Assassins Creed 3 Performance issues on PC

next-Jin said:
You have issues your just not noticing it because to you 30 fps is playable. This happens often when console ports are released, people argue over what's playable.

To you GTA IV was playable at 30fps for instance to me I can't do it. I can see it slow down and start playing like ass. You can't directly compare this game to BF3 but it is similar to GTA in that the problem lies with the CPU.

When you get 30 percent GPU usage when looking around in town yet your CPU is maxing out all cores (it appears its only maxing one and spreads 1-70 percent load across the others) something is wrong. I'll have to find the article I read that went into detail.

And let's just face the simple fact that at 1600p in AC3 you're going to deal with black borders. That alone proves a very simple point of incompetence with the developers.
Click to expand...

I play AC3 at 30fps? OK... :rolleyes:
 
Not sure if serious or...

I'm still new to the CPU and GPU usage concepts. Can one be so kind to define "optimized" based on CPU and GPU utilization?
 
B!nd. said:
Not sure if serious or...

I'm still new to the CPU and GPU usage concepts. Can one be so kind to define "optimized" based on CPU and GPU utilization?
Click to expand...

What I'd consider optimized is a shared usage of the CPU or the GPU. Take a look at page one at my screen shot. One of the cores is being maxed out while the others are running at 50% capacity. That to me signifies that the workload could have probably been spread around a bit better. You're becoming CPU bound even though the CPU still has plenty of power to spare.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
I play AC3 at 30fps? OK... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your dropping to those in Boston and other areas where GPU utilization drops. There is nothing different between your PC and the other few thousand who have the same setup.

Max the game out, post a video on the tube using a camera and prove everyone wrong. It's fine if you don't notice drops, but don't say it runs like silk. People said the same thing about GTA, they enjoyed it; for others they waited until more powerful setups came about to go back to it later after having to rely on brute force.

Hell I was one of them.
 
I'll fire up FRAPS today and see what's going on. Thus far I haven't SEEN perceptable wow-this-sucks performance drop off.
 
Q-BZ said:
I'll fire up FRAPS today and see what's going on. Thus far I haven't SEEN perceptable wow-this-sucks performance drop off.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't tbh, if you don't notice it I'd leave it alone otherwise you're going to be pulling your hair out trying to figure out what's wrong :)

I usually don't care about running fraps/AB/etc unless I get noticeable drops in which case I go into troubleshooting mode and usually halt all game play until it's corrected.
 
next-Jin said:
I wouldn't tbh, if you don't notice it I'd leave it alone otherwise you're going to be pulling your hair out trying to figure out what's wrong :)

I usually don't care about running fraps/AB/etc unless I get noticeable drops in which case I go into troubleshooting mode and usually halt all game play until it's corrected.
Click to expand...

No doubt something's fucked, but personally I don't notice enough to warrant worrying about it. No qualms with you stating that something's wrong though, no doubt in my mind that it looks like something's up.

I mean I notice it's not 60+ all the time, but at least in the heavier areas, like Boston, it's feeling like 45+. I notice something's changed, but it's still smooth as shit. Then again I'm at 1080P.
 
BiH115 said:
No doubt something's fucked, but personally I don't notice enough to warrant worrying about it. No qualms with you stating that something's wrong though, no doubt in my mind that it looks like something's up.

I mean I notice it's not 60+ all the time, but at least in the heavier areas, like Boston, it's feeling like 45+. I notice something's changed, but it's still smooth as shit. Then again I'm at 1080P.
Click to expand...

When I get home from work I'm going to use a frame limiter to set it at 40 and see if that is doable. The problem is the drops from 60, and even though I'm getting over 60 75 percent of the time I just can't do it which is a shame I really want to play the game.
 
If you don't notice an issue - don't fret over it.
I think some of us are just more sensitive to framerates than others. Mine never goes below 50, but it does stand out to me since it's going from capped at 60 (but really pulling hundreds) to 51 all in a matter of a milisecond depending on the effects onscreen. It never affects the gameplay beyond simply looking weird.
I'd like to see it fixed, and I think it will be, BUT I'm not exactly avoiding playing the game in the meantime.
 
