I find the M$ paid comments to be hilarious. Why can't it be that because it is sub 1080p, the Xbox embedded video cache (esram) was able to handle the code more efficiently. That would be my guess.
Lol. This made my day. They were all over gamebot for saying the same thing.

But expect more of this was M$ continues to update the X1 software and tools. Next year is going to be crazy here on N4G. I already paid up for a front row seat.C U There

@bigpappy

This game supposedly isn't GPU limited which is where the ESRAM would have primary focus.

If it's CPU bound then the 150mhz advantage the xb1 has would give it a small edge assuming Ubisoft didn't bother utilizing any of the additional compute units the PS4 has over the xb1.

Honestly, I think it's just lazy programming and a lack of optimzation.

Edit:

If you watch the framerate comparisons, you see during the cinematics that the PS4 has a clear advantage which means the ESRAM isn't giving the xb1 any additional gains. The cinematics are largely GPU based.

Haha love peoples comments on this site.
Maybe just maybe the xbox one was the lead consoles for this game. Maybe the tools they used run better on the xbox one.
Its the same as last gen. Some games ran better on the PS3 and others better on the 360 get over it enjoy the console you own and the games you own for it.

@thekhurg Why bother responding? You know he is going to be regurgitating the same garbage in another article. Just look at his comment, do you really think he is interested logic and facts
Some people are comfortable in ignorance.

I'd rather think, by design this game requires a lot of CPU bandwidth and for some reason Ubi stuck with that instead of finding alternative ways to push more to the GPU (they obviously have the knowledge to do so, as seen in there clothing simulation where the PS4 beats the XO 2:1 - interestingly used in AC:U).

However, GPU bandwidth drops quite a bit when the CPU saturates memory access on the PS4. Either Ubi could not get around this or they didn't bother. Anyhow, the "excessive" CPU bandwidth is also the reason this game runs 900p on the PS4. With plenty of bandwidth, this would easily render (!) at 1080p; but with the cpu eating all up, it simply starves the GPU.

Can someone please tell me why this matters? "Oh the xbox version looks better" or "oh the ps version looks better." The graphical difference isn't comparing PS4 to PS3. As long as the games play the same, they are fun and enjoyable, THAT's what matters. The game looks good on both systems, all these articles do is make people bash the other system.

Xbox One has a better CPU than the PS4.

I rather think Ubi didn't care. On the XO they must use the CPU at it's fullest because no matter what, this game would have never run more than 900p. On the PS4 however, this is a futile approach and throws the PS4 off balance, simple. In that regard, Ubi, with the XO as the lead (?? marketing deal with MS??, Timeline for release pushed by MS??)...they just ported that code to the PS4 (with some minor exceptions). To fully target the PS4, it would probably have pushed that version back a bit. I'd hope, Ubi, now that the game is released, pushes out a performance patch for the PS4 ASAP...because if this keeps creeping at 18 fps on the PS4 I ain't buying.

@Master I agree. It doesn't matter which one "has the advantage" they both run like crap.

The cut scenes the PS4 frames holds better than X1.

This is not the best example of one console outdoing the other.

Ubisoft teams that handle AC franchise have always been weak in the optimizing department. Lol why would it be ANY different now?

This an example of a company that hyped games to death and doesn't deliver on their promises.

@pontiac, this isnt really about graphics but more about performance and the xb1 being better at it.

Why optimize for launch when they can slowly make the game work over the next few months and get tons of dough??? And no one will assassinate anyone over this.

thekhurg - "
I'm guessing that Ubisoft made the game with the xbox as the lead platform and didn't bother taking advantage of the additional compute units the PS4 has. "

The game was made using their anvil engine which is PC lead yet always ran like crap; and that's what i think this is more about. the engine was never built with optimized performance since the very first game.

piss poor optimization

im skipping it anyway and will probably rent it in a couples months

CPU

I wonder If Ubisoft didn't aim for parity ...then what their excuse for Pc version ?!

