TWC Total War Attila benchmark thread - last update: 26. December 2016

[SPARTAN VI]

A few things i`ve noticed :
-Do not use the "optimal settings" for the benchmark either
does the setting change somehow when the recommended button is pressed?
i didnt notice it becoming custom...

- Attila doesn't save any log files - again- for the benchmarking process. If you got a "downgrade message" due to insufficient video memory please do not submit this results as it is not comparable - it has individual downgrades
when would one get a ´downgrade message´? i heard rome 2 had some kind of automatic downgrade without a message, hence the unlimited video memory option.

-Only use unlimited video memory if you use an inbuild on die CPU like AMD Axxx CPU, Intel HDxxxx -umm , do you mean GPU then?
and does the AV really interfere with this?

Also do we need to keep a manual watch then to get the minimum and maximum fps?
the benchmark does not seem to display them ,at the end just the average.

I've used the graph at the end to gauge min/max. You could also use FRAPS to record your framerate in an excel file, then use that to identify min/max values.

[SPARTAN VI]

deleted

[alQamar]

so guys, I think Barbarian will still wait for the latest AMD driver before benchmarking but it would be quite interesting to see how much the results differ from LordDGP, just because the patch.

[booker]

I can do a new benchmark when the patch get released. And compare with the one I already did. It's not 1080 but it will work just to compare pre and post patch.

[alQamar]

thanks booker, I hope that the patch won't change too much, as I wasn't able to setup the OC scalability yet. I hope I can find time tomorrow.

edit: To ensure the new OC results (1024x768 resolution) are comparative with the ones I ran at 1080p previously, I decided to do them this night, because of the arriving patch 1.
The benchmark session is finished for that so far and I hope I will be able to get them in shape and uploaded tomorrow evening.

I haven't taken a glimpse at them yet, so I cannot tell whether the GPU limitation was the reason for the different results that "A Barbarian" pointed out. Cya tomorrow.

[SPARTAN VI]

Here are my results when I removed my OC. Cliff notes: I got a huge performance hit.

Intel i5 3570K, @3.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM 1600 MHz CL 11-11-11-30, SLI 2x GTX 770 2GB, Windows 7 Home 64bit, Resolution 1920x1080

maximum quality:
min FPS: 6
avg FPS: 35.7
max FPS: 45

quality:
min FPS: 7
avg FPS: 42.6
max FPS: 59

performance:
min FPS: 47
avg FPS: 58.1
max FPS: 71


JON-PCnoOC.txt

All in all, I reduced my turbo speeds from 4.4GHz to 3.8GHz, which is about 13% less. My average framerate suffered by 13-16%, which is pretty consistent for performance scaling.


maximum quality:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 35.7
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 40.6 = 14% higher

quality:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 42.6
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 49.4 = 16% higher

performance:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 58.1
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 66.0 = 13% higher

[revan.be]

Resolution 1920 x 1080p
patch 0, 25/02/2015

Extreme
AVG 8.9

Maximum
AVG 14.0

Quality
MAX 28 +
AVG 22.1
MIN 14-

Performance
MAX 34+
AVG 29.4
MIN 19-

Maximum Performance
Max 58+
AVG 47.5
MIN 31-

KEVIN.txt

[alQamar]

Here are my results when I removed my OC. Cliff notes: I got a huge performance hit.

Intel i5 3570K, @3.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM 1600 MHz CL 11-11-11-30, SLI 2x GTX 770 2GB, Windows 7 Home 64bit, Resolution 1920x1080

maximum quality:
min FPS: 6
avg FPS: 35.7
max FPS: 45

quality:
min FPS: 7
avg FPS: 42.6
max FPS: 59

performance:
min FPS: 47
avg FPS: 58.1
max FPS: 71


JON-PCnoOC.txt

All in all, I reduced my turbo speeds from 4.4GHz to 3.8GHz, which is about 13% less. My average framerate suffered by 13-16%, which is pretty consistent for performance scaling.


maximum quality:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 35.7
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 40.6 = 14% higher

quality:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 42.6
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 49.4 = 16% higher

performance:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 58.1
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 66.0 = 13% higher

Hi Spartan,

this is really amazing that your performance does scale nearly 1:1. How can this be explained, that my results do differ that much?!


Edit: Meanwhile I browsed through all the new submission but found configuration issues or needed changes, in nearly all of them.
I contacted the individual users via PM and hope for a reply, which may even make a re-benchmarking neccessary, so I won't include the so far valid submissions for now.

[SPARTAN VI]

Hi Spartan,

this is really amazing that your performance does scale nearly 1:1. How can this be explained, that my results do differ that much?!


Edit: Meanwhile I browsed through all the new submission but found configuration issues or needed changes, in nearly all of them.
I contacted the individual users via PM and hope for a reply, which may even make a re-benchmarking neccessary, so I won't include the so far valid submissions for now.

The biggest difference between our results lie in GPU processing power. The SLI 770s possibly exposed the CPU bottleneck more than the single GTX 670?

[SPARTAN VI]

Ok, I ran it again at 3.8GHz and SLI disabled.

Intel i5 3570K, @3.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM 1600 MHz CL 11-11-11-30, GTX 770 2GB, Windows 7 Home 64bit, Resolution 1920x1080

maximum quality:
min FPS: 18
avg FPS: 28.3
max FPS: 34

quality:
min FPS: 33
avg FPS: 44.3
max FPS: 61

performance:
min FPS: 44
avg FPS: 61.7
max FPS: 76


I reduced my turbo speeds from 4.4GHz to 3.8GHz, which is about 13% less. My average framerate suffered by 1-10%.


maximum quality:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 28.3
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 28.8 = 1.7% higher

quality:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 44.3
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 47.6 = 7.4% higher

performance:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 61.7
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 67.6 = 9.5% higher

With only one GTX 770 running, it appears I'm mostly/partially GPU-bound. This supports my hypothesis that SLI exposed the CPU bottleneck.

[SPARTAN VI]

Ok, I ran it again at 3.8GHz and 4.4GHz, SLI disabled, at 1024x768.

Intel i5 3570K, @3.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM 1600 MHz CL 11-11-11-30, GTX 770 2GB, Windows 7 Home 64bit, Resolution 1024x768

maximum quality:
min FPS: 33
avg FPS: 43.0
max FPS: 58

quality:
min FPS: 36
avg FPS: 50.7
max FPS: 68

performance:
min FPS: 48
avg FPS: 71.1
max FPS: 86

Intel i5 3570K, @4.4 GHz, 16 GB RAM 1600 MHz CL 11-11-11-30, GTX 770 2GB, Windows 7 Home 64bit, Resolution 1024x768

maximum quality:
min FPS: 33
avg FPS: 45.6
max FPS: 58

quality:
min FPS: 41
avg FPS: 57.8
max FPS: 83

performance:
min FPS: 49
avg FPS: 80.3
max FPS: 98

Comparisons

maximum quality:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 43.0
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 45.6 = 6% higher

quality:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 50.7
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 57.8 = 14% higher

performance:
3570K @ 3.8GHz avg 71.1
3570K @ 4.4GHz avg 80.3 = 13% higher

We can clearly see the CPU bottleneck at lower settings and at 1:1 scaling again.

[alQamar]

thanks for your new results Spartan and Revan.be, I will include them in the original post asap.

I've managed to put my results in excel meanwhile. But I still don't see a clear relation between Overclocking my CPU and better performance. Or better said: The results are completely various, so there is no indication that overclocking does help to get better performance in general nor the game does scale well with more power as it should sometimes and in other situation it performs even better than it should.

I have really no idea and don't understand this perhaps anyone can enlight me here? What makes me still stunned are 2 factors: on maximum quality it still seems I encounter a GPU bottleneck despite I am running the game at 1024x768. This is really amazing. I am out of words literally. What makes this game so demanding in the first place when Rome 2 was not?