Domingo said:
If you don't notice an issue - don't fret over it.
I think some of us are just more sensitive to framerates than others. Mine never goes below 50, but it does stand out to me since it's going from capped at 60 (but really pulling hundreds) to 51 all in a matter of a milisecond depending on the effects onscreen. It never affects the gameplay beyond simply looking weird.
I'd like to see it fixed, and I think it will be, BUT I'm not exactly avoiding playing the game in the meantime.
Click to expand...

While I'd agree some people are sensitive to frame rates, and it's easy to determine 60 fps vs 30 fps, I believe a lot of it is more of a placebo affect. If you're not running FRAPS to see you're only at 45 fps, would you really be bothered?

I'm not saying there isn't choppiness sometimes, but more often than not, it's probably a quick dip into the teens (or under for framer ate) while FRAPS might be averaging that out with 60 fps to make it appear like 30-40 fps. Or there could be micro-stuttering perhaps. If 60 fps was as big of a deal as many people seem to think, most console games wouldn't sell at all.

As another person stated though, it might be due to smoke. If you press down on the left thumb stick and go into the other mode (I forget what it's called), the frame rate jumps back to 60 despite having all the characters on the screen when viewing normally. It's the same with changing environment detail down one notch. I know the game forces DX 11 on you, but it's almost like they're processing the effect through the CPU rather than the GPU (i.e. maybe because consoles don't have DX 11 support, thus the engine was still set up in that instance for console hardware rather than PC hardware).
 
Q-BZ said:
I'll fire up FRAPS today and see what's going on. Thus far I haven't SEEN perceptable wow-this-sucks performance drop off.
Click to expand...

The perceptible drop off is more of an AMD Radeon problem than an NVidia problem (and the game really does have an issue for many AMD users). For NVidia folks, a lot of the problem has more to do with running at 60+ fps and all of the sudden being down to 30-40 fps. Losing 50% performance, even if still being perceived as smooth, generally signifies some form of problem.
 
Frame limiting to 45 fps seems to be the rate at which it stops dropping all of a sudden. It aggravating as hell but it's doable now.
 
I'm almost certain it relates to effects like smoke/fog and blowing snow, which is pretty similar.
One of the areas most people first notice is when they get to Boston. That first street has 3-4 fish vendors with smoke rising from each. That's probably the single biggest spike I've yet seen. Turning around and facing the opposite way (even if there is more on the screen) immediately brings the FPS back.
Any time my game ever flips out and drops down to 50'ish FPS, I can pretty much guarantee there's a fish vendor, smoking chimney, or the rare fog in the distance.
The very first version of Dragon Age 2 did the same thing. The game would plummet to single digit FPS whenever DX11 fog was onscreen. Ditto with the day 1 version of Arkham City.
Hell, METRO2033 still does.
 
Nytegard said:
The perceptible drop off is more of an AMD Radeon problem than an NVidia problem (and the game really does have an issue for many AMD users). For NVidia folks, a lot of the problem has more to do with running at 60+ fps and all of the sudden being down to 30-40 fps. Losing 50% performance, even if still being perceived as smooth, generally signifies some form of problem.
Click to expand...

I'm using a GTX 680. I'll take that under advisement.
 
It's not an nvidia problem or ati problem its a Ubisoft problem. I can be on a roof somewhere looking in any given direction that nets me say 40fps. At that point I can modify my settings to anything from lowest details / 800x600 to 2560x1600 maxed settings and I get the exact same frame rate. The GPU usage goes up an ass hair away from a 5% difference and the CPU load stays the same which is almost pegged at 100% in either scenario.

I'll assume the smoke effects are tied to the cpu and not the GPU and just roll with it for now.

So that's what;

Poor CPU distribution
Poor graphic options
No 16:10 support (how hard is this really)
Poor GPU scaling

Am I missing anything else?
 
It's weird because I don't get any crazy CPU utilization. I mean, it's heavy, don't get me wrong, but I've set the affinity to the 4 real CPU cores (not the hyperthreaded ones) with RadeonPro and that helped significantly. Those 4 cores don't get maxed, but rather hover around 60-70%, but the hyperthreaded ones don't even get touched. Maybe something is different with the 7900 series, as I'm on dual 6970s. Not sure. But after setting the affinity, everything is much better. My CPU is also overclocked to 4.4 for what that's worth. GPUs are stock.

My performance has been fine for the most part...there are the occasional dips in performance to not tolerable levels (below 20-25 FPS), but very few. Obviously, the game needs to be optimized, but I don't get why some of you are having such a horrible time...
 
BiH115 said:
I mean I notice it's not 60+ all the time, but at least in the heavier areas, like Boston, it's feeling like 45+. I notice something's changed, but it's still smooth as shit. Then again I'm at 1080P.
Click to expand...

same for me...I honestly don't even notice any performance issues at all...I'll try FRAPS just for the hell of it and see what it says...the people that keep insisting that everyone must be having problems should maybe look at their own rigs before making blanket statements
 
polonyc2 said:
same for me...I honestly don't even notice any performance issues at all...I'll try FRAPS just for the hell of it and see what it says...the people that keep insisting that everyone must be having problems should maybe look at their own rigs before making blanket statements
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure something's going on with the CPU/GPU usage, but for ME...personally, like I said, it's fine. I don't doubt something's off with the numbers though.
 
polonyc2 said:
same for me...I honestly don't even notice any performance issues at all...I'll try FRAPS just for the hell of it and see what it says...the people that keep insisting that everyone must be having problems should maybe look at their own rigs before making blanket statements
Click to expand...

Blanket statements work in this case because the numbers persist across the board. Some folks are just sensitive to frame rates under 60. Especially quick drops down from 60 to 30 for no reason.

To me, I find it absurd that people say it's "smooth as butter all the time max settings" when it's not factually accurate. Then defend Ubisoft who shovels trash ports out on the PC. No 16:10 support, bad optimization, lack of graphical options, bugs, etc.

I've read the threads countless times now on a variety of hardware, the same numbers are showing.

Not to mention even the recently released FarCry 3 issues and their almost flawless history of releasing bad ports.
 
next-Jin said:
Blanket statements work in this case because the numbers persist across the board. Some folks are just sensitive to frame rates under 60. Especially quick drops down from 60 to 30 for no reason.

To me, I find it absurd that people say it's "smooth as butter all the time max settings" when it's not factually accurate. Then defend Ubisoft who shovels trash ports out on the PC. No 16:10 support, bad optimization, lack of graphical options, bugs, etc.

I've read the threads countless times now on a variety of hardware, the same numbers are showing.

Not to mention even the recently released FarCry 3 issues and their almost flawless history of releasing bad ports.
Click to expand...

sounds like you have an issue with Ubisoft and are looking for reasons to hate the game...yes the game has some issues but to say that the game is a terrible port, badly optimized etc is wrong...the AC3 series never had 16:10 support but honestly the black bars don't bother me because they are literally not noticable unless you are looking for it...I have a 16:10 monitor and it pretty much fills most of the screen

compared to 90% of 'ports' this is one of the better games...it doesn't have every graphical bell and whistle but the game still looks great for the amount of open world detail it has...the gameworld is stunning (not talking about it in terms of graphics alone but rather the details and environments)

and now you're already hammering Far Cry 3 when most people are praising it...and FC3 has pretty much every advanced graphical setting you could ask for on the PC...AC3 is not perfect but what game is?...if you want to stand around looking for frame rate drops and flaws then you are missing out on what the game does right...enjoy the game instead of looking for things that it does wrong
 
polonyc2 said:
sounds like you have an issue with Ubisoft and are looking for reasons to hate the game...yes the game has some issues but to say that the game is a terrible port, badly optimized etc is wrong...the AC3 series never had 16:10 support but honestly the black bars don't bother me because they are literally not noticable unless you are looking for it...I have a 16:10 monitor and it pretty much fills most of the screen

compared to 90% of 'ports' this is one of the better games...it doesn't have every graphical bell and whistle but the game still looks great for the amount of open world detail it has...the gameworld is stunning (not talking about it in terms of graphics alone but rather the details and environments)

and now you're already hammering Far Cry 3 when most people are praising it...and FC3 has pretty much every advanced graphical setting you could ask for on the PC...AC3 is not perfect but what game is?...if you want to stand around looking for frame rate drops and flaws then you are missing out on what the game does right...enjoy the game instead of looking for things that it does wrong
Click to expand...

