Assassin's Creed Unity PC Requirements

For God's sake Ubisoft!

ASSASSIN’S CREED UNITY PC SPECS

http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-unity-pc-specs/

64-bit operating system

Required

Supported OS

Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8/8.1 (64bit versions only)

Processor

Minimum

Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.0 GHz

Recommended

Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.4 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or better

RAM

Minimum

6 GB

Recommended

8GB

Video Card

Minimum

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 (2 GB VRAM)

Recommended

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 or AMD Radeon R9 290X (3 GB VRAM)

DirectX

Version 11

Sound Card

DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card with latest drivers

Hard Drive Space

50 GB available space

Peripherals Supported

Windows-compatible keyboard and mouse required, optional controller

Multiplayer

256 kbps or faster broadband connection

Supported Video Cards at Time of Release

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or better, GeForce GTX 700 series; AMD Radeon HD7970 or better, Radeon R9 200 series

Note: Laptop versions of these cards may work but are NOT officially supported.

I'm sorry but I'm heading down the console route. I just can't justify spending silly money on upgrading PCs anymore

I'll probably get it next year when I upgrade my GPU.

So much crazy!

After the string of games that have been coming out this year with inflated and false requirements, recommending i7's and AMD FX 8's then saying you *need* 3-4gb vram for high/max settings when in fact you don't need it. People shouldn't worry too much just wait until official word and benchmarks come out.

QFT. Shadow of Mordor calls for some crazy requirements that simply aren't needed.

Another game with uncompressed sound files...

50GB again

Whats funny is that the rumored specs for AC Unity asks for FX 8350 for min and rec, and to the fact that min GTX 680 to GTX 780 recommended... is roughly 30% difference.

Also noticing PC games are becoming more expensive than the console version. Unity on Steam is $74.95 US, however JBHifi has PS4 version for $69 AUS. COD Advanced Warfare is $90 US on Steam, JBHifi PS4 version $69. I bought a high end PC because I was told the games were cheaper, now it's the reverse.

I'm really getting tired of games with insane pricing structures. $30 launch DLC just so you can enjoy the whole experience? Way to milk your fans Ubi. I'll be sure to give everyone I know easy access to versions of the game that won't rip them off...

MINIMUM GPU requirements are 2x more powerful than a PS4?...

No one cares, just don't buy the game on PC or AT ALL because it's the same copy paste game for IDK 9 games already? I stopped counting after their 2nd...

I'm thinking Ubi should just stick to consoles, no great loss

I wouldn't say that exactly, a few people here on GS are looking forward to The Crew on pc.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if this is the actual requirements of this game. AC games are terrible ports.

Very true I struggled to get 60FPS with a 780Ti with any form of AA applied in black flag and the ones before that where even worse.

i m sure that requirement is bunch of crap , and it will run on 650 card .. .. .

They'll probably complain about low sales even though they didn't bother to at least target 50% of PC gamers.

The good news is that I'll be saving my money for something else. Thanks Ubisoft.

I will play it on my PS4

Exactly my thoughts.

This means that they just ported the game with the only graphic settings you can change to be like AA options...

Well if PS4 plays the game with 30FPS@900p, its normal for 60FPS@1080p to require double GPU power.

Unless Ubisoft do the revolutionary step and release the game with 30FPS@900p and letterbox for PC too :P.

This year afterall is the year of great innovation from companies that have to do with consoles....

+1

MINIMUM requirements... Minimum is usually what system you need to plat the game with a playable experience and Recommended is what is required to play the game at the advertised experience for the lack of a better word what is RECOMMEDED by the developers in order to get a experience in frame rate and visual fidelity most developers use this as what's needed for medium or high settings.

• Crysis 3: Min = GT 450, Rec = GTX 560
• Bioshock Infinite: Min = 8800GT, Rec = GTX 560
• Battlefield 4: Min = 8800GT, Rec = GTX 660

Minimum = Low/medium settings... GTX 680 makes no sense unless the PS4/X1 are running the game on Low settings

Recommended = Medium/High settings... GTX 780 is understandable if its truly demanding.

I actually like the AC games. Yes they can be repetitive, but it's always a fun experience for me. This nonsense from Ubisoft is pushing me away from all of their games though. My only thought is "what are they going to do to bury The Division?".

Oh well ,you didn't read my first part :P.

With the minimum and recommended differ slightly I highly suspect that we will get a few graphics settings like only AA.

