I think he was joking.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anyone considering AC4 on PC BEWARE! Yet another port with terrible optimization!
- Thread starter hlhbk
- Start date
I think he was joking.
But what about shit tactics that developers like Infinity ward are using by recommending a 780 and 6GB RAM for their shit looking game which ideally should run even on a toaster?
nogoodnamesleft
Banned
forgive my ignorance then.
alf717
Member
I find that when I play it doesn't go below 25. I tend to hover in the 30+ range but my hardware is aging. It runs better than ACIII I'll give it that.
matrix-cat
Member
Ew gross
Since I upgraded to a 144Hz monitor I've been turning off everything with no regrets. HBAO, SSAA, motion blur, soft shadows, tesselation; I've got no time for any of'em. As long as I can get 1080p, with maybe a little bit of FXAA so I don't hate myself too much, I'm good. 144FPS is just so mind-alteringly beautiful.
Although I hear ACIV is locked at 60Hz so... shit. Can anyone confirm that?
Did he post his computer specs?
According to this thread, yeah there are random fluctuations but still, it never goes under 40.
Honestly, any console or on-the-fence PC gamers should just leave this thread immediately. All you need to know is this: The game runs better on PC with a decent rig than it does on consoles. All this negativity isn't coming from the fact that it runs worse on PC, but from the fact that it runs well on PC but not God-tier well, which is still perfectly understandable.
Ew gross
Since I upgraded to a 144Hz monitor I've been turning off everything with no regrets. HBAO, SSAA, motion blur, soft shadows, tesselation; I've got no time for any of'em. As long as I can get 1080p, with maybe a little bit of FXAA so I don't hate myself too much, I'm good. 144FPS is just so mind-alteringly beautiful.
Although I hear ACIV is locked at 60Hz so... shit. Can anyone confirm that?
Hahaha, I ain't about dat 120hz+ life yet. I don't got the money to keep up with that lol.
bearythebear
Member
I would an i5 750 and Radeon 5850 perform?
Until Gsync becomes a reality, 40-60 is pretty much worse than 30.
What are you saying? this game is total mess on PC.
Yep, this is the truth. Lock it down I say. Lock it down. We need Gsync so badly, lol.
alf717
Member
I don't recall any of the patches for AC III doing anything for me in term of performance. I have 1.06 and it still runs bad.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
AC4 easily runs better on PS4 than AC3 did on my PC and my PC crushes all but a few games. (the most CPU-limited ones... 7950 limited by an i5 650)
Lostconfused
Member
How so? If you don't mind screen tearing, PC is the way to go. If it really bothers you, just use external vsync or some of the other alternatives with a locked 30 and you're getting the same, if not better, quality as consoles.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Yet it's good enough for 60fps in Crysis 3 and 99% of the games I've tried. GTAIV (lol) and Metro: Last Light are the only other games that chug out of hundreds, including lots of recent ones.
Fimbulvetr
Member
I'm not lying. Whatever you want to know, I'll tell you. My CPU is somewhat overclocked, at 4.1 GHz, and my GPU is OC'd as well, with a core clock of 1125 MHz and a memory clock of 1575 MHz. There's actually another situation I've encountered that knocks me below 60 fps with the same settings: large boarding scenarios. Even so, the lowest framerate I've seen so far is 45.
Situations like these make me feel like someone somewhere would prefer this to happen so console is the preferred version even though PC could easily blow away standard console performance. They just don't feel like putting any money into an optimized pc port is worth it, and they go down to the wire just to put the game out for console. PC is just an afterthought, if it happens to be a thought at all.
this sucks. I'm about to jump in with a 580/2600k@4.2. I have no chance of running this at 50-60 with any kind of bells and whistles. Guess I can't complaining too much considering I got it for $20 and with PS4 out I can throw it on the back burner and hope for a patch...although it sounds like that isn't happening either.
Crimsonclaw111
Member
1. Uplay
2. Shit performance
At least one of these must be true for a Ubisoft game to come to PC. Pick your poison.
2. Shit performance
At least one of these must be true for a Ubisoft game to come to PC. Pick your poison.
TheSpoiler
Member
To be fair, bad ports exist on the consoles too, and these things are a rarity in comparison to the whole of PC gaming. Plus, there's always fan-made patches and easy work-arounds that just don't exist on consoles if they have problems.
Ex. Deadly Premonition.
chrominance
Member
Yes, hilariously. BF4 has had plenty of launch problems but at least when it works, it's glorious. And though BF3 gave me tons of problems (excuse me--I mean PUNKBUSTER gave me tons of problems) my BF4 experience has been surprisingly trouble-free, aside from how much I suck at it. More to the point, BF4 PC seems pretty obviously to be the best version, whereas the same apparently can't be said for the others.
That's why.
I thought the game was CPU heavy?
I remember the first Far Cry had a similar issue - it didn't really matter what settings I changed, the FPS didn't really improve or decrease because it was limited by the CPU. It was only published by Ubisoft, though..
Not even, wait for a driver release by ATi/Nvidia which will fix some issues.
SmoothRunningGun
Member
It seemed to run fine for me. Only played for a about an hour though. There is a guide on nvidia's site that has settings for each card.
The Dear Leader
Banned
Uplays pretty good these days, there native controller support in there client is great.
Much like GFWL I have never had an issue with Uplay and don't understand the hate for it. Unlike EA you can still get UBI games on Steam, though when they are terrible ports like AC4 I don't know if that is a good thing....
Lostconfused
Member
Maybe try setting environmental quality to High?
I will be trying that tonight. What does that do exactly?
well, blacklist and far cry 3 were pretty good ports
Rayman Legends was awesome, there was a reason for hope.
TheVampire
Banned
Well this sucks.
SargerusBR
I love Pokken!
Disables at least some of the tessellation on foliage, which on very high is a very high amount of tessellation, and tessellation really hammers cards. I keep it enabled because I adore the effect and the subtle amount of depth it adds to scenes, but it really does chew into your FPS when devs graciously apply it.
Try disabling it and ambient occlusion (SSAO or HBAO+) for instant FPS boost if you're being gpu bottlenecked.
AHA-Lambda
Member
So with next gen consoles arriving comes the time of shit pc ports?
Lostconfused
Member
Reduces the view distance and turns of some environment tessellation features. It dramatically lowers the load on your CPU so the frame rate should go up for everyone.
Here is the comparison I did for 3 http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44727862&postcount=372
It's not the tessellation that's causing the performance drop.
Eww lowers the view distance? By how much?
Isn't this expected and requested though? With the PS4 and XB1 out, the low end has been moved up so maintaining 60+fps at 4k resolutions is going to move up as well.