@Tbone567

CPU is the same, the Xone has just received a insignificant overclook 1.5 . Tomorrow Sony could also increase the clook . then the CPU has nothing to do . This game also has problems on PC with CPU more powerful , has been optimized to suck.

http://www.cinemablend.com/...

Xbox One does not have better CPU than PS4.

Xbox One CPU is weaker due to bloated OS. It is supposed to be faster, but OS brings it down.

We have quantitative data.

http://www.cinemablend.com/...

@BigPappy.

Did you just pull that out of your butt? Lol. Xbox fans are so good at coming up with magical secret sauces now.

@GameNameFame LOL :)

We know the game bottlenecked at the CPU so it makes perfect sense that the X1 runs a little better considering the CPU is just a tad better in the X1.

@XBLSkull:

http://www.cinemablend.com/...

i'll just leave this here just to show you that you're wrong. it's a clear case of poorly optimized code (and ubi's failure to offload some of those tasks onto the GPU like the system is designed to handle), not CPU strength. and honestly, the .15ghz is not enough of a difference to justify this kind of disparity.

I love to hear all of these video game making explains, cough ps fanboys cough try and tell people how
this game was developed and why it's not running on Ps4. Really....oh its 50 precent more powerful oh... who cares... No one but Assassins Creed Unity or AAA game developer's knows the inside on how the game was made.

Oh and people who say "Microsoft, pays you more to ruin sony,.. good" As dumb as that sounds, good for Microsoft. . Its the better console and cheaper deal and you get a better verison a Assassins Creed Unity for free.
PS4 is terrible, I've been through, two consoles.. Service sucks, Ps Now is a joke (Sony Fanboys, would you like to burrow my game for the price of a new one, lol), controller is worst (4-8 hour battery, dumb light)
I feel sorry for sony, ...lol

Its not a 'Paid by Microsoft' conspiracy like some are suggesting.

Heres a more reasonable theory:

1. XBone was the lead platform because it would've been easier to port to the PS4 than it would the other away around. (I hope this isnt true, I dont want developers taking this route, but it makes sense)

2. Its NOVEMBER. Games are strategically released during this month in time for the holidays. Developers couldn't optimize the game further because the deadline was right around the corner.

Heres hoping for a patch. Maybe im being too optimistic.

Ubisoft on the term optimization: "I believe it's an old, old wooden ship....used during the colonial era"

Good thing I'm not buying this milking game

GHOST!!! found in Assassin’s Creed Unity X1 version.
http://i.imgur.com/GonJpF9....

Here is the full DF video
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Have fun xbots.

not sure about the paying part. this is pure incompetence from Ubisoft.

Here is a benchmark of Ubisoft engine running the Assassin's Creed Unity game:
http://www.worldsfactory.ne...

It shows here that there is double the GPGPU performance. Usually, it translate to better performance.

I'm not much on "conspiracy theory". But this game seems to have been purposely sabotaged.

Microsoft are the one paying for the commercial adds, you think they want you buying the game on other platforms that runs better? I think not.

So they gave a bunch of money at the last minute and they made it so that PS4 and PC would load up a much bigger part of the map than the Xbox One counterpart, therefore it dropped the performance.

However, since they didn't had enough time to "damage" the game entirely, the cut-scenes on the PS4 runs better. It would have taken more time to make it drop further.

It would be impossible to have it run worst on the PS4, unless the game was sabotage. Bought and paid for. That's how much Microsoft is desperate to sell the Xbox One.

The common excuse of the clock been a lot faster on the xbox one is BS, its just 150 "MHZ" that is 0.15 "GHZ", that's right! just "0.15 GHZ" of overclock for a total of 1.75 GHZ, this is a joke, it was made in order to at least give the bone a better number in something but is almost a POINTLESS OVERCLOCK so give me a break! the Xbox One is a good machine that should and WILL STAND OUT FOR ITS GAMES, not for the hardware, btw the overclock of the gpu is 0.05 "GHZ" (53 MHZ) and the ESRAM is just a BAND-AID.

Dont think they got paid to gimp any other platform it might be due to the software tools they were using during development. It appears that they where using more direct x11 focused software tools.

