Assassin's Creed series performance on PC.

Hello to all the PC guys. My question is, are any of you getting a solid 60 fps in the Assassin's Creed games?

I have a fairly good gaming PC and I can't seem to get a solid 60 fps in most of the games in the series. I get 60 fps most of the time in AC2, but AC and AC3's frame-rates hover around the 40s for me.

I have heard that the games are poorly optimized in terms of how they use the CPU (single thread only, some have said), but I have also seen benchmarks that seem to indicate that these games simply don't run well on AMD hardware. See this article for an example: http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/6

So, I am just curious whether anybody is getting rock solid framerates in these games.

Hello to all the PC guys. My question is, are any of you getting a solid 60 fps in the Assassin's Creed games?

I have a fairly good gaming PC and I can't seem to get a solid 60 fps in most of the games in the series. I get 60 fps most of the time in AC2, but AC and AC3's frame-rates hover around the 40s for me.

I have heard that the games are poorly optimized in terms of how they use the CPU (single thread only, some have said), but I have also seen benchmarks that seem to indicate that these games simply don't run well on AMD hardware. See this article for an example: http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/6

So, I am just curious whether anybody is getting rock solid framerates in these games.

kalipekona

What graphics settings are you running at? Some of the AA methods are pretty hard on the GPU.

Hello to all the PC guys. My question is, are any of you getting a solid 60 fps in the Assassin's Creed games?

I have a fairly good gaming PC and I can't seem to get a solid 60 fps in most of the games in the series. I get 60 fps most of the time in AC2, but AC and AC3's frame-rates hover around the 40s for me.

I have heard that the games are poorly optimized in terms of how they use the CPU (single thread only, some have said), but I have also seen benchmarks that seem to indicate that these games simply don't run well on AMD hardware. See this article for an example: http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/6

So, I am just curious whether anybody is getting rock solid framerates in these games.

kalipekona

Why do people need to get a solid 60fps? 30-40-50fps is totally playable.

But to answer your quesiton.  Part 1 had a few performance issues but the patches fixed it.  AC2 and expansions worked fine.  AC3 also works fine but uses some type of new engine so needs more power.

I've only played AC1 on my laptop, but the performance was definitely spotty. Pretty sure I had most settings at high, and was at 1080p. My framerate would get as low as 25 in heavily crowded areas, averaged more like 40ish most of the time, and had spikes as high as 70-80 when high up on buildings.

If anyone's interested I have AC2 deluxe on steam to trade.

All the Assassins Creed games play well. AC1 & 2 were quite dodgy ports (not much flexibility in the graphics options) but didn't have too many issues at all. 1&2 ran fine on my old 9600GT. Brotherhood, Revelations and III are great, optimized for the mouse and keyboard (at least for me)

I'll say you won't have any problems. AC3 is quite a drag though. Ezio trilogy was great!

[QUOTE="nutcrackr"]Assassin's Creed 3 is has been optimized for machines that don't exist yet. It runs crap on consoles and poorly on PC. I personally don't think the visual improvements are worth it, AC2 (bro and rev) look almost as good. FelipeInside

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="nutcrackr"]Assassin's Creed 3 is has been optimized for machines that don't exist yet. It runs crap on consoles and poorly on PC. I personally don't think the visual improvements are worth it, AC2 (bro and rev) look almost as good. Litchie

I have heard that AC3 is a CPU hog. 

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="nutcrackr"]Assassin's Creed 3 is has been optimized for machines that don't exist yet. It runs crap on consoles and poorly on PC. I personally don't think the visual improvements are worth it, AC2 (bro and rev) look almost as good. Litchie

Yeah, I have an i5 2500k too, but it seems that most of the people who responded who get flawless performance have nvidia cards. Benchmarks seem to indicate nvidia cards perform much better than AMD cards on these games.

That said, I still get very playable performance. AC3, btw, is my favorite game in the series. They are all good, but I don't understand how some people think the older ones were better.

[QUOTE="Litchie"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] AC3 runs perfect on my PC, you just need an i5-i7 and a strong video card.kalipekona

Yeah, I have an i5 2500k too, but it seems that most of the people who responded who get flawless performance have nvidia cards. Benchmarks seem to indicate nvidia cards perform much better than AMD cards on these games.

That said, I still get very playable performance. AC3, btw, is my favorite game in the series. They are all good, but I don't understand how some people think the older ones were better.

