103 réponses à ce sujet

[mrjack]

Why so many threads created by blatant pirates who are p*ssed off at the so-far uncrackable anti-tamper thingy masquerading as 'concern' that it will effect performance. If the game were poorly optimised or ran badly on PC, we would have heard about it by now. Stop crying and buy a damn copy. Or are you sad that you can't make money distributing it through filesharing?

[CIA]

Why so many threads created by blatant pirates who are p*ssed off at the so-far uncrackable anti-tamper thingy masquerading as 'concern' that it will effect performance. If the game were poorly optimised or ran badly on PC, we would have heard about it by now. Stop crying and buy a damn copy. Or are you sad that you can't make money distributing it through filesharing?

I'm not going to whine until I've played the game and had a reason to complain about its performance, but you're just generalising and being a dick. DRM, especially say something like Ubi's old DRM directly affects paying consumers and not pirates. It's loyal customers that get the shaft.

[Keithian]

As others have stated, Devs confirmed that the ps4 version is similar to a PC on high settings and there have been videos released showing the 30fps and 60fps differences are so small the average person on a screen more than 2 feet away won't be able to tell the difference. So much BS In this thread. With regard to the OP, it's obvious he is either an AMD employee or a fan boi, either way all of these benchmarks are worthless right now. Why do they even bother testing on a setting you don't need?

[MarchWaltz]

 the 30fps and 60fps differences are so small the average person on a screen more than 2 feet away won't be able to tell the difference. 

Does the average person have no brain?

 

30fps vs 60fps is a WORLD of difference.

[mrjack]

I'm not going to whine until I've played the game and had a reason to complain about its performance, but you're just generalising and being a dick. DRM, especially say something like Ubi's old DRM directly affects paying consumers and not pirates. It's loyal customers that get the shaft.

 

Fine. I'm a dick. Whatever. You may say you're not whining but you're directly comparing what EA have put in place to stop the executable being hacked (not DRM btw) to some DRM made by Ubisoft however long ago which you had a bad experience with. This is before you have played the game so... It sounds like you're doing exactly what you said you wouldn't.

 

My point is I'm pumped for this game and sick of seeing so many threads whining about how Bioware have screwed us over with DeNuvo and how angelic CDPR are for not implementing any DRM (they only changed their position after they f*cked it up royally btw - not because they care) when I'd much rather play a Bioware game with 15 levels of encryption than get my freak cyber freak on with playing card beauties of the Witcher any day.

 

All this negativity makes me angry. Buy the game, don't buy the game. I don't care. But this is like the 10th thread I've seen today whining about bloody DeNuvo.

[Handsome Jack]

Might as well knock it down to High. It's no big deal.

[Jaron Oberyn]

I just jumped in Battlefield 4 and did an FPS test. I ranged around 40-90 FPS depending on the situation on a 64 man rush server in a large map.

 

Everything is maxed at 2xMSAA with a 70 FOV 85 HOV

 

For those of you that don't know what Rush is, pretty much all 64 players are concentrated around the center of the two objectives (ie: cluster) So if I can get 40 FPS while looking at 64 players + vehicles blowing each other up then I should definitely get a minimum of 40 FPS playing an RPG game with a few characters on screen.

 

No way does this game have more visual noise than a 64 man battlefield 4 server. Impossible. Regardless of the couple of new technologies they enabled it's still the same engine. 

You are essentially comparing a Ford Mustang (DAI) to a Ford Fiesta (BF4), and are arguing that the two must be the same because they share the same brand (Engine). The assets in a multiplayer game do not even come close to the polycount and resolution density of singleplayer games alone. The shader complexity between the two are not even comparable. Multiplayer games prioritize performance over visuals. Higher tri counts for environments and characters, complex shaders, and incredibly dense environments would contribute to a high ms for the average player, which when coupled with server latency makes for an unenjoyable experience. If multiplayer games were to have the same graphic complexity of a singleplayer game, many people would be playing on low settings with PCs that are now handling medium/high. Especially when dealing with server replication of high quality assets, be it characters, weapons, or complex particles. Simply put, you cannot compare DAI to BF4 with regards to performance. They may have the same engine, but they are not the same category of game. That is what makes the big difference here. Instead of making ignorant bold claims about things you know nothing about, I would advise you to research your argument before you come here and attempt to get people upset over nothing.

[House Lannister]

Lol at this thread and it's replies.

