Assassin’s Creed: Origins Requires 8-Thread CPU for Full Performance

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
While four cores are usually sufficient for most games, Assassin’s Creed: Origins scales even on six cores. Tests performed by ComputerBase.de show that Intel’s 6-core, 12-thread Core i7-8700K, paired with an Asus GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Strix OC, delivers the best performance in the game.

CPUs with less than eight threads will struggle in the latest Assassin’s Creed game. The Core i5-7600K for instance, which still has four cores as the i7-7700K but doesn’t support hyper-threading, is a whopping 27% slower than its elder sibling. The chip just runs out of breadth when it comes to frametimes with 38% slower results.
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
Its nearly 2018 so if you have a gpu decent enough to run modern games at 60 fps or more on higher settings but only have 4 cores/4 threads then you are doing it wrong. My 4770k sees well over 50% usage in most modern games even at 1440p. In some cases all 8 threads are nearly pegged at times.
 

Araxie

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
6,434
Its nearly 2018 so if you have a gpu decent enough to run modern games at 60 fps or more on higher settings but only have 4 cores/4 threads then you are doing it wrong. My 4770k sees well over 50% usage in most modern games even at 1440p. In some cases all 8 threads are nearly pegged at times.
And here we have still people spreading that more than a 2500K @4.5ghz it's overkill for gaming and should play anything at 60fps or higher.. lol.

About the Topic from 7600K to 7700K that's the typical average performance uplift that hyperthreading should be providing when used correctly, the performance should be anywhere from 25% to 45% if the code it's properly optimized, so the performance it's in line to where it should be
 

Araxie

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
6,434
Congratulations people, you got what you wanted, now $300 CPUs are mandatory.
lol don't you remember the 1998 - 2002 age where 800+$ CPU were mandatory?. young people wanting to play AAA demanding games on toaster demanding top dollar performance on 400$ budget machines lol, today gaming it's cheaper than ever in history. you can build a 1080P decent machine that will run *OK* all games.. you want top performance? you have to spend TOP dollar to achieve that performance.

I really do not understand what kind of BS have people in mind sometimes.
 

Araxie

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
6,434
thats because its true in 99% of cases? Maybe not the games that launched yesterday, that no one knew how they would run? We can't see the future.
lol people had to see the future since Crysis 3, since Hitman Absolution, Since Watch Dogs 1, Since Dragon Age Inquisition, Battlefield Tittles, and a large of etc, all of those games scaled amazingly with Hyper-Threading, that had to be able to show people to be reasonable when buying new machines, but no, instead people want to spend the least and enjoy as high-end expensive machines, that's why the gaming industry it's what it is today.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
13,504
Ahhh,
The $100 cpu that easily o/c'ed and performed as well as the $600 PII 450MHz. Now those were the days.
And let's not forget the Slot-A CPUs that were actually downclocked higher binned CPUs. Now those were sweet. Buy a 500Mhz, get a 650Mhz core which can overclock to 800Mhz. Buy a 650Mhz and get a 750 or 800Mhz core that would overclock close to or to 1Ghz easily.
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
Glad I was right to spring for the 4c/8t i7 860, people thought i was nuts for wanting so many cores/threads for gaming. I'm going to use this beast until it dies heh.
Well when that cpu was more relevant, having more than 4 cores meant nothing for gaming. And I hate to break it to you but any halfway modern i5 will beat your old cpu in 99.99% of gaming cases anyway. Hell even a 2 core/4 thread i3 made in the last few years will be faster in all but a few cases.
 
Last edited:

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,118
i like to run my rigs into the ground. makes me glad that i never cared for ass creed.
 

wolfofone

Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
725
Well when that cpu was more relevant, having more than 4 cores meant nothing for gaming. And I hate to break it to you but any halfway modern i5 will beat your old cpu in 99.99% of gaming cases anyway. Hell even a 2 core/4 thread i3 made in the last few years will be faster in all but a few cases.
But think how many years I am getting out of it! If I had gotten an i3 or an i5 of the same era it would be pretty crappy now. My i7 is only sorta crappy now lol. Living that struggle student life man :)
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,996
Congratulations people, you got what you wanted, now $300 CPUs are mandatory.
Ryzen might not keep up with top of the line i7s in the game, but you can get an 8 threaded CPU for much cheaper than $300. Heck, you can get a 6c/12t Ryzen 1600 for $215. It won't keep up with the 8700K, but if you're running a 60hz monitor it should be just fine.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
I'm surprised AC of all games is worthy of benchmarking. Theyre not even using a AAA engine are they? Just some Ubisoft in-house developed thing?
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
An engine that's powered tens of millions of copies isn't AAA?
No. We're talking engine, not game. The next mario game is supposedly the best of all time, does that mean the engine is the best of all time?
 

socK

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
3,890
How else do you propose we consider it mature tech?

