CONFIRMED: Assassin’s Creed Unity PC System Requirements are OFFICIAL.

[Mindtrickz]

I use Cinebench because it's the most reliable benchmark that takes proper advantage of all cores. It's not selective at all. When comparing performance you should always chose benchmarks that are vendor neutral. Passmark for example favors AMD CPUs, Cinebench does not favor any. You can always pull a benchmark that shows a Celeron having higher performance over an i7. But that wouldn't be fair, would it? The 8350 is significantly faster than the 2500K, there is just no comparison. None at all. The 8350 falls between the 4690 and the 4790 in terms of performance, although it is much closer to the 4690 than it is to the 4790. When you don't know what the hell you're talking about just stop talking. You're misleading other people with your ignorance, who are not educated on the subject.

 

Yeah, no you're implying that video games are not vendor neutral, when they in fact are with the exception of GPU's. And in all the gaming benchmarks the 2500k out-performs the 8350. It's right there. in fact, most of the benchmarks linked show the 2500K to have a edge.

 

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of being misleading when you're the one showing ONE benchmark and forming a conclusion from it, while I on the other-hand am showing ALL the benchmarks and forming a conclusion based on that. 

 

Based on the median of all the benchmarks from Anandtech: the 2500K is faster. Numbers don't lie. Brand fanboys do.

[Guest]

lol yeah, I have a friend that played trough AC IV: BF on a dual core Athlon X2 5000+ and a GT 430 videocard at 14fps average in the city and 25fps in the sea. 

I know those feels ;_;

 

Luckily I finally upgraded lately, and even though it's an i3-4130 and GTX 760, it's still more than enough for today's games.

[Imabigmac]

Well Ubisoft wasn't going to get my money from this at launch but now they are never getting it, even if the the game is 40% off. 

[thewhitestig]

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of being misleading when you're the one showing ONE benchmark and forming a conclusion from it, while I on the other-hand am showing ALL the benchmarks and forming a conclusion based on that. 

 

Based on the median of all the benchmarks from Anandtech: the 2500K is faster. Numbers don't lie. Brand fanboys do.

                   

Based on the median of all the benchmarks the 8350 is outperforming the 2500K. It wins in 26 out of 51 benchmarks. That's what you call a majority. It seems that you haven't even read the data you provided. And if we exclude the gaming benchmarks the delta will be much higher. It's the fault of the game engines for not being well optimized for multiple cores, not the fault of the CPU. So weather or not the 2500K is currently better in gaming is irrelevant. We expect next gen games to have proper optimization for multi-core processors. It's funny how you accuse me of not being fair to the Intel CPU when you are in fact the one trying to push the notion that the 2500K ( the obviously inferior CPU) is somehow superior to the FX-8350, while basing your beliefs on a false interpretation of a pile of data that you yourself haven't read.

  

And really. Again.

Numbers don't lie. Brand fanboys do.

      

They sure don't. Oh,the irony there. 

[maximilian4o]

That's a very selective benchmark. Why not show the entier thing? You'll notice that the 8350is faster is faster multi-threaded applications, while the 2500K is faster in single threaded applications (such as games). In fact overall the 2500K is faster according to your OWN link.

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=288

Fanboy. Your statement is incorrect. GG WP. I am not defending the 8350 cuz it's what I use. In a matter of fact I prefer Intel. The thing is that you can't compare the 8350 to an old ass 2500K. Many benchmarks show that the 8350 leads in terms of performance. Now if you compared it to a 4670K... ok. It can smash the 8350. So you're either a fanboy, or trying to be a smartass. Srry if I'm being a bit harsh, but that's how it is and daaamnn im sick of fanboys on this forum.

[Mindtrickz]

                   

Based on the median of all the benchmarks the 8350 is outperforming the 2500K. It wins in 26 out of 51 benchmarks. That's what you call a majority. It seems that you haven't even read the data you provided. And if we exclude the gaming benchmarks the delta will be much higher. It's the fault of the game engines for not being well optimized for multiple cores, not the fault of the CPU. So weather or not the 2500K is currently better in gaming is irrelevant. We expect next gen games to have proper optimization for multi-core processors. It's funny how you accuse me of not being fair to the Intel CPU when you are in fact the one trying to push the notion that the 2500K ( the obviously inferior CPU) is somehow superior to the FX-8350, while basing your beliefs on a false interpretation of a pile of data that you yourself haven't read.