[andy6915]

Is this why the PS3 version looks better than the 360 version, because the PS3 has better CPU than the 360?

[cotheer]

That's probably why they recommend AMD cards, preferably 290 series.

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

Do we actually have word on when the Nvidia driver is being released? 

[naughty99]

http://translate.goo...36/&prev=search
 
 
On a gtx 780ti with i74790k, you get max 45 fps, maybe 60 fps when nvidia drivers release. Are you guys joking?  this is the engine bf4 uses, which I get over 100fps with on max settings with 4xmsaa with explosions going on constantly with a gtx 780 and core i74770k.

Over 100fps with 4xMSAA and 780? That is quite different from most BF4 benchmarks. Do you mean average fps or maximium? If so, that would explain the difference, as the PCGamesHardware.de benchmarks are not including maximum.

100fps with 4xMSAA is much higher than various benchmarks showing avg and minimum frame rate for this card in BF4: http://www.bit-tech....ance-analysis/3

[Fozee]

Guys this isn't 2002. Executable protection doesn't eat up any notable amount of CPU time. Are you throwing a fit that you have to run Windows in the background as well? No. 

[tybert7]

With AC Unity recently coming out that to me set the bar for next gen graphics (as far as when it's not bugging out). Just the global illumination lighting + all of the physics they use for both clothing and hair (Seriously wish Bioware would have hair anywhere near this quality) and the material shaders are insane.

 

I can get around 55 fps or so in that with everything to high minus AA and shadows to high instead of PCXX.

 

DA: I looks great from the videos, but it doesn't look like it would push  as much resources vs AC: Unity, especially when you can literally have over a thousand + npc's in a scene at once

 

Hopefully the nvidia drivers for it help it out a lot.

 

 

The irony is that DA:I could probably handle 1000+ npcs much better than assassins creed unity.  I read some article mentioning that some scenes unity could pull around 50,000 draw calls, where dx11 typically saturated the cpu around 10,000 draw calls.

 

That covers things like units, but also environmental details and view distance.  Since frostbite 3 has mantle, that is the PERFECT type of engine to chug through that kind of draw call explosion.  The type of games ubisoft makes should have steered them into adopting AMDs mantle tech, but they are basically bought and paid for by nvidia now, so they are probably not allowed to bother or care.

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to diving into DA:I

 

I have an r9 290 that has yet to really be tested since I have not really played a triple A game since I've gotten it, and an amd 8350 cpu which should get a MAJOR boost from mantle since it needs it more than a standard i7.

 

 

Also, as far as DAI not pushing as many resources as Assassins creed, that latter tries and falls on its face becaues dx11 can't handle that much stuff going on.  You don't get credit for leaping over a tall hill if you fly face first into the base, yes you tried, but you did not clear the target.  And looking at some of those distance shots in DA:I, the view distance looks surprisingly far and clear and effing beautiful.  I remember clearly having older hardware and older games where a hideous fog would cover anything too far out so it would not tank your cpu performance.  Wow needs to implement mantle, so many games do until dx12 arrives, and even then they should still experiment there.

[tybert7]

^ I will say that AC unity has some of the best game hair I have seen since Final Fantasy. 

 

 

Yes, the hair is so good they literally disabled the faces so you could see it from underneath the top layer.

[Dreadcall]

Something that runs on a xbox360/ps3 has no right to be a CPU killer in 2014... 

[escapePlan]

Its not.

[Aurawolf]

Can't we wait till a larger base actually starts playing the game and see how the performance is on a much wider range of machines before grabbing the pitchforks and torches? As has been mentioned if you want to complain about a game not being optimized for the PC call up Ubisoft and complain on ACU.

[dch2404]

http://translate.goo...36/&prev=search

 

 

On a gtx 780ti with i74790k, you get max 45 fps, maybe 60 fps when nvidia drivers release. Are you guys joking?  this is the engine bf4 uses, which I get over 100fps with on max settings with 4xmsaa with explosions going on constantly with a gtx 780 and core i74770k.

 

But ofcourse there is nothing going on with denuvo (which is known for being system intensive in LOTF, and causing 75% cpu usage in fifa 15) or anything right guys? The anti tampering software that constantly encrypts and decrypts access to exe with massive hard drive writes, hogs memory for security purposes and takes up cpu overhead.