The other part is that the recommeded as in all these games are bullsh1t.

Also I think that the minimum requirements is how the game will be at PS4 and they didn't bother (don't forget, we are talking about Ubisoft...) to place an option to remove some shadow, texture etc etc settings.

So if an FX4120 rated CPU with an 650ti boost rated GPU needs to run this game at 30fps900p, they just slackily double the numbers...

ps: I am not expecting Ubisoft to back up these requirements with far better graphics than Crysis 3.... :P

I read it all.

I understand what you are saying completely. I'm just pointing out exactly what Minimum is used for.

Also after reading the following:

• Supported video cards at the time of release: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or better, GeForce GTX 700 series; AMD Radeon HD7970 or better, Radeon R9 200 series
• Note: Laptop versions of these cards may work but are NOT officially supported.

Its very clear that they just took the slowest PC's they tested it on in their offices and called that the minimum.

Lazy and ignorant is all I can say here.

Yeah, thats quite a possibility too.

The one thing that we all agree is that Ubisoft has become a lazy company and ignorant when it comes to porting games for PC... "Ubicrap"

i may pirate it to see how my pc runs it, i wont have time to play an ac game anyway

i think the requirements are inflated so i'm just going to wait for benchmarks.

still, i'm looking forward to it. i'm a huge fan of prince of persia and for some reason that climbing/combat combo really does it for me. i love the batman arkham series and shadows of mordor for the same reason.

it's the type of single player game you don't wanna rush through (and in a way, you can't), you wanna enjoy the sights and sounds and the Parisian architecture, and just be part of the world.

the abstergo/animus crap needs to go, though. it totally breaks immersion and adds nothing meaningful.

I don't believe these system requirements, the PS4 and Xbox One are barely as powerful as the minimum system requirements build so either Ubisoft is grossly lazy with the port or they're just being risk adverse by recommending everyone who wants to play unity on PC to use a system that costs $2000 to avoid disappointment. What's the point in releasing a PC version if you're going to restrict the optimal performance by capping it at 30fps? Though I'm sure someone has already figured out a way to bypass that.

Calling bullshit.. The game doesn't look any more graphically impressive than Assassin's Creed 4.. 2500k minimum requirement? These devs are just getting lazy.

People still buy this crap..?

Considering ubisoft completely sucks at doing anything on pc, I wouldn't doubt it if they put out this crazy requirement list just so those with mid/high end machine couldn't complain when the game ran like complete garbage due to poor coding. Ubisoft is almost on par with Square enix in the pc port department. So far all we need for them to do is port a game with midi files instead of the real music and they'd be on the exact same level.

I bought an Xbox One for $399 and I'm getting AC: Unity, why do I need PC?

For Ubisoft games, you're probably better off using a console.

Just lower textures and shadow to medium or high then you be good. everything else can run max on a 2gb card. Its only textures and shadow I find that I cant run on ultra these days. Oh god just looked and its a 680 and every one knows average is a 670 these days which is still more then a console wth. They really really are trying to get rid of PC gaming arnt they. :(

There is NO way a 680 is the minimum. They're either trying to get people to upgrade, or to avoid buying their game. Just wait for it to come out and then we'll see how it really runs.

That's understandable. Those specs are pretty crazy yes... and for what ? The game looks good for sure, but you can see it's still using an upgraded AC engine. The crowd is the same low quality as it has been in every AC game (only there are now larger crowds)

For some reason I can't help but think their promotional deal with MS has something to do with PS4 and Xbone running at the same settings (even if PS4 is more powerful) and the insanely high PC reqs.

It will run on a Integrated HD 5200. Mark my words. They lied in a similar fashion for Watch Dogs.

Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.0 GHz

Geez, I don't think even they know what the requirements will be.

"Yea, i5-2500K...or a Phenom 940. Whatever"

I will get this game on PS4 considering majority of my friends will get it for console and I'd like to play in co-op mode :)

So... If I wanted to run this in my Mac, what's the best way to do it?

So I know the game just came out today, but can anyone confirm if the minimum requirements ubisoft listed are BS? Can I run this game with a geforce gtx 660m and core i5 with 2.60 GHz?

Odd that the minimum requires of AC4 match the optimal requirements for FC4, and FC4 looks drastically better in the graphics department to me.