[QUOTE="Litchie"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] AC3 runs perfect on my PC, you just need an i5-i7 and a strong video card.the_bi99man

I have heard that AC3 is a CPU hog. 

The problem is the AC3 doesn't fully utilize quad core CPUs.

It only utilizes 2 cores so if you have an AMD CPU then chances are you will have frame rate drops in dense areas.

Core for core Intel CPUs are much more powerful than AMD CPUs which is why not as many people will have frame rate issues if they use an Intel CPU.

Even an Intel i3 CPU does better than the highest end AMD CPU in Assassin's Creed 3.

The reason you don't usually see a huge difference with Intel and AMD CPUs it that a lot of newer games utilize 4 cores and you usually hit a GPU bottleneck before a CPU one.

If the game was coded for 4 cores then AMD CPUs could run it easily but sadly the game is outdated in it's coding methods.

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

[QUOTE="Litchie"] Wouldn't really call my GTX 560Ti a "strong video card", but I run AC3 flawlessly. Got an i5, though. That might be why then.

FelipeInside

Yeah, I have an i5 2500k too, but it seems that most of the people who responded who get flawless performance have nvidia cards. Benchmarks seem to indicate nvidia cards perform much better than AMD cards on these games.

That said, I still get very playable performance. AC3, btw, is my favorite game in the series. They are all good, but I don't understand how some people think the older ones were better.

I'm playing Assassin's creed 3 on my pc and performance is too good running very smoothly.

What I do is usually turn it down until it's smooth enough for me.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="Litchie"] Wouldn't really call my GTX 560Ti a "strong video card", but I run AC3 flawlessly. Got an i5, though. That might be why then.

RyviusARC

I have heard that AC3 is a CPU hog. 

The problem is the AC3 doesn't fully utilize quad core CPUs.

It only utilizes 2 cores so if you have an AMD CPU then chances are you will have frame rate drops in dense areas.

Core for core Intel CPUs are much more powerful than AMD CPUs which is why not as many people will have frame rate issues if they use an Intel CPU.

Even an Intel i3 CPU does better than the highest end AMD CPU in Assassin's Creed 3.

The reason you don't usually see a huge difference with Intel and AMD CPUs it that a lot of newer games utilize 4 cores and you usually hit a GPU bottleneck before a CPU one.

If the game was coded for 4 cores then AMD CPUs could run it easily but sadly the game is outdated in it's coding methods.

AC3 optimisation is just garbage. It was bad on the console releases too (which is quite rare). Nothing you can do about it.

[QUOTE="nutcrackr"]Assassin's Creed 3 is has been optimized for machines that don't exist yet. It runs crap on consoles and poorly on PC. I personally don't think the visual improvements are worth it, AC2 (bro and rev) look almost as good. FelipeInside

Nutcrackr is right. The framerate in all AC games 1, 2, 3, Brotherhood, Revelations, all the same. One moment, you're running 60fps, and then the next moment, you're dipping into the 40's. I'd rather have the game just run at a flat 50fps. It's nauseous when the framerate dips that much, and it does it consistently throughout the entire game.

Even on the new AnvilNext engine, which I doubt is "new." More like heavily modified version of their old engine. Not much of a graphical leap, and optimization didn't improve at all.

I think the people that say it runs flawlessly don't pay attention to the fps counter. If you pay attention to it, you will see the framerate is never consistent. Anyone that says it runs 60fps without a hitch is straight up lying.

Seriously, prove me wrong.  My CPU and video card is no slouch, and I had a 580 then, and none of these AC games should be that demanding aside for Boston level on AC3.  

Skyrim suffered an even worse case of poorly optimized game.  Bethesda addressed the problem and that game was patched and it ran 60fps without a hitch. And we all know how buggy Bethesda games are, yet they managed to pull it off.  

So yeah, I'm not buying it.

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

 

 

The problem is the AC3 doesn't fully utilize quad core CPUs.

It only utilizes 2 cores so if you have an AMD CPU then chances are you will have frame rate drops in dense areas.

Core for core Intel CPUs are much more powerful than AMD CPUs which is why not as many people will have frame rate issues if they use an Intel CPU.

Even an Intel i3 CPU does better than the highest end AMD CPU in Assassin's Creed 3.

