• Welcome to the Angry Joe Show Army!

    Join our community of gamers passionate about our community and our hobby! Whether it's playing, discussing, or watching games, regardless of platform, genre, or location, we have a place for you, always!

  • PS4 Forum

    The AJSA Playstation 4 Division: Game Nights and More!

    The AJSA is on Playstation 4! Join us for weekly Game Nights with a selection of the best games the PS4 has to offer!

  • XBO Forum

    The AJSA Xbox One Division: We Got You Covered!

    The AJSA Xbox One Division is ready to connect with you on XBox Live with a ton of events for the best Xbox games!

  • News Archive

    The Best News from the Best Sites, Every Week.

    The AJSA News Collection Team is hard at work condensing a week's worth of news into one giant-sze digest for you to chew on and discuss! Links to source articles are always provided!

  • More Info

    The AJSA Expeditionary Force: Deploying to Play the Best PC Games!

    The elite vanguard of the AJSA, the Expeditionary Force (EF) chooses a new PC game every week! Join us for weekly events and help decide if the game has a future in the AJSA.

  • The Team

    Streaming Now: The AJSA Stream Team

    Joe can't stream every game, but our talented AJSA Stream Team covers a wide variety of games and personalities! Check them out, and show them some AJSA Love!

  • The Tube

    The AJSA Community YouTube Channel

    Featuring news, gameplay clips, and more from the community! The Community is a chance to showcase the best moments in AJSA Gaming!

Apex Spartan

Assassin's Creed Unity to have steep requirments

27 posts in this topic

  • Operating System : Windows ® 7 SP1, Windows 8 / 8.1 ® (64 -bit version only supported)
  • CPU: Intel Core® i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or higher (Intel Core® i7-3770 @ 3.4 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or more recommended)
  • RAM: 6 GB or more (8 GB or more recommended)
  • Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970, graphics memory 2GB or more (NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 780 or AMD Radeon R9 290X, graphics memory 3 GB or more recommended)
  • Sound Card : Direct X 9.0c compatible sound card and the latest drivers
  • HDD: 50 GB or more

Yup, that's a minimum requirement of a GTX 680—effectively restricting the game to the last few years of GPU tech.

Of course, that's only if a) the information is real, and B) is system requirements have any bearing on reality. Increasingly, it seems, they don't. Shadow of Mordor's highest system requirements asked for an absurd 6GB VRAM. I've yet to have a problem with 2GB.

 

Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/assassins-creed-unity-system-requirements-rumoured-to-be-steep/

 

 

Just like he said at the end of the article, they said the same thing about Shadow of Mordor and many other games. If anything, I think AC4 will be a bitch to run on max graphics but I think it will be fine for low-med/high. However Ubisoft does have issues with their ports...I remember AC3 headaches I had and the AC4 ones until a few patches.

Oh and Watch Dogs...never forget Watch Dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that they're lying to make the game seem more graphically impressive than it really is. OR the game is just optimized like shit. Either way doesn't look very good for Ubisoft. Aren't they the ones who went on record saying something like,

"We don't optimize our PC games very well, because PC gamers will just upgrade their hardware if their new game doesn't run. So it's not our problem."

So, you know. Fuck them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's confirmed to be the release specs(not probable) the GPU requirements are quite humongous, I'm running with a 760 myself but am about to get a 970. The CPU reqs are at the very top of the line as well, I wonder how it runs on a console when they have half that much hardware. It must not be final really even though Ubisoftt is known to not optmize their games this is too much.

That said what pisses me off the most is the HD requirements, At this rate I'll need a new one by new year's eve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games have been stunted for years because of the last generation of console hardware hitting its limitations years ago. Now that they are beginning to become irrelevant and developers have much better console hardware to work with, they are pushing the technology further and extremely fast.

Requirements like this are beginning to become the new standard and in a years time won't seem so outlandish. If there is a spike in technological advancement as there has been with game development, the hardware requirements spike along with it.

Mexiguy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games have been stunted for years because of the last generation of console hardware hitting its limitations years ago. Now that they are beginning to become irrelevant and developers have much better console hardware to work with, they are pushing the technology further and extremely fast.

Requirements like this are beginning to become the new standard and in a years time won't seem so outlandish. If there is a spike in technological advancement as there has been with game development, the hardware requirements spike along with it.

