Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 360

Thread: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

  1. #101
    alQamar's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Dortmund, Germany
    Posts
    5,963

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    19.08.2013: updated a lot of results to comply with the blood patch issue. Thanks anyone for your time and participation.
    19.08.2013 added prooved results for CPU:
    AMD FX-4100
    19.08.2013 added prooved results for GPU: AMD Radeon 6870, AMD Radeon 7970 Crossfire
    NEW: Total War Saga: Britannia benchmark thread - last update: 10.05.2018
    HOW-TO-step-up-from-MBR-CSM-LEGACY-BOOT-to-UEFI-GPT
    Many of my past contributions in the time from 2011-2017 will contain content that now show broken links. Unfortunately I had to delete all pictures linked on TWC that were hosted on imageshack.us. Read why
    If you are missing anything of interest, please let me know. Sorry for any inconvinience caused.

  2. #102
    Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada
    Posts
    3,522

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    Quote Originally Posted by SamueleD View Post
    Being unusable for something doesn't mean you are crap. AMD offers very good price/performance for heavily threaded applications, unfortunately for AMD TW is not one of those applications.

    And yes, less than 20fps means constant lag in melee, which means unplayabe in a melee heavy game as Rome II, even more as the melee engagements will last longer than in Shogun 2. So AMD CPUs, unless heavily overclocked, are unusable for playing Rome II on a unit setting from large to ultra, which is what most people enjoy.
    I've never had too many issues playing TW using AMD. And I have the game set to Very High and Ultra settings and max unit sizes. I'm running an AMD Phenom II x6 1075T 3.0 GHZ processor. I also have 16.0 GHZ of RAM and a EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX560 Superclocked 2.0 GHZ.

    When I last had my computer checked by a technician they played TWS2 on my rig on Ultra and they never had any problems.

    AMD aren't crap as you say but I have to wonder if AMD having issues is the processor's fault or the game's for not being optimized at all for AMD. The sad part is more people seem to use AMD than Intel because they are cheaper.

  3. #103
    SamueleD's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    1,555

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan113112 View Post
    I've never had too many issues playing TW using AMD. And I have the game set to Very High and Ultra settings and max unit sizes. I'm running an AMD Phenom II x6 1075T 3.0 GHZ processor. I also have 16.0 GHZ of RAM and a EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX560 Superclocked 2.0 GHZ.

    When I last had my computer checked by a technician they played TWS2 on my rig on Ultra and they never had any problems.

    AMD aren't crap as you say but I have to wonder if AMD having issues is the processor's fault or the game's for not being optimized at all for AMD. The sad part is more people seem to use AMD than Intel because they are cheaper.
    Run the benchmarks and post the results then, please.

    The problem is both AMD and TW: AMD makes CPUs with very poor performance in single thread, compared to Intel, and the game does not take fully advantage of modern multi-core CPUs, and so responds better to single-thread performance, than having many cores. The game will use up to four cores, but still most of the load is on the first one, which is why having high single-thread performance helps a lot.
    I too have been running on a Phenom II X6, before upgrading to Intel. The game is playable on AMD, but it does tend to get laggy and stuttering on heavy melee with loads of soldiers (around 2 full stacks, with 4 it gets quite bad) and zoom ins, and in ETW it was even worse, even with a 3.9Ghz OC, on Intel, however, there is no longer lag in melee and combat is much smoother in general, which is the kind of experience you would want.

  4. #104
    alQamar's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Dortmund, Germany
    Posts
    5,963

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    Hello everyone, I asked a moderator to clean up the thread. As the AMD "faction" refuse to deliver facts in form of own benchmarks on their rigs and submit their results instead of hot talks we will clean up the thread soon.

    Obsolete stuff aswell as tech talk and discussion may cropped according to the thread rules.

    I do not allow tech discussion in this thread according the thread rules to keep this thread informative and clean.

    Aslong I get confronted by "contra" posts without a technical base and figures incl. logfiles I will not edit my tech myths and well objective weighted conclusions for that. I stopped counting people try telling me what everyworld
    rig can run TW on ultra* settings and everytime, yet, I prooved them they were wrong. And most of all they could accept they were wrong. That's life.



    The figures we have are good enough to say AMD is not useable in TW in comparison to Intel. I / we did never say TW is not running on AMD but it is running comparingly SLOW (like hell) in certain scenarios.
    If you cannot believe the numbers in the results, that is not my / our problem.
    Causa finita.

    Thank you for your understanding. If you still feel the need to fill the forums with presumptions certain things are wrong, or I may not use some particular words to face (non tech) people the truth please open a separate thread.

