Total War: Warhammer II (DX11)

Last in our 2018 game suite is Total War: Warhammer II, built on the same engine of Total War: Warhammer. While there is a more recent Total War title, Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia, that game was built on the 32-bit version of the engine. The first TW: Warhammer was a DX11 game was to some extent developed with DX12 in mind, with preview builds showcasing DX12 performance. In Warhammer II, the matter, however, appears to have been dropped, with DX12 mode still marked as beta, but also featuring performance regression for both vendors.

It's unfortunate because Creative Assembly themselves have acknowledged the CPU-bound nature of their games, and with re-use of game engines as spin-offs, DX12 optimization would have continued to provide benefits, especially if the future of graphics in RTS-type games will lean towards low-level APIs.

There are now three benchmarks with varying graphics and processor loads; we've opted for the Battle benchmark, which appears to be the most graphics-bound.

Total War: Warhammer II - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Total War: Warhammer II - 1920x1080- Ultra Quality

Along with GTA V, Total War: Warhammer II is the other game in our suite where the GTX 1060 6GB FE remains in the lead even against factory-overclocked RX 590s. NVIDIA hardware all fare well here, and for the RX 590 it has at least made up enough ground to nip at the GTX 1060 6GB FE's heels. And while the RX 590 represents a decent jump from R9 390 levels, it is still priced higher and draws more power than the GTX 1060 6GB.

F1 2018 Compute & Synthetics


View All Comments

  • Lolimaster - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    It's really sad that 2 years after, performance per dollar went down.

    2 years more and we will have an APU with similar power than the RX580 on a $150 chip...
  • ItsAlive - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Now undervolt and overclock that gtx 1060, Mine was able to drop over 100mv, lowered power limit to 75%, but still overclocked 200/400 core/mem clocks and uses 75w max at full load. Temps typically run mid 60s with stock fan settings and its near silent. Its a mini card that is probably 1/3 the size of the RX590 and I bought it over a year ago for $250.

    If a stock gtx1060 uses typcially 120 watts max (mine would before the undervolt), then total system power for an undervolted card according to the charts in the article would look like this:

    BF1: 210w/363w/379w
    Furmark: 206w/330w/362w

    I would be interested to see an undervolted RX590 vs undervolted GTX1060 for a better comparison.
  • deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    It would be an unfair comparison because AMD is using GLOFO 12nm LP node designed for low clocks and mobile parts, whereas NV is using TSMC 16nm high performance process designed for high clocks and efficiency.

    You can't compare the two back to back and NV would still win in such a situation.

    But, for the sake of argument, a Polish website (at least I think it was Polish) apparently managed to undervolt RX 590 just recently and total power consumption dropped by 34W.
    Here's the website:

    Polaris power consumption problems stem from a combination of problems:
    1. (and this would be the biggest) GLOFO 14nm/12nm process nodes designed for low clocks and mobile parts (not worth it even raising frequencies on 12nm because as we saw, both Ryzen+ and Polaris were already boosting WAY past the GLOFO node 'comfort zone' to the point efficiency was thrown out the window.

    2. lower yields on GLOFO nodes contributed towards lack of voltage optimisation resulting in higher maximum voltages on GPU's shipping from factory.

    3. Excessive amount of compute hardware. Polaris has powerful compute which is not really used in games, and this hardware does suck up a lot of power, and Polaris in general has about 40% more stream processors than Pascal has CUDA cores.
  • Kurosaki - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    I still don't see any incitement to upgrade from my 290X, sad in a way.. : / Reply
  • eva02langley - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Vega 56 if they are on sale for the right price...

    However yeah, no reason to change.
  • The_Assimilator - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    *sound of dead horse being beaten* Reply
  • Santoval - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    How long will AMD keep squeezing the blood out of Polaris? They have practically abandoned their GPU division, their mainstream one anyway. A single refresh could be occasionally justified, but a refresh-squared of the same GPU (or GPU series) equates with rebranding.
    I realize that they overwhelmingly focused on their CPU and APU division in order to compete with Intel, and that drew resources and engineers from the GPU division. But competition is required in the GPU market as well, or else Nvidia will keep charging an arm and a leg for their graphics cards.
  • samal90 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    you didn't mention in the Wolfenstein 2 page, that the RX590 performs like a GTX 1070. It's an interesting observation that should be investigated. Reply
  • npz - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    No, that's expected. Id optimizes for AMD as well, and that's without the special AMD only features. They're unlike all the other devs out there. Reply
  • deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Probably because the game is well optimised for AMD hardware (a situation which is all too uncommon).

    But AMD's main problems stem from using an inefficient GLOFO nodes.
    14nm and 12nm were both designed for low clocks and mobile parts... this is why we see massive increase in power consumption for Polaris at high frequencies... because the GPU is clocked WAY past the voltage comfort zone where it would be efficient.

    TSMC nodes are designed for high clocks and efficiency... and as such, they WILL have an advantage in clocks and power consumption.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now