Requirements like these have been little more than self inflated puffery on Ubisofts part, with the games often delivering less than stunningly and barely running on Titan graphics cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games have been stunted for years because of the last generation of console hardware hitting its limitations years ago. Now that they are beginning to become irrelevant and developers have much better console hardware to work with, they are pushing the technology further and extremely fast.

Requirements like this are beginning to become the new standard and in a years time won't seem so outlandish. If there is a spike in technological advancement as there has been with game development, the hardware requirements spike along with it.

These reqs are about twice if not more than the console's current hardware's power, granted the series 6 is from 2012 but a 680 still packs a lot of power and a 780 is still practically top of the line, it should not be the recommended for any game. Other than Ubisoft's infamous lack of optimization and legendary mishandling of PC ports I don't really know how it makes sense.

 

Then again Shadow of Mordor had absolutely jarring requirements for ultra textures(which made very little difference.) but other than that it was quite undemanding so it could be something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, so far had been able to max out graphics on all games that i've played. Now not even hitting min requirements xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games have been stunted for years because of the last generation of console hardware hitting its limitations years ago. Now that they are beginning to become irrelevant and developers have much better console hardware to work with, they are pushing the technology further and extremely fast.

Requirements like this are beginning to become the new standard and in a years time won't seem so outlandish. If there is a spike in technological advancement as there has been with game development, the hardware requirements spike along with it.

i7 3770 - $300

GTX 780 - $320 after a $20 rebate and a 25% discount

So you're saying it's perfectly fine and normal that it takes $600+ worth of hardware today to reach the same level that cost $400-500 a year ago. That doesn't seem inflated or overblown to you at all. Coming from a company that is notorious for underutilizing PC hardware. When other companies can create better looking games with lower requirements.

Puntosmx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ubisoft and their garbage optimization strikes again. We are not going to work on PC version so you better have overpowered PCs to run our little console games like an emulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, let's take a step back here and look at this from another angle. Unity is a game designed from the ground up for current generation consoles, this should allure to something which is completely obvious to me.

Unity is designed around a current console budget, not last generation. Last generation games were gimped because the hardware was dated, this means they dialed back everything, physics, textures, effects, geometry, AI etc. Not only we're these things dialed back, they were under-developed, meaning they were not designed with the full technological capabilities available to them at the time.

This code was then ported to the PC, the PC was able to push these games to the limit of this under developed design. That is why games on the PC which were ported looked substantially better than their console counterparts, but not better to the point that it was amazing. That under-development is what PC gamers have complained about for years, their platform was being artificially held back by the console budget.

That budget with these new systems has increased by a multiplier 6-7 times that of the last gen. With that extra budget they are fully developing the games now and all of the features which were listed above are being pushed to their limitations, they're not being held back.

As a result of this the PC requirements have to take a steep upturn. Some might say "well the consoles are weak compared to a PC, this can't be true!"...

They are weak in comparison, however they utilize their hardware easily two times more efficiently than a PC due to the game being coded and optimized specifically for that hardware set. That is the downside of PC gaming, the hardware is not being used even remotely to its potential due to developers only being able to do general optimizations rather than specific, there are too many hardware configurations.

P.S. The GTX 680 and 7970 are 11 cards from the top as far as performance is concerned, they're mid-range GPU's now, not enthusiast level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are weak in comparison, however they utilize their hardware easily two times more efficiently than a PC due to the game being coded and optimized specifically for that hardware set. That is the downside of PC gaming, the hardware is not being used even remotely to its potential due to developers only being able to do general optimizations rather than specific, there are too many hardware configurations.

That's the same as saying ubisoft doesn't optmize it's games for PC, yes. Other companies have been doing it better for years now with prettier and less taxing ports, requirements were steep and performance not that great with Watch Dogs and Black Flag as well.

The 680 is a high end GPU now or back in 2012 that it's outdated means little. Any game that goes past the mid-end GPU's in it's minimum requirements is doing something wrong, especially when the recommended is actually a 780. I'm pretty sure Unity is no Crysis to require the highest model of last year's line to work properly.

"That under-development is what PC gamers have complained about for years, their platform was being artificially held back by the console budget."

It still is and it'll keep that way until everyone buys a PC, in fact Unity's fps lock and resolution on consoles are quite a controversy right now exactly because the consoles can't handle it that well, one's better than the other but parity and what-not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the same as saying ubisoft doesn't optmize it's games for PC, yes. Other companies have been doing it better for years now with prettier and less taxing ports, requirements were steep and performance not that great with Watch Dogs and Black Flag as well.

