GameGPU has shared a video, showcasing the performance of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX3090 on the built-in benchmark of Assassin’s Creed Valhalla. And, as we can clearly see, NVIDIA’s most powerful GPU is unable to run this cross-gen game in 4K/Ultra with 60fps.
According to the benchmark, the average framerate in 4K/Ultra on the RTX3090 is around 56fps. At first glance, this isn’t so bad. However, the in-game performance appears to be worse than the built-in benchmark. In some villages, the framerate appears to be dropping to even 40fps.
Now the reason we’re sharing these performance numbers is because we find them a bit interesting. Assassin’s Creed Valhalla is a cross-gen game, and not a truly next-gen experience. The fact that the RTX3090 is unable to run it with 4K/60fps/Ultra is a bit alarming for its performance on the next-gen games.
Now I know what some of you will say. “How can this game run with 4K/60fps on the Xbox Series X“? Well, from what we’ve heard so far, Assassin’s Creed Valhalla will run at upscaled 4K on the next-gen consoles. We also don’t know which PC graphics settings the next-gen version is using. So no, Valhalla does not run with native 4K/60fps/Ultra settings on either Xbox Series X or PS5.
Our PC Performance Analysis for Assassin’s Creed Valhalla will go live tomorrow. In that article, we’ll cover both AMD’s and NVIDIA’s hardware, so stay tuned for more!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
It’s a Ubishit game, what else did you expect?
Exactly.
I’m not sure what you if this is a surprise given that it appeared to have global illumination and ray tracing shadows enabled. Nvidia said ampere cards will be able to perform at 60fps at 1440p ultra with RTX games. I’m surprised it is running it above 30fps @ 4k on ultra personally. UBIsoft are poor developers and for what it looks like you would think it would perform better, but that is UBIsoft being sloppy as ever.
Ubisoft aren’t bad developers per se, this engine slated from pieces of years old code defo is.
Same happened to Guild Wars 2 which was developed on totally incompatible engine for their vision (GW1 engine) and it still runs like garbage today. 8 years since the release.
Yeah they should be prepared for next gen technology all the same and update their graphics libraries. These low res textures look like polished turds, they threw out a ton of low res textures with no viewing distance optimizations so it is acknowledged in benchmarks for the next couple years. I haven’t played an assassins game since assassins creed II on PC where they released it for DX 10.1 then pulled it back to DX 10 because only AMD supported 10.1…
well DX10 itself is kind of fail. when DX11 finally arrive majority of game developer end up porting their game to use DX9 and DX11 only leaving those with DX10 based GPU stuck with DX9.
He’s talking about the original Assassin’s Creed launching with DX10.1, which brought some performance improvements on top of DX10 for AMD HD 3000 and HD 4000 series vs Nvidia GeForce 8000/9000/200 series.
Ubisoft parched the game to fix some game bugs and removed DX10.1 support, so AMD lost their performance advantage in that title back then. And DX10.1 support was never patched back in.
i know. but DX10 itself was not in good position back then despite hardware maker like AMD are pushing for it. to me it was an insult to DX10 GPU owner when game developer decided to skip DX10 altogether when DX11 capable GPU arrive.
Nah, this is Nvidia’s fault. The Ampere series is pathetic.
Da f*ck you’re talking about ?! They’re well known for bad optimized titles especially in the AC series, and their ressources intensive multiple layers of DRM, i bet even the RX 6900 XT could not run the game at 4K/60
The more vram demanding the game will be the more 6900 xt will tank in performance as its cache (hit-rate drops as it will be able to cache less and less % of total used = more and more vram access and sadly it’s when its heaviest you want the most effective bandwidth and thats when it tanks the most) won’t be enough to offset its small base bandwidth.
Its already evident, perform insanely well in 1080p, less well in 1440 and 4k about even and that’s with todays titles.
Tomorrow with all bigger assets + streaming etc… currently my bet is on the 3090 to have the perf crown and that’s even if the dev’s wont do the amp optimizations needed to utilize the full math throughput.
Note: This is from a pure performance perspective, no doubt the 6900xt will have the price/perf crown in the enthusiast space.
Why not both?
Because “BrandX” tegrity must be defended so “BrandX” keeps sending gibs and consoomers be able consoome.
This is an AMD sponsored game and it’s not going to run well on any setup, classic Asscreed.
