The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested
by Ian Cutress on April 19, 2018 9:00 AM ESTCivilization 6
First up in our CPU gaming tests is Civilization 6. Originally penned by Sid Meier and his team, the Civ series of turn-based strategy games are a cult classic, and many an excuse for an all-nighter trying to get Gandhi to declare war on you due to an integer overflow. Truth be told I never actually played the first version, but every edition from the second to the sixth, including the fourth as voiced by the late Leonard Nimoy, it a game that is easy to pick up, but hard to master.
Benchmarking Civilization has always been somewhat of an oxymoron – for a turn based strategy game, the frame rate is not necessarily the important thing here and even in the right mood, something as low as 5 frames per second can be enough. With Civilization 6 however, Firaxis went hardcore on visual fidelity, trying to pull you into the game. As a result, Civilization can taxing on graphics and CPUs as we crank up the details, especially in DirectX 12.
Perhaps a more poignant benchmark would be during the late game, when in the older versions of Civilization it could take 20 minutes to cycle around the AI players before the human regained control. The new version of Civilization has an integrated ‘AI Benchmark’, although it is not currently part of our benchmark portfolio yet, due to technical reasons which we are trying to solve. Instead, we run the graphics test, which provides an example of a mid-game setup at our settings.
At both 1920x1080 and 4K resolutions, we run the same settings. Civilization 6 has sliders for MSAA, Performance Impact and Memory Impact. The latter two refer to detail and texture size respectively, and are rated between 0 (lowest) to 5 (extreme). We run our Civ6 benchmark in position four for performance (ultra) and 0 on memory, with MSAA set to 2x.
For reviews where we include 8K and 16K benchmarks (Civ6 allows us to benchmark extreme resolutions on any monitor) on our GTX 1080, we run the 8K tests similar to the 4K tests, but the 16K tests are set to the lowest option for Performance.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance
1080p
4K
8K
16K
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
545 Comments
View All Comments
NWRMidnight - Sunday, April 22, 2018 - link
Considering they already stated they would be publishing their findings this coming week, you are wrong about not being able to provide clarification. But it is taking time because they have to go thru and run various tests with various setting changes to determine what is influencing their numbers. This is beyond what just running tests and writing up a review is. People want to know how they got their numbers, even at stock, and defaults, they have to go thru and turn off or on bios settings, windows settings, etc to determine and be able to explain the impact on the results.This pretty much doubles if not triples the time it would to do just a simple review. And since Ian was up for 36 hours straight to get the first review out (partially because they had to scrap 36 hours of testing results and start over). So, he had to actually go home and get some sleep so he could tackle this task with an energized and clear mind.
So, how about you learn some patience and realize that they will get the information to us, or would you rather have it all rushed without any real details? They also most likely have weekends off, so in reality, we should not expect anything until mid week this week.
John_M - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
"partially because they had to scrap 36 hours of testing results and start over"Where was this mentioned and explained, please?
NWRMidnight - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
talks about having to throw out some of the data, and the reason, at the bottom of this page of the review:https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-ge...
Here is Ian's comment on twitter:
https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/987366840442...
John_M - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
Do you mean this:"However, this is just AMD’s standard PB2: disabling it will disable PB2. Initially we turned it off, thinking it was a motherboard manufacturer tool, only to throw away some testing because there is this odd disconnect between AMD’s engineers and AMD’s marketing."
I didn't read the tweet so didn't make the connection.
RafaelHerschel - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
A publication should either stand by its tests or not. If AnandTech is unsure about their results, they should temporarily pull the benchmarks since they might be misleading or place a much larger disclaimer.Ranger1065 - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
Great news about avoiding Anandtech in future Rafael. Please make sure you stick to your word.RafaelHerschel - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
@Ranger1065 I'll see this one out, and yes, then I'm gone for good. I don't understand why you are happy about people not visiting this site anymore. I'm pretty sure that AnandTech can use all the traffic they can get.It's sad that a once leading publication doesn't seem to have a place in the market anymore.
mapesdhs - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
Perhaps we're just happy that people who think we live in a completely black & white world won't be hanging around. Nuance is dead in this SJW world.ET - Sunday, April 22, 2018 - link
The 2700 is quoted as $309 in all benchmarks. Should that be $299?MDD1963 - Sunday, April 22, 2018 - link
FFS, *please* tell me this (crappy 8700K results) is not a result of using bastardly patched Windows Enterprise for the gaming tests ...!(For all those folks at home benching games with Windows Enterprise...yeah, that happens :/ )