Assassins Creed PC requirements.lol

Do you really trust PC requirement?

The Evil Within said you needed 4GB of vRAM at 1080p yet the game barely uses 1.5GB of vRAM.

Shadow of Mordor said that you needed 6GB of vRAM at 1080p for Ultra textures yet the game used 3.4GB of vRAM for me at 1440p with Ultra textures.

The GTX 680 is more than twice the power of the PS4 so it should have no problems running the game at higher settings than consoles.

If the lowest settings are similar to the PS4 then anything with 2GB of vRAM that has the power of a GTX 570 or higher should run the game fine.

That is just a limitation of the game engine.

At 30fps even weaker cards like the GTX 570 run the game fine at 1080p maxed.

Do you have footage with framerate counter and without the black bars?

There are plenty of people who chimed in about their performance. And it seems that having a more powerful card does not help much in The Evil Within.

I play at 2560x1440.

Bought AC4 day 1 on steam, maxed out without an issue, same thing for watch dogs.

I have 0 interest in ubisoft's trash games.

@RyviusARC said:

@timster20 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@timster20 said:

@04dcarraher said:

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 get their panties in a bunch, as well as console fanboys using these "requirements" as bait which is hilarious.... As for the latest blunder in pc requirements The Evil Within requiring 4gb of vram when in fact only uses 1.6GB of VRAM at 1080p with all its bells and whistles enabled.

Evil Within's vram reqs may have been exaggerated but even a 980 can't maintain 60 fps at 1080p.

That is just a limitation of the game engine.

At 30fps even weaker cards like the GTX 570 run the game fine at 1080p.

Do you have footage with framerate counter and without the black bars?

There are plenty of people who chimed in about their performance. And it seems that having a more powerful card does not help much in The Evil Within.

I play at 2560x1440.

Compare fps in these 2 vids to see that gpu does indeed make a difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvMbOaE-t28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht476_X5v4E

what's the point of upgrading your pc every year just to play the newest games when you can play everything in maxed out settings by default on the Xbox One for the next 10 years?

Horrible optimize it means. i mean such a ridiculous requirement for this crap???

@KarateeeChop: not sure if serious...

0/10

try harder

Ubisoft make bad PC ports!!!, more incredible revealations at 11.

@timster20 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@timster20 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@timster20 said:

@04dcarraher said:

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 get their panties in a bunch, as well as console fanboys using these "requirements" as bait which is hilarious.... As for the latest blunder in pc requirements The Evil Within requiring 4gb of vram when in fact only uses 1.6GB of VRAM at 1080p with all its bells and whistles enabled.

Evil Within's vram reqs may have been exaggerated but even a 980 can't maintain 60 fps at 1080p.

That is just a limitation of the game engine.

At 30fps even weaker cards like the GTX 570 run the game fine at 1080p.

Do you have footage with framerate counter and without the black bars?

There are plenty of people who chimed in about their performance. And it seems that having a more powerful card does not help much in The Evil Within.

I play at 2560x1440.

Compare fps in these 2 vids to see that gpu does indeed make a difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvMbOaE-t28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht476_X5v4E

I am not saying there is no difference.

What I meant was that they both experience big drops in the same areas.

Also one video removed the black bars which does drop performance by a little while the other only plays in black bars.

When both are using black bars the performance between the GTX 770 and 980 are really close which shouldn't be the case.

The GTX 770 was getting around 45-52fps (when he removed the black bars it was around 41fps) while the GTX 980 (black bars always on) was getting around 56-64fps (when not staring at the sky...).

Both had drops that were a little lower in some areas.

The GTX 980 is much more powerful than a 770 so the frame rate difference should be much larger.

News. At 10:

This just in! PC specs advance!

The world is shocked.

Also it is pretty obvious they are not the minimum specs most of us would rather wait for official news than believe some random Korean website.

I don't trust this source of yours. The link doesn't work, and the site is completely unheard of.

But I'll be only to play this at 1080p max settings and that is all that matters.

I will be playing at 1440p max settings at 60fps.

Consoles are just too weak and outdated.

I find it funny that consolites love to use the argument of "bu bu bu only 10% of whatever can play it at X settings". Do they expect me to care that some shumck somewhere in the world is still running Win95? As long as my PC can run things better than my PS4 then its all gravy.

@bldgirsh: I seen that vid. Look lets put it this way, that test at 30 looks choppier than most last gen console games at 30. look dont want to argue cause i dont care about this stuff as much. yes most FPS benefit from 60, especially fast paced online shooters, some games just dont need it.

