Assassin's Creed Odyssey Will Only Work on CPUs That Support AVX

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A patch isn’t out of the question, but the current version of Assassin’s Creed Odyssey will not work with CPUs lacking support for Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX). DSO Gaming explains these are extensions to the x86 instruction set architecture introduced in second-generation Intel Core Sandy Bridge processors and AMD Bulldozer processors.

On its official forum, Ubisoft has stated that it currently does not have any plans to support CPUs that lack support for the AVX extensions. According to reports, this may be due to the inclusion of the Denuvo anti-tamper tech so it will be interesting to see whether the game will run on such CPUs when – and if – it ever gets cracked. Unless of course Ubisoft updates the game in order to officially support these CPUs in a future patch.
 
UHG... more DRM :(

th?id=OIP.MW1j5SU9C1-32-kW9AaQQwHaHw&w=195&h=202&c=7&o=5&dpr=2&pid=1.jpg
 
Overclocked X58 would probably have enough power otherwise. But yeah. 1 year or less and X58 will finally be obsolete
 
Why would Denuvo suddenly and mysteriously rely on AVX of all things

Processors have had support for what, almost 8 years already? I wouldn't doubt they just want the code out of the engine.
 
So are there any AAA games that are tailored specifically to the pc hardware?

That aren't shit optimized and scale nicely to your hardware but can still stress your machine if you crank the settings up?
 
Sucks, but since this game is apparently very poorly optimized I kinda doubt it would run very well on said CPUs anyway.
 
So my first gen i7 won't work?

guess i need a new computer soon. don't care for the creed series anyways. so doesn't really matter
 
I have an older X58 system with an i7 930 @4.2GHz and 12GB of DD31600. It still runs very well . It's not my primary machine anymore but most games run nicely and for productivity it's better than most new business class desktops. Even newer chips like Pentium G4560 don't have AVX...and just last year everyone was hyped on it as the best budget gaming CPU. There's no technical reason for this mess; just horrible DRM nonsense.
 
gundar said:
I have an older X58 system with an i7 930 @4.2GHz and 12GB of DD31600. It still runs very well . It's not my primary machine anymore but most games run nicely and for productivity it's better than most new business class desktops. Even newer chips like Pentium G4560 don't have AVX...and just last year everyone was hyped on it as the best budget gaming CPU. There's no technical reason for this mess; just horrible DRM nonsense.
Click to expand...

It has a perfect technical reason - not supporting specs lower than the consoles.
 
I have 2 X58 platform gaming machines running. Both Dell Precision T3500's. 1st is my main machine, W3680 at 4.0 ghz, a MSI Armor GTX 1060 6gb and 12gb of ram running at 1333 mhz. Cost complete is under $600 with brand new graphics card ( pre mining craze ) and most everything is 60 fps at 1080p... The second is a complete dirt cheap build. $100 T3500 with a dented case, $8 W3565 processor, 16gb of mismatched but completely stable ram running at 1066 mhz. Basically everything I had laying around got stuffed in it and a used post mining craze but basically new MSI Gaming X RX 580 8gb for $125.. I also stuffed in an older XFX 650w power supply as I had that one set up with crossfired R9 270X before the 580. But total cost on that one currently is $233 and has 95% of the performance as my main rig. 60 fps on basically everything at 1080p as well..

No real reason they are not solid gamers still if you play on a 1080p screen.
 
Intel is still selling Kaby Lake CPUs that don't support AVX - the big-core Celerons and Pentiums only go to SSE4.2. A 2C4T CPU may not run AC:Odyssey amazingly well, but it would otherwise be able to run it, and these are still being sold in the present day.
 
"this may be due to the inclusion of the Denuvo anti-tamper tech"

Unless Denuvo suddenly decided to stop supporting older CPUs for some reason this claim is utter bullshit. Also, it's pretty funny that they try to blame Denuvo and then go on to imply it can be changed with a patch. Any time a game tries to launch without AVX support people get up in arms blaming Denuvo and yet as soon as the developers patch the game to add AVX support all that bitching and moaning is forgotten until the next game comes along. This conspiracy theory nonsense makes it impossible for people to actually discuss Denuvo without being forced to deal with BS, unproven (or, in some cases, completely disproven), claims.
 
Guess I won't be playing.... :( (and I had just scored an X3470 and 980 Ti)

Crappy for me, but honestly.... pretty fair game IMO.

While the P55/X58 platforms have been around for almost 10 years, they're still quite capable 1080p gaming CPU's.

- I played Doom super-maxed last night at 1080p/75hz, and Far Cry 5 runs at a steady 60 with a mixture of high/ultra settings etc.
 
Reminds me of Crysis as my shiny new WinFast PX 8800 GTS TDH lays be hide me in the box as the 8800GT was better as 512Mb was a lot as it lays on top of that box for Evga X58 3 SLi with my x5660 retired. better game engines exist as WoT 1.0 is from ground up DX 11 and 2200g with RX 570 at 1080p Ultra high 70's and Strange Brigade is Vulcan and DX 12 and 1080p Ultra is above 100fps .. almost like someone pays them to make it to demanding and grip last gen to make new gen look better like Crysis.
 
