At the time ACIV came out, there was no 970 SLI. You had GTX770 SLI. ACIV doesn't run at 60 fps constant in that game, not even with SMAA, nevermind MSAA.
AC IV needed 780 SLI to run at 60 fps minimum at 1080p
Nope. Non K 4770 (3.7GHz to 3.8GHz in game) and a 780Ti Ghz were enough to max the game at a solid 60FPS at 1200p with AA disabled and shadows turned down a notch. Can't remember if Vysnc was on or off. Very smooth. Optimization aside this will always play better on PC simply because you can throw more hardware at it.
Yep, as you said, thats at the time the game came out. Driver optimizations and patches increased performance significantly in the months after the game released.
I think by the end, I was getting between 50 and 60 FPS on my GTX 770 4GB SLI @ 1440p with SMAA..
Good Lord. Some of those PS4 screenshots look far worse than some 2006 era PC games... Is that earlier pic for real?
And why then Computerbase gets < 24 fps average on a single 770 in their GTX980 review?
It's hilarious how much Ubisoft, teasers of amazing PC gaming/graphics, who continue to let us down with substandard turds, are being defended here. The only way this game is going to look as good as they're touting is if it gets the Watch_Dogs mod treatment. Ubisoft has been crapping on PC gamers for a long time now.
AC more detailed than Witcher? Roflmao
The AC franchise is like COD at this point. They excrete a reskin out every year as a full product. Ubisoft has eclipsed Activision as the pinnacle of failure 'AAA' devoloper. Have they confirmed this won't have the 30fps lock they said provides a superior experience to 60fps because 30fps has a 'cinematic feel' ?
So what you are saying is lowering shadow detail gave you a boost of 15 fps on a 780Ti? Also, what kind of a context is that when you are stating that you had to lower shadows and remove AA on a $700 GPU as support that the game was well optimized?
(wall of text continues)
I have no personal experience with AC3, but AC IV which was done by Ubisoft Kiev ran very well on my system. Constant 60 FPS basically..
The only way this discussion is making sense to me is if we're considering a GTX 780Ti to be a GPU for the "masses". Otherwise, stating you got just BARELY 60 FPS with a flagship GPU and a "high end" CPU is essentially reaffirming the point that AC4 does not run well...... especially at 1080p.... and with no AA....
Am I missing something here?
Even their explanation is inconsistent:
"The game is so huge in terms of rendering that it took months to get it to 720p at 30fps. The game was 9fps 9 months ago. We only achieved 900p at 30fps weeks ago."
If you had trouble moving from 720P to 900P until recently and you discuss how large the game is due to rendering, you are basically GPU limited. Yet he says that on PS4, they could only achieve 1-2 fps more due to a 50% powerful GPU later in the interview. How does that even work? You have 32 ROPs vs. 16 ROPs on XBox and 50% more shading power and 176GB/sec memory bandwidth and you got 1-2 fps increase at the same graphics? Alternatively why didn't they use the excess GPU power to increase textures, details, shadow detail? I mean it's just sitting there. And I mean basically they admitted to doing pre-baked lighting on the CPU instead of using DirectCompute for dynamic global illumination on the GPU. That's mind-boggling considering how much faster the GPU is for lighting and considering they are stating how the lighting used up 50% of the PS4's CPU power. So why in the world would you underutilize your excess GPU power in PS4 for lighting and overburden the CPU? It's literally admitting indirectly that they made the game for Xbox One and did nothing with PS4's extra GPU power.
Secondly, if your game ran at 9 fps 9 months ago on HD7850 hardware and barely got 30 fps at 900p "weeks ago", how broken is the game engine? Holly cow. If they managed 30 fps on 1.6Ghz Jaguar, we should expect like 100 fps+ on a Core i7 4790K without a GPU limitation. Did they not even play Infamous Second Son before they made claims of a "next generation experience"?
It's a rush job it looks like.
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is a yearly release series? I think the yearly release cycle of games is failing for many games. It's time to step back and wait for the game to be ready.
From reading the interviews of many of these devs it's clear they're scrambling for some "excuse" as none of their stories really make sense. At the end of the day, it seems time is a major issue....
"We only achieved 900p at 30fps weeks ago." this screamed red flag to me as if it wasn't through work to make it better to get to 900p 30fps but rather a lot of concessions made as well.
Some publishers will milk a franchise for all it's worth but it seems Ubisoft is starting to overmilk the cows....
I've played all the AC titles and IV is by far the most horrible port. Not the most horrible edition of the series, that goes to III, but quality of the port is certainly lacking.
Even if PC version has better graphics due to GW features, there is no way the shadows and low character polygons are going to be fixed since that requires a complete game engine redesign. Sorry, but the game does not look like a true next generation game. This is going to be a repeat of Watch Dogs with overhyped graphics failing to live up to expectations and poor performance on last gen's flagship cards like 680/7970GE.
It's a rush job it looks like.
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is a yearly release series? I think the yearly release cycle of games is failing for many games. It's time to step back and wait for the game to be ready..
There is some footage here: http://www.gamersyde.com/thqstream_assassin_creed_unity_gameplay-WbwjiWqH4ArGSLvc_en.html
Looks better than the screens, thought that pop in was annoying.
PC version footage still not available.