The reason you don't usually see a huge difference with Intel and AMD CPUs it that a lot of newer games utilize 4 cores and you usually hit a GPU bottleneck before a CPU one.

If the game was coded for 4 cores then AMD CPUs could run it easily but sadly the game is outdated in it's coding methods.

ShadowDeathX

AC3 optimisation is just garbage. It was bad on the console releases too (which is quite rare). Nothing you can do about it.

bonafidetk

What pisses me off is that due to the nature of the issue, I can't really solve it in a thorough manner by reducing graphical quality - there is no workaround, it seems.

 

iHarlequin

Yeah, I run into that trying to play GTA4 on my laptop. Dat CPU bottlenecking. I get like, no more than 27-35 fps, no matter what. Bare minimum graphics settings, everything low or turned off, 720p... 27-35 fps. Maxed out, with increased draw distances, 1080p, plus a mild ENB, modded textures and cars... 27-35 fps. 

Although, in the case of GTA4, I don't think it's because it's not coded well for CPUs, but rather because it actually   does  make use of higher end CPUs, and my laptop has a dual-core i5 @ 2.27ghz. So, it's CPU bottlenecking, but it's my laptop's fault, not GTA's.

Ubisoft really screwed up with AC 3 - with a PC well above the suggested (not minimum) requirements, I can't play the game without getting the city-exclusive lag (if I look at a 45 degree angle from the ground forward in Boston, I get around 15 FPS) that so many seem to have on the PC. They can forget about getting my money until I've properly tested a free version/someone else's version on my computer, because as-it-is buying one of their games has me asking myself if I'm feeling like a lucky M.F..

Oh, and before someone says "you need a better CPU/GPU" - no. Not the issue, don't try to polish Ubisoft's apple here - it has some severe incompatibilities with certain video cards and hardware, regardless of their quality.

Oh, and before someone says "you need a better CPU/GPU" - no. Not the issue, don't try to polish Ubisoft's apple here - it has some severe incompatibilities with certain video cards and hardware, regardless of their quality.

iHarlequin

Definitely. Ryvius explained it pretty well on the last page. The biggest issue is that most modern games are making use of quad core processors now, but even the latest AC is still only coded for 2. 

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="nutcrackr"]Assassin's Creed 3 is has been optimized for machines that don't exist yet. It runs crap on consoles and poorly on PC. I personally don't think the visual improvements are worth it, AC2 (bro and rev) look almost as good. Elann2008

Nutcrackr is right. The framerate in all AC games 1, 2, 3, Brotherhood, Revelations, all the same. One moment, you're running 60fps, and then the next moment, you're dipping into the 40's. I'd rather have the game just run at a flat 50fps. It's nauseous when the framerate dips that much, and it does it consistently throughout the entire game.

Even on the new AnvilNext engine, which I doubt is "new." More like heavily modified version of their old engine. Not much of a graphical leap, and optimization didn't improve at all.

I think the people that say it runs flawlessly don't pay attention to the fps counter. If you pay attention to it, you will see the framerate is never consistent. Anyone that says it runs 60fps without a hitch is straight up lying.

Seriously, prove me wrong.  My CPU and video card is no slouch, and I had a 580 then, and none of these AC games should be that demanding aside for Boston level on AC3.  

Skyrim suffered an even worse case of poorly optimized game.  Bethesda addressed the problem and that game was patched and it ran 60fps without a hitch. And we all know how buggy Bethesda games are, yet they managed to pull it off.  

So yeah, I'm not buying it.

I think people who say it runs flawlessly probably just don't worry about 40ish FPS. 40 is still plenty playable, and probably smoother than the console versions. And I know some people value consistancy in framerate above all else (it's why so many developers cap framerates at 30 on the consoles, rather than let the game fluctuate between 35 and 50), but I'm not one of them. I don't mind a wildly fluctuating framerate, just so long as the lowest it ever goes is still smooth enough. And if the lowest it hits is in the 40s, while hitting 60 at other points, I'd be happy. But yeah, the fact that it  does  flucuate so much, even when there's not an obvious visual reason why it would, definitely shows that it's not optimized right. Shit sucks, but what can ya do?

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

Oh, and before someone says "you need a better CPU/GPU" - no. Not the issue, don't try to polish Ubisoft's apple here - it has some severe incompatibilities with certain video cards and hardware, regardless of their quality.

the_bi99man

Definitely. Ryvius explained it pretty well on the last page. The biggest issue is that most modern games are making use of quad core processors now, but even the latest AC is still only coded for 2. 