New Celerons and the Pentiums wont play it, but the new Athlons will...Intel trying to force that upgrade to the folks at the low end, while AMD gives it free, plus a GPU you can actually play things on
 
psyclist said:
New Celerons and the Pentiums wont play it, but the new Athlons will...Intel trying to force that upgrade to the folks at the low end, while AMD gives it free, plus a GPU you can actually play things on
Click to expand...
If you bought a Celeron or one of the Pentium cpus that doesn't support AVX instructions and expected to play Modern AAA demanding games then you are an idiot anyway as they are too slow.
 
Last edited:
socK said:
It has a perfect technical reason - not supporting specs lower than the consoles.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no, current-gen consoles (not counting the Switch) have CPUs that, when under full SMP, are about on par with a Haswell Core i3 @ 3GHz, give or take.
Even a decade old quad-core i7 is more than enough to run this game, they just are artificially limiting older systems due to the AVX instructions needed for their DRM - that is hardly a performance reason.

I think Meltdown and Spectre are far better reasons to upgrade from (Intel) systems that old.
 
Red Falcon said:
Yeah, no, current-gen consoles (not counting the Switch) have CPUs that, when under full SMP, are about on par with a Haswell Core i3 @ 3GHz, give or take.
Even a decade old quad-core i7 is more than enough to run this game, they just are artificially limiting older systems due to the AVX instructions needed for their DRM - that is hardly a performance reason.

I think Meltdown and Spectre are far better reasons to upgrade from (Intel) systems that old.
Click to expand...

Unless it's related to VMProtect, which they may or may not still be using, it is unlikely related to DRM. Denuvo seems to have zero requirements for that as many over games support those CPUs while using it. Origins does not and support was never patched it. If Odyssey is still using VMP like Origins it could perhaps be related to that. Or its simply that the developers don't wish to support those CPUs at all. RE7 and FF15 tried to release without support for them but fan outcry forced them to patch in a fix to make them work.
 
misterbobby said:
If you bought a Celeron or one of the Pentium cpus that doesn't support AVX instructions and expected to play Modern AAA demanding games then you are a fucking idiot anyway as they are too slow.
Click to expand...

If youre shopping at this range you probably dont have any idea what instruction sets are present on a chip (or have a very small budget). I bet many would assume a new chip would have what they need to play a new game...that would be the extent of the product knowledge for this entry level segment. Im not sure that makes them fucking idiots, you seem pretty sure of it though.... If they would have bought the Athlon, they could be playing ACO.

Hopefully AMD can capitalize on this segment and bring more people into the gaming fray. My first chip was a Celeron 400, I had no clue and I liked gaming...Did it make me a fuckin idiot? Pretty sure not, just new to the world of PC.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
misterbobby said:
If you bought a Celeron or one of the Pentium cpus that doesn't support AVX instructions and expected to play Modern AAA demanding games then you are a fucking idiot anyway as they are too slow.
Click to expand...

You Know Ryzen plays he same game, right?

The Ryzen AVX units are 128-bits wide, taking two clock cycles to process an instruction.

The Celeron and Pentium just cut the AVX unit in-half, an only support SSE4 instructions (128-bits). I's the same vector throughput as he Ryzen, but it doesn't support the SPLITTING of those AVX instructions.

It's lazy programming on he developer's part. Pentium will have the same performance as entry-level Ryzen.
 
Last edited:
Didn't some other game have this, then they patched it shortly afterwards? I seem to recall that one only supported 4th gen Intel and up, though.

Anyway, the real issue with this game is the grindy bullshit and microtransactions that seem to be so prevalent in these $60+ AAA titles these days.
 
MavericK said:
Didn't some other game have this, then they patched it shortly afterwards? I seem to recall that one only supported 4th gen Intel and up, though.

Anyway, the real issue with this game is the grindy bullshit and microtransactions that seem to be so prevalent in these $60+ AAA titles these days.
Click to expand...

you don't have to buy micro transactions. As for grindy... I am about 40 hours into the game and will say a few parts of the new system are a little more grindy than Origin bit not that terrible. don't see the point of the conquest system just yet but assume that will play into something later as I progress the story and stop just running around trying to clear all the areas. I would say the game is very much on par with Origin in regards to most parts of the gameplay with the sea parts of Black flag added in to get around.
 
Okay.... they are saying Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer. Sandy Bridge processors were introduced in January, 2011. AMD Bulldozer is from 2011 as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's like seven years ago. If you are using a computer that is over seven years old, I think you have some bigger worries than whether or not it can run the latest Assassin's Creed. Of course, this is from someone who is using a Haswell-level CPU from 2014.
 
ZLoth said:
Okay.... they are saying Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer. Sandy Bridge processors were introduced in January, 2011. AMD Bulldozer is from 2011 as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's like seven years ago. If you are using a computer that is over seven years old, I think you have some bigger worries than whether or not it can run the latest Assassin's Creed. Of course, this is from someone who is using a Haswell-level CPU from 2014.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, A sandy bridge cpu with a decent oc will play any game you throw at it just fine. But those support avx anyway, so it will work on that, it is the older generations that have to worry.
 
ZLoth said:
Okay.... they are saying Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer. Sandy Bridge processors were introduced in January, 2011. AMD Bulldozer is from 2011 as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's like seven years ago. If you are using a computer that is over seven years old, I think you have some bigger worries than whether or not it can run the latest Assassin's Creed. Of course, this is from someone who is using a Haswell-level CPU from 2014.
Click to expand...
IPC gains per clock and per core have been minimal in the last decade.
Sure, seven years sounds like a long time, but the IPC difference between a 2600K and 7700K has only been a 25% increase in performance when compared clock-to-clock.

If this were the 1990s or 2000s, I would fully agree with you - seven years in those times would have resulted in a 1000%+ performance increase, at least.
We aren't seeing those kinds of gains any more due to Moore's Law slowing to a crawl, and the only real gains any more are due to an increase in cores per socket and software optimization with 4-core+ SMP compatibility and efficiency; clock-for-clock, though, the gains are very minimal.
 
Red Falcon said:
If this were the 1990s or 2000s, I would fully agree with you - seven years in those times would have resulted in a 1000%+ performance increase, at least.
We aren't seeing those kinds of gains any more due to Moore's Law slowing to a crawl, and the only real gains any more are due to an increase in cores per socket and software optimization with 4-core+ SMP compatibility and efficiency; clock-for-clock, though, the gains are very minimal.
Click to expand...

In some senses, I understand where you are coming from. I have a Ivy Bridge laptop that is six years old and still works great. There are two desktop systems that I have running at work for testing purposes that were purchased refurbished in 2016 that are Sandy Bridge level. I once had a test web server that was a Pentium 4 that was junked but was mostly intact (missing RAM and hard drive) that was a little bit slow, but did the job.

At some point, the software publishers have to put in some cutoff as to what to support and what not to support. It just bothers me when people whose computers legitimately belong on Antique Computer Roadshow complain that the latest software doesn't work on their system. In the case of the AVX instruction set, it's seven years. The company I work for refreshes the laptops every three years. I used to put the life of a computer system at five years, although my last system lasted almost eight with some upgrades. At least it's better with Windows than that Fruit computer company which says that having a five-year-old PC is "sad".
 
prava said:
There isn't, because an i7 930 is miles ahead the shitty Jaguar within the PS4/Xbox One. Miles and miles ahead.
Click to expand...
Well, while it is faster, it is an older first-generation Core i7 quad-core, and at 2.8GHz, is around ~15% faster overall, in full-SMP, than the Jaguar CPUs in the PS4 Pro and XBoneX consoles.
Not bad for a CPU from 2008, though!
 
gundar said:
I have an older X58 system with an i7 930 @4.2GHz and 12GB of DD31600. It still runs very well . It's not my primary machine anymore but most games run nicely and for productivity it's better than most new business class desktops. Even newer chips like Pentium G4560 don't have AVX...and just last year everyone was hyped on it as the best budget gaming CPU. There's no technical reason for this mess; just horrible DRM nonsense.
Click to expand...

matt167 said:
I have 2 X58 platform gaming machines running. Both Dell Precision T3500's. 1st is my main machine, W3680 at 4.0 ghz, a MSI Armor GTX 1060 6gb and 12gb of ram running at 1333 mhz. Cost complete is under $600 with brand new graphics card ( pre mining craze ) and most everything is 60 fps at 1080p... The second is a complete dirt cheap build. $100 T3500 with a dented case, $8 W3565 processor, 16gb of mismatched but completely stable ram running at 1066 mhz. Basically everything I had laying around got stuffed in it and a used post mining craze but basically new MSI Gaming X RX 580 8gb for $125.. I also stuffed in an older XFX 650w power supply as I had that one set up with crossfired R9 270X before the 580. But total cost on that one currently is $233 and has 95% of the performance as my main rig. 60 fps on basically everything at 1080p as well..

No real reason they are not solid gamers still if you play on a 1080p screen.
Click to expand...

horrorshow said:
Guess I won't be playing.... :( (and I had just scored an X3470 and 980 Ti)

Crappy for me, but honestly.... pretty fair game IMO.

While the P55/X58 platforms have been around for almost 10 years, they're still quite capable 1080p gaming CPU's.

- I played Doom super-maxed last night at 1080p/75hz, and Far Cry 5 runs at a steady 60 with a mixture of high/ultra settings etc.
Click to expand...

X58 is completely capable of playing modern AAA titles at 1440 and even 4K, assuming you have an overclocked 6-core. I still play BF1 @ 4k on my i7 990x / 1080 ti system at just under 60fps and consistent frametimes around 15ms (no drops or spikes). The need for AVX is stupidity if it is really because of DRM / Denuvo support. I have a newer desktop and laptop that would both run this game, but I'll voting with my wallet and avoiding this BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top