Gaming Tests: Civilization 6

Originally penned by Sid Meier and his team, the Civilization 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 underflow. Truth be told I never actually played the first version, but I have played every edition from the second to the sixth, including the fourth as voiced by the late Leonard Nimoy, and 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.

For this benchmark, we are using the following settings:

  • 480p Low, 1440p Low, 4K Low, 1080p Max

For automation, Firaxis supports the in-game automated benchmark from the command line, and output a results file with frame times. We do as many runs within 10 minutes per resolution/setting combination, and then take averages and percentiles.

AnandTech Low Resolution
Low Quality
Medium Resolution
Low Quality
High Resolution
Low Quality
Medium Resolution
Max Quality
Average FPS
95th Percentile

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

 

Gaming Tests: Chernobylite Gaming Tests: Deus Ex Mankind Divided
Comments Locked

339 Comments

View All Comments

  • Orkiton - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    Please Anandtech, up ryzen and up epic your servers, it's ages here to load a page...
  • PrionDX - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    Mmm nice warm code bath, very relaxing

    > Results for Cinebench R20 are not comparable to R15 or older, because both the scene being used is different, but also the updates in the code bath.
  • prophet001 - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    How you gonna test FFXIV and not WoW.

    -______________-
  • Mr Perfect - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    Guys, could you please define acronyms the first time they are used in an article? Take page three for example, it touches on a BTB, TAGE and ITA, but only ITA is defined. I have no idea what a BTB or TAGE is. If they where defined on page two and I missed them, feel free to ignore me.
  • name99 - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link

    BTB= Branch Target Buffer. Holds the addresses where a branch will go if it taken.

    TAGE= (tagged geometric something-or-other) name is not important; what matters is that it's currently the most accurate known branch predictor. Comes in a few variants, was 1st published around 2007 by Andre Seznec who has since gone on to show how it can be used for damn well everything! (Value prediction, indirect branch, prefetching, washing windows, you name it.)
    Apple seems to have been first to implement, maybe as early as the A7, certainly very soon in the A series.
    Now everybody uses it, but only in the last year or so has everyone really got on board. (Actually to be precise Seznec suggested that Intel is using TAGE based on their performance characteristics, but I don't think Intel have confirmed this. And ARM probably are but again unconfirmed. IBM is confirmed, and now AMD.)

    Even if you know the basic algorithm for direction prediction is TAGE, that still doesn't make everyone equal. There are MANY extra aspects where everyone is different. The most obvious is how much storage is given to the branch predictor, but other less obvious aspects include
    - how do you predict indirect branches? State of the art is ITTAGE, but that doesn't mean everyone is using it.
    - how do you update your branch prediction storage (ie how fast do corrections get from the backend into the predicting mechanism at the front end)
    - how do you implement your L2 storage and second-stage prediction?
    - what extra "specialist" predictors do you have? (These are things like special-case predictors for loops.)
  • quantcon - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    Yeah, it's actually kinda nuts, considering Intel convinced us years ago that we've hit the point of diminishing returns and there are hardly any IPC improvements to be had.
  • Spunjji - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link

    Seems like they needed to believe that...
  • DanD85 - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    This just goes on to prove yet again how crucial a healthy competition benefits everyone. Intel has been stagnating for more than a decade. Imagine where we would have been performance-wise if we had got this ~40% increase every 3 years. Intel only have themselves to blame. They are the chipzillla, the gatekeeper and the choker of the whole industry!
  • lmcd - Monday, November 9, 2020 - link

    40% is a bit disingenuous. Most of the gap in desktop is chiplet design. Notice how mobile, while AMD-favored, is still competitive? It's just a bad bet from Intel going with stacked packaging before same-package flat chiplet, and the packaging techniques for both are very new. There aren't 40% improvements on the table going forward, Bulldozer and Piledriver were both just awful and AMD didn't ever release full desktop Steamroller or Excavator (which were fine, not great). Zen 1 left a lot on the table for such a big increase as well.
  • GeoffreyA - Tuesday, November 10, 2020 - link

    If you place Zen at Haswell's level, it took AMD three years to reach Zen 3 (from the consumer's point of view). On Intel's side, it's taken six years to go from Haswell to Sunny Cove.

    Even in the early tick-tock days, when more massive changes could be put in, it was usually two years apart for microarchitecture: Core (2006), Nehalem (2008), Sandy Bridge (2010/11), etc.

    Whether there's a lot more juice in the tank for Zen remains to be seen. In my opinion I think there is: Z3's out-of-order structures are still quite conservative, compared to Sunny Cove, which it beats, so there's possibility of more widening there. I also think their split scheduler design, inherited from the Athlon, will allow them to scale more easily. Of course, I know the engineers in Haifa must be cooking up something potent too. Either way, exciting stuff.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now