  

And really. Again.

      

They sure don't. Oh,the irony there. 

 

Christ, you are aware that the discussion at hand is about VIDEO GAMES, correct? And that this is a video game thread. 5 out of those 26 benchmarks are for freaking Agisoft PhotoScan. A program that could not be any more irrelevant to the topic. In 6 out of the 5 gaming benchmarks the 2500K wins hands down. As I said in my original post, the 2500K is faster in single thread applications such as gaming, while the 8350 is faster in multi-thread applications such as Agisoft PhotoScan. You can bemoan the fact that bemoan the fact that almost ALL games are single thread, but that's not gonna change anything. Point remains. In video games: the 2500K is better,

[thewhitestig]

In video games: the 2500K is better,

 

It's the fault of the game engines for not being well optimized for multiple cores, not the fault of the CPU. So weather or not the 2500K is currently better in gaming is irrelevant. We expect next gen games to have proper optimization for multi-core processors.

/thread

[maximilian4o]

@Mindtrickz

 

He's right cuz. Take in mind smth like BF4...  good multi threaded optimisation. In a matter of fact, Linus himself said that games are starting to get optimised to use as much threads as possible. In the next 1 year, games like these should be coming out. And even without the optimization, the 8350 beats it in games. I figured you just tryna be a smartass, cuz you just throwing random statements without having a good look around for the benchmarks. Take your time and search around instead of looking like a fool. Comprende ?

[ViruZ_HUN]

bullying older hardware post

No luv for my GTX 550 ti?

[Mindtrickz]

 

 

/thread

 

 

HA! So you're argument is that although 2500K might be faster presently in almost every single game, that in the future games might be better optimized for multi-core CPU's and that will thus give the 8350 the edge? Okay? But as things stand now and for the foreseeable future the 2500K has the edge.

 

 

 

@Mindtrickz

 

He's right cuz. Take in mind smth like BF4...  good multi threaded optimisation. In a matter of fact, Linus himself said that games are starting to get optimised to use as much threads as possible. In the next 1 year, games like these should be coming out. And even without the optimization, the 8350 beats it in games. I figured you just tryna be a smartass, cuz you just throwing random statements without having a good look around for the benchmarks. Take your time and search around instead of looking like a fool. Comprende ?

 

But that's factually not true at all. Benchmarks show that 2500K is faster in video games. Sure, 8350 might have the edge in Battlefield but that is one title amongst how many thousands of games? Lets also not forget that BF4 is a AMD sponsored title. Optimized for AMD CPUs.  and GPUs.

[totjup5]

Soooooo...... WTF Ubisoft..... Seriously.... a 680 for minimum spec when a console that essentially has a down-clocked 7770 with ddr3 instead of gddr5 can run it. BULLSHIT!

[maximilian4o]

HA! So you're argument is that although 2500K might be faster presently in almost every single game, that in the future games might be better optimized for multi-core CPU's and that will thus give the 8350 the edge? Okay? But as things stand now and for the foreseeable future the 2500K has the edge.

 

 

 

 

But that's factually not true at all. Benchmarks show that 2500K is faster in video games. Sure, 8350 might have the edge in Battlefield but that is one title amongst how many thousands of games? Lets also not forget that BF4 is a AMD sponsored title. Optimized for AMD CPUs.  and GPUs.

Are you sure you know how to use google ?

Here mate : http://searchengineland.com/guide/how-to-use-google-to-search

[thewhitestig]

HA! So you're argument is that although 2500K might be faster presently in almost every single game, that in the future games might be better optimized for multi-core CPU's and that will thus give the 8350 the edge? Okay? But as things stand now and for the foreseeable future the 2500K has the edge.