    I am sorry if my words may sound harsh but all of you should be able to read the OP and so should notify the rules in this thread.
    If you just pick up the discussion without facing facts like rules and results I cannot help you either.

    remarks:
    *ultra settings: are in the benchmark preparation files attached if you have more than 30 fps (the border when an ordinary human eye sees a fluid picture) you can count I would not deny you are allowed to say "i can run it on ultra) If you are below 30 in ANY of both test you cannot claim it runs ultra but it is stuttering. Of course the resolution is important, it would be ridicoulous outdated to fulfill the above conditions on a 1280x1024 resolution, which may be eligble for this person but does not represent the most people on Steam, that use 1080p (1920x1080)

    I am yet thankful for anyone with:
    - an Intel Dual Core (like E8600)
    - an Intel Quad Core (like Q9550)
    - an Intel i3 Core
    - any laptop configuration especially with gaming GPU (760M or similar)
    - and any AMD processors or AMD GPUs

    to submit their results.
    Dont feel blamed if you are not top of the hill, your results still make a lot of sense for this thread and are really ESSENTIAL.

    We need you and this thread lives only with your participation.

    I planned to make a video for benchmarking, for those that may not understand my writings or are just to lazy. TL;DR don't help.

    Should I start this video recording?
    Last edited by alQamar; August 19, 2013 at 05:13 PM.
    NEW: Total War Saga: Britannia benchmark thread - last update: 10.05.2018
    HOW-TO-step-up-from-MBR-CSM-LEGACY-BOOT-to-UEFI-GPT
    Many of my past contributions in the time from 2011-2017 will contain content that now show broken links. Unfortunately I had to delete all pictures linked on TWC that were hosted on imageshack.us. Read why
    If you are missing anything of interest, please let me know. Sorry for any inconvinience caused.

  5. #105

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    I found a problem with the crossfire profile in the AMD 13.8 beta (version 1 & 2) drivers (possibly affects also older versions). When zooming in on the troops in a battle, framerate is only about half of what it should be and GPU utilization is only about 50% (the closer the worse). For some reason this seems not to affect the benchmark (maybe because it's launched by the benchmark batch file).

    The solution is to use the Civilization DX11 crossfire profile in the "3D Application settings" in the CCC. For AMD CrossFire Mode first select 'Use AMD pre-defined profile' and then select 'CivilizationV_Dx11.exe'. With that profile, GPU utilization will be close to 100% again (if not CPU limited) and performance will almost double.

  6. #106

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    Quote Originally Posted by alQamar View Post
    hi Nippy,
    >> your CPU is not properly overclocked. If you have a NON STOCK Intel cooler choose sync all cores and raise max turbo to 45-42 ill it is running stable. Do not OC on a stock cooler Get the Arctic Freezer 13 if you, otherwise you wasted money for K CPU.
    Be careful with recommendations for overclocking 4670K or 4770K CPUs. There is a lot of variance in voltage=temperature and overclocking capabilities for these Haswell processors. I am overclocking CPUs since ages (e.g. Celeron 300A from 300 to 450Mhz) and I never had so many problems as with my 4770K. My 2500K would to 4.7Ghz on a good (not high end) air cooler but for my 4770K even 4.3Ghz with a 240mm AIO water cooler are barely stable and I prefer 4.1 or 4.0 for daily usage due to the massive heat output. I certainly got one of the worse ones but there seem to be quite a few of those around.

    He could be lucky with his CPU but for an overclocking beginner, I would only recommend 4.0 Ghz first. And only if the temperatures are not higher than 70 celsius in some burn test I would go any higher. And also never use any automatic overclocking above 4.0 Ghz. I saw some crazy voltages applied (1.5v in one instance) which can actually damage the CPU.

  7. #107

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    I did a benchmark test on high and got 28.6125. Works fine for me.

  8. #108
    alQamar's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Dortmund, Germany
    Posts
    5,963

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    °°° not only results stating please submit logfiles according to the thourough "how to" Thank you
    NEW: Total War Saga: Britannia benchmark thread - last update: 10.05.2018
    HOW-TO-step-up-from-MBR-CSM-LEGACY-BOOT-to-UEFI-GPT
    Many of my past contributions in the time from 2011-2017 will contain content that now show broken links. Unfortunately I had to delete all pictures linked on TWC that were hosted on imageshack.us. Read why
    If you are missing anything of interest, please let me know. Sorry for any inconvinience caused.

  9. #109

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    Is that what you wanted? I can run it on Ultra now.