Mommy won’t buy you one huh?:)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2521bbbfe22c568200dae7cbba0ec998b7082fb3db8a72987cceabc6bd915c23.jpg
Every AC game since Origins runs like fecal droppings to this day no matter your hardware.
Ubisoft continue with there streak of unoptimized games. I’m done with there games from now on.
Last game I played was origins aint touching anything else, plus even if I wanted to play Valhalla its not on steam lol
What a wonderful achievement, incredible, i’m stunned
so what if its not on steam? Steam is just another launcher for games, i will never understand why it has so many retarded fanboys.
Well I like to keep my games in one launcher not scattered in 10 different launchers reetard
I’ll give it a shoot when Timmy gives a free copy.
Well its ubisoft game what do you expect ? 0 optimization
…and a waste of $1,500 USD in the form of the RTX 3090.
im pretty sure ppl that buy rtx3090 dont care about money in first place…
People discovering native 4K + ultra settings is expensive….
Optimized or not the 3090 will have a very hard time keeping up when devs really make their PC versions scalable.
This is another type of article where john expects a video card to not be utilised at ultra settings and 4k. Internet people have this notion of how games should run based on the price of the gpu. The 3090 costs 1500 dollars ? It should run every game at 4k and ultra for the next 5 years. It doesnt matter that its ultra, it doesnt matter what the game or engine is doing and what it renders, what type of game or that ultra settings are never a good option to gouge performance.
No, what they actually want is if they buy an expensive gpu for it to sit unused. Cause thats the only way games will run with hundreds of frames at ultra and 4k. They want to spend 1500$ on a video card and then games not using it. Of course they dont understand that this is what means when they cry online that expensive gpu doesn play at ultra/4k.
Games should cut ultra options from the ingame menu and have them max at high. Which will run the game at maybe 50% of its quality. People will claim the game is super optimised then. Have those very high and ultra options locked in .ini settings that only people who arent retarded can access. Then the general perception would be that you increased the settings above what devs intended and that the regular game is super optimised.
The lack of information the general audience has is outstanding
I would agree with you but i’ve seen better looking games than this and watch dogs legion running much faster.
This game doesnt even look great, more like average, even less than average at times.
But anyway…. if someone wants to play it at maxed out on launch how is he gonna do it if there is no GPU which is capable of running it at max settings, 4K and 120 FPS? Basically…. there is no way. So, you need to wait 6-12 more months (at best case scenario) to be able to play an 6 – 12 months old game (by that time next GPUs arrive).
And what publishers and developers want? AH SUREEEE, they want money, they want money as soon as possible……. they also add DRM and most games got cracked in 6 – 12 months, by that time you buy the game for your GPU in 6 – 12 months which is, LETS ASSUME at that time is capable on running it at 120fps – maxed out, the game would be cracked most likely by that time.
You see? Pushing the limits too far is pointless OR releasing a unoptimized game not only pointless, dumb as well……. and if the latter is to blame, damn it, then optimize the damn game for once, dont just rush them.
Well whaddayaknow, something’s marketed as “4K60FPS OMG BUY BUY BUY!” people are gonna test those claims.
But Xbox is running this 4K/60? I don’t even…
its not, its running dynamic resolution, there are no native 4k AAA games for ps5/x so far. Most games run in 1440p upscaled to 4k.
Nice joke
It’s optimized terribly for PC. I’m not joking :/
Rtx 3090 is not strong enough. Only xbox series x can deliver excellent 4k gaming.
Bwahaha sure med-low settings
Dynamic 4k with all settings at medium(apart maybe textures at ultra)
At 30fps
“Excellent” 4k gaming XD
world-class troll
Xbox series x performance sits right below RX6800 so it performs at the level of a RTX 3070 which by all accounts is very good for a $500 dollar console. Apparently you can’t afford a high-end gaming PC so you hop on here to brag and that is fine but they will be doing dynamic resolution scaling and perhaps have game settings on medium to deliver optimized performance for consoles. On PC someone is likely to stick another card in their system for it.
Fernando, is that you??
Ubisoft and codemasters have an audience that still can’t tell they’re playing games off a 10 year old engine
Damn. Then I can only imagine the performance on 1000/2000 series of nvidia cards.
as long as its not native 4k it will good. I have RTX2070 and i play most games in 3k… cant really tell difference between 4k most of the time and boy that 1k in res makes all the difference in performance.
