Assassin's Creed Valhalla Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis

[rtwjunkie]

I wrote about this aspect in What Are You Playing, but feel it bears noting here on the benchmark thread.

The fog is exceptional in this game. It shifts and moves in increasing and decreasing volumes with uncanny realism. I’ve lived and travelled in multiple places around the world. Other than some of the fog in the UK, the fog during winter down here in the vicinity of New Orleans is some of the worst I have seen.

22 years of commuting in it has me very familiar with its almost living properties. The way it moves and shifts shadows and visuals is replicated perfectly in the swampy waterways in the game in East Anglia and vicinity.

 

[anachron]

Yes, got myself a month of U+ and been going through WD:L first and now AC:V. I love AC more than WD by far but there's some obvious areas where WD is much much more advanced than AC which is struggling very much particularly with far off LODs (in fact, still well below standards established at the beginning of this gen with The Witcher 3), to not name the obvious RTX bonuses, or how much better the shadow system is and close to HFTS in WD:L compared to how basic it is for AC:V. And on and on, hell even the HDR seems a bit more borked in AC than WD, even though in Odyssey & Origins it was an absolute delight.

I have finished WD:L and i'm 40h into Valhalla already, i still find valhalla a lot better visually than Legion even with the LOD issue and without RT. While the "rendering technology" itself may be evaluated objectively, i have to agree with @W1zzard that the end result also depend on the work of the designers and the atmosphere they created.

 

[pexxie]

Can you add graphs with 1% and 0,1% fps/frametimes?

This could actually be of interest here, although I would say it would be more of a CPU/RAM comparison than GPU comparison. Possibly because of how CPU-heavy the engine is.
Although it's not directly related to GPUs; I've been surprised at the latency improvement by a 20% CPU overclock, and tightened RAM timings. Doing so did nothing for my average fps, but gave me a +10fps to my "FPS min" and a CPU max time drop from 50ms to 33ms. Attached a couple screenshots.

 

[RainingTacco]

This could actually be of interest here, although I would say it would be more of a CPU/RAM comparison than GPU comparison. Possibly because of how CPU-heavy the engine is.
Although it's not directly related to GPUs; I've been surprised at the latency improvement by a 20% CPU overclock, and tightened RAM timings. Doing so did nothing for my average fps, but gave me a +10fps to my "FPS min" and a CPU max time drop from 50ms to 33ms. Attached a couple screenshots.

How can you play with such frametime spikes? That looks very bad. Either the engine is the problem, or your CPU is running on its last legs. 50ms and more is horrible, 33 ms is not that bad, but considering that you get 75 fps its still noticeable. Probably a time to get that sweet 10700k with 8/16 cores/threads and futureproof yourself for next gen consoles released recently.

 

[anachron]

How can you play with such frametime spikes? That looks very bad. Either the engine is the problem, or your CPU is running on its last legs. 50ms and more is horrible, 33 ms is not that bad, but considering that you get 75 fps its still noticeable. Probably a time to get that sweet 10700k with 8/16 cores/threads and futureproof yourself for next gen consoles released recently.

It's an issue with the benchmark that basically never happen while playing ig.

 

[EarthDog]

Either the engine is the problem, or your CPU is running on its last legs.

Or it's just the benchmark....

It's an issue with the benchmark that basically never happen while playing ig

Run the benchmark twice and that doesn't happen/greatly reduced.

 

[BiggieShady]

Game runs a bit better for me since patch 1.0.4
Anyone else noticed, or it's just me?

 

[I'm here to throw]

Nah, you are just spoiled by photogrammetry in games with much lower draw distance and less simulated actors ... death stranding had to use nothing but moss on rocks to be able to pull it off

Pull what off?

 

[Space Lynx]

@rtwjunkie

or anyone else

To enjoy the story of Valhalla do you need to play the other games? I have only played and beat 3 AC games, 1, 2, and 3. Never got around to 4 or any of the other spin offs, but I intend to. Should I go with 4 for now? do it all chronologically for release date? or is it cool to jump around after the first 3 games if you get the basic premise?

 

[rtwjunkie]

@rtwjunkie

or anyone else

To enjoy the story of Valhalla do you need to play the other games? I have only played and beat 3 AC games, 1, 2, and 3. Never got around to 4 or any of the other spin offs, but I intend to. Should I go with 4 for now? do it all chronologically for release date? or is it cool to jump around after the first 3 games if you get the basic premise?

If you know the basic premise and the older lore you are good to go. You could go straight to Valhalla. You may not understand the real world protagonists (the same as Odyssee and Origins) since they did a lot of background lore in those plus in the games that explains much.

However, I am confident that you can jump right into Valhalla if you want and be pretty ok. In any case, it’s a great historical era simulator that is pretty fun, even if some things like the size of chirches and some of the Saxon armors are ahistorical, if that’s all you want.

Hope that helps.