Assasins Creed, dual core required

Kowan said:
Pretty simple concept. If your system meets the specs buy the game. If not either upgrade or enjoy a game that will play on your setup.

No one is twisting your arm forcing you to buy the game or upgrade. Saying the specs are too high, falls of deaf ears to those of us who do upgrade to enjoy the latest titles.

If it was possible to play on single core CPUs, it would look like crap at the settings required to play and people would have something else to complain about.
Click to expand...

+1 QFT

the game is sweet. it really can show a lot on one load. seems to render things better than oblivion (the only game thats similar in scope?) but there are huge differences. Oblivion has more details that you can look closer at. Face expressions are a big part of oblivion, here, they are only a part of the bigger picture.

I think that as it was said, this game is a bit of a revolution

1) seems to be well coded to show so much, do you remember how Oblivion looked like you had a limited view, and were running in a box that moves with you in essence.
That said, this game doesnt have any dungeons really. not the same scope as Oblivion.

2) runs smoothly, especially for the environment.

3) the requirements will make a few people upgrade, but unlike DX10, they are there for a reason. and not just to push a new marketing hype.
 
^ Yes, it runs very well. My system isn't even really beefy and I can max it out at 1080p on my TV. Looks great!
 
Maybe I made a mistake here, but I had preordered and preloaded this via Steam and as of right now, as I write this, it still lists the game as "unreleased" which just boggles my mind. If it was released on April 9 with no delays, then technically this thing should have been ready to go as early as midnight.

So what's going on here? Why this delay?
 
Q-BZ said:
Maybe I made a mistake here, but I had preordered and preloaded this via Steam and as of right now, as I write this, it still lists the game as "unreleased" which just boggles my mind. If it was released on April 9 with no delays, then technically this thing should have been ready to go as early as midnight.

So what's going on here? Why this delay?
Click to expand...

steam release date is not midnight your time
 
it varies

Orange box was released at midnight Pacific time (3am EST), but I think it didn't show up until about an hour or so beyond that or something (my system is off overnight). However, I pre-ordered Audiosurf and it didn't start until about 4pm Eastern.

Valve time is confusing ain't it
 
Biskquik said:
it varies

Orange box was released at midnight Pacific time (3am EST), but I think it didn't show up until about an hour or so beyond that or something (my system is off overnight). However, I pre-ordered Audiosurf and it didn't start until about 4pm Eastern.
Click to expand...

Ok, so it's all over the place. I haven't used Steam much past the Valve releases so that's something new for me.

"Valve time" indeed. Great link!

Foolishly I expected to be already playing this game right now. What was I thinking...:rolleyes:
 
Q-BZ said:
Ok, so it's all over the place. I haven't used Steam much past the Valve releases so that's something new for me.

"Valve time" indeed. Great link!

Foolishly I expected to be already playing this game right now. What was I thinking...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You may want to keep an eye on this thread. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=381

As others have stated, if its not a valve game, Valve will have to follow the publishers rules on release times. :)
 
for the people who have the game how is it running for you?? what kind of frames are u getting for your settings? I really want to get this game but wondering how it would run on my system @1920x1200 max settings?? What kind of frames would i be looking at? Is there antiailising on the game??
 
Hi,

It is 3pm on the 9th and I still can't play it off of steam... This is a bit absurd.

Colin
 
The Gamespot forums say that the game has been ported in 16:9 :mad:

I for one will not be touching this game as I have a 4:3 display still. I can't face playing it as half the screen will be black bars.

Ubisoft you haven't got a clue. You delay the game 4 months and you still fuck it up.
 
spicey said:
The Gamespot forums say that the game has been ported in 16:9 :mad:

I for one will not be touching this game as I have a 4:3 display still. I can't face playing it as half the screen will be black bars.

Ubisoft you haven't got a clue. You delay the game 4 months and you still fuck it up.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can set the resolutions the way you want even if you have to manually edit a .ini file or something.