  10. #110
    Baldos's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    264

    Default Re: Benchmark results by vendors [1080p (1920x1080) resolution only]

    CPU Benchmarks (processor speed, used by Warscape battle engine and unit movements, pathfinding, number of units on the field, in Total War):
    Intel:
    4 core CPUs with hyperthreading technology:
    *Intel Core i7-4770K, 4,5 GHz, Haswell C1, 22nm lithography, 84 Watts TDP, DDR3 2666 MHz CL11-13-13-35, Dual Channel: 52 FPS
    *Intel Core i7-4770K, 4,5 GHz, Haswell, 22nm lithography, 84 Watts TDP, DDR3 1666 MHz CL11-13-13-35, Dual Channel: 49 FPS
    *Intel Core i7-4770K, 4,2 GHz, Haswell C1, 22nm lithography, 84 Watts TDP, DDR3 1866 MHz CL9-10-9-30, Dual Channel: 48 FPS
    *Intel Core i7-3770K, 4,5 GHz, Ivy Bridge, 22nm lithography, 77 Watts TDP, DDR3 1333 MHz CL7-7-7-21, Dual Channel: 40 FPS

    4 core CPUs without hyperthreading technology:
    *Intel Core i5-4670K, 4,1 GHz, Haswell C1, 22nm lithography, 84 Watts TDP, DDR3 1600 MHz CL9-9-9-24, Dual Channel: 42 FPS

    Intel Core i5-3570K, 4,2 GHz, Ivy Bridge, 22nm lithography, 67 Watts TDP, DDR3 1333 MHz CL9, Dual Channel: 30 FPS



    I was very surprised to see the higher FPS of hyperthreading CPUs and of the 4th gen CPU (i5-4670K, 4,1 GHz, Haswell) at 42FPS vs, the 3rd gen (i5-3570K, 4,2 GHz, Ivy Bridge) at 30FPS. I bought the i5-3570K in July thinking the 4th Gen was going to be just a marginal improvement and that hyperthreading was irrelevant , but 42FPS vs 30 FPS in significant. I have a (GTX 770 : 84 fps) How will the 3rd gen CPU vs the 4th gen or hyperthreading CPUs really impact game play?
    Last edited by Baldos; August 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM.

  11. #111

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    @Baldos
    There is actually almost no performance difference between the 3570K/3770K and their successors, the 4670K/4770K. The big difference here comes from a benching mistake. the 3570K result was done with blood pack enabled and the others without. That accounts for about 30% performance difference. The remaining difference stems almost only from the RAM speed (1333Mhz versus 1866Mhz). That is when the clock speed is the same. Also the 4670K actually has no hyperthreading. So, don't worry, there is absolutely no need to upgrade from Ivy Bridge to Haswell. Also, even a 2500K@4.6Ghz will be about as fast as a 4770K@4.2Ghz (with the same RAM speed).

  12. #112
    alQamar's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Dortmund, Germany
    Posts
    5,963

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    Hello everyone, I've updated some results and got a new conclusion in aswell:

    The blood patch DLC is not only a nice feature (which is silly looking) but costs a lot of performance in big battles on the CPU. It does not affect your graphics card results. Thanks to babydoc and some others.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Barbarian View Post
    @Baldos
    There is actually almost no performance difference between the 3570K/3770K and their successors, the 4670K/4770K. The big difference here comes from a benching mistake. the 3570K result was done with blood pack enabled and the others without. That accounts for about 30% performance difference. The remaining difference stems almost only from the RAM speed (1333Mhz versus 1866Mhz). That is when the clock speed is the same. Also the 4670K actually has no hyperthreading. So, don't worry, there is absolutely no need to upgrade from Ivy Bridge to Haswell. Also, even a 2500K@4.6Ghz will be about as fast as a 4770K@4.2Ghz (with the same RAM speed).
    second that.
    Last edited by alQamar; August 20, 2013 at 01:19 AM.
    NEW: Total War Saga: Britannia benchmark thread - last update: 10.05.2018
    HOW-TO-step-up-from-MBR-CSM-LEGACY-BOOT-to-UEFI-GPT
    Many of my past contributions in the time from 2011-2017 will contain content that now show broken links. Unfortunately I had to delete all pictures linked on TWC that were hosted on imageshack.us. Read why
    If you are missing anything of interest, please let me know. Sorry for any inconvinience caused.

  13. #113
    Biggus Splenus's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    3,547

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    Hello everyone, I've updated some results and got a new conclusion in aswell:

    The blood patch DLC is not only a nice feature (which is silly looking) but costs a lot of performance in big battles on the CPU.
    That's what happens when you have performance hungry effects that aren't hard-coded into the engine

    Also, even a 2500K@4.6Ghz will be about as fast as a 4770K@4.2Ghz (with the same RAM speed).
    I've seen that it's more like; 2500K@4.8 = 4670K@4.2
    Last edited by Biggus Splenus; August 20, 2013 at 01:32 AM.
    | R5 3600, RTX 2060, MSI B450I, 32GB 3200MHz CL16 DDR4, AX760i, NH-U12S |

  14. #114
    alQamar's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Dortmund, Germany
    Posts
    5,963

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    hello everyone,

    I've added some more tech myths regarding Total War

    This time I am focusing on i7 / hyperthreading performance and the blood patch DLC.
    NEW: Total War Saga: Britannia benchmark thread - last update: 10.05.2018
    HOW-TO-step-up-from-MBR-CSM-LEGACY-BOOT-to-UEFI-GPT
    Many of my past contributions in the time from 2011-2017 will contain content that now show broken links. Unfortunately I had to delete all pictures linked on TWC that were hosted on imageshack.us. Read why
    If you are missing anything of interest, please let me know. Sorry for any inconvinience caused.

