Voodoo Extreme » News » Ass. Creed PC Benchmarked

Ass. Creed PC Benchmarked

- 16 Comments
Does your computer need to hit the gym? PCGH.de benchmarked Assassin's Creed on the PC.
PCGH.de did some benchmarks with the gold master of Assassin’s Creed PC. To our surprise, the Phenom 9700 performed very well. So did the DX10 version of Ass. Creed, but only in minimum detail. If you crank up the settings, DX9 under XP is faster than DX10 or DX9 under Vista.




Display Style:
Phinor
Mar 27 2008, 6:48 PM


UT3 is using all my four cores pretty heavily at times (not close to 100%, but you know, up to 60-70% range per core). Call it unoptimized or genious usage of CPU power, but I know it runs a lot better than any other U3 engine game so far :)

Crysis seems to only start using CPU power when you blow up something. And even then, your fps goes down the drain and not every bit of CPU power is used. It still looks awesome though..


Andrew Burnes
Mar 27 2008, 4:26 PM


Medal of Honor Airborne uses four cores also.


Liternit
Mar 27 2008, 11:38 AM


you guys are forgeting its running 4xAA while on the console no AA. Performance seems good.


Arithon_UK
Mar 27 2008, 11:11 AM


Well, the benchmarks still say Vista Sucks, so they can't be very wrong can they?


hordakx
Mar 27 2008, 10:54 AM


Unoptimized? Not only does it scale all the way to 4 cores, but graphics scaling is pretty much exactly as I would have expected.


Sponsored Links
Sitting_Diabolik replied to hordakx's post
Mar 27 2008, 11:11 AM


Yes unoptimized, face it, Ass. Creed's graphics are nowhere near Crysis, yet you get crappy performance, Ubisoft did it again. After the Splinter Cell serie, it's becoming a habit.


hordakx replied to Sitting_Diabolik's post
Mar 27 2008, 11:39 AM


Crysis also doesn't run at 55fps at 4xAA/8xAF...

Given that the 360 version runs at 30fps at 1280x720, I'd say that 55fps at a 40% resolution increase is pretty much par for the course on an 8800-series card. That's almost 3x more pixels per second than the 360 version (as well as in line with the performance in Lost Planet).


Ensaine
Mar 27 2008, 10:18 AM


Next QOTD: Why does Ubisoft make crappy ports?


SFLUFAN
Mar 27 2008, 10:08 AM


No, it means that this is (as expected) another shitty unoptimized PC port from UbiSoft.


DeWayneJones
Mar 27 2008, 9:54 AM


Does that mean the 8800GTS I bought 5 months ago is already obsolete?


tviceman replied to DeWayneJones' post
Mar 27 2008, 10:36 AM


The 8800gts 512 averaged 53 fps with 4x AA and 8x AF on their benchmarks. I'd say your 8800GTS is just fine.


DeWayneJones replied to tviceman's post
Mar 27 2008, 10:51 AM


Well if you have a quad core...lol


Sharkmeat replied to DeWayneJones' post
Mar 27 2008, 1:53 PM


Quad Core CPU's are not used in any game as of this date, if you buying a 4 core cpu for gameing it is a waste, and if there is a game that runs Q4 please ref: the game for me to see...........


conkerkrusher replied to Sharkmeat's post
Mar 27 2008, 1:57 PM


SupCom will use up to 8 cores.......


palfuranis replied to conkerkrusher's post
Mar 27 2008, 5:08 PM


there are only like 3 main threads in supcom, and one thread (sim) uses up most of the CPU so it's more of a double or triple core game. it's too bad they couldn't multithread the sim because most computers can't handle the game with massive action occuring


hordakx replied to Sharkmeat's post
Mar 27 2008, 3:09 PM


Assassin's Creed and Lost Planet both scale well to quad-core. The cave levels in Lost Planet in particular see an almost twofold increase over dual-core.



SUBMIT A COMMENT
Want to log in and comment or were you looking for Naked Bea Arthur Photos?
Register today, it's free!

POLL








Show Results | Poll Archive