What about High settings and medium RTX ? Ultra is always overkill.
There is no RTX in AC V
You buy high end hardware to play at medium settings now?
No. I just want to see if fps is the same or better at high settings.
I doubt there’s a big difference, and if the game follows what Odyssey did..you have a couple of settings that do help a little (like clouds at medium, shadows) but not enough to justify the hit in visuals.
Too many pronouns.
REEEEEE
OFC it cant. Cuz ir dosnt exsist LOOOOL
RTX 9090 has enough power
Eh… let’s be real here. Nobody should be buying games on day one anyways. Get them a year or two later, and by then, the next gen GPU will be out, and will easily run it at 4K60.
Never understood how some can give any game released today, the MSRP in value. I can’t imagine paying full price for any of the utterly egregious money-siphoning, broken garbage that is released these days.
I haven’t bought a game on release for a long, long time. Buying on release guarantees that you will get the worst gaming experience for the most money spent. It’s become routine for Developers to release buggy games and patch them after most people have already played them and moved on the next buggy game released.
I think you hit the nail on the head. This about sums up the current state of this hobby.
But but after a year all my cool friends had already played it and the hype died down. I would feel as a loser not playing the shining new crap at the release day?
Marketing tells us to buy and your mom and marketing is always right.
That excuse does kinda hold up if the game is multiplayer though. Nobody wants to be a newcomer late in the game when the only people left playing are highly experienced turbo tryhards who treat the game like a second job.
I bought Factorio on release day… but only after I pirated it and played it for an hour. I quickly realized the game was pure crack and I was going to spend hundreds of hours playing it, so I might as well buy it.
So I’m willing to make those kinds of exceptions, but yeah, in most cases, buying on release day is a bad idea.
It’s possible that the Ultra settings on Valhalla include raytracing which would more than explain the frame rate.
No news on this.
There is no ray tracing in Valhalla. Its confirmed.
In that case, they’re stupid for this kind of performance.
Ultra setting besides textures is pretty much pointless in Ubisoft games. You would have to be a robot to notice the slight gfx change, at major FPS cost.
And console version lol! It’s a freaking joke full of pathetic custom settings tricks to fool the regular gamer. PS5 and XSX will never run this at 4k/60 FPS with true 100% fidelity image and maxed AA.
Chochoo hypetrain, expect 3-5 articles every day.
Is exactly the same as Odyssey? the engine, etc?
Pretty much.
horse animations, physics and snow look so bad that it makes me want to pirate rdr 2 once again.
Lol
Oh god.. this will be the “2080ti can not” BS topic all over again
I think its more that these companies are fine tuning their games for consoles to run optimized then tossing them on PC. Working on optimization slowly over the next year as they go. The 3090 should very much be able to run this at 4k60
Yes and no? You can’t really know how much the PC version pushes beyond the Xbox Series X.
This is no longer Odyssey on X1X with slighty pushed out sliders on PC.
But of course it can’t, did anyone really believe that the most powerful GPU in existance as of today would be able to run such a beast?
Who’s ready for stadia’s ubisoft connect channel?
Well that means something and that ain’t that the card is a fluke :the game has stupid optimisation .
On the other hand who said that the cats SHOULD run 4k/60 on any game.?That’s wishful thinking buddy Nm the price, 4k is still not mainstream and you certainly can’t except the crazy demands ultra on 4k demand to be always a 69fps experience.
Let’s see another game’s peformance, optimized or not, i do not know,, The Kingdom Come.
Try running ultra 4k/60fps on that. I’m 100%sure you can’t.
Can we blame some developers for pushing the boundaries like Crisis did once upon a time?
Can we blame one the fastest if not the fastest card for now, that it cant run CRAZY settings or unoptimized games
No we cannot, in good faith do that.
Exept Crysis was actually impressive*
Buying a card at the beginning of a new console gen is a mistake unless you’ve got money to burn. Better to wait and see how next-gen exclusives actually perform on PC before wasting as much as $1500.
Buying the 3090 is just flat out stupid. $800 for 10% performance is a terrible value. Regardless the 3080 will beat down the consoles easily.
Ps3 was based on the 7800GTX and was blown away by the 8800GTX days before the PS3 launched.