This will be a rough gen for pc gaming. This will cause poor sales for pc as most dnt have the hardware to keep up. Seems the only reason to upgrade anymore is to play console ports that are unoptimized. I don't blame ubi tho. More devs will follow.

lol...so I can't run this game?

And the reason why consoles are so popular becomes evident lololol mustard race get owned

Only the rich and greedy will even be able to afford PC gaming lol thus why I'll stick to consoles also don't have to deal with that clunky control method lol

@RyviusARC said:

@timster20 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@timster20 said:

Do you have footage with framerate counter and without the black bars?

There are plenty of people who chimed in about their performance. And it seems that having a more powerful card does not help much in The Evil Within.

I play at 2560x1440.

Compare fps in these 2 vids to see that gpu does indeed make a difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvMbOaE-t28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht476_X5v4E

I am not saying there is no difference.

What I meant was that they both experience big drops in the same areas.

Also one video removed the black bars which does drop performance by a little while the other only plays in black bars.

When both are using black bars the performance between the GTX 770 and 980 are really close which shouldn't be the case.

The GTX 770 was getting around 45-52fps (when he removed the black bars it was around 41fps) while the GTX 980 (black bars always on) was getting around 56-64fps (when not staring at the sky...).

Both had drops that were a little lower in some areas.

The GTX 980 is much more powerful than a 770 so the frame rate difference should be much larger.

Heres a vid with the 970 with no black bars and it gets 10-15 fps more than the 770 which is in line with 1080p review benchmarks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V8-S6B8shg

It's Ubi.
Besides,all PC reqs these days are exaggerated anyway.

@millerlight89: yeah that unoptimized console port of Elite Dangerous just runs awful on 3 screens at 6000 x1080 @ 60 fps truly a lesser console experience.

You really hit the nail on the head. *sarcasm*

@mariokart64fan:

You mean that Xbox 360 pad that I use on my PC the steering wheel I use for my racing games the joystick I use for my space and flight sims and the keyboard and mouse I use for my first person shooters?

Yep having a choice of control methods is truly a clunky. Experience *sarcasm again*

As usual more weak arguments from the consolites

The same AMD CPU can run the game at minimum AND recommended, but i need a different Intel CPU?

And I5-2500 is minimum, yet it destroys the shitty chip on consoles?

And 680, which is far above the console's cards, is minimum, yet recommended only jumps to a 780?

This game should be running at 900p-720p, medium settings on consoles while having a crap frame rate. Sure, Ubisoft.

Just like i needed 3GB of VRAM for ultra textures on Watch Dogs and Shadow fo Mordor.

Just like i needed 4GB of VRAM to play TEW at 1080p. Get bent.

If you honestly believe for 1 second a mid range GPU/CPU like a 760/i5-2500k can't play this game at 1080p, ultra settings, you're gonna be disappointed.

I just hope I can play it on my HD7850 1GB card. I don't plan on upgrading until AMD comes out with their <28NM cards.

That card's pretty weak, to be fair. Its a 1GB model.

If you have a good chip and compatible mobo, you can probably just get a HD 7950. Don't know much about AMD, but that one seems to be closer to the 760, albeit, 10% slower.

Ah, the classic console peasant argument..."LMFAO hermits buy $10,000 gaming PCs and have to spend $500 four times a year just to play games at the same settings as PS4! Stupid virgin hermits living in their moms basement, LOL!"

Seriously...go back and read what you just wrote a couple of times, then come back and tell me that you were high or something when you posted it. I'll believe that.

@timster20 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@timster20 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@timster20 said:

Do you have footage with framerate counter and without the black bars?

There are plenty of people who chimed in about their performance. And it seems that having a more powerful card does not help much in The Evil Within.

I play at 2560x1440.

Compare fps in these 2 vids to see that gpu does indeed make a difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvMbOaE-t28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht476_X5v4E

I am not saying there is no difference.

What I meant was that they both experience big drops in the same areas.

Also one video removed the black bars which does drop performance by a little while the other only plays in black bars.

When both are using black bars the performance between the GTX 770 and 980 are really close which shouldn't be the case.

The GTX 770 was getting around 45-52fps (when he removed the black bars it was around 41fps) while the GTX 980 (black bars always on) was getting around 56-64fps (when not staring at the sky...).

Both had drops that were a little lower in some areas.

The GTX 980 is much more powerful than a 770 so the frame rate difference should be much larger.