Macs typically have horrible hardware for the money. Sell the Mac and get a PC. Only the most expensive Mac I can imagine could boot this game. Unless you spent thousands on your Mac, you got no chance bruddah

@KHAndAnime: Yeah, pretty advanced rig... Approx $3.5k went into her. Can run Eve online at max visual settings in a busy system with no problem. Haha. I've just never ran a Windows game on it so I didn't know to try boot camp or a virtual machine or something first. (also replaying through HD Kingdom Hearts games with the fiancé in prep for KHIII XD)

I don't know what it takes to max Eve Online, but it's still a possibility you can max Eve Online and still fall short of the requirements for this game.

Also, Bootcamp has a performance loss VS an equivalent specced PC, so even PCs that match your specs may be able to play the game better than your rig. This means you probably need even more than a 680 to play this game on a bootcamp'd Mac.

So far, from what I've been seeing from others, the game is pretty demanding. Saw a 4770k and 770 (2GB) getting 20-25 fps average on the highest settings with msaa x4. Another with 3770k and 980 stated anywhere from 33-53 on highest settings.

I've heard about an upcoming patch to address the performance, but just a rumor so far.

@quikdash6:

Amazing ! I just got 3500 RP code for totally FREE ! Come and download code too

>> http://RiotPoint.eu/ <<

Ya **** Ubisoft as a company. Not to happy my government hands them cash every year, then gives them massive tax breaks on top of that. They don't diserve our lower and middle classes cash if all they do is produce crap that won't work out the box.

Alot people mistaken demanding system source to the actual optimization, So far the SLI profiling worked great, and all CPU cores are evenly worked out through and through, I agree that a lot glitches need to be addressed, especially on PC, but visually speaking ACU is definitely top 3 best looking PC games out there that is, its graphic totally justify the system requirement.

To address the topic, you probably shouldn't get PC version if you have anything less than a GTX680/770 and if you don't mind stick to low/medium setting(below console visual) game doesn't seem ask much from CPU and Ram, 3rd gen I5 and 8G should be enough, (60% on my CPU and 40% on 32G ram)

For everyone's info(from Nvidia)

@GameFan1983 said:

Alot people mistaken demanding system source to the actual optimization, So far the SLI profiling worked great, and all CPU cores are evenly worked out through and through, I agree that a lot glitches need to be addressed, especially on PC, but visually speaking ACU is definitely top 3 best looking PC games out there that is, its graphic totally justify the system requirement.

To address the topic, you probably shouldn't get PC version if you have anything less than a GTX680/770 and if you don't mind stick to low/medium setting(below console visual) game doesn't seem ask much from CPU and Ram, 3rd gen I5 and 8G should be enough, (60% on my CPU and 40% on 32G ram)

For everyone's info(from Nvidia)

Now that pic is just nonsense, the 680 and 770 are basically the same card.. And the difference is low to high?

And come on.. the requirements are justified? The game has literally the worst pop-in I have ever seen. Also it looks great inside interiors and when on street level, but when you get on a roof or an open area the awful LOD starts to show all over the place. The game is horribly optimized, even the console version which is supposed to run at 30 keeps dropping to 20.

@harry_james_pot said:

@GameFan1983 said:

Alot people mistaken demanding system source to the actual optimization, So far the SLI profiling worked great, and all CPU cores are evenly worked out through and through, I agree that a lot glitches need to be addressed, especially on PC, but visually speaking ACU is definitely top 3 best looking PC games out there that is, its graphic totally justify the system requirement.

To address the topic, you probably shouldn't get PC version if you have anything less than a GTX680/770 and if you don't mind stick to low/medium setting(below console visual) game doesn't seem ask much from CPU and Ram, 3rd gen I5 and 8G should be enough, (60% on my CPU and 40% on 32G ram)

For everyone's info(from Nvidia)

Now that pic is just nonsense, the 680 and 770 are basically the same card.. And the difference is low to high?

And come on.. the requirements are justified? The game has literally the worst pop-in I have ever seen. Also it looks great inside interiors and when on street level, but when you get on a roof or an open area the awful LOD starts to show all over the place. The game is horribly optimized, even the console version which is supposed to run at 30 keeps dropping to 20.

I think the locked down the draw distance to only be things like grass and bushes so the PC version wouldn't have such a big lead over consoles.

The draw distance for things like NPCs and buildings is the same across all platforms and cannot be changed.

We all know a good PC can handle much better draw distance for buildings and NPCs than what consoles are capable of.