This is outrageous. This is the kind of thing that one way will end up tiping me over to consoles. They didn’t even bother to add DLSS to cover up their lack of optimization
it will run worst on console you fool. 50+ FPS at 4k is still better than than 30fps at 4k
Ubisoft is primarily a console oriented Publisher. That’s where most of their revenue comes from. PC is considered second class and don’t forget that 8 years ago the CEO accused 95% of PC gamers as being pirates and yet they make hundreds of millions of Euros from PC gamers every year. They have never gone back on that accusation so I assume they still believe it.
I thought the years of them constantly adding 3 layers of DRM and online requirements then jumping in bed with Epic would’ve been enough to show they still believe that 95% pirates quote despite increased revenue from PC since 2015. Or maybe the obvious downgrading of their games and their own devs saying in interviews they can’t have the PC version look substantially better than the console version would be enough to show these people aren’t any better than the much hated EA, but the brain dead masses don’t care about being seen as nothing but dollar signs
When you grow as big as a corporate, you need as much money as possible for private jets, houses on the beach and biatches you can slap with a pack of dollar bills.
So all those hundreds of mills? That’s a pocket change man. Ask Yves. He would tell.
Really? Looking at those charts it would seem the care less and less for consoles in the last years while focusing more and more on PC + mobile…
So correction UBI _USED_ to be an console focused publisher….
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269679/breakdown-of-ubisoft-sales-by-platform/
Fun sidenote – PC gaming are within 1% of ALL consoles COMBINED in revenue so please, i just laugh when ill informed peeps peak about PC being in a bad spot LMAO.
https://www.wepc.com/statistics/pc-gaming/
Ubisoft releases Annual Financial Reports and they are more detailed than most Publicly Traded Publishers. I check them every year. For calendar year 2019-2020 these are what they report:
55% for the 3 console makers
26% for the PC
11% for mobile
You can Google their Annual Financial Reports to verify what I am saying is true. You will see the percentage of sales breakdown by platform on page 7.
PC sales have definitely gone way up over the past 5 years but console sales combined still beat PC sales and that is one reason that Ubisoft caters to consoles more than the PC. The other reason is that they still think 95% of us are pirates.
They had sales of 1.56 billion Euros during their last calendar year. PC sales accounted for roughly 400 million Euros. When converted to US dollars that’s 476 million dollars.
The sad thing is their sales on pc would grow if they didn’t load their games up with so much drm that they didn’t run.
What’s really odd is ubi soft stuck with pc support when other major publisher’s ditched it for a while. Companies like EA, Activision etc all stopped putting out pc versions of their console games but ubi didn’t stop. That’s where and when the quote about pirates comes from.
Seems that ever since they have gone waaaay overboard trying to protect their games. Of course piracy on pc is definitely an issue we can’t ignore.
I wouldn’t be shocked to find out that their 95% number is actually true. I know when I was a broke kid and I had a pc i could game on I would pirate most of my games and that stopped once I could actually afford them.
I also pirated console games, especially if it was easy. I remember getting the no solder mod chip for the original xbox (I had already soft modded it but I wanted the extra features) and after doing that I started copying every game I could get my hands on.
They are mostly protecting themselves from pirate ghosts though. Most people that pirate are too poor to buy games anyway. They won’t buy the games so they aren’t lost sales for Ubisoft. They will just wait for the crack. There are of course some that can afford to buy the games but don’t simply because they can get them free. Some pirate because they won’t to try a game out before deciding whether to buy.
No I understand and I agree as well. I’ve been in all of those places myself.
Like I mentioned before I pirated games because I couldn’t afford to buy them so I wouldn’t have gotten them anyways. I also used to pirate games because I wanted to try them before I actually bought them… When you’re on limited funds you need to get the most bang for your buck. Then there was that time where I started buying the majority of my games but obviously couldn’t afford them all so I’d end up pirating a couple.
I think I’ve made up for it since.. As far as ubi soft goes I don’t think I’ve missed buying a game since Chaos Theory came out and I mean I’ve literally bought every major release and some of the smaller ones at launch for full price.
Hell I bought watch dogs legion on epic… couldn’t get it to launch so I refunded it and immediately bought it on uplay..which has no refunds and I got burned again because the game doesn’t work.
I have a 6 core i7 @ 4.6ghz, 32 gigs ddr4 in quad channel and a 2080ti ftw3 ultra.