Heres a vid with the 970 with no black bars and it gets 10-15 fps more than the 770 which is in line with 1080p review benchmarks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V8-S6B8shg

10-15 fps more is laughable when the GTX 970 is almost a 780ti on drivers that are not mature.

Actually the GTX 970 performs better than a 780ti in this game I think.

The game seems to favor Maxwell GPUs.

What I say is when are all these fucking rehashes going to stop. It is as if there are no ideas anymore. X to Y genre. No new ones. Here is the fifth yearly tps.

But it can handle 30 fps @4k. The game is simply not optimised to run at stable 60 fps and we can thank the consoles for that.

Besides the console version can't maintain 30 fps, it regularly dips into the low 20s, while a 750ti runs it with a more stable 30 fps

And not for console gaming? lol More and more games start to drop below 1080p to maintain "stable" 30 fps and you're stuck with these shit settings. At least on PC you have the option to upgrade to something that will handle the games far better.

So far a 750ti has proven to handle most games better than the PS4s GPU, I don't think that will change anytime soon.

So how many hermits can run this at 1080p/60 or 4k at max settings? Shit I bet 99% of you don't even meet the minimum requirement, but you folks keep dumping the cash upgrading tho. On a side note the game doesn't even look that hot. The programmers at ubi need to get a reality check.

I can and thats all that matters.

How many consoles gamers will play this at 1080 and 30 fps?

0

zilch

nada

lol

I jus received my my 2 970s on monday... And they work great with all my games on my new 4ktv. But im still hesitant to get this on pc since what happen with ac3 and watch dogs (stutterfest) still to this day even on lowest settings and resolution! So ill prob jus be settling for 900p30fps on ps4 lol :p

I came here to say the same.
AMD FX-8350 for minimum and recommended? I call bullshit with a side of coolwhip

you just went full retard brother.

I believe in Ubisoft. The Assassins Creed series has proven to be the greatest franchise humanity has ever witnessed. Will the evil Templar's win? This could be the game (or possibly the next one) to finally lay the cards down.

Well my 4 year old 2500k is finally making it to min requirements huh?

@Ben-Buja

Actually if it's not for the parity, at least PS4 could. Maybe not at max settings but all High would still be decent.

That's a high recommendation, hopefully meaning something nice and optimized. (no)

It would be a whole lot cheaper for me to just upgrade my pc to the recommended specs than it would be to purchase a PS4. I think I will wait a year or so to upgrade, though.

Yeah Uncharted 4 would look incredible in 1440p on Pc..oh wait..

Stop your damage control,i wasn't attacking PC,which you don't care about unless for hiding purposes..lol

This isn't a PS4 vs PC thread bro.

Draw distances isn't a problem this gen like it was last gen the PS4 and xbox one have memory to spare,i would worry more about 1GB cards than for the PS4.

Also i think you described the xbox one version..hahaha

We already discuss this your GPU can't be assign more ram than it has,your test were flawed and DF actually confirmed Mordor used a bit over 5GB on their test not quite 6 but 5Gb is allot more than most GPU have out there.

If your GPU has 2GB yeah that is what it will use if it has more it will use more,requirements adjust on PC,now before you come with your huge damage control like always,i do think Ubi sucks optimizing so it may be a problem with them,and i don't think this game how it look require those kind of specs,specially when the game is done on PS4 and XBO which has weak CPU compare to stronger PC ones.

Blame the developers the game is highly unoptimized,COD ghost was the same last year had problems even on PC when the game requirements aren't that high.

Yeah i am sure he will say any crap specially when no console use their over priced GPU..

Fact is according to steam the huge majority will not,grouping all PC under 1 powerful one is a joke.

So without further ado, we present a selection of comparisons of the game's opening scenes, captured at medium, high and ultra texture settings with all other settings ramped up as high as they go. Monolith recommends a 6GB GPU for the highest possible quality level - and we found that at both 1080p and 2560x1440 resolutions, the game's art ate up between 5.4 to 5.6GB of onboard GDDR5. Meanwhile, the high setting utilises 2.8GB to 3GB, while medium is designed for the majority of gaming GPUs out there, occupying around 1.8GB of video RAM.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-eyes-on-with-pc-shadow-of-mordors-6gb-textures

So who is lying you or DF.?

Good thing I also own a PS4. And you're right, Uncharted will look great at whatever resolution and frame rate Naughty Dog decides is best for us.

And what on earth am I damage controlling? Do you know what "damage control" means? And "hiding purposes"? You're taking the System Wars game to a dangerously insane level.