Otherwise...you may want to think about a display upgrade. Widescreen is where it's at. ;)
 
spicey said:
The Gamespot forums say that the game has been ported in 16:9 :mad:

I for one will not be touching this game as I have a 4:3 display still. I can't face playing it as half the screen will be black bars.

Ubisoft you haven't got a clue. You delay the game 4 months and you still fuck it up.
Click to expand...

Seriously, its in 16:9? :(

I really don't want to have to switch to some LCD where I have to worry about contrast ratios, response times, native resolutions etc...
 
Chombo said:
Seriously, its in 16:9? :(

I really don't want to have to switch to some LCD where I have to worry about contrast ratios, response times, native resolutions etc...
Click to expand...

I'm as big of a CRT lover as you'll ever find but even I have to say: You're going to have to come out of the Stone Age some day... ;)

Funny. I'm used to people bitching about the LACK of widescreen support...especially directed at EA. This has to be the first time I've ever seen or been anywhere where I've seen people bitch BECAUSE of widescreen support. I guess you just can't win 'em all sometimes...
 
spicey said:
The Gamespot forums say that the game has been ported in 16:9 :mad:

I for one will not be touching this game as I have a 4:3 display still. I can't face playing it as half the screen will be black bars.

Ubisoft you haven't got a clue. You delay the game 4 months and you still fuck it up.
Click to expand...

whats funny is they didn't fuck it up. that would require effort. they simply didn't try to change it.

So if it's ported in 16:9, even those with 16:10 displays will be missing out on some of the picture, unless you want black bars.
 
I found it at Best Buy today - I'm installing it now and I don't see anything in the game manual about the aspect ratio but I'll find out soon enough - I kind of hope that isn't the case because I really love my NEC 19" CRT...............

*EDIT*

It is true - I have some huge margins on top and bottom. Moving the resolution from 1280x1024 to 1600x900 seems to have solved the problem - if you don't like the margins - start playing with the resolution.
 
polydiol said:
I found it at Best Buy today - I'm installing it now and I don't see anything in the game manual about the aspect ratio but I'll find out soon enough - I kind of hope that isn't the case because I really love my NEC 19" CRT...............

*EDIT*

It is true - I have some huge margins on top and bottom. Moving the resolution from 1280x1024 to 1600x900 seems to have solved the problem - if you don't like the margins - start playing with the resolution.
Click to expand...

1600 x 900 is 16:9, so that's confirmed then. Does the image look stretched vertically at 1600 x 900? Another lazy port from consoles by the look of it.

The argument to go widescreen is becoming more compelling. I've actually bought 3 24" widescreens but returned all. All had major flaws, one had a poor response and slow input lag(ghosting), the next had atrocious backlight bleeding and the 3rd had dead pixels, noisy backlight inverter and dreadful viewing angles. If only my Viewsonic 19" wasn't so flawless. The combination of perfect backlight, calibrated colours, no dead pixels, excellent viewing angles, outstanding response rate and virtually no input lag make it as close to a CRT as I've seen. I'm rather partial to it and can't bring myself to throwing it away just for the sake of a poorly ported game
 
There is the BenQ 2400W for 400, wide screen 24 inch that many are praising..

but yes, after playing the game for a while, it has a very strong "console"feel.
a little but disappointed by it. The engine is good. the feel - meh.

like collecting the 20.. then 100, then 400 flags.. or what not
the moves are cool.

i would like to see this engine used with some other games. can you imagine fallout 3 with an engine like this :D
deathclaws would be the only creatures allowed to climb buildings though..
 
I enjoy the game - after changing resolutions and fooling with my monitor I couldn't discern any stretching of the image or loss of the available viewing space.
 
I have a 245BW as well. It's a very good monitor for the price, but since I don't do much FPS gaming anymore I've been regretting that I didn't get an S-PVA panel instead. The 245BW has basically zero vertical viewing angle, even with the panel centered at eye height I have to be quite far away or colour and brightness vary wildly from the top of the screen to the bottom.
 
Wow!! This thread really took off.

I was rereading thru it, got the 5th page and forgot what I made the thread about to begin with, heh.