The game runs at 30 or below whether I’m playing at 4k ultra or 1080p low…it makes no damn sense. I’ve heard people on reddit with 3080s and 90s have the same issue.
So now ubi soft has my money and I have a game I can’t play and when I say I can’t play it I genuinely mean it. 30 with frequent and sustained dips below 20 is unacceptable.
Hell even the xbox series s can run it at a stable 30 with what looks like ray tracing on pc high with other settings that look like pc high as well.
Then they wonder why people pirate.. well chances are it’s the drm causing most of the damn issues in the first place.
Maybe Ubisoft will patch the game at some point to where it runs better. I would say put the game aside and wait a little while for patches. You can always come back to it later if Ubisoft won’t or can’t fix the performance issues and struggle through it anyway or pirate the game after it’s been cracked. Hell, you’ve already paid for the game so it’s not pirating anyway imo.
The last time I pirated games was back in the mid 80s on the C-64 although we didn’t call it pirating back then and there was almost no stigma attached to it. Everyone was doing it. I could afford to buy games even back then but you usually couldn’t find the boxed games in stores that you wanted to play. There was no internet to try to find the games. So it was either DL the game from a Bulletin Board System on Dial Up or go without.
You’re obviously older than I am but I understand what you mean. I actually used to use usenet for all my pirating needs when everyone else was using torrents and getting warning letters from their isp’s lol.
I loved how fast it was and how 99.9% of the time the files listed were actually the real deal unlike on torrent where at the time it was almost 50/50 chance of getting something completely different from what you wanted. I also loved the retention of Giganews and quick par.
It’s possible that ubi will fix watch dogs, I hope they do and I do have plenty to play until then. I’m just mad at ubi for not allowing refunds when they know and fully admit via support that the game is broken.
Had a handful of originals on the C64, way more on the Amiga and basically all on PC and it was down to convenience really.
My C-64 friends were trying to talk me into getting an Amiga 500 like they had but I looked at how the C-64 and C-128 were pretty much abandoned and figured that would happen to the Amiga 500 as well. That was when I started looking at IBM compatibles.
Started with the Amiga 1000 and the PC’s at that time didn’t compete really, owned a bunch of Amigas (1000,2000,3000 and 4000/040). Got an PC with 2x Voodoo2’s in SLI and after that it was hard to even look at what was available on the other platforms… and stuck with PC ever since.
I think Gaben/Valve was onto something when he stated that piracy is all about availability and convenience. Before online sales became a thing there was a lot of piracy on the PC platform (and consoles too for that matter) as it was easier to just download a cracked version that head to store and grab a copy (and have to deal with its drm etc).
That declined and fast when steam/download vendors was starting as they sold products that was convenient to get and wasn’t overly ridden by bad drm’s (shame some are today).
Most people ultimately wants to do what’s right especially when its easy but how many consider it right to be the paying part and get an inferior experience due to drm.
That’s why i think all publishers who resort to draconian drm measures that hurt their paying customers experience will have more piracy than the rest.
Some drm is fair but it should not give negative performance etc. (Yes its fully possible, just don’t do like UBI done with for instance Denuvo running on top of a WM and then the launcher on top of that….)
Tbh, the only DRM that will make me absolutely not even consider spending a penny on a game, is a DRM that has either a negative impact on performance, or puts an expiration date on the game.
Online-only games aside of course, as the buyer knows what they are getting in to with those. Denuvo, and always-online DRM, will be dropped from support someday, essentially terminating your access to a game. I wouldn’t spend a sliver of a penny on useless trash like that.
Before anyone tries the old “you’re buying a license” garbage, ya, I don’t care about that, when they are trying to steal ownership away. When I buy something, I expect to own it, and have access to it for as long as I retain it. If a company wants to stick any f**kery in there to try and weaken my customer rights, I’ll happily pirate it and sleep better at night.
Download “only licenses” have had a rough time lately, they are in a lot of trials (France for instance) where a license could in the end land on equaling of a physical copy IE they will be forced to change ownership if the owner sells the product to someone else. That will open up a second hand market yet again even on downloaded games.
