Assassin's Creed Valhalla Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis

erek

erek

8-D
2FA
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
18,540
"Taking a closer look at the individual cards, we see that the game is very well optimized for all AMD GPUs: Polaris, Vega, and RDNA are all doing relatively better than their NVIDIA counterparts. On the NVIDIA side we see Turing slightly ahead of Ampere and Pascal, but the differences are small. I picked a custom test scene for all our performance testing. While an integrated benchmark is available, and it does a somewhat decent job in reporting what to expect, I prefer actual gameplay to give you a more realistic result. The benchmark stutters a lot, an issue not present in actual gameplay. In the game, depending on the area, the differences in framerates can be huge. Indoors, you might easily go above 70 FPS, whereas certain open-world scenes drop you to around 40 FPS. Our benchmark scene represents a "demanding" scenario, not a worst case.

Both AMD and NVIDIA have released game-ready drivers for Assassin's Creed Valhalla, which we installed. We also used the latest patches, which fix several bugs and improve performance. Looking at the good results of AMD graphics cards, I get a feeling that Valhalla, which is a AAA launch title for the upcoming consoles, was heavily optimized for the AMD RDNA2 graphics architecture, which positively affects the AMD optimization level on PC, too. Another possibility is that AMD invested some resources into its optimization, working directly with the developer—a big bold AMD Ryzen logo is shown in the title screens. Either way, additional optimization is always welcome.

I encountered a few minor bugs, one crash, but nothing game-breaking. From time to time, I felt like there could have been a little bit more polish and QA testing, but overall, the state of the game is better than many other titles in recent history. Keyboard controls are fine—if you've played Assassin's Creed before, you'll feel right at home. Everything can be remapped anyway, so no problems here.

It's good to see decent VRAM use at the highest settings—we measured 5–6 GB depending on the resolution. Good, modern graphics card have plenty of memory, so there is no reason not to push up the requirements. The benchmarks show that cards with 3 GB and 4 GB take a massive performance hit, which isn't unexpected. If you have one of these cards, dial back texture settings one notch and you'll be fine. What's more important is that high-end PCs have the option to run at significantly better fidelity than consoles."

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/assassins-creed-valhalla-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/
 
Some interesting things to point out. The 5500XT 4GB has less than half the performance compared to the RX580 8GB model, which is interesting when the RDNA1 card should technically be superior to Polaris. Probably explains why nobody bought 5500 cards. The 3GB GTX 1060 is half the performance of the 6GB model, which is why a lot of people including myself said to never buy the 3GB model. You guys got scammed. The RTX 2060 is kicking the crap out of the GTX Pascal cards except the 1080 Ti. So if you want a good budget graphics card then the RTX 2060 looks to be a good choice. A least until Nvidia and AMD release something to displace it.

performance-1920-1080.png
 
DukenukemX said:
Some interesting things to point out. The 5500XT 4GB has less than half the performance compared to the RX580 8GB model, which is interesting when the RDNA1 card should technically be superior to Polaris. Probably explains why nobody bought 5500 cards. The 3GB GTX 1060 is half the performance of the 6GB model, which is why a lot of people including myself said to never buy the 3GB model. You guys got scammed. The RTX 2060 is kicking the crap out of the GTX Pascal cards except the 1080 Ti. So if you want a good budget graphics card then the RTX 2060 looks to be a good choice. A least until Nvidia and AMD release something to displace it.

View attachment 298037
Click to expand...
This just reminds me that my 1080Ti really isn't as slow as I keep trying to convince myself it is.
 
DukenukemX said:
Some interesting things to point out. The 5500XT 4GB has less than half the performance compared to the RX580 8GB model, which is interesting when the RDNA1 card should technically be superior to Polaris. Probably explains why nobody bought 5500 cards. The 3GB GTX 1060 is half the performance of the 6GB model, which is why a lot of people including myself said to never buy the 3GB model.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with this, yes the 6 gb let you play a game at 30 fps......... you will still need to upgrade.