@Foxtrot

Neither Sony nor MS are paying any devs to drop one version or the other. It wouldn't be in any company's interest to do something so stupid.

It is absolutely not the case.

It can't possibly have anything to do with the CPU like Ubisoft has been claiming for months. Only fans think the difference in power between the consoles is more significant than reality. On what planet is graphics memory better for CPU use? A game that relies heavily on the CPU is going to have more issues on the PS4. A game that relies heavily on graphics will have more issues on the Xbox One.

If money and time were not factors in the development equation, all games would be better. The reality is gaming is a business. A very big business. Publishers can't spend unlimited resources on a game. For every dollar they invest, they need a return. Once you hit the point where additional investment doesn't get additional return, investment stops. Could Unity be better on the PS4? Possibly, but would the additional time and money spent get more in return? Obviously Ubi didn't feel that was the case. If they delayed the PS4 release, every day would equal less sales. This is simply the way game development works.

Thing is if it hypothetically did go to court could Ubisoft really get sued, I mean there is no actual proof they "gimped" any version of purpose, all we are doing here is speculating, not actually saying "OMG IT HAPPENED, IT HAPPENED".

All they have to say in their defence is "the Xbox One took more work so we focused on that one more" and because of the time spent on that version many people would just assume they lost focus on the PS4 version because if time constraints, not doing it on purpose. I mean they could easily turn around and say "Well we thought the PS4 would be alright after Black Flags, we didn't think but we'll know for next time". Again no proof, it would just look like "one of those things". It's different if there was an actual contract saying "we're giving you this money, we want the best version, whatever means possible"...but no one is that stupid to leave a bread trail

Don't see why people are getting so angry over pure speculation, no one is saying it's true. Isn't that the point of these discussions.

If the parity talk didn't happen, not many people would be having all these discussions but they want to shove parity in our faces then the Xbox ends up running better. I mean even the PC version was poorly optimized, and that has better specs then both consoles.

It would be totally different if the Xbox One AND PC were matched or the PC version was the best version. Least then you could say "Yeah it's the PS4 fault...it's the specs"

It's simply ignorant to say Microsoft paid anyone to make the PS4 look worse. That is as absurd as saying Sony obviously paid AMD to make the APU in the Xbox weaker.

Sony's APU solution is based around the GPU portion of the APU. Games can be prettier than the Xbox One, but not smarter. Microsofts solution is based on the CPU. Games can be smarter, but not prettier. Unity balances between smart and pretty more than most games. This is why the only thing separating the two is a few frames per second.

@Pogmathoin

The only person bringing fanboys into this is you.

@Death

No one is saying they DID, people (or some) are just discussing the possibility with all the contradicting shit Ubisoft have said leading up to it's release. Chill man.

@Foxtrot: Just look back at Silicon Knights vs Epic games. SIlicon Knights sued Epic because they felt they held back updated code for UE3 to give Gears of War an advantage over Too Human.

SK lost because they had no proof. Epic counter sued and won. So if Sony have proof, they will take Microsoft and Ubisoft to the cleaners.

Now, in regards to Ubisoft, Microsoft and Sony triangle, Sony have a billion times more insight than anyone on N4G about the development of games on their platform by themselves and their partners and also deals that takes place. Do you seriously think that if there was an atom of proof that such back handed deals to gimp a game on their platform by Microsoft was taking place, that they would not know anything about it? Worse, they would do nothing about it?

So Death is right by saying that it is ignorant to accuse Microsoft of such things. And if you have any respect for Sony, you should stop saying this because it makes Sony look like a company run by fools or one that is scared sh*tless of Microsoft if they would allow them to sabotage games on a system that they spent billions of dollars to design and manufacture.

That's the thing, Ubi didn't contradict themselves, what they said contradicted what people chose to believe.