We will see how that turn out
No, Ubusioft is just trash, cuz cpu bound games suck, on consoles it’s even worst.
yes lets compare tunnel FPS to open world sandbox…
ubisoft needs new engine thats all, they still use same old engine as they did past gen just with upgrades, thats why its such resource hog.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2cfda37dfddd2decd3ecb11ae94e088e130e93864088e07d5bd34e68ef8407e.png
No one is gonna play with Ultra High Clouds and some unotpimized setings like that, so this results doesn’t bother me. Show me that a 3090 isn’t capable on High settings or a mixture of that and then ill be worried.
Exactly. It’s not like we’re paying 3000$ for a GPU. It’s just 1500$ – we shouldn’t expect the game to run 4k 60 fps ultra with this card.
Sarcasm level 100 ahhahaha…..what a mess,man!
The RTX 3090 is an absolutely insane card….no cross-gen or next-gen game should run below 60 fps @ 4k for this particular gpu!
BTW Ubimess should change the graphics engine for their games …. both Watchdogs Legion and AC Valhalla are inexcusably too heavy …. there are current-gen games that are better looking and do triple the fps …
4K60, is adequate for current-gen rasterized. Don’t dream of 4K60 next-gen or 4K60 next gen RT.
It shouldn’t be! An RTX 2080 Ti should be enough for current-gen games@ 4k 60! I mean that with the same tflops, multiplatform games on PC require double what consoles require….just see how by now at the end of this generation…a GTX970 (double Tflops of the PS4) manages to equalize,AT BEST, performance of a PS4 …. it’s absolutely a shame …. a card as powerful as the 3090 should allow you to cover all the next-gen at 4k 60 …. there are no excuses …. developers prefer the consoles, and we, pc gamers take the scraps …
Or you know, people want higher quality settings, higher rez AND twice or more the fps without having 8x the GPU horsepower.
I’m sure a 970 can do 1080p60 at same settings as any PS4 game (so around Medium) that’s running at 1080p30 otherwise.
You are not paying game developers to make their games run at 60fps Ultra 4k on your 3090. You are sucking Nvidia’s d*ck who can’t control what kind of settings developers want to implement on their games, optimized or not. So buying the most expensive card in the market wont make you play all the games with those kind of settings at your desired target. Learn to use optimized settings and maybe u can save 800$ next time.
I was just fine playing Odyssey on Ultra at 1080p60 on a 5700 XT. I could’ve done 1440p60 and downsample to 1080p, but didn’t find much point in doing so.
Ryzen 5950X with RX 6900XT can do it without problem (4K/+60 fps)
A R9 5950x dont do sh*t better at 4k than someone with a 10600k.
And you don’t sh*t sorry know better than reviews, what you say is not false 100% but onloy in GPU bound titles.
First of all, try to make sense when with your response.
Second of all. all titles at 4k are GPU bound. Are you new to this.
No i am not new, you should know that no not all titles are GPU bound at 4K resolution, the topic here is about RTX 3090 a powerful card that can play games even at 8K resolution.
https://www.dsogaming.com/videotrailer-news/diablo-3-battlefield-bad-company-2-cod-modern-warfare-8k-nvidia-geforce-rtx3090/
99% of games running at 4K are GPU bound. all the gaming benchmarks on youtube is the evidence that back up my statement
Sorry to contradict you, we can take Microsoft flight simulator, ruuning at 4K resolution, same settings same graphic card (RTX 3090) but with two different processors (R9 5950x and 10900K), please watch these two videos and judge yourself:
1st Video :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxcTRDFivLA
more than 60 fps
2nd Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3F64_0weL8
40+ fps
i guess you miss the part where i said “99%”
well…20-30% of GPU and CPU goes on protection then the rest gets to struggle with an unoptimized s*it of program incorrectly called a game,just ignore this one not worth pirating let a lone installing
GPU? Lol
meant as a joke….resource heavy UBI Crap 😀
are we going to worry about how all games run at 4k/8k on new cards now? Seriously… the 4k market is extremely tiny. I also find taking off full screen optimizations and turning vsync off on ubisoft pc games helps a ton.
It’s kinda the point of having more powerful high end cards i guess?
yeah totally true. i’m just being a big b##ch because i don’t have a brand new card. I am sure if I did i would be so down for this LOOL
Nah i get you…but on the other extreme it would be pointless to make an article saying; “your last high end Nvidia card runs Valhalla at 90fps at 1080p on ultra” (pulling that number out of my behind, i dunno how it will run at that resolution…but you dont buy that card to play at that res, you get my point)
Yeah I totally get that. Ok you have changed my perception on these articles. I need to just figure out some sort of percentage/deviation from what I have to so I can make some assumptions for how my card will run based on results posted for new cards.
it’s good that you know you’re a big b*tch ??
most gamers are so fat that they can’t run a meter or two either so all is good.