The argument for buying an 3gb vs the 6gb would have sounded like: By the time game will require you to have more than the 3GB, you will need to upgrade your 1060 anyway. If the benchmark would have shown 50-60 fps with the 1060 6gb and 25-30 with the 3 gb (and maybe that exactly the case when you play at medium) than yes.

We can disagree and say that 30fps is playable and that it make it worth it obviously but it is under that ground that the argument should go.
 
arestavo said:
If someone purchases a 3090 to play at 1080P, well... they're just special.
Click to expand...
Well when your getting sub 100fps @ 1080p, what else are you going to play at? You maybe could do 1440 and keep 60fps if your lucky (and/or turn down some settings). If you want to play a 4k slideshow, that's cool to I guess ;).
 
Ready4Dis said:
Well when your getting sub 100fps @ 1080p, what else are you going to play at? You maybe could do 1440 and keep 60fps if your lucky (and/or turn down some settings). If you want to play a 4k slideshow, that's cool to I guess ;).
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly fine with 45-50fps average. Still 50% better than consoles, and better looking :p
 
Ready4Dis said:
Well when your getting sub 100fps @ 1080p, what else are you going to play at? You maybe could do 1440 and keep 60fps if your lucky (and/or turn down some settings). If you want to play a 4k slideshow, that's cool to I guess ;).
Click to expand...
I don't own it yet and will wait for a sale, but I'd hardly call a stock 3090 a slideshow at 4K. And even if I don't get a solid 60FPS on my overclocked 3090 FTW3, I have a Gsync compatible TV that I game on so it doesn't even matter 😜


performance-3840-2160.png
 
M76 said:
I'm perfectly fine with 45-50fps average. Still 50% better than consoles, and better looking :p
Click to expand...
If there getting 45-50fps at ultra settings... that means you can easily find another 15-20 fps by turning down some of the things most people find distracting anyway. Bye bye lens flare. lol

Really though for people rocking rx580/70s with 8gb.... setting things down to high should be very playable.
 
LukeTbk said:
Not sure I agree with this, yes the 6 gb let you play a game at 30 fps......... you will still need to upgrade.

The argument for buying an 3gb vs the 6gb would have sounded like: By the time game will require you to have more than the 3GB, you will need to upgrade your 1060 anyway. If the benchmark would have shown 50-60 fps with the 1060 6gb and 25-30 with the 3 gb (and maybe that exactly the case when you play at medium) than yes.

We can disagree and say that 30fps is playable and that it make it worth it obviously but it is under that ground that the argument should go.
Click to expand...
The point I'm making is that you saved yourself $20-$30 to end up with half the performance of the 6GB model. It wasn't worth it. And 30fps is still playable, even though not the best experience. The 5500XT 4GB is more expensive than most 8GB RX 580's.
 
DukenukemX said:
The point I'm making is that you saved yourself $20-$30 to end up with half the performance of the 6GB model. It wasn't worth it. And 30fps is still playable, even though not the best experience. The 5500XT 4GB is more expensive than most 8GB RX 580's.
Click to expand...
If you end up upgrading because half that 30 fps is not enough anyway, you did save $20-$30 without ever actually ending up with half the performance (in the resale value the point still probably hold too and I can easily imagine that at medium setting instead of ultra we could see or we could stop to see a major difference when setting that are playable are used).

If the person saying you do not need the 6 gb explicitly saying that when and for game that will require that amount the 1060 will not be powerful enough anyway (it is not like they were saying that in general 6 gb will never be useful has it will not have a near 60 fps and acceptable performance in those scenario), that game could very well prove their point (or you can disagree with that). It is a gamble like predicting future, sometime you take a bad bet something a good one, usually we can find example going both way (like the 8 gig 580 aging better if it was really lower than the 5500x 4gb $170 launch price at the time)
 


I feel like this is relevant, you can probably get a ton more FPS. You don't need to have every single thing maxed out. It's not worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top