Assassin's Creed Shadows Performance Benchmark

[Rjc31]

Don't mind such comments, sadly those are more common aound here than they should be.
Even mentionig that you use upscaling is like you worship the devil or something which I've experienced a good few times around here.
Just enjoy your games however you like them and don't stress over whatever the so called tech snobs say or think how you should play your games cause they dont worth your time in the first place.

Oh yeah I know I've been reading them for a couple years now. For some reason I decided to comment myself today lol. Must be getting crazy as I get older. I appreciate your comment though!

 

[RootinTootinPootin]

seems like a Cyberpunk2077 part 2..textures seem rough, doesn't appeal like an "Ubisoft" Title, its more like an indie game IMHO..

 

[wolf]

I keep telling people...This is what to start expecting. This isn't going to be abnormal, and is in-fact the new normal. And 9070 XT is doing exactly as it should.

Care to elaborate on why you believe this is the case? AMD's own slides and expectations for the product don't match it, and the averages from many games so far in independent testing don't either. There are examples like this, and examples where it also significantly underperforms its average across all games. What is it about this game that has you thinking this is the new normal?

 

[medi01]

Curious that 9070XT does not edge 7900XTX at RT gimmick.

The difference between RT and High settings is... 33% less fps...
Just that... Nothing else...

Well, why, did you want "lighter" RT?

Disappointment...

Well, why? The FPS drop from RT effects is decent 30%+

Why are you complaining?

Oh, is about visuals? Citation:

"Visually, RT doesn't bring a lot here"

But that's the norm eh? I in 70% of games RT does not bring "a lot, if at all":

except the FPS drop.

Were you not after FPS drop?

asking me to tank my frames for what, slightly more realistic and sharp lighting/shadows?

Let's pretend that it was different in the past, shall we.

Just enjoy your games however you like them and don't stress over

But still do visit game reviews about nitty details that you "don't care about" as you "just enjoy your games".

Logical.

 

[Legacy-ZA]

How about sending the developers to Guantanamo prison for 3 months? The game can’t keep 60 FPS with midrange cards even with upscaling.

Btw 3070 performs clearly worse than 8gb 4060 ti. Is this a bug or the dirty Nvidia tricks with the drivers are getting dirtier?

Same with the RTX4070Ti Super / RTX5070Ti, the latter should be faster, but is rather on par/ or slight ly slower?

Heck, nVidia should start rolling out performance improvements for their newer generation cards instead of patching them from blowing up.

 

[Luminescent]

Where is Path Tracing running at 30fps native on rtx 5090 ? We need that so Nvidia can win in absurd scenarios that nobody can
play except with DLSS performance, multiframe generation and minimum rtx 5090, then that performance chart will look a lot more GREEN.
So yeah, game sucks because it doesn't have path tracing, any game that doesn't have path tracing is unoptimized, has bad graphics and it's basically unpayable.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Where is Path Tracing running at 30fps native on rtx 5090 ? We need that so Nvidia can win in absurd scenarios that nobody can
play except with DLSS performance, multiframe generation and minimum rtx 5090, then that performance chart will look a lot more GREEN.
So yeah, game sucks because it doesn't have path tracing, any game that doesn't have path tracing is unoptimized, has bad graphics and it's basically unpayable.

IMHO - good on W1zz not to bother. These charts serve no meaningful purpose and are a waste of his valuable time. Everyone knows AMD's hardware is deficient in RT and while the 9070 XT made great strides, by the point you're dealing with 30 fps on RTX 5090 hardware, the truth is that the problem is the software itself.

 

[Nitroschnitzel]

Maybe the game has a major problem with one of it's future inplemented in the engine.
Im talking about DirectStorage.

Years ago i tried to compress some gigs file to some hundred megs using 7Zip and some very strong compression algo.
Packaging was not that big problem but decrompressing holy my cpu and ram was totaly maxed out.

Now take in mind that this big open world game has a lot of big textures, even if they want it's impossible to use all of them uncompressed the game size would be so much higher.
Now they using DirectStorage for faster loading and what else the marketing would told you, what would happen if instead of the cpu now the gpu needs to decompress all these textures while it also has to render the game and raytracing and more tasks they implemented ?

I mean this would in theory result in a even worse performance like we see in Shadows, even with the biggest cards you can buy for money the engine already has enough tasks to handle by the gpu and if you add more load to the gpu it would just go down.

Resulting in the overall low FPS even on 1080p.

I mean the required CPU's needed for this game are very low and dont have a big impact in performance, i see a benchmark for that.

That's only my guess it could be a result of using directstorage.

What do you think ?

 

[k0vasz]

-100% these are some of the worst Min/Max comparison shots I've ever seen in the sense that there really doesn't seem to be much if any difference in quality at the expense of running at half the framerate.

this is quite an old engine in its core, and ubi probably run into some kind of wall/ceiling, where the graphics can't be significantly better, even with lots of extra resource put into it

or the game was optimised for console hardware (=low settings), and they just added some extra levels for PC, which barely scales up the graphics fidelity

 

[Macro Device]

this is quite an old engine in its core, and ubi probably run into some kind of wall/ceiling, where the graphics can't be significantly better, even with lots of extra resource put into it

or the game was optimised for console hardware (=low settings), and they just added some extra levels for PC, which barely scales up the graphics fidelity

Regardless of the why we have a game that barely walks on mid-range and only is playable on the very high end. I never played it so I can't tell if the story, memes etc justify this performance but it's still another sad release from this standpoint.

