to put the work in? or Couldn't? They are gonna lose money with this action, more with this than sacrificing a few bucks for better optimization and more sales. Who knows. Still need to wait.

pleb87
10-26-2014, 11:04 PM
Well even with my rig it could still be like a repeat of WD... From what I read when it first came out nobody could play on Ultra, no matter how good their PC was!

strigoi1958
10-26-2014, 11:37 PM
I think WD was down to nvidia drivers and it ran great on my system but high end and sli systems struggled... same with AC BF.

My system was top spec 20 months ago so I don't think anything can be considered future-proof for long nowadays :(

it cost me 1451 from ginger 6... even with a little advice to save bits and pieces ... like an i5 3570k to O/C instead of an i7 and a gtx 670 instead of a 680 as they're similar at 1080p and it creeps in just under minimum. AC VI or whatever next years AC is called might require a hexacore cpu and your mobo, ram and cpu would all be no good.... nobody knows except Ubi and they're not dropping any hints

pleb87
10-26-2014, 11:41 PM
I have a Flying Delorean and I've already visited the year 2015. Next year's AC will require:

Intel i7 7890k (12 Cores) @ 6ghz
Nvidia GTX 1280 12GB VRAM
128GB RAM
120 Exobytes of Disk Space

strigoi1958
10-26-2014, 11:43 PM
:D:D

pleb87
10-26-2014, 11:45 PM
Oh and a 256-bit OS as well... That'll be Windows 12. They thought they'd miss out 2 numbers this time! ;)

Green_Reaper
10-27-2014, 12:25 AM
I have a Flying Delorean and I've already visited the year 2015. Next year's AC will require:

Intel i7 7890k (12 Cores) @ 6ghz
Nvidia GTX 1280 12GB VRAM
128GB RAM
120 Exobytes of Disk Space

...and a big fat wallet as well.

oliacr
10-27-2014, 11:11 AM
I have a Flying Delorean and I've already visited the year 2015. Next year's AC will require:

Intel i7 7890k (12 Cores) @ 6ghz
Nvidia GTX 1280 12GB VRAM
128GB RAM
120 Exobytes of Disk Space

Just to run on 720p low textures 30fps

blogger360
10-27-2014, 12:08 PM
do u think I can run it on i5 3450 8gb ram and gtx 760?

oliacr
10-27-2014, 12:09 PM
do u think I can run it on i5 3450 8gb ram and gtx 760?

I would be surprised if you couldn't.

Afflictio.on
10-27-2014, 01:32 PM
I have i5 2320 3GHz 4GB and GTX650 1vram, soon ill get 1x4RAM, im just wondering if i can run the game with 1VRAM

strigoi1958
10-27-2014, 02:46 PM
I really hope I'm wrong as I want everyone to play this.....but I would say probably not....
but in the future (if I understand it correctly) the latest DX 11 and dx 12 use tile streaming which (if a game uses it) makes it possible to play with less Vram

naumaan
10-27-2014, 02:54 PM
I really hope I'm wrong as I want everyone to play this.....but I would say probably not....
but in the future (if I understand it correctly) the latest DX 11 and dx 12 use tile streaming which (if a game uses it) makes it possible to play with less Vram

you got it right

strigoi1958
10-27-2014, 02:57 PM
Thanks I don't always get it right :D

guest-uziWjBuy
10-27-2014, 08:18 PM
I'm running an I7-4700 MQ @ 2.40 GHZ with an Intel HD 4600 Graphics.

Got 8 GB of ram, might be upgrading to 12 GB RAM.

Do you think I'll be able to play AC Unity on normal/low settings?

oliacr
10-27-2014, 08:46 PM
I'm running an I7-4700 MQ @ 2.40 GHZ with an Intel HD 4600 Graphics.

Got 8 GB of ram, might be upgrading to 12 GB RAM.

Do you think I'll be able to play AC Unity on normal/low settings?

The problem is in bold.

Green_Reaper
10-27-2014, 10:15 PM
I really hope I'm wrong as I want everyone to play this.....but I would say probably not....
but in the future (if I understand it correctly) the latest DX 11 and dx 12 use tile streaming which (if a game uses it) makes it possible to play with less Vram

Sounds great. I hope it becomes a thing. A lot of people have a pretty good gpu but lack enough vram which makes the heavy purchase for those high end cards 1-2 years back seem like a waste.

strigoi1958
10-28-2014, 08:03 AM
It already is a thing but it is on DX11.2 which I think can only be used by that awful windows 8. It will be available in DX12 and even if it's blocked onn win 7... I like the look of win 10 and will switch to that when it comes out.

