Assassin's Creed Unity: Now with Slightly Less Terrible Performance!

Subject: General Tech | December 22, 2014 - 04:10 PM |
Tagged: patch, gpu performance, assassin's creed, assasins creed unity

The latest patch (version 1.4.0) for Assassin's Creed Unity was released on Friday, and the folks at HardOCP have posted a review with their perfomance findings today.

View Full Size

Spoiler alert: the performance numbers are better, but not by a lot. To quote the article's conclusion:

"Thanks to the recent patch 1.4.0 it is a little "less terrible," but it is still not very good. This game is poorly optimized, if at all, and performs worse than it should on the latest generation of video cards. Even with SLI you cannot maximize the graphics settings at 1440p with TXAA, one of the added NVIDIA features in the game. This is sad."

The post for Patch 4 on Steam lists these improvements:

  • Performance & Stability: Frame rate drops, game crashes, lost progression
  • Gameplay: Navigation, lock picking chests
  • Online: Connectivity, matchmaking, companion app

The tested patch (which weighs in at 5.4GB) is the fourth one released in December, as Ubisoft attempts to mitigate some of the issues with a game that has only disappointed since launch. While overall improvements seen by the team at [H] were slight, the review does concede that patch "helped performance and image quality" and that "using the latest NVIDIA beta drivers...also helped performance in this game". However to fully enjoy the Assassin's Creed Unity experience they do recommend "a cold beer, or two".

 

Source: HARDOCP

December 22, 2014 | 04:30 PM - Posted by MarkT (not verified)

This game passively pisses you off while you play it because the performance is so bad.

This game has "passive-aggressive" behavior

December 22, 2014 | 04:59 PM - Posted by Daniel Masterson (not verified)

I am glad I never got in the AC franchise and this again reaffirms that I never will.

December 22, 2014 | 05:11 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I don't get what the point of these fixes are. Your biggest fans already bought the game at launch and finished gtr first week. What is the point if fixing it a month or two later?!

December 22, 2014 | 06:27 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Remember when Ryan said anyone who complained about AC:Unity performance issues didn't know what they were talking about cause they didn't know what the hell they were talking about. He almost went all Angry Hulk.

Someone should make a MEME out of that podcast.

Performance Summary

Assassin's Creed Unity performed terrible at launch. Thanks to the recent patch 1.4.0 it is a little "less terrible," but it is still not very good. This game is poorly optimized, if at all, and performs worse than it should on the latest generation of video cards. Even with SLI you cannot maximize the graphics settings at 1440p with TXAA, one of the added NVIDIA features in the game. This is sad.

Ryan knows best...LOL

December 23, 2014 | 07:50 AM - Posted by obababoy

Here is the thing. I play on a Sapphire Vapor-X R9 290 and average around 50FPS in this game maxed out with FXAA instead of the others and I dont see what the problem is?

Who is a reviewer to say it performs worse than it should? Did they develop the engine and help build the game. That statement kinda bothers me.

As far as FPS goes I think it is fine for how the game looks! Where Ubi messed up is the game breaking bugs and such that have taken a month to fix. I just beat the game playing it casually before this patch came out and have no intention to play it more. With that said now I can play Dragon Age more!!!!

December 23, 2014 | 02:10 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Who is a reviewer to say it performs worse than it should? Did they develop the engine and help build the game. That statement kinda bothers me.

Its called common sense. They are still using the old 2008 engine which going by there 4 previous game releases has never been fully bug free or optimize. All of them have needed release day patches with several follow up patches and the trend has continued through the years with each game release on that same game engine.

Here we are a month later 4 patches later amounting to almost 2/4th of the original game size. One shouldn't need to download half of the original game size in patches to just make it tolerable to play.

December 25, 2014 | 01:20 AM - Posted by Lelek (not verified)

Their engine is awesome and it was phenomenal when AC launched. You don't need to start an engine from scratch to put new technologies, i believe their versions are modified easily to add new techs that means good software architecture. All the basics of the game are still there from the first one, added with new mini games, sometime big modules like ships, flying, etc. but the most important aspect of AC franchise is world creation! And that's their excellent 3d modellers, animators, textures creators, etc. ACU has the best animation/voice acting in cutscenes and should won an award for that (I would nominate FC4 and ME:SoM too, the worst is DA:I). I was waiting for that skinless-eyeballs-only-face, but never had them. But I'm disappointed with the omission of PhysX, particullary Nvidia PhysX effects.

December 25, 2014 | 01:34 PM - Posted by razor512

It is easy to tell when a game is performing worst than it should. What was not shown in the article, but is likely a related issue, is that the game performs poorly while having low CPU utilization, as well as less than 100%

When a game is performing poorly while not properly using the available hardware, then it is not performing a well as it should.

I got it for free with my 850 pro, and the game performs poorly. I can understand your statement applying if the game was pegged at 100% GPU usage, or having 1 or 2 cores at 100% load, and lagging, as that would say that it is performing poorly but you cannot point a finger squarely at a single reason, but when neither of the 2 happens and the game lags, then it is poorly made.

If you would like to see if a game is performing properly or not, have 2 monitors on the second monitor have GPUz, task manager on the performance tab, and process explorer monitoring the threads from the game.

Play the game and while it is lagging, look at the resource usage. On games like crysis when it lags on lower end hardware, you would see the GPU pegged at 100% usage, and on some low end CPU's, you would see 1 or 2 cores at 100% usage and the rest with around 40% or so usage, and low GPU usage, but in those cases, you can clearly see either the GPU fully used, or a thread maxing out one of the CPU cores while the game is lagging.

December 23, 2014 | 01:37 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Ubisoft, from Montreal produces bad technology for video games and do not deserve any money.

December 23, 2014 | 01:51 PM - Posted by QD (not verified)

This game looks like it was released way before its time- some of the snaps of the early rendering issues were really pretty funny. I guess I'll know soon as I'll be getting it- at the right price. It's comes free with an 850 Pro SSD ATM.

December 24, 2014 | 09:24 AM - Posted by ET3D (not verified)

I don't know why they say, for example, that the 280X at Ultra 1080p "isn't playable" when it gets 29fps minimum, 39.8fps average. Is AC Unity such a twitch based game?

December 25, 2014 | 03:00 PM - Posted by razor512

Some battles require fast response, and the low frame rates make those battles unfairly difficult. (you also get lower frame rates at those times)

30FPS is also means too much console peasantry getting in the way of enjoying a game.

March 1, 2015 | 02:23 AM - Posted by S^P (not verified)

Assassin's Creed Unity (i'm on version 1.5) is totally unoptimized as some of the other posts say. For me - I have 8 cores (16 threads) @ 3.2Ghz GTX 580 SLI. The CPU usage is about 10% total, and the GPU usage is about 40% per GPU. The game runs like absolute shite - max is about 27 FPS. It is totally unplayable. I have latest Nvdia drivers etc. Is it possible to return the game and get a refund?

In contrast my rig can play Far Cry 4 at around 45-55 FPS (All Settings Maxed to Ultra @ 2560x1600) - pretty smooth for an old rig. BF4 gets around 50-60FPS (Everything Maxed @ 2560x1600).

I only just bought ACU a few days ago, totally disappointed since its been out for months, and that I just downloaded a 8GB patch (and its done nothing). Ubisoft has totally dropped the ball on this one. And i'm not going to spend $800 on a new Video card just because the dev's have no time to optimize the game. I get that there are budget concerns etc, but you have paying customers who have also invested thousands on hardware. You owe it to your customers to publish the best possible product.

Total waste of money - i want a refund!

Hope other have better luck.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.