 

[friocasa]

"The production value is exceptionally high, evident not just in cutscenes but in the overall world design. Textures are sharp, and facial animations in cutscenes are some of the best in the industry, rivaling even Hellblade 2"

While I agree with most of the conclusion in relation to the graphics and presentation, that last part is just completely false. The facial animations are good, sometimes great, but not anywhere close to Hellblade 2's.

Makes sense when you realize that TPU is being paid for this, doesn't matter how shitty the game is, they keep pushing articles, press notes, trailers, and now this.

This stuff should have a big label saying "SPONSORED CONTENT".

Dragon Age The Veilguard was even added to the benchmark games, while they ignored "Marvel Rivals" completely.

 

[Sithaer]

But still do visit game reviews about nitty details that you "don't care about" as you "just enjoy your games".

Logical.

You do realize that those 2 doesn't exclude each other right?
I can be curious about things since I like tech/game related stuff and yet still prefer and do things my way and have my own preferences too.

 

[sneekypeet]

Makes sense when you realize that TPU is being paid for this, doesn't matter how shitty the game is, they keep pushing articles, press notes, trailers, and now this.

This stuff should have a big label saying "SPONSORED CONTENT".

Dragon Age The Veilguard was even added to the benchmark games, while they ignored "Marvel Rivals" completely.

I find it funny that a member from 2014 would question the integrity of w1zz. Get out of your own head. If any of the benches you mentioned were worth anything, they would be used, unless he had no idea it existed.

You do understand that a site needs content to exist? You don't have to like everything TPU, and at the risk of points, you put off a very immature and slighted persona over something so trivial.

 

[freeagent]

while they ignored "Marvel Rivals" completely.

So did I.. who cares?

 

[friocasa]

So did I.. who cares?

Users, I guess

 

[wolf]

Users, I guess

I'm not finding the correlation so strong between a newish esports game and needing to be benchmarked at TPU/be part of their suite, and if it's not it's an afront to you. Care to elaborate?

 

[nomdeplume]

Dragon Age The Veilguard was even added to the benchmark games, while they ignored "Marvel Rivals" completely.

I just commented elsewhere on the topic of choosing games that are interesting for technical, as in unique test subjects, reasons. As opposed to outright popularity among any group lying outside the consumer of TPU.

My understanding is that establishment of infinitely repeatable static benchmark scene(s) dictates avoidance of "Marvel Rivals" type games. PvP makes them unrealistic.

 

[Onasi]

I had next to no good will to show towards this game to begin with, but anything that honestly barely scrapes by 60 fps on a 9800X3D/5090 system... haha.

Ah, Ubisoft. Never change. I instantly get flashbacks to… oh god, 12 years ago now when they said some rather… suspect things about the ACIV PC version.

“To quote Assassin's Creed 4's associate producer Sylvain Trottier: "On PC, usually you don't really care about the performance, because the idea is that if it's not [running] fast enough, you buy a bigger GPU."”

Obviously, they went into damage control later stating how much they care about optimization guys, totally. But yeah, seems like years and years later the sentiment remains. It’s just that it also spread to most of the AAA industry now.

 

[W1zzard]

Makes sense when you realize that TPU is being paid for this

Uh wait, you want to pay me for this? Because certainly not Ubisoft, I bought the game on Steam after launch, like normal people, they didn't send me a prerelease key like to all the other sites, I don't even have a contact there. So no, take your accusations to the other sites that posted something before release day

Dragon Age The Veilguard was even added to the benchmark games, while they ignored "Marvel Rivals" completely.

Can't reliably bench Marvel Rivals, because always online, I'd love to, looked into it, gave up

 

[Sithaer]

Can't reliably bench Marvel Rivals, because always online, I'd love to, looked into it, gave up

Exactly this, while you can bench online games it will never be the same on a run/run basis and I assume that you and TPU in general is trying to be as exact/apples to apples as possible which online games simply don't allow.
Honestly not sure why some ppl don't get this but eh I guess its something you have deal with. 'there are plenty of YT channels where online games are tested anyway'

 

[ir_cow]

Strange. I'm on max settings but everything looks grey and washed out like the photos on low settings. Maybe a patch will fixed this.

 

[Rjc31]

You do realize that those 2 doesn't exclude each other right?
I can be curious about things since I like tech/game related stuff and yet still prefer and do things my way and have my own preferences too.

You said it for me

 

[danbert2000]

I'm curious what turning the settings down does for this game. Everyone is up in arms that a console port in the latter half of the console cycle has punishing ultra settings. This is a good thing. So it scales into the future. PS5 usually runs medium to low, and this time with RTGI enabled at 40 fps. If you're really demanding frames and pixels, set it to the eventual DF researched optimized settings and try again. Ultra is good for benching, if you need 4k native turn the settings down.

@W1zzard might be a good addition to the performance tests, just choose one card from each vendor and show the perf difference for the settings presets. Then we can get a rough idea of the scaling for AMD and NVidia on the latest gen. Not to throw more on your pile, haha, but ultra snobs always find a way of dominating the comments.

 

[cinemaware]

I'm so glad there was no real internet in the 90s. "Doom? WTFITS, can't even run it maxed on my 386DX. A terribly optimized mess."

 

[Scircura]

@W1zzard might be a good addition to the performance tests, just choose one card from each vendor and show the perf difference for the settings presets. Then we can get a rough idea of the scaling for AMD and NVidia on the latest gen. Not to throw more on your pile, haha, but ultra snobs always find a way of dominating the comments.

Which reminds me, Nvidia hasn't published a graphics and performance guide since 2020 and no one's picked up the mantle (though Alex at Digital Foundry sometimes gets close). The author of those peerless guides, Andrew Burnes, still writes for Nvidia but I've given up hope of seeing another one out of him. Could TPU ever produce or commission something like this, which benchmarks and screenshots every graphical setting?