I could list a dozen ports done perfectly and some they were released and fixed soon after. It's a shit port whether you think it is or not. Definitely not the worst, but still down their in that pile.

Ubisoft is most definitely not CDProjekt, Rock steady, etc but they shouldn't have to be. 16:10 is inexcusable, period. That alone is the definitive result of a team of people who don't give a damn about the PC platform.

I have no personal beef against Ubisoft, I have something against companies running a game through a compiler seeing if it installs then says it is the "definitive version" or not doing anything to fix issues after it is brought to their attention.

The fact that you are overlooking obvious neglect means more of the same poor results in the future. Ubisoft obviously has very little idea of what the term Pride in Ownership means.
 
Welcome guys, MadsideMike here.

I think I found a solution for low frame rate (it works for me).

1). Open notepad and type(copy ALL the code):
Code: 
 -nomemrestrict -norestrictions
2). Save the file as:
Code: 
commandline.txt
3). Navigate to your installation directory (on Steam this is: Steam\steamapps\common\Assassin's Creed 3) then copy file inside Like this
4). Start the game.

My PC specs:
Code: 
ASUS P8H61-M LE
Intel Core i3-2100 3.10 GHz
ZOTAC GeForce GTS 450 AMP! Edition GDDR5 1 GB
GOODRAM DDR3 2x2GB 1333MHz
SAMSUNG ST3500413AS ATA Device (500 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA-III)
Windows 7 x64

I running game on the maximum settings at 1280 x 1024 on 75Hz (VSync off) and the frame rate is OK, no lag spikes, even in Boston.
Let me know if it is working for you guys, then I will post this solution on the PCGamingWiki.

MadsideMike out.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily just related to AC3, I've noticed a TON of variation on what people here and elsewhere consider to be smooth. That can range from a locked 30fps, to 40-50, to 60, to in some cases even 120. Some people refuse to ever play with vsync on, while some of us (myself included) would rather not play at all than to turn it off.
Sometimes it's even situational. In the Arkham City Benchmark I get an average of 57 FPS with the details maxed. However that average includes to pretty massive dips into the 30's while some sections load. Is that smooth? Most of the time...but those two dips are ugly to see for sure.

With my setup, overclocking my GPU doesn't seem to matter at all. I get a steady 60fps most of the time, but it spikes randomly with DX11 effects and looks "off." It isn't game breaking, but it is frustrating. I'd certainly say it isn't as smooth as say, Crysis 2, which for me stays in the lower 50's, but doesn't deviate much up or down.
 
Domingo said:
Not necessarily just related to AC3, I've noticed a TON of variation on what people here and elsewhere consider to be smooth. That can range from a locked 30fps, to 40-50, to 60, to in some cases even 120. Some people refuse to ever play with vsync on, while some of us (myself included) would rather not play at all than to turn it off
Click to expand...

I also always play with Vsync on...you're right that smooth gameplay can mean different things for people...for me 30 fps is the minimum of what I consider smooth...60 fps is pretty much ideal...anything above 30 fps feels fine to me...maybe people want every game to run at 100 fps but for me I prefer maximum graphical fidelity while maintaining a consistent frame rate above 30
 
I think for me, I shoot for 50-60, but consistency is key. I'd rather have a game stay at 50 than to go up and down repeatedly. Nothing ruins my experience like framerate spikes in either direction. 60 is ideal, though.
I know with some games, as long as I can guarantee a solid 60fps all of the time I'll happily lower details...especially AA. To me, I supposed that's probably the one area I'm most willing to totally concede and it's the first thing I'll disable or lower down to 2x in a heartbeat.
 
heads up to Nvidia users...Nvidia released new 310.70 drivers today and in the release notes under 'Resolved Issues' it lists-- Assassin’s Creed 3: Shadow flickering resolved
 
I played a little last night and I did notice that building shadows didn't follow you through walls, fences, objects, etc. as much. Performance seems more or less the same, but at this point I'd say I'm used to it and I don't feel like waiting months for a patch to clean up bogdowns in only a few spots.

I'm curious what in the world that MadsideMike guy's recommendation was about. I tried it for the hell of it and then noticed his resolution was low and vsync was off...which would explain good performance anyway.
 
