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
POST A COMMENT

138 Comments

View All Comments

  • silverblue - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    I was talking about the process; I know the 2000 series has done well.

    I didn't even know TSMC had a 12nm process, but either it's not very well suited to this application or AMD have just clocked it far too highly, so it's not a successful product in that sense.
    Reply
  • frenchy_2001 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    Nvidia's Volta and Turing are fabbed on TSMC 12nm.
    So, it seems to work well for GPUs, but AMD's architecture is just not competitive in their perfs/watt.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    I completely forgot about them.

    It feels like Polaris is bottlenecked in some way, and increasing clock speeds is just a brute force way of alleviating the issue at the cost of significant power consumption. Perhaps the design is just broken to begin with.
    Reply
  • Manch - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Memory bandwidth is the bottleneck for Polaris. Reply
  • deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Power consumption - wise, its the process node from GLOFO that's limiting Polaris mainly from achieving high frequencies and low power consumption.
    GLOFO nodes are designed for low clocks and mobile parts... 12nmLP is designed for the same, and AMD used it for RX 590.
    That's why power consumption explodes on high frequencies.
    Reply
  • deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Polaris is bottlenecked by the GLOFO 12nmLP process that's being used here.
    It's designed for low clocks and mobile parts.
    There was NOTHING posted about AMD using TSCM 12nm node for Polaris refresh. TSMC 12nm was slated for Nvidia.

    AMD gets to use TSMC 7nm high performance process node for Zen 2, Vega Instinct and Navi.
    Reply
  • eek2121 - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link

    "Limited" is the word you want to use to describe Polaris. "Broken" would imply it doesn't work at all. Polaris was never meant to be a high end architecture. They have just been doing refreshes because they are likely reorganizing their GPU division and coming up with a new architecture to replace GCN. Doing something like that takes time, and AMD has to continue generating revenue. Also, the 590 is not a bad card at all, while I have a 1080ti in my machine, I would definitely consider a Polaris card in any new machine I build (for friends, family, etc.) Reply
  • deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Incorrect on AMD's architecture not being competitive because AMD is still using GLOFO 12nm LP process for RX 590 which is designed for low clocks and mobile parts.

    TSMC 16nm and 12nm processes are designed for high performance and efficiency... those nodes are superior to GLOFO (that's why AMD's GPU's end up sucking up A LOT of power at high frequencies - its because the process node from GLOFO cannot take it, and partly because the compute performance on Polaris is a lot bigger than on GTX 1060).
    Reply
  • porcupineLTD - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    I highly doubt that, any source? Reply
  • deksman2 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Actually 'Cooe', you are incorrect.
    AMD is using 12nmLP process from GLOFO for RX 590.

    You can read about that here:
    https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd-rx-590-overclocking-p...

    Furthermore, the power consumption on RX 590 should be a dead give-away, because this is exactly the same thing that happened for Ryzen+ too (not to mention the fact we had 0 indications that AMD would refresh Polaris on TSMC 12nm process. NV got access to 12nm TSMC process, not AMD... AMD got access to TSMC's 7nm high perf. process and they have reserved Zen 2, Vega Instinct and Navi for that).

    They increased the frequencies on 12nmLP, but as a result they also saw an increase in power consumption.

    Polaris is clocked WAY beyond the voltage comfort zone on GLOFO processes (which are designed for low clocks and mobile parts).
    If they wanted a refresh, they should have just dropped the frequencies down to 580 levels and call it a more power efficient rebrand.

    If AMD moved to TSMC 12nm for RX 590, power consumption on this GPU would actually be lower than on GTX 1060 with those frequencies.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now