  15. #115

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    @alQamar: thank you for your tutorial (for improve intel i3 performance +16%) here you have an image of my shogun 2 specs with no lag:https://plus.google.com/u/0/101954244147761344321/posts
    Do you think rome 2 will be the same?

  16. #116

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    The tech myth thread is really shaping up nicely! Good job alQamar.

    This thread is also very helpful in regards to CPU and RAM testing. But I was wondering what's up with the GPU tests?

    We have a GTX 770 clocked in at 84 fps with FXAA , a GTX 780 with 84fps with MLAA and a Titan with 104fps MLAA. How can we compare the FXAA and the MLAA? Should the 780 be as fast as the 770 with that difference and why is my GTX 780 with 108fps faster than the tested Titan? Is it the overclocking? And if so, shouldn't we add this? People can save a lot of money by buying the OC 780 instead of a normal Titan.
    My signature is running from the battlefield. A SHAMEFUR DISPRAY!

  17. #117

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    The tech myth thread is really shaping up nicely! Good job alQamar.

    This thread is also very helpful in regards to CPU and RAM testing. But I was wondering what's up with the GPU tests?

    We have a GTX 770 clocked in at 84 fps with FXAA , a GTX 780 with 84fps with MLAA and a Titan with 104fps MLAA. How can we compare the FXAA and the MLAA? Should the 780 be as fast as the 770 with that difference and why is my GTX 780 with 108fps faster than the tested Titan? Is it the overclocking? And if so, shouldn't we add this? People can save a lot of money by buying the OC 780 instead of a normal Titan.
    My signature is running from the battlefield. A SHAMEFUR DISPRAY!

  18. #118
    alQamar's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Dortmund, Germany
    Posts
    5,963

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    Of course we cannot compare FXAA to MLAA these figures, some of my own, are just named to make present the boost you get with this mode.
    I don't know why the Titan is comparingly slow to your 780. Anyway I've read a lot of articles recently that a 780 can even be faster working than a stock Titan. Of course OC of the vendors on the cards vary the results but they are just a here to give an overview.

    So far the GPUs are not influenced by
    - number of CPU cores
    - the blood DLC
    - system RAM speed.

    So the only things influencing are
    - the CPU speed
    - hyperthreading (negatively on i7, positively on i3)
    - the AA / MLAA / FXAA settings
    - and the vendor / user OC.
    - driver version
    - OS Version

    but I validate every result.

    For some graphics cards (EVGA) there are also firmware updates available that can change / improve things.
    Last edited by alQamar; August 20, 2013 at 02:18 AM.
    NEW: Total War Saga: Britannia benchmark thread - last update: 10.05.2018
    HOW-TO-step-up-from-MBR-CSM-LEGACY-BOOT-to-UEFI-GPT
    Many of my past contributions in the time from 2011-2017 will contain content that now show broken links. Unfortunately I had to delete all pictures linked on TWC that were hosted on imageshack.us. Read why
    If you are missing anything of interest, please let me know. Sorry for any inconvinience caused.

  19. #119
    Biggus Splenus's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    3,547

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    The Tech Myths, Benchmarking and Preference.Script.txt pages have been linked in my thread now they should prove invaluable for system builders, new and old alike.
    | R5 3600, RTX 2060, MSI B450I, 32GB 3200MHz CL16 DDR4, AX760i, NH-U12S |

  20. #120
    alQamar's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Dortmund, Germany
    Posts
    5,963

    Default Re: The TWC Total War Benchmark thread - compare your real TW performance

    Quote Originally Posted by Aragorn-Elessar View Post
    @alQamar: thank you for your tutorial (for improve intel i3 performance +16%) here you have an image of my shogun 2 specs with no lag:https://plus.google.com/u/0/101954244147761344321/posts
    Do you think rome 2 will be the same?
    They made more LOD (layer of details) so we can hope that low end rigs like yours can run even better than in Shogun 2. Anyway we do not have facts. They put a curtain of silence on that matter, and that is not a good sign.
    Great idea with the petition thread. I signed it immediately.
    NEW: Total War Saga: Britannia benchmark thread - last update: 10.05.2018
    HOW-TO-step-up-from-MBR-CSM-LEGACY-BOOT-to-UEFI-GPT
    Many of my past contributions in the time from 2011-2017 will contain content that now show broken links. Unfortunately I had to delete all pictures linked on TWC that were hosted on imageshack.us. Read why
    If you are missing anything of interest, please let me know. Sorry for any inconvinience caused.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •