Assassin’s Creed Origins

1920x1080 possibly at 30 FPS for the "High" preset (So Very High and Ultra likely exist as well, possibly beyond ultra if some options can be set higher than that preset allows for which some games do.) and then you also have the dynamic resolution and framerate target settings which likely takes into account the hardware set for "recommended" and meaning it can probably halve the display resolution if needed to match the set framerate target.

On the other hand you can disable this upscaling feature entirely in the PC version but you might not be able to get full 60 FPS (Or 30, actually for recommended and 1080 it's probably a 60 FPS target or so I'd hope at least.) Syndicate and Unity works very similarly as I remember so it's when the user goes up to the highest settings that the game really starts straining even higher-end hardware, especially if you go 2560x1440 or above instead of 1920x1080 since the display resolution is still one of the most demanding settings in newer games.
(For AC: Syndicate in particular the game had it's ultra quality HBAO+ and PCSS options which I think are outside of the regular ultra quality preset and will hit framerate hard even on high-end hardware.)

Think the same also goes for other games using the Anvil Next engine such as For Honor or Wildlands which otherwise runs pretty respectably on a wide range of hardware, though then again I guess that's not too surprising if you take a game engine and push it beyond it's regular limits, speaking of which it's not the Anvil engine but I think Watch_Dogs 2 completely tanks if you enable everything for example. (Though it looks spectacular too, well as long as the game is stable ha ha.)


Would have been nice with a third preset for "4K 30 FPS." or just 1080 Ultra to have that cleared up a bit but it would probably have approached a 1070 or 1080 GPU from Nvidia and it'd be Vega for AMD's side then to match.

Closer to release maybe there will be some video streamers or tech sites doing more in-depth performance testing, I'm expecting Nvidia to pull ahead a bit compared to AMD as usual for Ubisoft games but I do not know if the game will have a range of Gameworks effects or not, probably more info to come in the weeks leading up to the PC versions release.

 

No!!!!!!!

They are missing a big opportunity by not making this game DX12! I hope they implement a DX12 patch at a later date, as I know they are working on migrating the AnvilNext engine over to DX12.

 

Says who?
DX12 has been mostly forgettable. Many titles perform better in DX11, with many others showing such a small difference... it makes it pointless to even really debate about.

DX12 has been, in a lot of ways, similar to DX10. Extremely talked up by MS before release, only to lead to random, small improvements on certain titles.
DX11 is still a much better option in most cases.

 

DX12 takes a lot of investment to make it work properly. It's a far superior API to DX11, and the only reason why it hasn't been paying dividends so far is because games are still primarily based on DX11 at a fundamental level, and also because it's a steep learning curve.

Only a few developers have the capability to really put the API to use, but Ubisoft is one of them. With all the work they have been doing migrating AnvilNext to DX12, I'm surprised that AC Origins will not use it.

Whatever you think about DX12, you can't deny the potential power of low level APIs. Like the Vulkan renderer in Doom for instance. That was a huge improvement over the OpenGL renderer in terms of performance. I have personally seen up to a 150% increase in certain CPU limited areas.

 

Yes, the Vulkan API in DOOM can offer some incredibly high FPS... but, considering how impressively optimized the OpenGL API in DOOM was...it's not surprising. It seems like a given.
I've tried Vulkan a few times, but see no reason to stick with it considering OpenGL gives me a constant, silky smooth 60fps with no issues. Yes, Vulkan can offer a higher top end frame rate... but since I keep it capped to 60fps... I see zero difference between the two.

And, from a personal perspective, the only title I've personally played that's offered an improvement in performance with DX12... has been Rise of the Tomb Raider. I won't deny it. Overall FPS has increased, and lead to a smoother overall experience... when it comes to performance. But, there is a trade off. As the DX12 API is not as stable as DX11 is in Tomb Raider.
Gears of War 4 runs amazingly well in DX12, but... considering that's the only API it uses... it's unknown how well it would run in DX11, so there's no comparison to make. We can't really say that DX12 is better in that case.

 

I don't know if I would personally characterize the OpenGL 4.5 implementation in Doom as impressively optimized, though I suppose it depends on your configuration. For me it certainly isn't optimized, as I have a 6900K. In certain areas, I get massive framerate drops and lag because the CPU load is so minimal (OpenGL is single threaded) that my CPU drops down to desktop speeds, ie 1.2ghz. On quad core CPUs this is unlikely to happen though.