Yeah. I don't have as much of an issue when I'm playing it at home, on an i5-3570k, but god save me if I try to play it on my laptop. With an AMD Llano CPU, overclocked to 2.4 GHz per core (4 cores), the PC -should- be able to run the game well. It's the first recent game where I suffered from CPU bottlenecking - before that, the only game to (understandably) have this issue was the first Witcher, which dropped to around ~35 FPS when in cities. What pisses me off is that due to the nature of the issue, I can't really solve it in a thorough manner by reducing graphical quality - there is no workaround, it seems.

Worse than that is Ubisoft's apparent refusal to support a game that's less than a year old, probably because they're too concerned about delivering their yearly entry into the franchise. I really like the AC series, so they best get their s*it together.

^^ Am I special? I never had issues with AC1+2+Expansions. Framerate was always good (went up and down a bit in parts but totally playable). With AC3 and my old rig I couldn't play it. With this new build it plays perfectly.FelipeInside

No, you aren't. The thing is, even if your i7 CPU is being -terribly- under-utilized by the game, it has enough power to shrug it off and keep the game stable running at only two cores. That's a luxury most mid-range CPUs can't deal with. The game runs stable on a piece of s*it hardware released nearly eight years ago, but it refuses to run decently on any PC configuration that wasn't built in the past two years? Ridiculous.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

What pisses me off is that due to the nature of the issue, I can't really solve it in a thorough manner by reducing graphical quality - there is no workaround, it seems.

 

the_bi99man

Yeah, I run into that trying to play GTA4 on my laptop. Dat CPU bottlenecking. I get like, no more than 27-35 fps, no matter what. Bare minimum graphics settings, everything low or turned off, 720p... 27-35 fps. Maxed out, with increased draw distances, 1080p, plus a mild ENB, modded textures and cars... 27-35 fps. 

Although, in the case of GTA4, I don't think it's because it's not coded well for CPUs, but rather because it actually   does  make use of higher end CPUs, and my laptop has a dual-core i5 @ 2.27ghz. So, it's CPU bottlenecking, but it's my laptop's fault, not GTA's.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

What pisses me off is that due to the nature of the issue, I can't really solve it in a thorough manner by reducing graphical quality - there is no workaround, it seems.

 

FelipeInside

Yeah, I run into that trying to play GTA4 on my laptop. Dat CPU bottlenecking. I get like, no more than 27-35 fps, no matter what. Bare minimum graphics settings, everything low or turned off, 720p... 27-35 fps. Maxed out, with increased draw distances, 1080p, plus a mild ENB, modded textures and cars... 27-35 fps. 

Although, in the case of GTA4, I don't think it's because it's not coded well for CPUs, but rather because it actually   does  make use of higher end CPUs, and my laptop has a dual-core i5 @ 2.27ghz. So, it's CPU bottlenecking, but it's my laptop's fault, not GTA's.

This :lol:. I played GTA IV on my 360, and I'm not sure I regret it - at least when I play a game on a console, I'm not negatively surprised by running at a locked 30 FPS with very-low settings. Having a PC that should run a game with flying colors performing poorly due to poor optimisation and software? Irksome. The thing with AC 3 is that it was released five years AFTER GTA IV, at a time where people seldom buy CPUs (for gaming, at least) that don't have four cores, and the developers -chose- to limit it to two cores. Oh well - it wasn't the first, and certainly won't be the last time I feel like I'm getting the short end of the stick (relative to cost) due to choosing a PC. Most games' interface and UI already are extremely console-directed, and it often feels like there's performance/quality cap related to console hardware.

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"]^^ Am I special? I never had issues with AC1+2+Expansions. Framerate was always good (went up and down a bit in parts but totally playable). With AC3 and my old rig I couldn't play it. With this new build it plays perfectly.FelipeInside

Dem AU prices.. even at Mate's rates.

I don't understand the fuss regarding frame rates. Until recently, I just used to keep the settings in such way that any game ran smooth for me, and never measured frame rates. Just out of curiosity, I measured my frame rates in a few games recently. They were all running between 25 fps and 30fps. And that seemed quite smooth to me. On these forums people keep saying they need 60fps for smooth gameplay. Seriously, I notice some amount of choppiness only when my frame rate goes below 25fps. Anything above 25fps seems smooth and playable enough for me. So does this mean there is some problem with my brain or eyes?