Saying that the possibility exists that Microsoft would pay Ubi to make the PS4 version of a game is the same as saying they did. We have seen Microsoft send their people to a third party developer to help improve Xbox One games that are underperforming during the build. If you honestly think the PS4 version of Unity could have been better, why not discuss the reasons why Sony doesn't do the same thing? Why is it easier to blame Microsoft for Sony's short comings? It's a disservice and insult to think Sony is incapable of running their own business. If you are unhappy with the release on the PS4, stop pointing the possibility finger at Microsoft and ask Sony why it happened.

@Death

MS did pay the Cell's CPU main engineer to use Sony's R&D to make the CPU of the X360 without Kutaragi's consent. And is not just that, have you made a research to see how many times has MS ever been sued for anti-consumer practices? Or that time they gave a huge amount of money to Toshiba to bribe movie studios into abandoning Blu-ray? I still remember Michael Bay's rant because he didn't want his movies to be only on HD-DVD but he couldn't do anything about it.

These claims about MS paying for everything might sound ridiculous but that doesn't mean they can't be true. They done far worse things in the past.

Here a few links:

http://www.engadget.com/200...

http://techreport.com/news/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

And I wouldn't doubt the fact that the Xbone uses an APU set-up and x86 because of the PS4 instead of their own R&D.

"It's a disservice and insult to think Sony is incapable of running their own business."

@Death: Exactly

@Fox - Nice tinfoil hat there bud.

@Amuro,

The "Cell" is a modified PowerPC chip. Sony didn't invent the technology, the customized existing tech. My Apple G5 has a PowerPC chip in it. For the longest time that was the main difference between an Apple and a PC. PC's was x86 based and Apple used PowerPC or Risk based processors. The Xbox 360 and PS3 both use modified PowerPC processors.

As for HD-DVD vs Blu-ray. Microsoft was part of the same group backing HD-DVD technology. The codecs used for HD-DVD's were Microsofts. Microsoft invested in HD-DVD much like Sony invested in Blu-ray which they are part of. It's interesting you see Microsoft investing into a technology they are part of as being a negative while ignoring the fact Sony not only invested heavily into Blu-ray, they also incorporated it into every PS3 to help secure the format.

Going back to Microsoft paying the same person that was associated with the "Cell", it was Microsoft's investment in AMD's APU technology that power both the Xbox One and PS4. Both consoles are benefitting from the money Microsoft spent in making APU's more common along a wide range of devices. Once again, you see Microsoft in a negative light yet miss Sony's partnership completely.

Perhaps your view of Microsoft is a bit skewed.

How come MS didn't pay Activision or EA to gimp CoD or BF4?

It is beyond silly to even think that MS would spend money to gimp an Assassin Creed game and not two other highly more profitable and popular games.

I mean, think about it...Assassin's Creed is the game MS wants to gimp for PS4!?! REALLY!?

And not only that but both versions of the game run like crap for each system. You mean that MS wouldn't pay Ubi an extra $$$ to make the game run more smoothly on the Xbox One?

The amount of sense you guys on this site make to discredit and make MS this evil empire is comic book like. And people responding to you are right, if this was true about MS, you don't think Sony would get involved and come out with this info??

I mean they blew the lid on the Parity clause MS has, they made fun of the DRM MS was going to have for X1. Why would they keep quiet if this were actually true? I'm pretty sure these so called gaming journalist that have no credibility (as N4G likes to say) or "bias" media would love to eat up a story and run with it!

The reason...it's NOT TRUE! The only time you will hear it's true is between the good folks here on N4G as anything that goes wrong with Sony is paid for by MS or the bias media.

I would guess that the Xbox One bundle is what hurt the game. They should have delayed is like watch dogs and updated it to run better on both consoles. If you don't have the game ready then people wouldn't have purchased the system If it didn't come out before christmas. Also Assassins Creed is turning into call of duty

Given that all versions seem to have problems, the most likely scenario is that Ubisoft just didn't give enough time to the developers to properly optimize the game on any system.

No one on here can really say why the game might play slightly better on the X1, as very few people on here have even the slightest clue on how games are programmed, and most people really don't understand the differences between the system, and how they might effect the engine being used.