For me, I gained about 8% increase in performance in The Division, and considering I'm not CPU bound in DX11, that's quite an increase. That means the performance increase is coming from increased GPU efficiency, ie multi engine, asynchronous compute etcetera.

Which brings me to my point. With DX12 and Vulkan, the developers can tap into the full GPU and leverage console like efficiency by utilizing techniques that otherwise would not be possible with a high level API like DX11.

But honestly, I understand why Ubisoft isn't making AC Origins DX12. The reason is because a large part of their customers are still using Windows 7 or 8.1. I still hope they release a DX12 patch later down the road though, like what happened with The Division.

 

dx12 isnt even full yet, i suspect at this point by the time they have SM6.0 ready they're gonna go ahead and name it 13 to disassociate with its failure. Dx12 is the new Dx10, a market adoption failure. Tbh i havent been paying much attention, maybe its been "secretly" implemented or something, even more of a failure if so.

 

this game runs good enough without dx11 as far as those specs goes

 

Possibly, but I can´t stop imaging what 10x times more draw calls could do in a game like this, with committed and expert devs. At this point if you don´t care as a dev or publisher, you are nothing more than a journeyman dev/publisher.

 

Off-topic: No full DX12 games(only Dx12 wrappers) because nvidia and their Dx11 single-thread optimization.
When will have Volta for gamers maybe things will change.

On-topic: I see some gameplay from youtubers and looks good(console version),but the interface&menu not.Its like win 8,with rectangles,no polished menus.
From AC4BF & Rogue no matter the story,only locations and adventures.

Recommended config:
Intel Core i7- 3770 @ 3.5 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 or AMD R9 280X (3GB VRAM with Shader Model 5.0 or better)
8GB RAM

 

Got this on e-mail today:



well not my problem...

 

As with Unity, I am pretty confident in waiting a few months before getting this, in order to allow them to clean up any major issues re: performance and/or bugged programming.

Worked perfectly well, as I seemed to miss all the hub-bub when that was released (not to mention the hand-ringing and vitriol directed at Ubisoft).And just like Unity, Syndicate looked beautiful on my screen as well. I've purposely avoided any spoilers for Origins, and have watched no more than a few seconds of any video. So this should be a nice little surprise under the Christmas tree for me.

That said, I will however, be picking up New Colossus the day it is released. Oh, yea!

 

Definitely holding off buying this for my PC at launch because I can almost guarantee that it will ship with issues. The previous two games (Unity and Syndicate) had them and both of those launched, if I remember correctly, a month after the console versions. I'm betting that Ubisoft will be focused mostly on the console versions, specifically the PS4 Pro and forthcoming Xbox One X, which the game was demoed on, I believe. One article I read claimed the game was running smoother on Xbox One X than it was on PC and that is enough to put me off pre-ordering it. Besides, it's not like there aren't enough other games to play at this time of year...

 

I dont think it will have those problems you mentioned with the prev. two, cos mainly,..this issnt a one-year game but 2 years.

 

yeah i think this one will be much different problems-wise

it'll be more polished than the older titles i think

 

They started developing this game early 2014 so no excuses this time when there are issues.

 

We'll see. I don't think Ubisoft cares much for the PC these days though; the money is in the console market. I hope I'm wrong though. If it is running great on PC at launch then I will buy it as I'm extremely interested in the setting.

 

I don't know why this sentiment keeps persisting, even after it's been found to be false so many times. The PC gaming and hardware market is literally exploding, and will surpass the console market eventually in overall sales. Just look at PUBG. That game alone has way more people playing it than any console title. Also PC games are more profitable to developers due to not having to pay Microsoft or Sony a dime, plus most PC gamers prefer digital which further cuts the middlemen out of the picture, ie brick and mortal retail stores. So even with less overall sales, PC games can still easily remain profitable for developers.

Anyway, AC Origins will be fine. Ubisoft's most recent titles on the AnvilNext engine (Ghost Wildlands and AC Syndicate) have been fairly well optimized, and a better experience than what you find on the consoles. I'm still thinking about preordering it, just to get that bonus mission, but I want to see the reviews first.

 

game looks fine in day scenes, but during the night it looks a dated game graphics wise, the lighting is atrocious.