The 680 is a high end GPU now or back in 2012 that it's outdated means little. Any game that goes past the mid-end GPU's in it's minimum requirements is doing something wrong, especially when the recommended is actually a 780. I'm pretty sure Unity is no Crysis to require the highest model of last year's line to work properly.

"That under-development is what PC gamers have complained about for years, their platform was being artificially held back by the console budget."

It still is and it'll keep that way until everyone buys a PC, in fact Unity's fps lock and resolution on consoles are quite a controversy right now exactly because the consoles can't handle it that well, one's better than the other but parity and what-not.

 

They do optimize their games for PC, maybe not to the level that some other companies do but they release games which play perfectly fine, I've never had an issue with performance. You didn't read what I said did you?

 

"Unity is designed around a current console budget, not last generation. Last generation games were gimped because the hardware was dated, this means they dialed back everything, physics, textures, effects, geometry, AI etc."

 

Watch_Dogs and Black Flag were developed around the budget of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, not the Xbox One or PlayStation 4. I swear it's like people don't read anything being said and they reply, or simply they don't know what they're talking about. The 680 is not a high end GPU, it was two years ago, but as you know it's no longer two years ago. The 680 is almost twice as slow as my 290X, it's very dated man and it is a mid-range card now, here is the single GPU hierarchy.

 

1.) GTX 980

2.) GTX 780 Ti / R9 290X

3.) GTX 970

4.) GTX Titan

5.) R9 290

6.) GTX 780

7.) R9 280X

8.) 7970 Ghz Edition

9.) GTX 770

10.) GTX 680 / HD 7970

 

In terms of what you said in the blacked out section, as I said before Unity is being developed around the budget of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4. While it's hitting a CPU bottleneck the graphical fidelity, textures, geometry, AI and so on are more advanced that anything Ubisoft has put out to date. They have a much higher budget to work with than they did before so they have pushed their technology to its limits during their development process. As the PC is a far less optimizable platform than a console, it will require much higher processing power from the GPU and the CPU to run the game effectively with tolerable performance, hence the upturn in requirements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently these are the official requirements and confirmed:

 

 

Here, then, are the official requirements. Let them eat relatively high-end graphics cards:

64-bit operating system
Required

Supported OS
Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8/8.1 (64bit versions only)

Processor
Minimum
Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.0 GHz

Recommended
Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.4 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or better

RAM
Minimum
6 GB

Recommended
8GB

Video Card
Minimum
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 (2 GB VRAM)

Recommended
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 or AMD Radeon R9 290X (3 GB VRAM)

DirectX
Version 11

Sound Card
DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card with latest drivers

Hard Drive Space
50 GB available space

Peripherals Supported
Windows-compatible keyboard and mouse required, optional controller

Multiplayer
256 kbps or faster broadband connection

Supported Video Cards at Time of Release
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or better, GeForce GTX 700 series; AMD Radeon HD7970 or better, Radeon R9 200 series 
Note: Laptop versions of these cards may work but are NOT officially supported.

Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/assassins-creed-unity-system-requirements-confirmed/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are pulling what Shadows did to make it look more impressive than what it really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS4 uses a modified HD7870, which is far weaker then a GTX680. Aka as the architecture of a console version is really similar to PC's and it basically uses the same pieces as PC's (Just modified.) it means console specifications can be linked to the PC requirements. Sure they dont need to optimize it to all for all the hardware that's on PC, but if you take down AA it would look worse than the console, but it should also require less GPU power than the consoles. + having control over the density of the AI would be a easy option.. For example sleeping dogs had an option for world density.. So you wouldn't need a FX-8350.. Actually that's really stupid because console CPUs arent close to a FX-8350.. It's a joke saying that "Our bottleneck for CPU is legit cause see we require a FX-8350".. IPC is the most important thing for a CPU and Jaguar has a respectable amount of power through it.  Although I do have to say a lot of people think that GHz= Power, it honestly isn't true, but this case IS where FX8350 is far more powerful.. But as Jaguar is a improved Bobcat, then an E350 bobcat which has a 772 passmark score (Which is a program used to grade a CPU relatively correctly.) and calculate it some extra cores (And that's assuming that the cores all work at full efficiency), and an 20%~ increase in IPC it only boils down to a i3 2100 in terms of passmark score (Though I would consider it to be closer to a i3 4130 as game optimization and the sort does make it perform better and it is just an approximation of "its meat" on its predecessor with percentages added.. So lets consider it to be a bit over the estimates to be kind to the consoles...)    (Old source, but as the hardware hasn't changed it's still relevant: http://www.redgamingtech.com/amd-jaguar-ps4s-cpu-vs-pc-desktop/

