Will Assassin's Creed Unity would be playable on my PC

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
arpitsri

arpitsri

Honorable
Dec 2, 2013
81
0
10,640
My Specs-
Intel Core i3 540 3.06Ghz
4GB RAM DDR3
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Zotac Nvidia Geforce GT 610 2GB Synergy Edition

I earlier played AC IV Black Flag on 800x600 resolution medium-low settings with 20-25 fps, which was enough for me, though the resolution was really low otherwise there is not much difference between low and high settings.
 
Solution
V
IMO, the only reason you were able to play AC4BF with that setup is that you have an Nvidia GPU. The game was very heavily aimed towards the green team's GPUs, as in an equivalent setup using a similar performance card from AMD would've probably got much more problems running it.

Since it's an unreleased game, however, there's no telling how it'll run. It could run better, the same, or worse than its predecessor.

You need to keep in mind as well that both the "main" consoles right now feature an architecture similar to PCs, and both of them use AMD GPUs. With this line of thought, it's legit to think PC ports will run better, as probably low to no code has to be rewritten, but it's also legit to think they will be leaning towards AMD...
Sort by date Sort by votes
volcanoscout

volcanoscout

Dignified
Jan 5, 2014
2,861
3
14,960
According to Game Debate, no. That doesn't necessarily mean anything though - it's possible that it will run at lowest settings. Whether it will be "playable" or not? I'm guessing that if your GPU is struggling to run AC IV, Unity will probably not be playable. Only way to be sure though is wait for the release and check user reviews and/or try it yourself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Matthew-san

Matthew-san

Reputable
Feb 25, 2014
886
0
5,060
AC IV wasn't optimized very well and if Unity is better optimized you might be able to run it at decent fps (20-30 fps) on low settings. My guess is you'll have to upgrade your PC though if you want to play Unity since it's being aimed solely at next-gen systems and capable PC's. Your PC isn't quite on par with the next-gen systems though but it doesn't need to be to run it at low. I'm gonna say you're probably going to need to upgrade your GPU, just a guess.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
V

Vynavill

Honorable
Nov 30, 2013
1,555
0
12,460
IMO, the only reason you were able to play AC4BF with that setup is that you have an Nvidia GPU. The game was very heavily aimed towards the green team's GPUs, as in an equivalent setup using a similar performance card from AMD would've probably got much more problems running it.

Since it's an unreleased game, however, there's no telling how it'll run. It could run better, the same, or worse than its predecessor.

You need to keep in mind as well that both the "main" consoles right now feature an architecture similar to PCs, and both of them use AMD GPUs. With this line of thought, it's legit to think PC ports will run better, as probably low to no code has to be rewritten, but it's also legit to think they will be leaning towards AMD GPUs in terms of performance, so you might find yourself crippled...

The only way of knowing for sure would be to wait, there really is no other way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Matthew-san

Matthew-san

Reputable
Feb 25, 2014
886
0
5,060
AMD won't necessarily see better performance than a Nvidia GPU just because the consoles have AMD equipment. Keep in mind that Ubisoft also made Watch Dogs and it runs much better on Nvidia cards than AMD. The same story with ACIV, seems like Ubisoft is better optimizing for Nvidia cards right now according to recent releases. I'd feel a lot safer with a Nvidia card right now when it comes to playing Ubisoft games. Either way, you'll have to wait and see whether or not your system can handle Unity, we all will.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
V

Vynavill

Honorable
Nov 30, 2013
1,555
0
12,460


Not necessarily, yeah, but there's still a chance. Watch_Dogs and ACIV were planned and developed pretty much before the release of PS4/XBO, when Nvidia was still surfing on the high tides of Physx support and other little advantages.
It's only normal for them to be Nvidia optimized, as you simply can't stop in the middle of your work and start re-coding everything from scratch for AMD libraries. AFAIK, all video cards in consoles up until now were either private manufacturer solutions or hybrids, based on Nvidia architectures or co-developed with them.

Either way, unless there's some kind of contract between Ubisoft and Nvidia behind the scenes, if I was developing a game with a console in mind as its primary selling market, I wouldn't pass up the chance to squeeze every little bit of performance out of it.

I never said it's going to be like this for sure, but it's a possibility, at least IMO, that you shouldn't ignore either.
It still boils down the usual "we need to wait and see" unfortunately :p
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Matthew-san

Matthew-san

Reputable
Feb 25, 2014
886
0
5,060
Oh I forgot to mention that ACIV was originally planned for the next-gen systems from the start so I'm not so sure about the AMD prediction being correct. They still optimized better for Nvidia cards for some reason. It even says so when you first start the game. Although it can't really be said that Ubisoft optimized anything on ACIV lol. Have you ever tried playing that game with PhysX particles on High? I have a GTX 770 4GB and I'll go from 50 fps straight down to 30 when I shoot off one of my guns because of the PhysX smoke particles (or whatever it's called).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
V

Vynavill

Honorable
Nov 30, 2013
1,555
0
12,460
Haven't tried it personally, so I can't really say, but voices over the Internet aren't exactly reassuring...

For me, anyway, physx effects are just useless visual clutter...they add up relatively unnoticeable effects for an incredible drop in performance on anything being a single gpu system, obviously entirely killing it on AMD systems.
I sincerely hope unity comes with the option to turn them off entirely, and with the hardware the OP got, I highly hope the same for him.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Matthew-san

Matthew-san

Reputable
Feb 25, 2014
886
0
5,060
I thought you could turn PhysX off in the graphics menu? I have it off anyways lol. I think the PhysX particles look pretty cool and adds to the environment but it puts too much demand on GPU hardware so until they can properly implement and optimize a feature like that I'll be keeping it off. I suffer similarly when playing Tomb Raider with TressFX on. I'm fine during gameplay segments with my Nvidia card but when it goes to cut scenes and zooms in close on Laura I go from 80-110 fps to 30-45. Luckily the cut scenes aren't too often :). Maybe one of these days developers will create games that run equally well on both Nvidia and AMD GPU's so that we gamers won't have to spend so much time tweaking graphics settings.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rationale

Rationale

Admirable
Mar 21, 2014
3,025
0
7,960
With as much Nvidia tech as Ubisoft uses in all their recent games (TXAA, HBAO+, PhysX), I think it's safe to say they give Ubisoft money.
I think it'd also be safe to say AMD gives DICE money for Mantle integration and multi-core optimization.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Matthew-san

Matthew-san

Reputable
Feb 25, 2014
886
0
5,060
Perhaps but that may be because each developer finds different uses for different technologies from specific companies that benefits their game in a way they think is important. Obviously there is some money dealing going on and advertising for Nvidia or AMD. The rivalry between Nvidia and AMD is as almost as big as the rivalry between Microsoft and Sony.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom