Ubi Blames Bad Performance and Bugs of AssCreed on AMD

Ubi PR guy response:

We are aware that the graphics performance of Assassin’s Creed Unity on PC may be adversely affected by certain AMD CPU and GPU configurations. This should not affect the vast majority of PC players, but rest assured that AMD and Ubisoft are continuing to work together closely to resolve the issue, and will provide more information as soon as it is available.

http://wccftech.com/ubisoft-points-finger-amd-technical-bugs-assassins-creed-unity/#ixzz3IytcrAom

Unnamed developer response:

The game (in its current state) is issuing approximately 50,000 draw calls on the DirectX 11 API. Problem is, DX11 is only equipped to handle ~10,000 peak draw calls. What happens after that is a severe bottleneck with most draw calls culled or incorrectly rendered, resulting in texture/NPCs popping all over the place. On the other hand, consoles have to-the-metal access and almost non-existent API Overhead but significantly underpowered hardware which is not able to cope with the stress of the multitude of polygons. Simply put, its a very very bad port for the PC Platform and an unoptimized (some would even go as far as saying, unfinished) title on the consoles.

http://wccftech.com/ubisoft-points-finger-amd-technical-bugs-assassins-creed-unity/#ixzz3IywbIM6w

What happened with Mantle anyway?

I blame bad performance and bugs of Unity on Ubisoft.

If that's the case I'd challenge them on utilizing Nvidia's Gameworks developer support service. AMD reps brought this up months ago that this was going to cripple performance on non-Nvidia gaming devices because Nvidia was going to assist by tailoring the development of games around their technology.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173511-nvidias-gameworks-program-usurps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd

And to that point, we have this:

This is why we can't have nice things.

Ya... So that could explain for consoles (basically stating it does have a shit CPU) but, that doesn't even explain the PC version at fucking all.

Good thing I have a Intel CPU and a Nvidia GPU. You get what you pay for folks. There is a reason AMD products are always cheaper. And look at the quality consoles they made for us this generation. Thanks guys!

@GoldenElementXL: You are aware that 980's with Intel CPU can't even run this game past high setting and aliasing off?

That's basically the minimum to run it on 60 Fps at 1080p... Still with occasional dips and crashing.

If it was this once, maybe, but when was the last time big Ubi title was actually well-optimized on PC?

i heard they also had to downgrade the game on all platforms to accommodate for the ps4's graphical shortcomings.

Kinda funny considering the game doesn't run that well even on modern i7's

Not exactly. In fact, Intel chips are considerably outperforming AMD chips on Unity, for some reason.

Regardelss, the game is simply unoptmized on all platforms and shows Ubshits incompetence.

The CPU in the consoles is very weak and is a bottleneck. However, considering the horrible frame rate and huge amount of bugs and glitchs, it's a case of Ubisoft bullshiting.

Shame too. This could have been the first proper "next gen" level multiplat.

yeah, you pay more for less hardware from companies that bribe developers to make their hardware unrealistic superior

So they just ignore the architecture of all the consoles, make a game for them anyways, and then don't test for shit and turn around to blame the CPUs?

That's like screaming at a toaster oven for not running Pong. Ubisoft, do you even develop?

Damn AMD, why can't you let Ubisoft be lazy and push a game out the door without proper testing ?

So they did a terrible port. They fully knew the limitations of doing a lot of draw calls on DX11. Other devs get around them just fine using a variety of methods. Consoles have always been able to do more draw calls because they have much lower-level graphic APIs. That's always been a major bottleneck of DirectX. Microsoft is fixing that with DX12 allowing lower level access and increasing the amount of draw calls, but until then developers need to continue to adapt.

Hell they even have CPU bottlenecking on the consoles because even the consoles can't handle that many drawcalls. That's just sloppy programming.

They are also getting poor performance on Intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs because of this. This isn't AMD's fault. They are trying to push the blame. They pushed the devs to unrealistic standards for their outdated tech (their engine is terrible). They have a new engine coming with The Division but the game is over a year out yet.

This screams poor Ubisoft management again. EA realized last generation their current tech wasn't going to handle it so they had DICE put a lot of effort into developing Frostbite 3 on as many platforms as possible then paid to keep it exclusive to EA's published games. This is a huge advantage for EA. Epic built the Unreal 4 engine and Cryteck continued to upgrade the CryEngine. Ubi on the other hand forced devs to upgrade existing engines and pump out games as fast as possible. EA allows DICE keep an entire team just working on the single engine. Hell even Ubisoft is doing this with Massive Entertainment.

I feel there is a huge split in Ubisoft's management. They make some good games (Far Cry 3) and some decent decisions (The Division being built on a new engine by Massive Entertainment) yet still pull shit like Watch_Dogs and Unity. I think the company may have gotten management heavy.

Ubisoft have made so many Assassins Creed games, you had thought Ubi knew how to make this same game by now...

It's not AMDs fault that Ubisoft can't optimize their games. Instead of apologizing for this mess of a release, they start pointing fingers at others instead.

Mantle only works with AMD partnered games, and nvidia isn't interested in optimizing PC games for anyone but the highest end GPUs.

I F*CKING LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE THIS COMPANY dc. No lemming can come close to the masters of DC!!!

You would think so, huh.

@Gue1 said:

For all we know people actually looked like that back then and Ubisoft just created the most realistic looking game ever.

Yep.

"Damn, we can't fix these serious framerate dips"

"Uh, 24FPS is more cinematic anyway, you guys"

Ubisoft has been terrible for years.

To the people who keep buying their games year after year; quit shitting on the hobby

Whats funny is it still looks/runs better on PC than consoles.