It's basically an optimization issue. And I don't think the minimum graphics have to look as good as the console version either.. So this is simply horrible optimization and zero care from ubisofts side. World density options to reduce the strain on the CPU? No! Take out the FX8350's that're more powerful than the PS4 CPU's and take this flat CPU requirement! PC has options for a reason.. Because people can game even on things that are less powerful then the consoles, but still play the game on lower graphics and enjoy it. And people who have more powerful computers can game on higher graphics. 

Gone too likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS4 uses a modified HD7870, which is far weaker then a GTX680. Aka as the architecture of a console version is really similar to PC's and it basically uses the same pieces as PC's (Just modified.) it means console specifications can be linked to the PC requirements. Sure they dont need to optimize it to all for all the hardware that's on PC, but if you take down AA it would look worse than the console, but it should also require less GPU power than the consoles. + having control over the density of the AI would be a easy option.. For example sleeping dogs had an option for world density.. So you wouldn't need a FX-8350.. Actually that's really stupid because console CPUs arent close to a FX-8350.. It's a joke saying that "Our bottleneck for CPU is legit cause see we require a FX-8350".. IPC is the most important thing for a CPU and Jaguar has a respectable amount of power through it. 

 

Although I do have to say a lot of people think that GHz= Power, it honestly isn't true, but this case IS where FX8350 is far more powerful.. But as Jaguar is a improved Bobcat, then an E350 bobcat which has a 772 passmark score (Which is a program used to grade a CPU relatively correctly.) and calculate it some extra cores (And that's assuming that the cores all work at full efficiency), and an 20%~ increase in IPC it only boils down to a i3 2100 in terms of passmark score (Though I would consider it to be closer to a i3 4130 as game optimization and the sort does make it perform better and it is just an approximation of "its meat" on its predecessor with percentages added.. So lets consider it to be a bit over the estimates to be kind to the consoles...)    (Old source, but as the hardware hasn't changed it's still relevant: http://www.redgamingtech.com/amd-jaguar-ps4s-cpu-vs-pc-desktop/

 

It's basically an optimization issue. And I don't think the minimum graphics have to look as good as the console version either.. So this is simply horrible optimization and zero care from ubisofts side. World density options to reduce the strain on the CPU? No! Take out the FX8350's that're more powerful than the PS4 CPU's and take this flat CPU requirement! PC has options for a reason.. Because people can game even on things that are less powerful then the consoles, but still play the game on lower graphics and enjoy it. And people who have more powerful computers can game on higher graphics. 

First off the PlayStation 4 does not use a modified 7870, I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. It's GCN architecture but it's not based off of a GPU, it's all system unified, or in other words running in an APU. If it could be comparable to a desktop GPU it would be in between a 7790 and a 7850 with a lower core frequency and higher stream processor count, while the Xbox One sits between a 7770 and a 7790. The 7870 runs a substantially higher core clock than the GPU in the PlayStation 4 and it also has 128 more stream processors (1280) weighing in at 2.56 teraflops of compute power. You also have to factor in that the graphics memory is unified system memory for everything so the performance on both systems is lowered even further as it's not dedicated to the GPU alone. 

 

In terms of them hitting a bottleneck in the CPU you don't seem to understand how much more a console can be optimized than a PC, they do extremely low level optimization down to the hardware level, they get every possible bit of performance out of a piece of hardware that they can. PC optimization for the most part is architecture based, it's a broad general optimization for the architecture of specific CPU and GPU series' and so on, they don't delve into specific optimizations for specific hardware, there are too many configurations and too many pieces of hardware, it would take years.

 

Because of this your PC hardware suffers greatly from the lack of proper utilization due to blanket optimizations, in other words you're probably getting about 50-70% of the total performance capability of your hardware depending on a number of factors. A console for example utilizes its hardware far better than that of a PC running similar hardware at the same frequencies so the performance of the hardware is offset. Consoles also use heaps of ASIC and they are extremely application specific, PC's do not and are not.

 

Let's say you load up the same game on the PlayStation 4 that you do on the PC and you set the PC to the same graphical settings as the console version including resolution. Let's also use a gimped 7870 with 128 less stream processors and an FX 8350 as an example, if you gimped the effective memory clock, lowered the core frequency down to that of the PlayStation 4 and also lowered the 8350 down to the 1.6Ghz of the PlayStation 4 the obvious would take place. The game would be unplayable, your framerates would be absolutely atrocious, this is due to the blanket optimization on PC.

 

Because of this a console can technically run inferior hardware to a PC which is spec'd the same and perform considerably better, or perform the same as better hardware. As a result of this a PC needs to run stronger hardware to match the capability the console hits due to the efficiency of its optimization.This is why AMD is pushing Mantle for example to bypass the graphic's API's more and communicate directly with the hardware, because optimization on PC is hard.

 

That is why Unity has such high minimum requirements, people have grown so accustomed to games built and designed around the budget of last generation consoles that they expect to see those lower end PC requirements. When a current gen game built around a current gen budget comes out, the PC requirements look extremely foreign because they are much higher as more is required. The game code is more intricate, the textures are higher resolution, the AI is more intricate and dense, the worlds are larger, the LoD is increase, there is increased density in the world and more assets, there is increased geometry and tessellation etc, across the board everything is pushed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game will not be much prettier than Shadow of Mordor and there's no reason for it to be more system intensive.

 

CPU: Intel Core i5-750 or AMD Phenom II X4 965 CPU Speed: Info RAM: 3 GB OS: Windows 7 (64-bit only) Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 or AMD Radeon HD 5850 Sound Card: Yes Free Disk Space: 25 GB

 

 

Do you see a GTX 680 in there? Cause I'm not seeing it. Even the recommended for reasonable working game is a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 or AMD Radeon HD 7950 which is far more reasonable and those are just if you want it to be similar to console, stop saying the optimization is impossible on PC it's just Ubisoft being lazy.


And by Jupiter what's with the walls?

 

 

Do u think a 760 will work?

 

It's in between minimum and recommended and it's a good mid-high card so it'll work for sure but it's not going for ultra and maybe even everything on high might be a stretch. Hell even my new 970 might not make high if it's anything like Watch Dogs.

Puntosmx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Rita has showed up I'm out. Person with a big mouth who doesn't know anything.. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171375-reverse-engineered-ps4-apu-reveals-the-consoles-real-cpu-and-gpu-specs

Haha that's a laugh, you rely too much on what you read and not enough on what you know. 200Mhz lower core frequency than a 7870, 128 less stream processors and 72 gigaflops less compute power. It's not a 7870 and no matter how many articles you link that's not going to change, it sits between a 7790 and a 7850.

Yeah, clearly I am the one who doesn't know anything, you're out of your depths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, you both calm down now.

 

If you can't discuss and compare PC and console hardware in peace without offending each other, DO NOT discuss it at all!

 

 

1. Respect Each Other - AJSA does not tolerate discrimination, racism or harassment, sexual or otherwise by or towards members. Members will respect each other regardless of their origin, rank, nationality, age, gender, race, or religious beliefs. Failure to comply will result in loss of rank or ban from the community. Please keep foul language to a reasonable minimum. We are passionate enthusiastic gamers just like Angry Joe, we don’t mind when friends rib each other in good fun, but please keep it within reason. If any other member asks you to stop, please stop.

 

 

And keep this to PC requirements for the game ONLY! No comparisons! 

Puntosmx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And keep this to PC requirements for the game ONLY! No comparisons! 

Would it be ok to ask how this compares to the requirements of Crysis 1 when it came out as a frame of reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be ok to ask how this compares to the requirements of Crysis 1 when it came out as a frame of reference?

That can pass.

 

I just don't want comparisons of PC and console hardware for the game. Like in the 1st page...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be ok to ask how this compares to the requirements of Crysis 1 when it came out as a frame of reference?

I would say it's fairly comparable, the technology used in Crysis was easily two years ahead of its time.

The requirements we're decently high but you really needed SLI and 8800 Ultra's for the game to be playable and look great at the same time. The requirements to play the game should have been higher to be completely honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now