Words are all sh*t. Why? Its all relative, and the idiot author thinks the reader doesn’t understand that. Thank again, b*tch. We aren’t stupid. Compare the 3090 to other cards. Saying it does X, Y or Z on a friggin game means nothing. Stupido.
This is no suprise, Ubisoft doesn’t know how to optimize.
I have a 3090 and even GTA5, many years old, can’t run at a consistent 60FPS at 4K. All the money I’ve tossed at PC gaming could have bought me a huge 75” OLED 4K and all the next gen consoles with money to spare.
I have the Series X coming Tuesday and it’s very likely I will just try to migrate over to consoles. Let alone the ability to just pop in a game and go, no updating drivers for each game, OS annoyances.
Must be on your side, I have RTX 3090/I9-10900K And I play in 5K with ~ 85 -120 FPS.
You turn MSAA off right? Also Ultra Grass, need to be tweaked.
For consoles, yeah right, then pay game 69 € for 5 years, #enjoy
your 10900k don’t mean SH*t at 5k.
I just did a straight-line max, so MSAA and Grass is probably maxed. I’ll have to tweak that today. I’m also not on a 10900K.
What do you mean- $70 per game? The costs are almost the same at release, and lately have been buying digital year old Xbox AAA titles for ~$10. Now Steam will sometimes go way down to $3, which is insane, but still.
I know a guy that bought a 3090 off ebay for $2300. Results like this make me laugh even more at his stupidity.
Ubi who? Stopped looking at them when they ran from Steam. You can see over the few years why they wanted no discussion at point of sale.
Game ready drivers and a day one patch should alleviate most issues.
Game ready drivers are already out.. wake up mate.
congratulations you played yourself. Donkey of the day! ?
Yeaaaah its not ok, but w/e carry on ?
Thats because its an 8K card LOL
Its ubisoft they haven’t optimized a game in a long time
overall cpu usage is barely above 20% in the ingame perf monitor and 60% in the msi afterburner, while gpu is at 96%.
needs optimizations or dlss.
Amongst them adding fattening layer cake DRM, not even DX12 can save them here.
They were on a roll adding Vulkan to past titles, now they’ve switched again…
If it’s their intent to add ray tracing, they can do this with VKRay…
I don’t see it as alarming, UBI never really had good performance for the gfx (especially in this series, far cry runs slightly better). Don’t doubt this title have all kind of bottlenecks that hold the gpu back.
Just who cares about this game? Honestly.
Another Typical UbiSHIT. I am not all surprised! I just knew it! They are famous for creating Trash Games!
Its confirmed that XBSX runs at native 4k60.
And PS5 runs at upscaled 4k60.
And ray tracing isn’t there in valhalla in consoles and pc.
4k is pointless. Consoles need it eventually for big TV sets but that’s it. Smaller monitors just don’t need it, total waste of resources.
Apart from the 3090 being a garbage gpu the blame also goes on ubigarbage and their terrible optimisation skills.
Who cares. AC is just more console garbage. Unfortunately my 3080 bundle included Watch Dogs, which is yet another console port from Ubisoft that runs like trash on PC.
Seriously, you need to stop this “ultra” settings at 60fps nonsense, because EVERY damn time I see a post like this, I go take a look at the settings and I see things like “anti-aliasing: ultra high”. WHY would anyone need anti-alising at this level at 4k, if at all? This is just dropping the frame rate for no reason…
Aliasing happens at any resolution you know?
It depends on you screen size. For anything smaller than 55′, AA is 100% useless at 4k and, even if you have a giant TV, you would probably get away with AA set to “low” or whatever. You’ll most likely never need “ultra high” AA at 4k or higher res.
Watch Dogs Legion unoptimized and buggy as hell. Assassin’s Creed Valhalla unoptimized and probably buggy as hell too. Ubisoft can’t do anything right even with the extra development time…
I played AC Valhalla yesterday on my 2080ti and i got better fps than what is showed in the video at the same graphic settings
.
My best guess is that the nvidia drivers fixed this low fps problem.
I thought id share this information to anyone that cares.