It's silly to blame MS for this. Just blame Ubisoft and make a fuss and tell them to get their sh*t together. If they can't make their yearly releases worth buying on release, then maybe they shouldn't be doing yearly releases. No need for conspiracy theories...just accept that Ubisoft just didn't care enough to make sure they released a mostly working product on any system.

@Death

Actually Death you are wrong.

The Cell processor is new tech developed by Sony, Sony Computer Entertainment, Toshiba, and IBM. It has similarities to the PowerPC architecture due to the PPE and it's compatible with other OS's due to it's similarity to other PowerPC processors. But it is not even remotely the same as PowerPC processors. Just because they use one small portion of old tech and modified it greatly, does not make it old tech. That's like saying I used pepper on my steak before I grilled it and then saying it's grilled pepper... not steak... All technology uses old tech or modifies it to create new tech.

"Cell is a multi-core microprocessor microarchitecture that combines a general-purpose Power Architecture core of modest performance with streamlined coprocessing elements[1] which greatly accelerate multimedia and vector processing applications, as well as many other forms of dedicated computation.[1]

It was developed by Sony, Sony Computer Entertainment, Toshiba, and IBM, an alliance known as "STI". The architectural design and first implementation were carried out at the STI Design Center in Austin, Texas over a four-year period beginning March 2001 on a budget reported by Sony as approaching US$400 million."

"The PPE is the Power Architecture based, two-way multithreaded core acting as the controller for the eight SPEs, which handle most of the computational workload. The PPE will work with conventional operating systems due to its similarity to other 64-bit PowerPC processors, while the SPEs are designed for vectorized floating point code execution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Oh and here is the portion of where M$ approached and invested (bribed) IBM to use a portion of the cell in their processor:

"Xenon in Xbox 360[edit]
The PPE was designed specifically for the Cell processor but during development, Microsoft approached IBM wanting a high performance processor core for its Xbox 360. IBM complied and made the tri-core Xenon processor, based on a slightly modified version of the PPE.[30][31]"

How is it dumb down, when the game looks and plays better than any other Ubi game released before it? And are Xbox one owners not gamers too. Why exactly would it be fair for them to get the lesser version?

***How is it dumb down, when the game looks and plays better than any other Ubi game released before it?***

1. Who said anything about being dumbed down? And what does that have to do with graphics and performance (dumbing down applies to gameplay).

2. I disagree with it being better looking than AC4.

***And are Xbox one owners not gamers too. Why exactly would it be fair for them to get the lesser version?***

Wait... so you think everything should look the same across the board? You think that PC gamers should get the same thing as well? That no matter if you invested in better hardware, you should get the same experience as the lowest common denominator?

Wow... talk about totally fair. Hold back 2 platforms for 1. Sounds totally fair to everyone here.

What people want is for companies to program to the best of the platform upon which they get their game. I don't think that's too much to ask for. Far from.

Perhaps you responded to the wrong person, Bigpappy?

@Xabi,

It's the same CPU running at a 10% faster clock speed. The main difference is the DDR3 which is optimized for CPU calculations. The CPU in the PS4 APU only has access to GDDR5 memory which is optimized for GPU calculations. It's essentially 10% slower with the wrong type of memory. Being part of an APU, the CPU can offload tasks to the GPU to give it a performance boost. The boost comes at a cost though since the GPU working as a CPU reduces the resources available for GPU calculations.

Microsoft's use of DDR3 reduces the performance of the GPU. They can't offload GPU tasks to the CPU which is why they use eSram to boost speeds. Using the eSram is more complex than Sony's solution, but at the same time optimizing the APU isn't as simple as traditional CPU/GPU are concerned but there are performance advantages to having both on a single chip with a single pool of resources.

@cgood,

Please provide me a link where Ubi said the APU in the PS4 isn't being used as an APU. Both the CPU and GPU are part of a single chip. I don't think it's possible to not use the GPU for offloaded tasks. If this isn't the case, why isn't the game at 1080p? If you think you can separate the two, I can see where your frustration is coming from.

