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 - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Total War: Warhammer II - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Total War: Warhammer II - 1920x1080- Ultra Quality

Wrapping things up for games is Total War: Warhammer II, and this title is one that is less than ideal for the matchup between the Radeon VII and its competitors. Much like GTA V, the card is able to make substantial improvements over its predecessor; at 4K, this is an astounding 47% increase over the RX Vega 64. Nevertheless, given the starting point of the RX Vega 64, the Radeon VII is still somewhere around 15% behind the reference RTX 2080, meaning that it performs a shade faster than the reference RTX 2070 at 4K/1440p. That's not where the Radeon VII ideally wants to be, despite being respectable way to iterate on the RX Vega 64.

F1 2018 Compute
Comments Locked

289 Comments

View All Comments

  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    This card is a turkey for gamers. AMD fixed the noise level problem with Fury X and now we're getting less value than we did then. It's too loud.

    "Also new to this card and something AMD will be keen to call out is their triple-fan cooler, replacing the warmly received blower on the Radeon RX Vega 64/56 cards."

    Is the sarcasm really necessary? If you're going to mention the cooler thing why not point out just how far AMD has regressed in terms of noise. Remember Fury X, a card that is nice under load?

    "Vega 20 has nothing on paper to push for its viability at consumer prices. And yet thanks to a fortunate confluence of factors, here we are."

    Oh please:

    Fiji: 596 mm2 for $650. Vega 10 495 mm2 for $500. Vega 20 331 mm2 for $700.

    Anandtech says it's all so shocking that Vega 20 is available to consumers at all. Eyeroll. No. For $700, AMD could have put that extra die area to more use and given us 8 GB of VRAM. But that would involve doing the impossible and making a GPU that is attractive to gamers, not just peddling low-end Polaris rehashes indefinitely.

    Consumers aren't getting the best value here. They're getting leftovers just as they did with Bulldozer/Piledriver — parts that were targeted at the server market first and not consumers. At least with Vega 20, though, there is some competitiveness, although this is mainly because Nvidia is artificially crippling the value of the GPU market with its inflated pricing strategy. That is what monopolies do, of course. Look at how long Intel was able to coast with Sandy-level performance.

    "At 3.5 TLFLOPS of theoretical FP64 performance, the Radeon VII is in a league of its own for the price. There simply aren’t any other current-generation cards priced below $2000 that even attempt to address the matter."

    That's marvelous for the people who are able to care about FP64, unlike gamers.

    This is what happens when there isn't enough competition in a market. Gamers get the choice of two shafts: Turing and Vega.
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    Oh, yes... and the "console".

    At least the Switch is a real console. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about awful low-end PCs being falsely called consoles, which has been the practice since Jaguar became an (unfortunate) thing.
  • Korguz - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link

    like in a previous post of yours.. are you forgetting that the xbox and xbox 360 were also, " low end " pc's that your are claiming ?? the switch is a real console ?? ha.. the nintendo switch, is based off of the Tegra SoC's from nvidia... in a way.. " still " a low end PC......
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link

    The reason the Switch qualifies as a console is that it does something differently vis-à-vis the x86 gaming PC platform. It has a different form factor and related functionality. Artificial software walled gardens do not truly differentiate Sony and MS's low-end PCs from the PC gaming market. They are merely anti-consumer kludge that people have chosen to prop up with their cash.

    Merely having an x86 processor does not make something equivalent to an x86 PC. The Switch is clearly not the same thing as a low-end PC box like a Jaguar-based rubbish console. I am not particularly enamored with the Switch but at least Nintendo is offering something different to better justify its approach.
  • Korguz - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link

    this sounds more like your own personal opinion and nothing more.. for some reason you hate the current consoles, and seems like there is NO reason for your hate...

    nintendo has offered something different for a console since the 1st Wii, and honestly, look where it has gotten them... the xbox and playstation platforms outsold the nintendo systems, up to the switch, which has out sold the other 2.. but the games them selves on the nintendo systems.. are lacking..
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link

    "this sounds more like your own personal opinion and nothing more.. for some reason you hate the current consoles, and seems like there is NO reason for your hate..."

    Ad hominem isn't a rebuttal.
  • Korguz - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link

    still just sounds like your personal opinion, regardless
  • HorzaG - Sunday, February 10, 2019 - link

    Pointing out that (according to the poster) you're just expressing your opinion and "hate" without reasoning isn't an Ad hominem, you used the term incorrectly earlier in this thread also. Pretty embarrassing to be simultaneously so conceited and so wrong.

    "You should never listen to a word Oxford Guy has to say because he's a frothing fanboy whose posts reek of desperation and are probably indicative of an inability to get laid"

    That's an Ad hominem.
  • Korguz - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link

    and saying this :

    " You should never listen to a word Oxford Guy has to say because he's a frothing fanboy whose posts reek of desperation and are probably indicative of an inability to get laid "

    about someone.. doesnt prove your point any better...
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, February 13, 2019 - link

    "Pretty embarrassing to be simultaneously so conceited and so wrong."

    It must be.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now