Funny quote from reddit. :biggrin:
Oh you would be oh so very wrong. The duo have a long and very illicit relationship going back to the days of the first Assassin's Creed, where Ubisoft pulled DX10.1 from the game with an update, based on a request from Nvidia. Nvidia didn't have DX10.1 capable card for some time.Ubisoft is a horrible developer. I don't think this has much to do with Nvidia, other than TXAA is both an inferior AA AND a resource HOG, and the fact that Nvidia keeps teaming up with Ubisoft (a prominently terrible developer). EOT.
Oh you would be oh so very wrong. The duo have a long and very illicit relationship going back to the days of the first Assassin's Creed, where Ubisoft pulled DX10.1 from the game with an update, based on a request from Nvidia. Nvidia didn't have DX10.1 capable card for some time.
Edit: No, i have not forgiven that yet. The performance was degraded a bit too. Still bites!
edit 2: i owned a Nvidia card at the time... i had borrowed an AMD card from a friend to experience it.
I think even some reviewers were wondering aloud around about Crysis 2 etc., if the excessive tessellation built into some games, if it were affecting all gamers, never mind what card they were running.There was also the Hawx 2 debacle. I think for Ubisoft it is a combination of incompetence and wanting free labour on their games from nvidia's engineers. So they wind up releasing unoptimized turd piles consistently.
In this game even with nvidia's best hardware, 980 SLI, it can't run the game at a meager 1080p without performance issues. This and the game looks like just another console port with horrible textures, lighting etc. Runs like it's Crysis 3, but looks like a console. It's not just the PC version that is garbage, but the console version is also having issues. They even managed to screw that up. It's running at 20-25fps on the consoles, not the 30fps they claimed. The Xbone is also running better than the PS4 for some reason, even though PS4 has a 50% more powerful GPU...
Ubi just doesn't care, they'll sell their game's quality and end-user experience out to things like nvidia's inefficient gameworks implementation or a marketing deal with Microsoft for the xbone as much as they'll cut their games up into pieces to nickel and dime you with DLC.
Far Cry 4 is out on the 18th and if that is running like a dog as well my guess is that on the PC gameworks is crippling games even for nvidia users.
After Watch Dogs I don't understand why gamers keep coming back for another turd sandwich after seeing how Ubisoft just doesn't give a rat's behind for their customers. All marketing and no substance every time.
But what I don't understand is why UBI doesn't at least decrease the number of those 100's of NPCs onscreen to help with performance. From what Ive seen, there is an absurd number of NPCs in the streets that nobody would even miss if those numbers were thinned out a bit. I'm sure most gamers would actually prefer a bit less NPCs with higher quality textures vs 100's with lower quality and too many "cloned NPCs" anyway.
Watch Dog's issue was resource management, and not population or traffic density. The game engine just had crappy resource management, which is why it stuttered and lagged even on high end PCs..I thought the same about Watch Dogs, and why they didn't just thin the traffic and NPCs a bit for a bit of a performance boost.
Biggest problem with the game is its cpu bound. Ironically Mantle would probably help a game like this.
I asked you about that on Guru3d. You shouldn't be CPU bound at all with your overclocked 3770K. The game scales very well across CPU cores and threads from what I've seen on my rig.
What is your CPU usage?
I must have not seen your post there, I'm getting like 80% usage across all cores. I don't understand why the game runs so abysmal.
I'm getting an average of about 75 to 85% CPU utilization across 4 cores on my i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz.
I won't support buying Ubisoft games at full price any longer until their games either run at 60 fps on $300 hardware OR they make some of the best looking games to justify this non-sense of needing 980s just to hit 60 fps at 1080p. From now on every game they make I will only buy at $5 until this changes. Can you imagine trying to run this game at 4K right now? Even console gamers are complaining and they are much more forgiving to shitty graphics, pop-in and low fps. Shows how low Ubisoft has gotten in 2014 with Unity and Watch Dogs. They are way worse than EA now. At least EA delayed BF5 by realizing how buggy BF4 hurt the image of the franchise. Also, it seems DAI should be an improvement over DA2.
I must have not seen your post there, I'm getting like 80% usage across all cores. I don't understand why the game runs so abysmal.
The settings with the biggest performance loss are PCSS, MSAA and TXAA..
As long as you don't use any of those settings, you should have good performance. You should be able to max out the texture setting as your video card has 4GB of VRAM..
So an Nvidia user with a card 1 generation old can't use Nvidia specific features in an Nvidia Gameworks sponsored game?
You can't make this crap up.
Its not like Dragon Age is all that better. Even at a lowly 1080, you wont be anywhere near 60fps trying to max it out with a 780ti. With DAI, there is not a single card out that can run 1080 with Max detail at 60fps. Cant get there at 1080. It will take at least two cards for that. The same people who trash AC on this are in total praise in the dragon age always do. Buy new hardware.
60fps? This game can't even hit 30.
I love to disappoint. 60 FPS at 1440p maxed settings: