Company of Heroes 2

Our second benchmark in our benchmark suite is Relic Games’ Company of Heroes 2, the developer’s World War II Eastern Front themed RTS. For Company of Heroes 2 Relic was kind enough to put together a very strenuous built-in benchmark that was captured from one of the most demanding, snow-bound maps in the game, giving us a great look at CoH2’s performance at its worst. Consequently if a card can do well here then it should have no trouble throughout the rest of the game.

Company of Heroes 2 - 3840x2160 - Low Quality

Company of Heroes 2 - 2560x1440 - Maximum Quality + Med. AA

Company of Heroes 2 - 1920x1080 - Maximum Quality + Med. AA

Since CoH2 is not AFR compatible, the best performance you’re going to get out of it is whatever you can get out of a single GPU. In which case the GTX 980 is the fastest card out there for this game. AMD’s R9 290XU does hold up well though; the GTX 980 may have a lead, but AMD is never more than a few percent behind at 4K and 1440p. The lead over the GTX 780 Ti is much more substantial on the other hand at 13% to 22%. So NVIDIA has finally taken this game back from AMD, as it were.

Elsewhere against the GTX 680 this is another very good performance for the GTX 980, with a performance advantage over 80%.

On an absolute basis, at these settings you’re looking at an average framerate in the 40s, which for an RTS will be a solid performance.

Company of Heroes 2 - Min. Frame Rate - 3840x2160 - Low Quality

Company of Heroes 2 - Min. Frame Rate - 2560x1440 - Maximum Quality + Med. AA

Company of Heroes 2 - Min. Frame Rate - 1920x1080 - Maximum Quality + Med. AA

However when it comes to minimum framerates, GTX 980 can’t quite stay on top. In every case it is ever so slightly edged out by the R9 290XU by a fraction of a frame per second. AMD seems to weather the hardest drops in framerates just a bit better than NVIDIA does. Though neither card can quite hold the line at 30fps at 1440p and 4K.

Metro: Last Light Bioshock Infinite
Comments Locked

274 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, September 18, 2014 - link

    As noted in the article, we had a problem with our 970 sample that was not able to be resolved in time for this article. Otherwise I would have very much liked to have a 970 in this review.
  • Sunrise089 - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link

    "Focus on quality first, then timeliness second. There's value in both but there's more value in one." :(
  • extide - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link

    Yeah guys, seriously just make the article live a little bit late!
  • hpglow - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link

    The boss quits and all you guys around running around the office with your shirts off screaming at the top of your lungs? The review could have waited and hour or two so that it was done, now I'm not even going to finish reading it.
  • iLovefloss - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link

    They've been doing this since forever. If you look at the comments from the R9 290X launch review, people were complaining about the same thing for example.
  • Sunrise089 - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link

    Including me. It was unacceptable clIck-baiting then and it still is. Interestingly enough it's not a site-wide issue. Surface Pro 3 and Devils Canyon both had long waits for ultimately excellent reviews. iPhone 6 will no doubt be a very popular review and yet Joshua or whoever didn't push it online at midnight. For whatever reason though GPU reviews get this weird 'rush to publish, fill in content later' pattern.
  • djscrew - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link

    diva much? jeez give it a rest
  • nathanddrews - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link

    This is not the first time AT has done this, there have been many other incomplete reviews published over the years (decades).
  • chizow - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link

    @hpglow, in Ryan's defense, it was a short turnaround from the press briefing and this has happened in the past. Usually AT's articles focus heavily on the technical aspects also (which is greatly appreciated throughout the industry) and he also gets help from the rest of the staff to stitch the review together, so it is understandable that it is sometimes uploaded piecemeal.

    I would rather have something that is eventually updated that stands the test of time, vs. something that is rushed out hastily.
  • SodaAnt - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link

    You think that it would only take an hour or two to get a gpu somehow, run dozens of tests on it, put those tests into tables, put those tables onto pages, then write another few thousand words on those tests?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now