It's multi-platform, used by multiple studios and teams across multiple genres, and has been iterated on for a decade.
 

cptnjarhead

Crossfit Fast Walk Champion Runnerup
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,669
I agree with the post above... this was inevitable because of weak single core perf. on consoles. So... another reason for PC gamers to bitch about consoles... hahahaha. Strange that Ryzen did not fair better.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
4,129

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,772
I agree with the post above... this was inevitable because of weak single core perf. on consoles. So... another reason for PC gamers to bitch about consoles... hahahaha. Strange that Ryzen did not fair better.
It don't think it faired poorly, it beats the i7 7700k that everyone was saying was still the absolute best gaming cpu up until the Coffee Lake paper launch. A lot of people did surmize that the Ryzen would be the better long play due to the trend toward threading - and due to Intel's awesome policy of launching a new chipset with every new chip. Looks to be the case.
 

narsbars

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
1,883
LOL
I will have to dig out my old AMD 8350 rig. It has an SSD, a 1070, and 32 gig of ram and willing to bet it can do 1440 at very playable rates.
 

DPI

Nitpick Police
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
10,960
It might not be affecting anything.....but there might be evidence that denuvo's making more cores necessary:

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/59669/denuvo-rumored-use-100-cpu-new-assassins-creed/index.html
There's no evidence of anything. Just salty pirates trying to create disinformation campaigns.

Same old story with every denuvo title that they can't steal right away. Some dude on Reddit swears it "denuvo totally kills performance", then right on cue some rinky dink blog turns it into a clickbait opportunity.
 
Last edited:

raz-0

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Messages
4,653
Being in-house doesn't mean its not a AAA engine.
Shit performance and lagging behind the competition might though. No idea why performance is so dismal. It is in theory the same engine as in ghost econ wildlands, and that gets 90fps at 1080p ona plain old 1080.

There's seriously something up with what they are doing for those performance numbers at 1080p.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,234
What part of the game requires the extra cores? Graphics should be GPU. AI? Physics? Is it leaps and bounds better than what has been released in the past? If it's that great and a game changer, then I might pick it up. If it's just the same ol' shit, nothing special, just not optimized for the hardware, then I'll pass. I'm wanting a game that utilizes modern hardware, but I don't want the same game but to use more resources. I want an efficient use of resources with a nice upgrade of the game mechanics.

Just curious what it is that drives the additional hardware requirements.
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
Being in-house doesn't mean its not a AAA engine.
It likely does, since any company with the resources to make an engine as sophisticated as UE4 or Unity would not keep it in-house only, herego it stands to make sense any private engine they use is inferior.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,996
It likely does, since any company with the resources to make an engine as sophisticated as UE4 or Unity would not keep it in-house only, herego it stands to make sense any private engine they use is inferior.
No, that is not remotely what it means. Licensing out an engine is a ton of work and hassle. It requires a shit load of money and a massive support team. It is also hard to compete with anything out there now. Plus, there is pressure to constantly update and allow outside studios to tinker, something that really goes against the design philosophy of some studios. Keeping it private also means it can be customized to the needs of the publisher. Ubi designs engines to be highly modular and adaptable. Different pieces can be taken off and added to other engines, allowing each studio to pick and choose elements as needed versus completely creating things from scratch. EA keeps Frostbite in-house, in fact DICE designed it specifically for internal use and not external licensing. FF15 runs like trash on consoles, but you'd be hard pressed not to call the Luminous Engine a AAA engine, it pulls off some very impressive stuff. Prior to UE3 in-house engines were very common as there weren't a lot of great options on consoles but the rise of multiplatform development and UE3 being as good as it was caused those to fall by the way-side for a bit. Now they're becoming more popular again.
 

buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,033
Congratulations people, you got what you wanted, now $300 CPUs are mandatory.
LoL, my FX8320e was $79 not including the $40 off bundle on a motherboard from microcenter... Seriously though 8 thread ryzen starts around $149.
 

socK

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
3,890
I agree with the post above... this was inevitable because of weak single core perf. on consoles. So... another reason for PC gamers to bitch about consoles... hahahaha. Strange that Ryzen did not fair better.
Weaker per core performance is always going to be a haunt. The render thread is always heavy as fuck in these games.
It likely does, since any company with the resources to make an engine as sophisticated as UE4 or Unity would not keep it in-house only, herego it stands to make sense any private engine they use is inferior.
Frostbite is inferior I guess by that logic?
 

nysmo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
945
No, that is not remotely what it means. Licensing out an engine is a ton of work and hassle. It requires a shit load of money and a massive support team. It is also hard to compete with anything out there now. Plus, there is pressure to constantly update and allow outside studios to tinker, something that really goes against the design philosophy of some studios. Keeping it private also means it can be customized to the needs of the publisher. Ubi designs engines to be highly modular and adaptable. Different pieces can be taken off and added to other engines, allowing each studio to pick and choose elements as needed versus completely creating things from scratch. EA keeps Frostbite in-house, in fact DICE designed it specifically for internal use and not external licensing. FF15 runs like trash on consoles, but you'd be hard pressed not to call the Luminous Engine a AAA engine, it pulls off some very impressive stuff. Prior to UE3 in-house engines were very common as there weren't a lot of great options on consoles but the rise of multiplatform development and UE3 being as good as it was caused those to fall by the way-side for a bit. Now they're becoming more popular again.
Allow me to simplify:

1. UE4
2. Unity
3. Frostbyte
4. CryEngine???
....
12. Assassins Creed engine (Anvil)

As far as I know the Anvil engine's only interesting ability is mass crowd rendering. So why this game is relevant in benchmarking is beyond me. There is nothing visually stunning about the AC games.
 
Top