LOL...while the new drivers fixed the weird shadows, those "Don't Tread on Me" banners now have a glass reflection effect on them. Not sure if they've always had that by mistake and I didn't notice, but it's funny to see.
 
MadsideMike said:
Welcome guys, MadsideMike here.

I think I found a solution for low frame rate (it works for me).

1). Open notepad and type(copy ALL the code):
Code: 
 -nomemrestrict -norestrictions
2). Save the file as:
Code: 
commandline.txt
3). Navigate to your installation directory (on Steam this is: Steam\steamapps\common\Assassin's Creed 3) then copy file inside Like this
4). Start the game.

My PC specs:
Code: 
ASUS P8H61-M LE
Intel Core i3-2100 3.10 GHz
ZOTAC GeForce GTS 450 AMP! Edition GDDR5 1 GB
GOODRAM DDR3 2x2GB 1333MHz
SAMSUNG ST3500413AS ATA Device (500 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA-III)
Windows 7 x64

I running game on the maximum settings at 1280 x 1024 on 75Hz (VSync off) and the frame rate is OK, no lag spikes, even in Boston.
Let me know if it is working for you guys, then I will post this solution on the PCGamingWiki.

MadsideMike out.
Click to expand...

Those are Gta4 command line flags...
 
MadsideMike said:
Yes, you're right, but they works in AC III. Game is badly optimized.
Click to expand...

My frames with and without that command line are the same. Googling the commands for the game doesn't seem to bring anything up. Where'd you see that this command works and do you have any with/without comparison?
 
dnottis said:
Running on high, game runs great. I think people forget that Ultra setting is really for people with $1k in dual GPUs not single GPUs - its gives them a little extra to justify their cards. Single 680 @ +180core +400ram and 4600@ 4.7Ghz with 16gb ram.

Back off everything to high and see how it runs.
Click to expand...

2 680's and I barely get 70FPS @ 1080p at it's peak, of course (which is a rarity).

Nytegard said:
Well, it just seems like this game really isn't taking advantage of multi-gpu solutions. Hence why most ATI users get horrendous frame rates, and why I get better frame rates when I disable SLI. Even with the CPU, one of the cores is getting trounced, while the others are only at 35-45% usage.

What this means is that while yes, it is stressing out your card, you most likely have a single GPU solution, and that the game isn't distributing it's workload effectively. If one CPU or GPU is at 100% usage, it's no wonder why the frame rate drops, but if you have idle cores willing to do work, you could raise the frame rate quite easily, assuming things can be moved off the main cores.

*EDIT*

Just a quick video demonstrating SLI vs non SLI. I understand SLI will not scale twice as much, but it shouldn't be worse than a single GPU imho.

Also, just disabled Hyper-threading and my frame rate increased another 10%. With SLI & HT, getting about 34-38 fps. With both of them disabled, getting about 44-50 fps.
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. One of my CPU cores is at full load while the others are hovering around 40%. Both my GPU's never stay consistent and rarely get above 60%.

Max settings @ 1080 (TXAA) and I dip down to low 50's in Boston. I am not saying that this is not playable, but for 2 680's I should be seeing some more support here.

I get better performance with Far Cry 3 (nearly the double performance in SLI than single GPU), which needed some tweaking (SLI bits, vsync, etc), but none the less AC3 should be far less demanding.

Curious, Nytegard. What kind of CPU do you have?
 
I just started playing this and with my Phenom II X4 955@3.6Ghz, NB @2400Mhz, 16GB RAM and unlocked 6950 2GB @850/1325Mhz I'm seeing 25fps at 30% GPU. Some places it goes up to 60fps but I'd say at least half the time it's running 25-30fps and that's at 1280x720 (which is all my TV supports).

I initially thought I'd found the fix as it wasn't going any higher than 30fps and then I dropped the AA down from Very High to High and it went up to 60fps but that turned out to only be in certain places.

I tried setting everything on the lowest and it barely makes any difference, so this is pretty unplayable for me.

EDIT: Far Cry 3 gives me 50-60fps pretty much all the time on max settings I think.
 
I'm not sure why anyone still cares tbh, they are not patching the game. An AMD developer over on overclock .net has said the game is a huge pile and they can't really do anything else on their end to improve things.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top