This week, Assassin’s Creed Valhalla launched Ubisoft’s new game on the AnvilNext 2 engine. Ubisoft does not exactly have a flawless reputation when it comes to optimization for PC, so we have taken a look at how their latest game is doing.
This year we get to take the trip to, among others, Rogaland here in Norway, with a visit to Avaldsnes on Karmøy, climbing up Flørli in (now) Sandnes and the occasional stroll around the muddy streets of ancient Stavanger. As a newcomer to Rogaland, it’s quite nice to see what Ubisoft has done with our home areas.
There are, of course, some details that are difficult to swallow when it comes to authenticity here, but Assassin’s Creed is, after all, pure fiction. So I can live with that.
Not enough video cards to 19,000
Like Odyssey and Origins, Valhalla is a game that requires a lot of your processor. Thanks to the transition to DirectX12, the distribution between the cores has been better than in its predecessors, but you are still dependent on the processor to keep up with the video card. With my Intel i7-8700k, the processor usage is well above 50 percent on all cores, but that does not mean that we are talking about any good optimization here. As before, there are plenty of drops in the image flow, and the image time can be a little over all piles.
At Ultra High in 1920×1080, even those with the best hardware must expect some drops below 60 FPS. With my 8700k clock at 5 GHz, 16 GB with RAM at 4.4 GHz and an RTX 3090, some of the urban areas are so intense that I do not get over 55 FPS.
Very High on the left, Ultra High on the right. The difference in the level of detail is not worth dropping, so we would rather turn down the clouds.
–
The performance in 1080p is in practice identical to that in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. RTX 3090 achieves an average FPS in the built-in benchmark of 90 FPS in Valhalla, which is exactly the same as I get in Odyssey.
It hints that Ubisoft has done more with the optimization this time as the graphics are marginally better, but the visual differences are more about what type of landscape it is than the quality. The frame rate is also monologically lower in 1440p and 4K in Valhalla than in Odyssey. This is probably proof that it is first and foremost the processor that has it a little easier than before, even though there are still plenty of problems on that track as well.
The built-in test tool in the game seems relatively representative, because the intensive areas are clearly outnumbered. This applies across the solutions. In 1440p, the RTX 3090 jumps up to an average frame rate of 75, and finally 54 in 4K.
A video card for 19,000 kroner is not enough to reach the magic 60 limit here, that is.
Low on the left, Ultra High on the right. Expect an increase in frame rate of around 65 percent, but the presets are far from being the best way to optimize the experience.
–
But not many measures are needed. Among the various settings, it is the volumetric clouds that require the most, and just turning it down from Ultra High to High will cause the RTX 3090 to climb to an average of 60 FPS in the benchmark tool. In some scenes you can get up to 15 percent better performance by beating them from Ultra High to High, and on average it saves you around 10 percent in 4K.
The visual difference is not very big either. You only notice this when you turn the clouds down to medium. If you turn the edge smoothing from max to “Low” in the same sling, then you have the most effective way to get more FPS without sacrificing visual quality. The shadow quality is also something you can turn down a bit to get some extra FPS without you looking so much at lower quality.
Inno3D GeForce RTX 3090 24 GB iChill X4
| Resolution | Avg FPS | My FPS | 1 % Low | 0.1 % Low |
| 1920×1080 | 90 | 36 | 62 | 43 |
| 2560×1440 | 75 | 35 | 55 | 41 |
| 3840×2160 | 54 | 32 | 42 | 36 |
| «Optimal» 2160p* | 68 | 36 | 51 | 39 |
* Here we have turned the volumetric clouds to «medium» and the edge smoothing to «low». This probably works best in 4K because there is no edge smoothing that much anymore. Everything else is at max.
4K with 3080 and 3070?
The RTX 3080 also performs well in 4K if we make the most of it, and jumps from 52 FPS to 65 on average. The difference down from 3090 is particularly marginal here, but it has something to do with the fact that this particular 3090 card does not boost particularly high. The Asus card can probably match the 3090 card from Inno3D with a slight overclocking.
Common to all my tests is that there are some unstable drops in 1080p and 1440p. This has been the case in both Odyssey and Origins as well, so it shows that Ubisoft still has a job to do with the optimization for processor and RAM. These problems partly disappear in 4K, where the video card takes the entire load.
ASUS TUF Gaming GeForce RTX 3080 10 GB OC
| Resolution | Avg FPS | My FPS | 1 % Low | 0.1 % Low |
| 1920×1080 | 89 | 21 | 55 | 33 |
| 2560×1440 | 74 | 27 | 55 | 39 |
| 3840×2160 | 52 | 30 | 42 | 40 |
| «Optimal» 2160p | 65 | 30 | 48 | 36 |
ASUS TUF Gaming GeForce RTX 3070 8 GB OC
| Resolution | Avg FPS | My FPS | 1 % Low | 0.1 % Low |
| 1920×1080 | 81 | 16 | 48 | 26 |
| 2560×1440 | 65 | 19 | 49 | 35 |
| 3840×2160 | 42 | 25 | 33 | 29 |
| «Optimal» 2160p | 55 | 31 | 43 | 32 |
We see that the RTX 3070 is starting to wear a bit in 4K with everything at max, but with a few grips we can get it up to 60 FPS. The same will apply to the RTX 2080 Ti.
The DLSS upscaling to Nvidia could probably be a good help to have, but the game is sponsored by AMD, so it is not surprising that we do not get to enjoy technology that is exclusive to Nvidia.
A little outdated
When it comes to the look of the game, I’m not as impressed as I thought I would be. There are many great views and attractions to see, but I’m probably not the only one who expects a slightly bigger difference from previous games. It bothers me especially that the textures on rocks and mountains are relatively ugly, because Eivor spends a lot of time climbing on them. This generally applies to many different textures.
I have several gongs thought that this game could well come out in 2017.
But at the same time, there is a lot to like here. The lighting is sparkling, the shadow quality is top notch and the reflections on shiny surfaces are really nice thanks to the “screen space reflections”. You can easily adjust the viewing angle sharply in the settings menu if you want, and the drawing distance is particularly long.
The volumetric clouds also mean that both the thick shade that covers the snow-covered landscapes and the smoke from the chimneys get a whole new life – even if you do not have the setting at the highest level.
It is these small details that make the feeling of empathy lift a few notches. Another example is how Eivor exhales frost smoke when it is cold. This attention to detail is not unique to Valhalla, because it is much the same as in Odyssey, but Norway and England are after all quite different than Greece.
For those with weaker video cards, the difference down to the Low or Medium settings is not as big as one might think, so it is also not the case that one must have the best of the best to enjoy the game.
Conclusion
Norway and England offer beautiful hunting grounds for our Vikings. There is a lot of exciting content to enjoy, and despite some weak voice coding games, stiff animations and weird movie sequences, the game is quite polished to be as big as it is.
Ubisoft has done something to ease the processor bottleneck with the transition to DirectX12, but it would be an exaggeration to say that Valhalla is a particularly well-optimized game.
This is really demanding to drive.
We have to cross our fingers that Ubisoft comes with one or two updates to further refine the performance. For example, one depends on a video card and a processor in the top tier to run the game in full swing, but fortunately the game still looks good at a lower setting level. Still, it’s hard not to be a little disappointed when it comes to graphics.
Although there are plenty of the strikingly beautiful views, I take it for granted that the game does not differ very much from the two predecessors. There are several other graphics engines that offer better graphics and performance at the same time.
The biggest difference is simply the landscape and the level design.
– .
