Assasin’s Creed Shadows coming to the Mac day 1.

diamond.g said:
That is lame, is it Ubisoft's fault that you have to download the whole thing again?
Click to expand...
Frankly I'm not fully sure on the specifics of delta updates on the App Stores. If it for example fully replaces all files that have changes, and they performed an automated updated to all their resource files, it's not unreasonable all files have been touched and the App Store then cannot just patch them.
 
I had a quick look at the metal capture provided by @casperes1996 (the small one, not the large one). There is some variance in frame durations — most are excellent at 6.25ms, but a couple drop down to 30-40ms, which is under 30 FPS. Is that the performance issues you are talking about?

Zooming into the shader timeline, it seems like a lot of interdependencies and not much parallelism. Most of the time seems to be spent in the compute shader. I don’t really see anything too conspicuous here, but it’s not like I have too much experience reading these graphs either.
 
Just saw a review of Razer’s new 5090 based laptop

1600P, Medium settings, DLSS on = 50fps
Yikes. Clearly some optimization needed.
1743101185020.png
 
leman said:
I had a quick look at the metal capture provided by @casperes1996 (the small one, not the large one). There is some variance in frame durations — most are excellent at 6.25ms, but a couple drop down to 30-40ms, which is under 30 FPS. Is that the performance issues you are talking about?

Zooming into the shader timeline, it seems like a lot of interdependencies and not much parallelism. Most of the time seems to be spent in the compute shader. I don’t really see anything too conspicuous here, but it’s not like I have too much experience reading these graphs either.
Click to expand...
Most of the time it is actually running at 30-40FPS - In a standard run of the benchmark, there are 1-4 stutters below 30FPS otherwise it's in the 30-40FPS range on my full M4 Max with basically mid-low settings 1080p (That is, 4K MetalFX at 25% render resolution) - But settings don't seem to scale much. All low vs all high barely budges that needle, and turning off chromatic aberration and setting ray tracing to high instead of medium *improved* performance by 4FPS; Which is bizarre. All of this is using the built-in benchmark

Definitely not seeing the frame durations of 6.25ms - As I said I feel like there were a lot of oddities with the data I got from the traces vs. what I actually experienced and also in the larger trace itself. I am not sure if what we're seeing are intermediate renders or if it's just because of a massive wait where the GPU is done and waiting on a synchronisation point of some kind - CPU utilisation is through the roof all the time too, using like 1,200% to 1,600% of my M4 Max throughout the benchmark. Given this game also runs on PS5 which is like 8 Zen 2 cores, it's pushing CPU a lot harder than I would expect. I would expect it to easily scale to as big a GPU budget as you can give it, with higher resolutions and more ray bounces, etc. - but I would think it somewhat limited how much more CPU it could utilise than its minimum supported target. And I don't see a way to really scale that down much other than perhaps reducing the quantity of physics objects in the world at any given time by reducing load in range for objects, but I really would expect to be purely GPU bound
 
casperes1996 said:
Most of the time it is actually running at 30-40FPS - In a standard run of the benchmark, there are 1-4 stutters below 30FPS otherwise it's in the 30-40FPS range on my full M4 Max with basically mid-low settings 1080p (That is, 4K MetalFX at 25% render resolution) - But settings don't seem to scale much. All low vs all high barely budges that needle, and turning off chromatic aberration and setting ray tracing to high instead of medium *improved* performance by 4FPS; Which is bizarre. All of this is using the built-in benchmark

Definitely not seeing the frame durations of 6.25ms - As I said I feel like there were a lot of oddities with the data I got from the traces vs. what I actually experienced and also in the larger trace itself. I am not sure if what we're seeing are intermediate renders or if it's just because of a massive wait where the GPU is done and waiting on a synchronisation point of some kind - CPU utilisation is through the roof all the time too, using like 1,200% to 1,600% of my M4 Max throughout the benchmark. Given this game also runs on PS5 which is like 8 Zen 2 cores, it's pushing CPU a lot harder than I would expect. I would expect it to easily scale to as big a GPU budget as you can give it, with higher resolutions and more ray bounces, etc. - but I would think it somewhat limited how much more CPU it could utilise than its minimum supported target. And I don't see a way to really scale that down much other than perhaps reducing the quantity of physics objects in the world at any given time by reducing load in range for objects, but I really would expect to be purely GPU bound
Click to expand...
I am beginning to suspect the weather system could be the culprit. There are no settings for it, and it is resolution independent, which could explain why reducing settings or resolution doesn't appear to improve things much.
Jimmyjames said:
Just saw a review of Razer’s new 5090 based laptop

1600P, Medium settings, DLSS on = 50fps
Yikes. Clearly some optimization needed.
View attachment 34378
Click to expand...
Ooof, that isn't a great result at all. I wonder if they have Specular turned on. Last I looked that setting drops the framerate a lot compared to just diffuse everywhere by itself.
 
Back
Top