Mr Shade has raised a good point... we need to stop guessing and take the specs as stated.... until they have been benchmarked after release. I would add if you don't match the specs before it is released you might be disappointed. It is down to us to gamble or not on a pre-order. But within hours everyone will know so it's not a long delay.

Red_dawn87
10-28-2014, 08:24 AM
Then i think i will be able to run it by watching the video and chking some comments and being anwsered earlier by some of the forum members :)

oliacr
10-28-2014, 10:01 AM
Then i think i will be able to run it by watching the video and chking some comments and being anwsered earlier by some of the forum members :)

You should have no problems.

vipper_strike
10-28-2014, 10:07 AM
honestly this don't tell me nothing cause x1 has a mobile 8 core probally an fx series cpu and mobile hd 78xx or 79xx series gpu and they could have pulled the desktop varrient and said f it 1080p or 900p and low if anyone seen gw2 that was just as good on low graphics just as ultra so yeah i believe there pc market is gone and we need to get ps4 and x1 bankrupt to get pc back or just make ubi bankrupt and hope we can get valve to buy some of there titles and if Bethesda gets right they would be a good choice also

Red_dawn87
10-28-2014, 04:00 PM
You should have no problems.

Thnks and i found this also which shows tht i am only 13% behind the minimum req but lower resolution and i will be able to run it

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=1899&gid2=670&compare=radeon-r9-270x-sapphire-vapor-x-2gb-oc-edition-vs-radeon-hd-7970

and here is my video on how i run W_D when i record i use 1080

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ShNL2BQ3k


my normal gaming is @ 1152x648 or 1280x720 :)

oliacr
10-28-2014, 05:06 PM
Thnks and i found this also which shows tht i am only 13% behind the minimum req but lower resolution and i will be able to run it

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=1899&gid2=670&compare=radeon-r9-270x-sapphire-vapor-x-2gb-oc-edition-vs-radeon-hd-7970

and here is my video on how i run W_D when i record i use 1080

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ShNL2BQ3k


my normal gaming is @ 1152x648 or 1280x720 :)

It is good, just like mine but I'm not so sure about Unity, I need to wait.

naumaan
10-28-2014, 08:16 PM
The trouble is that I find it hard to believe that ubi didn't have any idea how much a jump the minimum specs were going to be until shortly before the specs were released.

Now people have just recently bought new PC's and components in anticipation of playing a game they've had on pre-order, only to find that their brand new cpu, gfx card, mobo bundle or system cannot meet this spec.

Even if the specs were not issued a few months ago but a "leak" somewhere or a statement on the ubi blog had said the specs were probably going to be higher than expected because the game is so good it needs them.... then people might not have wasted money on upgrades that do not meet the minimum spec and waited. With a little advisory notice they might have used that time to save a bit more for better components and it would have avoided all the outrage.

when you save up $160 and buy a gfx card then find the game has jumped beyond that to a $350 gfx card... you lose twice because you have to sell your 1st card for $100... that's what makes people angry. No point anyone saying people should wait till the announcement... this could have been preempted with a hint.

It would have possibly slowed pre-orders coming in but... it would have been the right thing to do.

after reading this i believe i saved myself from a lot of trouble as i was actually thinking to buy a new rig .. who knew it would support the game or no ....

Green_Reaper
10-28-2014, 10:43 PM
It already is a thing but it is on DX11.2 which I think can only be used by that awful windows 8. It will be available in DX12 and even if it's blocked onn win 7... I like the look of win 10 and will switch to that when it comes out.

Mr Shade has raised a good point... we need to stop guessing and take the specs as stated.... until they have been benchmarked after release. I would add if you don't match the specs before it is released you might be disappointed. It is down to us to gamble or not on a pre-order. But within hours everyone will know so it's not a long delay.

And that is all assuming if they even utilize such a feature in Unity. I don't know if I want to upgrade in OS either for one game. Heh, I'm breaking a sweat, I forgot how costly PC gaming can get!

King_of_Ricers
11-03-2014, 09:38 PM
Enjoy a game that won't go over 30fps, that is if you can actually run it to begin with...

D_cover
11-04-2014, 11:13 AM
I honestly don't mind gaming at 30fps but lets get real it is coming to the end of 2014 next gen is here.

My system exceeds the recommended so I am hoping for around 45fps since we are talking Ubisoft here but that is still wishful thinking.

Don't drop the ball Ubisoft us PC gamers can make your life very hard.