Total War: Attila

The Total War franchise moves on to Attila, another The Creative Assembly development, and is a stand-alone strategy title set in 395AD where the main story line lets the gamer take control of the leader of the Huns in order to conquer parts of the world. Graphically the game can render hundreds/thousands of units on screen at once, all with their individual actions and can put some of the big cards to task. In our benchmark, the in-game scripted benchmark is used with the option for ‘unlimited video memory’ enabled.

For this test we used the following settings with our graphics cards:

Total War: Attila Settings
  Resolution Quality
Low GPU Integrated Graphics 1280x720 Performance
ASUS R7 240 1GB DDR3
Medium GPU MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB 1920x1080 Quality
MSI R9 285 Gaming 2G
High GPU ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB 1920x1080 Quality
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

Total War: Attila on Integrated Graphics

For the integrated graphics, despite the difference between the APUs and Core parts, we can see the effect of 10% GPU frequency and a smaller L3 cache has on the i3-6100 (which has 3MB). The i3-6100TE is an oddball of the group, by actually having 4MB of L3 cache, which nudges it ahead of the regular i3-6100 by a small amout. Either way, the Intel GPUs aren't great for Attila gaming at 720p Low.

Total War: Attila on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70)

Total War: Attila on MSI R9 285 Gaming 2GB ($240)

Total War: Attila on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

Total War: Attila on MSI R9 290X Gaming LE 4GB ($380)

Total War: Attila on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

With the discrete graphics cards, the Core i3s again sit at the top or near the top in a regular staircase. Attila still seems to be a bit of a hog for frame rates at 1080p Ultra, barely scraping 30 FPS average on the GTX 980 with the Core i3 parts.

Gaming Comparison: Alien Isolation Gaming Comparison: Grand Theft Auto
Comments Locked

94 Comments

View All Comments

  • junky77 - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    No DX12 comparison?
  • Meteor2 - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    Another good point!
  • BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    Ian mentioned in the article that they're still using their 2015 game benchmark suite for this review. I would expect AT's 2016 benchmark list, once finalized, will include more DX12 titles. I'm not sure when those benchmarks are normally confirmed since I've never really given it much thought, but as we're wading into August, one would hope that the 2016 list will be as forward-looking as possible. However, they'll probably need to keep something from the 2015 list in order to have a comparative basis for new and old products. It's also important to retain a DX11 title or two as the older version of the API is very much alive and well at the moment.
  • jeffry - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    I think if your running an oced Sandy-Bridge (2500K) and you use your pc for gaming, its not worth the upgrade cost. Perhaps its worth to upgrade for the very high-end games with maxed out resolution and graphics features, but then id not pick an i3 (-> i7 instead).

    If you run simulations or any kind of HPC, you most likely have another setup anyways.
  • jeffry - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    95% of all pp are shopping on a budget anyways, so i would spend my bucks on a new GPU instead of CPU, eg AMD Polaris or Nvidia Pascal GPU.
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNjT5R5XI4 You can get quite a few frames more with a modern, equally overclocked CPU. If you have the budget or get a good deal, an i7-3770k seems to be a good upgrade without having to get a completely new system with motherboard and RAM. Can be the difference between 45fps and 60fps.
  • Voldenuit - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    Thanks for the review Ian.

    A bit perplexed at the choice of GPUs and CPUs and game titles tested in this review.

    The Core i5-2500K is a natural point of comparison since so many people are still on it. Though they are unlikely to switch to an i3 Skylake, still a useful comparison for a data point.

    Those GPUs are really old. Someone building a new Skylake system would most likely be getting a 480 or 1060. Also, it would be useful to know if the i3 is bottlenecking games from reaching high framerates on 120/144 Hz monitors.

    Which brings us to the choice of games. Following (in my opinion, somewhat dubious) claims by various youtube reviewers that even a skylake i5 is not sufficient for 144 Hz gaming, I'd like to know if an i3 is a bottleneck on games where framerates matter: Overwatch, DOOM, Crysis 3, Battlefield 4, etc. As well as games that stress the number of CPU cores like AOTS, TW:WH, etc.
  • Icehawk - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    They run their benches w/o V-sync... so monitor Hz doesn't matter, you can see the maximum frame rates.

    I agree, some slightly newer GPUs would be good - at least a 470 or something.
  • leopard_jumps - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    i3 6100 + RX 470 4GB ($200) will make $550 gaming PC
  • leopard_jumps - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/gfHsXH
    Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/gfHsXH/by_merchant/

    CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($110.99 @ SuperBiiz)
    Motherboard: ASRock Z170M Pro4S Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($77.98 @ Newegg)
    Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2800 Memory ($40.98 @ Newegg)
    GPU Asus Strix RX 470 4GB - $200
    Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.49 @ OutletPC)
    Case: Deepcool TESSERACT SW ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ SuperBiiz)
    Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($43.99 @ SuperBiiz)
    Total: $561.42
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-08-15 13:01 EDT-0400

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now