 

Some of us asked you for evidence of the hard drive writes and you still have not provided them in your other thread. You claimed that Denuvo increases "copy-write iterations" from 140,000 per hour to 150,000 per hour (+7%) on SSDs. I do not know why you use the term "copy-write" when the industry term for SSD NAND memory endurance is program-erase (P/E) cycles. There are plenty of reviews of SSDs where blocks have withstood 100,000 P/E cycles. So if your assertion is true that Denuvo is locked to a single block (which I would also like to see evidence of), then I expect that block to fail after 40 minutes. You however claimed that 4-8 hours will destroy the block, which is a standard binge-gamer session. Yet there is not a single search result on google suggesting the case. You then retracted the assertion and just claimed that Denuvo shortens the lifespan of the SSD as opposed to causing block failure. Please enlghten me.

[Majestic Jazz]

Yup. Good old tried and true workingman's graphics. None of that elitist nonsense like antialiasing and 60 fps here.

 

At 30 fps

 

And low res

 

By what I have seen of the console footage, I am pleased.

 

I understand that the PC can shoot out better res and higher fps, but at the end of the day, I just want easy access and none of that "can my pc run this?" crap.

 

I know my PS4 will play DAI perfectly, next year Star Wars Battlefront will play perfectly, and in 2016 Mass Effect 4 will play perfectly.

 

Again, not being a troll, but I went the PC route one time for the release of Battlefield 3 and while the graphics were nice, I still prefer the controller feeling rather than the mouse and keyboard.

 

To each their own.

[naughty99]

I understand that the PC can shoot out better res and higher fps, but at the end of the day, I just want easy access and none of that "can my pc run this?" crap.
 
I know my PS4 will play DAI perfectly, next year Star Wars Battlefront will play perfectly, and in 2016 Mass Effect 4 will play perfectly.

And you can also run AC Unity perfectly at 20fps, 1600x900 "cinematic" mode.

[Elrodeus]

And you can also run AC Unity perfectly at 20fps, 1600x900 "cinematic" mode.

 

It's surprising just how low the framerate for these new games are on these new systems. It's like they've been out for less than a year and they're already outdated.

[Scerene]

You expect to get 60 fps with a true next gen game on a 780? You look at the fact that Frostbite 3 is used for both games, but you apparently don't understand that multiplayer and singleplayer game assets vary widely. Multiplayer doesn't have the luxury of detail that is afforded to singeplayer games. The more detail the client has to render, the more strain it puts on the ability to accurately depict what is going on server side. Take Mass Effect 3 multiplayer for example. The character models were much lower detailed versions of their singleplayer counterparts (polys and materials) for this exact reason. You cannot just point to BF4 and expect your experience to be 100% similar to a singleplayer game of the same engine. That being said, the difference between what I am assuming is classified as "ultra" and high/medium will be negligible. The game gives you options to cut back on tesselation, AO, AA, shader complexity, etc. You can compromise there without losing much visuals, while at the same time increasing your performance gain. To blame this on Denuvo is ignorant at best. Look at the console versions and see how much visuals they have to sacrifice in order to simply lock at 30 fps. Not everyone has a machine capable of running this next gen game at max settings. 

 780ti is more powerful than 780 and is the second most powerful single card on the market, its only about 5-10% weaker than 980, which by the way doesnt run the game very well either, only about 2-4 fps more if you had checked the benchmarks you would know this, so *yes* we do expect it to run smoothly. I can run shadows of mordor on ultra 83 fps average, and its a demanding game. It also features a large open space. The game is either badly optimized or there is something else going on.

 

edit, nvm i just saw that they were running with 4x msaa, but even then its obvious it needs better optimization, especially on NVIDIAS part.

[Jester]

And countless others have proven that the Lords of the Fallen developer was rationalizing the game's poor performance by blaming it on untestable anti-tamper software.

He actually said something exactly opposite - that Denuvo may decrease performance by 1-5%, and the poor framerate must be caused by other issues.

 

Oh no, a game made for 8-core consoles won't run on your quad core pc...

...

My quad core PC CPU is like 3 times (if not more) stronger than those 8 cores CPUs in consoles. 

And I'm still running the old i5-2500k, which is nowhere near current top-shelf models. 

 

As others have stated, Devs confirmed that the ps4 version is similar to a PC on high settings and there have been videos released showing the 30fps and 60fps differences are so small the average person on a screen more than 2 feet away won't be able to tell the difference. 

 

Stop spreading this riddiculous nonsense. Just stop. 

If you cannot tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps you are either blind or biased. 

Or from Ubisoft.