Totalbiscuit just canceled his "WTF is..." video on Unity because the game kept crashing. Pretty sure he uses Nvidia cards

Ubi failed everyone but the green team. Edit: I take that back they failed us all lol

UBI is fucking stupid, people with Intel CPU's and NVIDIA cards are getting the same shit.

How can you blame AMD when a GTX 680 with a i7 can't play it on anything but low settings at still struggles to get past 40FPS?...

I remember when I'd get caught doing bad things as a kid and blame it on my friends.

That's strange. I seem to be running the game maxed (minus AA) at 1440p with very playable frames. Yes there are drops but I am averaging well over 60fps.

What CPU are we talking here? Did you see that CPU benchmark above?

Looks like Nvidia Gameworks shitting up another game.

Next up is Farcry4 and Batman.

Damn, sounds like Ubisoft messed up badly with this one. Hopefully they get it right with the next game. I was going to skip this one anyway, but Assassin's Creed 4 was great, and had no issues on my PS4.

wow ubidick cant even take responsibility for their mistakes. what dicks

Translation: We at Ubisoft are incompetent at programming, BUT THE PROBLEM IS TOTALLY NOT OUR FAULT!!!

It's possible to run this at decent frames on PC, you just need beast hardware. The pop ins and NPC glitches are always there though (and it's the same on consoles, isn't it?)

This is in Versaille though, Paris is more at ~50 fps average with these settings.

I think the problem is that the game doesn't scale down at all. Geometry detail and NPC count stays the same on all settings, just little clutter on the ground and grass is less with environment set to low, but lighting stays the same, textures can be lowered to be blurry but that doesn't help much, all MSAA involving AA methods are a huge performance hit due to the deferred engine. PBR is not something you can disable just like that (Not sure about that one)

Shadows are almost the same on high and low, just the draw distance is better on high.

Also, it would have been much smarter to lower the NPC amount and increase the LOD distance instead.

Translation: We were too lazy to properly optimize the game for all chipsets because we like money and don't care about gamers, so we skipped this particular one that is causing problems... and I guess we'll have to fix it.

I thought consoles using an AMD APU would give AMD the advantage.

So true. BF4 after all patching, runs on my PC on ultra, at 1440p and stable 60fps. Looks magnificent. Assassin Creed Unity runs only at 1080p and 40fps and I can not even dream of 1440p settings. AC U doesn't come even close to the BF4 visual quality.

SO what is next gen then ? Having worse graphics and poorer performance ?

Your GPU and CPU manufacturer don't matter when it comes to performancr in this game. Numerous people with Intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs, myself included, have severe performancr issues.

TotalBiscuit said he could not achieve a consistent 60 FPS at 1080p with two GTX 980s running in SLI.

It's a poorly optimized game across all platforms.

Does anyone know how long Unity was in development?

Good think AMD dominates in performance/value in pretty much every price point ( aside the $300+ market which is as good as nvidia )

http://www.techspot.com/guides/912-best-graphics-cards-2014/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107.html

He is either running an old CPU or full of it. I could see him trying to cater to his anger gamer audience.

I'm not saying this game is the most optimized thing ever, but it's not impossible to run the game well. Two 980's? I'm hitting an average of over 60 fps at 1440p with 2 Superclocked Titan Blacks. 980's are a little bet better than Titan Blacks but have less Vram. How can I be running a better framerate at a higher resolution? I'm calling B.S.

GTX 680 with a i7 3820K... User on youtube has to play it on Low at 1920x1080 and can't get a sold 60FPs, averages 40-45FPS and dips to 20-30FPS a lot.

Dude are you listening to the crap you just say.?

Is not the same been beat cleanly performance wise than making a tool to basically screw up the competition in a very anti consumer way.

Intel has been accuse of the same shit,winning clean is not the same as screwing the other company to win,AMD GPU have nothing wrong is Nvidia and gameworks the problem.

Why i ask my self is why AMD didn't use Mantle.?

Mantle can run 100,000 draw calls at 60FPS,Ubisoft really sucks.

AMD is running as good as what?

It's not really up to AMD if Mantle gets used, it's up to the developer. Mantle right only works well on newer AMD cards. I don't know if Nvidia cards could even run with a Mantle API. Furthemore, Mantle requires specific optimization for each card and probably CPU if it's going to be used properly. It requires a lot of developer time and overhead. If Ubisoft is forcing their devs to pump these games out after a bit over 2 years, they aren't going to have a lot of time to do the upgrades to the engine needed for the new features (like massive crowds, co-op multiplayer,) and upgraded renderer for the better graphics as well as the QA it would take for only a small amount of users to be able to use it.

Mantle is very much a pipe dream at this point. DX12 does a lot of what Mantle does but will be more general. It won't be as efficient because it's more broad, but it'll work on far more GPUs. Devs can confidently program their game with DX12 and know people can actually play the game. They don't have to program their graphics with 2 separate renderers

That looks like my face scan in 2K15

@GoldenElementXL said:

@adamosmaki said:

@GoldenElementXL said:

Good thing I have a Intel CPU and a Nvidia GPU. You get what you pay for folks. There is a reason AMD products are always cheaper. And look at the quality consoles they made for us this generation. Thanks guys!

Good think AMD dominates in performance/value in pretty much every price point ( aside the $300+ market which is as good as nvidia )

http://www.techspot.com/guides/912-best-graphics-cards-2014/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107.html

AMD is running as good as what?

AMD Cards runs good on most games
ACU just screams bad optimization

@GoldenElementXL said:

AMD is running as good as what?

Shit, those benchmarks are fucking terrible. I had to check if it was running 2160p.