I don't understand the fuss regarding frame rates. Until recently, I just used to keep the settings in such way that any game ran smooth for me, and never measured frame rates. Just out of curiosity, I measured my frame rates in a few games recently. They were all running between 25 fps and 30fps. And that seemed quite smooth to me. On these forums people keep saying they need 60fps for smooth gameplay. Seriously, I notice some amount of choppiness only when my frame rate goes below 25fps. Anything above 25fps seems smooth and playable enough for me. So does this mean there is some problem with my brain or eyes?

funkyzoom

[QUOTE="funkyzoom"]

I don't understand the fuss regarding frame rates. Until recently, I just used to keep the settings in such way that any game ran smooth for me, and never measured frame rates. Just out of curiosity, I measured my frame rates in a few games recently. They were all running between 25 fps and 30fps. And that seemed quite smooth to me. On these forums people keep saying they need 60fps for smooth gameplay. Seriously, I notice some amount of choppiness only when my frame rate goes below 25fps. Anything above 25fps seems smooth and playable enough for me. So does this mean there is some problem with my brain or eyes?

FelipeInside

At least there's one more person who shares my views. I certainly feel there's no need to measure frame rate. If you're satisfied that the game is running smooth for you, then just let it be. What is smooth for one person may be choppy for someone else. Its funny how people have a certain value in mind, like 40 fps, and they hit the panic button if the frame rate falls below that. Instead of doing this, they might as well forget about the frame rate and enjoy the game.

Assassin's Creed is definitely better played on a PS3 or equivalent.SKaREO

Hell no. I might not be getting 60 fps, but I rented AC3 from redbox for the PS3 and it looked far worse and had more frame stuttering and a much lower framerate than I get on my PC. 

I need to reiterate that it's perfectly playable on my PC and looks gorgeous. It's just that I am a perfectionist and I love the smooth controller response and clearer temporal resolution that 60 fps gives you.

[QUOTE="funkyzoom"]

I don't understand the fuss regarding frame rates. Until recently, I just used to keep the settings in such way that any game ran smooth for me, and never measured frame rates. Just out of curiosity, I measured my frame rates in a few games recently. They were all running between 25 fps and 30fps. And that seemed quite smooth to me. On these forums people keep saying they need 60fps for smooth gameplay. Seriously, I notice some amount of choppiness only when my frame rate goes below 25fps. Anything above 25fps seems smooth and playable enough for me. So does this mean there is some problem with my brain or eyes?

FelipeInside

Either way, not happy with how it runs. I never measure FPS either, unless I think it's running low. AC 3 was running low, and I noticed it before running FRAPS.

AC3 runs great for me on all-AMD components. highest settings @ 1080p and i've never noticed a lag between scenarios. even when running through populated town i don't notice any slowdown. i figured it didnt take much to run it because it was just a port so i turned it all the way up in CCC and it seems fine to me. strange some people claiming they have a high-end system are having troubles with it.

i also really don't understand the deal with people needing games to show they are running 60fps. maybe just trying to justify spending way too much on their system? any improvement above 40 is barely even noticable to the human eye so it usually shouldnt make much of a difference.

I don't understand the fuss regarding frame rates. Until recently, I just used to keep the settings in such way that any game ran smooth for me, and never measured frame rates. Just out of curiosity, I measured my frame rates in a few games recently. They were all running between 25 fps and 30fps. And that seemed quite smooth to me. On these forums people keep saying they need 60fps for smooth gameplay. Seriously, I notice some amount of choppiness only when my frame rate goes below 25fps. Anything above 25fps seems smooth and playable enough for me. So does this mean there is some problem with my brain or eyes?

funkyzoom

AC3 runs great for me on all-AMD components. highest settings @ 1080p and i've never noticed a lag between scenarios. even when running through populated town i don't notice any slowdown. i figured it didnt take much to run it because it was just a port so i turned it all the way up in CCC and it seems fine to me. strange some people claiming they have a high-end system are having troubles with it.

i also really don't understand the deal with people needing games to show they are running 60fps. maybe just trying to justify spending way too much on their system? any improvement above 40 is barely even noticable to the human eye so it usually shouldnt make much of a difference.

elessarGObonzo

BS