***Please provide me a link where Ubi said the APU in the PS4 isn't being used as an APU. Both the CPU and GPU are part of a single chip. ***

No one said this. What was said is that AI is being handled as non-GPGPU (CPU focused) and not specialized for use on the PS4 using other methods (not CPU focused).

What everyone is saying is that the game is not optimized for anything but the XBO. The PS4 is not optimized as they said it was. Nor is the PC version.

The game is purely optimized for the Xbox One. They could get away with this on older games where they weren't trying to push such processing, but now that they try they are failing to update their engine to work better on PCs and PS4s.

"The boost comes at a cost though since the GPU working as a CPU reduces the resources available for GPU calculations"

Not true. PS4 has many more compute "channels" than XO and finer granularity scheduling GPU jobs- which means they can fit into GPU "render-holes" much more efficiently. Also, given we talk the same resolution, while the PS4 still has 4 more CUs available would indicate that, if utilized more, the framerate should never suffer as it does with that game. I could understand if pushing to 1080 would limit GPU bandwidth. But this isn't the case.

They must have used compute somewhere, but for some reason it isn't working right. Look at this: http://www.gdcvault.com/pla...

I am pretty sure this is used in AC:U and shows a (almost) 100% advantage in compute over the XO.

I speculate, Ubi simply knew the (graphics) barrier is the XO and pushed the CPU as much as they could and then run the (almost) same code on the PS4. Maybe it was good enough or they ran out of time or what ever. But it sure isn't optimized for the PS4 as it should be. Slowest common denominator dominated this game.

@cgoodno and Ju

First off, Death is correct in almost everything he has written here.

Secondly, you are making the same incorrect statement everyone makes about the CPU in the XB1.

You know what I find fascinating about these conversations, how the specs of the PS4 have everything XB1 does.....plus more. That's actually very funny.

Think of it like this. You know how the PS4 has more CU's (compute units) on the GPU compared to the XB1 GPU? The same idea applies to the CPU, but this time, in favor of the XB1.

CPU clock speeds are only a single facet of computing. Which the XB1 has by 10%. Another MAJOR factor to look for are ops/cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

The instructions needed to run tasks and operations per cycle are changed based on clock speed and are increased also with higher clock speeds.

If MS customized their APU for this, then it wouldn't be a 10% increase. It would be significantly larger than 10%, since that's just the clock speed itself.

I've seen some people speculate that the XB1 can do 3-4 times as many operations per cycle than the PS4. Then, when you factor in other attributes regarding ops per cycle, XB1 will have a very distinct advantage many times over.

Also, this isn't including DX12, which allows for these operations to be multi-threaded on an even grander scale. DX12 multi-threading will bring that number up higher than DX 11.3.

These are things that Sony will have to try and brute force on the GPU. The problem with that approach, as Death said, is the RAM. GDDR5 is not built for computational tasks.

It's the reason why GDDR5 is on GPU's and DDR3 or DDR4 is made for system memory. CPU's work better with one RAM, GPU's work better with the other.

TL/DR....You're ASSUMING that the XB1 and PS4 CPU's are identical aside from clock speed. This is so unbelievably inaccurate, it's scary.

***You're ASSUMING that the XB1 and PS4 CPU's are identical aside from clock speed. This is so unbelievably inaccurate, it's scary.***

You are just ranting like a fanboy. Otherwise you would have seen this part of my comment in reply to Death.

+++++

***Each console needs a different approach in order to cater to their strengths and weakness.***

Agreed. In this case, only one console received such a focus and that was the XBO. The goal here was parity, not, as they said themselves, taking advantage of the strengths of each console had to offer.

+++++

Where in that statement of mine, in reply to Death, did I say the PS4 was just like the XBO, just better? The only question here is time spent to maximize the potential of each console by Ubisoft. It is extremely obvious that they did not take the time when it concerned the PC or the PS4 that they took with the XBO.

This has squat to do with if the PS4 is just like the XBO, but a little more powerful. This is about them actually taking the time to develop a game utilizing each hardware to its maximum potential. Something they said they did. Essentially, they lied their asses off about it and just wanted us to believe it.