[Godz_Mercenary]

Prepare to be amazed at the power of AMD. My specs:
Win 7 64 Ultimate
FX8350@4.5
8GB DDR3 2133MHz RAM
R9 260x 3GB
650WATT Superflower Fully Modular 80 Plus Gold PSU (roughly translated, it's super high end so it not the juice letting me down). Be well aware my PC is virus and malware scanned weekly, I update everything even my motherboard bios for the hell of it. And prepare to lol at my results:

Res is 1080p. Performs just as crap lower, but has to be 1080p due to my S-PVA panel looks awful non native:

Max Performance:
Min 49
Max 99
Avg 75

Performance:
Min 28
Max 59
Avg 46

Quality:
Min 24
Max 48
Avg 34

Max Quality:
Min 16
Max 38
Ave 29

Extreme:

Min 13
Max 19
Ave 16

[Fresco]

My System: Cpu i5-2500K 3,3Ghz(OC to 4,3Ghz),RAM 8GB 1333Mhz,Video card Zotac GTX 760 AMP Edition!(2 GB)
Resolution:1920x1080


Results(min/max)avg:


Extreme(11/19) 16,6

Quality Max(18/31) 23,4

Quality Base(31/54) 40,3

Performance media(48/68) 57,2

Performance Max(56/107) 89,7

[johnmck]

Intel Core i 5 4690K, 4.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, R9 290x, Windows 7 64bit, Resolution 1920x1080p, no SLI

extreme quality (needs 3-4 GB VRAM):
max FPS: 23
min FPS: 13
avg FPS: 18.5


maximum quality:
max FPS: 37
min FPS: 24
avg FPS: 30.9

quality:
max FPS: 51
min FPS: 31
avg FPS: 40.3

performance:
max FPS: 71
min FPS: 42
avg FPS: 53.8

maximum performance:
max FPS: 109
min FPS: 48
avg FPS: 69.4

Hope this helps the thread! I'm kind of sad that the only way to get over 60 fps average is to put it on the lowest settings. -_- Hopefully that upcoming patch will help things for us AMD GPU owners. I can post results again after I try a small overclock on the GPU, let me know if you want that too.

JOHN-PC.txt

[DaDump]

Here I am, Proudly presenting the first NOTEBOOK benchmark on TWC !!!


You made me use the cpuz installer. I'm allergic to installers!
btw, CPUz log doesn't seem to get the proper GT650m values, it displays performance level "unknown" with the boost values, but that's not what I'm making it run at, nor the 405 default idle clocks

Extreme Quality
max 8 / min 4 / avg 5.3 - i7 3632qm ~2.9* GHz // 16 GB 1600 MHz // GT650m** (347.52), 810 MHz (core), 900 MHz (VRAM), 2 GB VRAM DDR3, ~0.887 V // win 8.1 64b update 3 // 1366x768 60Hz. ATW v1
DOWNGRADED - i7 3632qm ~2.9* GHz // 16 GB 1600 MHz // HD4000 (10.18.10.4061) // win 8.1 64b update 3 // 1366x768 60Hz. ATW v1

Maximum Quality
max 9 / min 6 / avg 7.3 - i7 3632qm ~2.9* GHz // 16 GB 1600 MHz // GT650m** (347.52), 810 MHz (core), 900 MHz (VRAM), 2 GB VRAM DDR3, ~0.887 V // win 8.1 64b update 3 // 1366x768 60Hz. ATW v1
max 3 / min 2 / avg 2.6 - i7 3632qm ~2.9* GHz // 16 GB 1600 MHz // HD4000 (10.18.10.4061) // win 8.1 64b update 3 // 1366x768 60Hz. ATW v1