Of course that's my argument and I find it very troubling that you cannot comprehend it. Screaming fake laughter perpetuated by stupidity and ignorance does not make your argument correct. So what you're claiming here is that 2500K is the better CPU because it can run single threaded games better? This is ridiculous. You don't measure a CPUs performance by how well it handles single threaded applications. You look at the overall picture. And as I said now for the third time. Games are becoming more multithreaded by the month. So really claiming that the 2500K is better and showing me 2-3 and even 10 year old games as proof is absolutely ridiculous. 

[thewhitestig]

@Mindtrickz But really, that whole conversation started because of FellTheSky's grossly condescending behaviour towards the FX-8350 as compared to the 2500K. As if "oohhh look at how slow the FX CPU is, Ubi are drunk and high for putting it next to that majestic 2500K". Which is obviously false and screams fanboyism. 

[Sharp_3yE]

There are 3 outcomes to this game if these requirement are correct.

1. It's a very poorly optimized game and suffers with people not buying the game and bad press.

2. ACU is a tuff to run game but it's because the graphics on PC are turned up a couple notches and it's a really fantastic looking game that just requires more performance.

3. These minimum requirements are a useless measurement because the game runs fine on lower grade hardware.

Hopefully it's outcome 2 or 3 but with the way Ubisoft has been lately it wouldn't surprise me if it's outcome 1.

[Guest]

Ubisoft makes me want to switch to consoles.

 

WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?!

[Sharp_3yE]

Based on the median of all the benchmarks the 8350 is outperforming the 2500K. It wins in 26 out of 51 benchmarks. That's what you call a majority. It seems that you haven't even read the data you provided. And if we exclude the gaming benchmarks the delta will be much higher. It's the fault of the game engines for not being well optimized for multiple cores, not the fault of the CPU. So weather or not the 2500K is currently better in gaming is irrelevant. We expect next gen games to have proper optimization for multi-core processors. It's funny how you accuse me of not being fair to the Intel CPU when you are in fact the one trying to push the notion that the 2500K ( the obviously inferior CPU) is somehow superior to the FX-8350, while basing your beliefs on a false interpretation of a pile of data that you yourself haven't read.

And really. Again.

They sure don't. Oh,the irony there.

Dude, that's not a majority. That's basically half. Half of 51 is 25.5. All that means is that each one performs better in different situations. They are pretty equal in performance. So, depending on what you are going to do one may be better then the other. I find for gaming, either of them work very well.

[Tiber1337]

I remmember a time when minimum requirements really meant minimum, like 12 years ago if you didn't meet the minimum requirements some games wouldn't even start or would be barely running ,at unplayable frames, now its all bs.

[Midnight]

                   

Based on the median of all the benchmarks the 8350 is outperforming the 2500K. It wins in 26 out of 51 benchmarks. That's what you call a majority. It seems that you haven't even read the data you provided. And if we exclude the gaming benchmarks the delta will be much higher. It's the fault of the game engines for not being well optimized for multiple cores, not the fault of the CPU. So weather or not the 2500K is currently better in gaming is irrelevant. We expect next gen games to have proper optimization for multi-core processors. It's funny how you accuse me of not being fair to the Intel CPU when you are in fact the one trying to push the notion that the 2500K ( the obviously inferior CPU) is somehow superior to the FX-8350, while basing your beliefs on a false interpretation of a pile of data that you yourself haven't read.

  

And really. Again.

      

They sure don't. Oh,the irony there. 

 

In the real world, that's pretty much a tie...

[IronMarauder]

Maybe its all just a scam to make unaware/uneducated console gamers believe that PC gaming is expensive and that the current gen consoles are just as powerful as top end pc's therefore making pc's "irrelevant" and unnecessary in console gamer's eyes?

[The_Strict_Nein]

All that for 30FPS

[rebirth_assasin]

I wont play that game

[Assassin727]

omg what a flop... 

[DGPC]

I'm all with pushing the limits of technology... but I have a feeling this isn't the case... 

[RuKiddin06]

I think Ubi Soft is just misunderstood.

 

People think they are a game company, when they are quite obviously a mining company.

 

 

A successful one at that!