Just a reminder...Not everyone is on "computer" time. From my perspective, Ive barely had this computer setup long enough to get dusty. Just when I have gotten used to it and what it can do, im finding out its time to toss it away cause its "old". That concept just hasnt sunk in to me yet. Its somewhat difficult to explain.

So, that being said, when I was reading about the dual core requirement, it was a surprise to me. My thoughts were...."how can this be a requirement? Ive only just barely had this computer, WTF happened?"

Heh, funny thing is, by the time I can afford to set aside some cash that doesnt need to be used for a bill of some sort, I will probably be seeing requirements for quads. What will they call the 8 core chips? Octs?
 
rls669 said:
I have a 245BW as well. It's a very good monitor for the price, but since I don't do much FPS gaming anymore I've been regretting that I didn't get an S-PVA panel instead. The 245BW has basically zero vertical viewing angle, even with the panel centered at eye height I have to be quite far away or colour and brightness vary wildly from the top of the screen to the bottom.
Click to expand...

At the risk of this turning into a hardware thread - it's funny you guys should mention the Samsung SM245BW - I've been looking at this in PC World here in the UK, here it's called a SM245B and it's a matte finish rather than a glossy. I'm keen to buy from a high street store so I can take it back if I have any problems. This monitor seems to get good reviews but the viewing angles are mentioned in every review as a negative. Looking at it in store the viewing angles looked okay, but under harsh lighting it's hard to tell. How would you rate the backlight on this panel, do you have bleeding?

Back on topic - is it possible to alter the aspect ratio by altering an .ini file?
 
dnottis said:
Assassin's Creed is much smoother with a quad over the dual...
I can run 4.2 Ghz on my E3110, but some games noticably UT3 games were still smoother with the quad. Assassin's Creed uses a custom engine but it's tuned for multcore, as seen here the dual was 85 - 90% util all the time, the quad much lower but all 4 cores are used. When in cities with lots of NPCs there is a huge difference, quad is much smoother.

I'm headed back to my quad after alot of benching fun with the E3110. Games are smoother on the quad.

E3110 @ 4.1Ghz -
dualcore.jpg


Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz -
quadcore.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm calling bullshit, it says that your average cpu usage is only 37% which is less than 2 cores being used. It looks as though you opened up another application or something and took a SS right when the cpu utilization spiked up.

As for the op, you should just sell your current processor and buy this when it gets back in stock, it only costed $30 I believe.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103222
 
i can see how this game can max 2 or stress 4 cores, look at all the physics going on in the game. thats a lot of number crunching with ppl everywhere interacting, pretty much being able to do whatever you want...
requiring a dual core CPU when it would only utilize 37% of the cores doesnt make sense.
also, why would you recommend a CPU that JUST fits the recommended requirements? that really doesnt make sense either *shrugs*
 
QuickS said:
I'm calling bullshit, it says that your average cpu usage is only 37% which is less than 2 cores being used. It looks as though you opened up another application or something and took a SS right when the cpu utilization spiked up.

As for the op, you should just sell your current processor and buy this when it gets back in stock, it only costed $30 I believe.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103222
Click to expand...

you've never done multi-threaded programming have you? :confused:

Simple fact - multiple hardware threads is not something you just start doing because you maxed out a single thread - in fact, it often has to do with timing of events, planned interrupting events, etc. Many times you'll only be partially using each core, but to guarantee full functionality and no race conditions, and to actually have the threads truly run concurrently, one must have multiple hardware threads.
 
i dont think any game REQUIRES dual core to play it wether or not its an enjoyable experience on a single core is another question.

and it shouldnt be a suprise that a console port would like a multi-core PC considering both the consoles its released on have 3 or more cpu cores any way. and with all the AI walking around in AC im sure its likes the multi-core console platforms. and moving that to a single core pc platform is a big drop is cpu power for AI and physics.
 
