Let's try this again, since my 3 or 4 previous attempts to make this status update failed very epically for whatever reason.
These requirements are a big joke and a mess.
There is no universe where a 290X performs similarly to a GTX 960. If they wanted to show a 4GB card then they could have shown a GTX 1050Ti 4GB or a GTX 970.
Similarly, there is no universe where a Radeon VII performs similarly to a 2080Ti, nor is there one where a 9600K is an equivaent to a 3600. A 9600K is inferior in multi-thread, the same was a 9700K is worse in multi-thread than a 3700X.
I feel like for 4K ultra with or without ray tracing they should have recommended 32GB Dual Channel RAM.
And of course as I scribbled on the image, this is potentially for 60fps. If you want 120-144fps you'll need a time machine to travel to the future when 3090s are actually available cos you'll likely need both Zen3 or Rocket Lake core i9 and a 3090 for high framerates
I seriously hope to god that Ubisoft is using Anvil Next 2.0 on this instead of re-cycling Disrupt Engine for a 3rd time when it was shown both times to run badly.
-
Also, if they're gonna say 290X for low then they might as well go down to 290 for low since for all intents and purposes they're within 5% of each other.
I am somewhat surprised by the lack of any disparity between LOW and HIGH in this table in terms of the performance differences required, to me the main differences are: much better CPU, dual channel RAM, and the higher VRAM, rather than the GPU performance unless this game wants to do some extreme tesselation or a feature that would decimate GCN 2nd gen but not harm GCN 4th gen.
AMD colour compression technology comes to mind which was introduced in GCN 3rd gen, aync compute is also a possibility being introduced in GCN 4th gen but Pascal cards such as the 1060 don't support this so it's unlikely. The other thing I can think of is that they may not have wanted to put R9 390/390X for 1080p High when putting R9 290X for Low if it really is just a VRAM issue.
Memory compressed 6GB VRAM from Pascal would give you something like 8GB effective VRAM so it's possible that's why they put it.
At times reading this table feels like it's an AMD optimized title but other time it feels like a GameWorks title which trashes AMD cards on purpose.
-
In any game that doesn’t actually scale past 6 threads, a 9600K is better than a 3600. Same with the 7700K vs 2600, except the 7700K has 2 more threads than the 9600K, and is competing with a far shittier CPU (Zen/Zen+ were not impressive arches for really anything but core count vs price).
RVII is obviously listed as the AMD option because it’s the only relatively recent team red card with enough VRAM. They aren’t claiming it matches a 2080 Ti in GPU perf.
They built the game. Shot in the dark here, but maybe they know how much system RAM it uses. -
@Zando Bob Newer Ubisoft and other AAA game dev's titles scale to 8 threads or more depending on game.
BF5 for instance will use around 12-14 threads if given the opportunity. I have seen this firsthand myself.
All other things being equal, 6C 6T CPU is better than a 4C 8T CPU but neither is what you should be buying.
6C/12T is good if you're tight on money but what you really want is 8C/16T for futureproofing. 8C/8T was a mistake, 6C/6T won't last too long either. Quad core is dead for demanding games which will really use CPUs.
-
-
-
Yep, gap has narrowed. Intel still has a clockspeed lead + lower core-core and RAM latencies that make more of an impact in most games than what AMD has to offer so they remain slightly ahead (and are best in class when you're talking 240Hz and higher, though that's obviously not the target for this kind of game). A 9600K is an Intel equivalent to the 3600 (as is the 10600K but I assume they thought more people had 9th/8th gen stuff so they went with that) both price and often pure gaming performance wise (again, most games do not performance scale very well past 4-6 threads or so) so that'd be why it's on the chart.