Quality
max 16 / min 9 / avg 12.3 - i7 3632qm ~2.9* GHz // 16 GB 1600 MHz // GT650m** (347.52), 810 MHz (core), 900 MHz (VRAM), 2 GB VRAM DDR3, ~0.887 V // win 8.1 64b update 3 // 1366x768 60Hz. ATW v1
max 6 / min 3 / avg 4.2 - i7 3632qm ~2.9* GHz // 16 GB 1600 MHz // HD4000 (10.18.10.4061) // win 8.1 64b update 3 // 1366x768 60Hz.ATW v1

Performance
max 21 / min 13 / avg 16.7 - i7 3632qm ~2.9* GHz // 16 GB 1600 MHz // GT650m** (347.52), 810 MHz (core), 900 MHz (VRAM), 2 GB VRAM DDR3, ~0.887 V // win 8.1 64b update 3 // 1366x768 60Hz. ATW v1
max 6 / min 4 / avg 6.0 - i7 3632qm ~2.9* GHz // 16 GB 1600 MHz // HD4000 (10.18.10.4061) // win 8.1 64b update 3 // 1366x768 60Hz. ATW v1

Maximum Performance
max 31 / min 19 / avg 26.1- i7 3632qm ~2.9* GHz // 16 GB 1600 MHz // GT650m** (347.52), 810 MHz (core), 900 MHz (VRAM), 2 GB VRAM DDR3, ~0.887 V // win 8.1 64b update 3 // 1366x768 60Hz. ATW v1
max 14 / min 8 / avg 10.7 - i7 3632qm ~2.9* GHz // 16 GB 1600 MHz // HD4000 (10.18.10.4061) // win 8.1 64b update 3 // 1366x768 60Hz. ATW v1

*2.2-3.2 GHz, BUS speed ~99.77 MHz, forced to run at ~2.9 GHz which is max turbo on all cores simultaneously (from my experience).
**Forced to run on "Idle" performance, thus disabling boost but staying at a low V. Default shuts down at ~80C, "Idle" doesn't reach 70C.
SP: Hardware runs exactly as specified above, no throttling, no boosts.

Well, HD4000 can't run extreme settings, so I do see the point about it being for future gpus *no sarcasm* *no, none at all*
Still better than a console *grabs popcorn* and a mac together *grabs chips*.
BTW, if you're gonna play at less than 10fps, then max 1 fps is the best. Looking at a slideshow is ok, 4-8 fps drives a person insane.

ah, right, the cpuz http://pastebin.com/YJm6sUZn

[alQamar]

great stuff, can you please post the CPU-z log in addition (edit the post above). I will check the new submissions and include them in the original post in the very next days! Thank you for your efforts.

[alQamar]

would you mind to repeat that test partially with only one card? I cannot understand why there is a GPU bottleneck at ridicilous low 1024 res anyway, even then I haven't used extreme quality... this game is really annyoing in terms of the technical view.

[Achilleslastand]

Just ran a few of the preset benchmarks after patch and compared with notes from pre-patch. I cant say that I am shocked but there is no noticeable difference.

[IamOdysseus]

CPU:Intel i7 3770 @3,40 GHz 3,90 Ghz(turbo enabled) GPU: GTX 970 OC 4GB DDR5 MSI
RAM:8 GB RAM 1600 Mhz CL9 OS: Windows 8.1 pro 64bit,Resolution: 1920x1080p
Driver: 347.52 Game version 1.01 I have restored default Nvidia Settings.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

extreme quality (needs 3-4 GB VRAM)
min FPS: 18
avg FPS: 30,3
max FPS: 43

maximum quality: (the recommended by the game is this one):
min FPS: 29
avg FPS: 39,6
max FPS: 54

quality:
min FPS: 34
avg FPS: 47,8
max FPS: 64

performance:
min FPS: 54
avg FPS: 66.7
max FPS: 79

maximum performance:
min FPS: 89
avg FPS: 118,1
max FPS: 169

CPU-Z logfile:https://mega.co.nz/#!HJVFTahQ!CPR5Cv...KdgzpKqkhNSWQA

except on maximum performance (I play with maximum quality) I have lost like 2 fps on average for all presets