Wildace said:
i dont think any game REQUIRES dual core to play it wether or not its an enjoyable experience on a single core is another question.

and it shouldnt be a suprise that a console port would like a multi-core PC considering both the consoles its released on have 3 or more cpu cores any way. and with all the AI walking around in AC im sure its likes the multi-core console platforms. and moving that to a single core pc platform is a big drop is cpu power for AI and physics.
Click to expand...

well, yes, it'll probably run for a bit and then suddenly stop while other things process, etc.
 
lopoetve said:
you've never done multi-threaded programming have you? :confused:

Simple fact - multiple hardware threads is not something you just start doing because you maxed out a single thread - in fact, it often has to do with timing of events, planned interrupting events, etc. Many times you'll only be partially using each core, but to guarantee full functionality and no race conditions, and to actually have the threads truly run concurrently, one must have multiple hardware threads.
Click to expand...

Actually, in XP or Vista if you have a couple of programs open and running than you can easily use up multiple threads. If you have more than a couple of programs running than you can make your cpu utilization spike up easily hence the reason why his average cpu utilization is only 37%.
 
So guys, I was curious to see if it would run on my outdated PC, so I installed it. With the system in my sig, it runs at 800x600 with EVERYTHING to the lowest. Looks like crap though hehe.__________________
~skt 754 club member~
A64 3200+ Newcastle
2x512mb ddr-400
MSI RS480M-IL
evga 6600gt pci-e
160gb hd
Click to expand...

Found this in another thread. But this CLEARLY shows people can run this WITH OUT A DUAL CORE. So for everyone who said "ZOMG IT MUST HAVE A DUAL CORE ZOMG!! IT MUST BE A PROGRAMING THING ZOMG!!!1!1!11one". It will run w/o a dual core. It's not a programing issue, it is just a speed issue like I said I believed it would be. /thread.:D
 
vengence said:
Found this in another thread. But this CLEARLY shows people can run this WITH OUT A DUAL CORE. So for everyone who said "ZOMG IT MUST HAVE A DUAL CORE ZOMG!! IT MUST BE A PROGRAMING THING ZOMG!!!1!1!11one". It will run w/o a dual core. It's not a programing issue, it is just a speed issue like I said I believed it would be. /thread.:D
Click to expand...

Sure, it'll run - but is it PLAYABLE. Answer - no. It requires a dual core processor to be usable at anything resembling a normal resolution or detail setting. Finding some nut who got it working on a 4 year old processor isn't hard - people ran quake3 on a 486 with some hacks, for pete's sake - but that didn't mean it was playable.

Find someone doing it on a modern, fast single core, and then we'll talk.
 
lopoetve said:
Sure, it'll run - but is it PLAYABLE. Answer - no. It requires a dual core processor to be usable at anything resembling a normal resolution or detail setting. Finding some nut who got it working on a 4 year old processor isn't hard - people ran quake3 on a 486 with some hacks, for pete's sake - but that didn't mean it was playable.

Find someone doing it on a modern, fast single core, and then we'll talk.
Click to expand...

Obvioously you didn't read the thread then. There were several people saying it would not run period. That there would be some kind of magical architecture problem. Also that is a AMD 64 3200 running at stock speeds, there are much faster single cores out there. I could see a playble setting of 1024ish being possible.
 
vengence said:
Found this in another thread. But this CLEARLY shows people can run this WITH OUT A DUAL CORE. So for everyone who said "ZOMG IT MUST HAVE A DUAL CORE ZOMG!! IT MUST BE A PROGRAMING THING ZOMG!!!1!1!11one". It will run w/o a dual core. It's not a programing issue, it is just a speed issue like I said I believed it would be. /thread.:D
Click to expand...

Heh, well, thats good to know.

My information about the REQUIREMENT came from the Steam page of A.C. Right there above the decription in bold print it says a dual is required. After reading that, is when I made this thread.

If its "NOT" required, I wonder why they made the statement in the first place? Or is it just one of "those" marketing ploys, Steam gets "x" amount of dollars sent their way if they "encourage" the reader to BUY a new CPU, which, in most cases, means basically a whole new rig???

So, if it DOES run without a DUAL core, then ummm, wouldnt that be false advertisment? i.e. It should read "Dual core recommended, but NOT required".

I think since they lied to us, they need to fork over the game for free :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top