Total War: Rome 2

The second strategy game in our benchmark suite, Total War: Rome 2 is the latest game in the Total War franchise. Total War games have traditionally been a mix of CPU and GPU bottlenecks, so it takes a good system on both ends of the equation to do well here. In this case the game comes with a built-in benchmark that plays out over a forested area with a large number of units, definitely stressing the GPU in particular.

For this game in particular we’ve also gone and turned down the shadows to medium. Rome’s shadows are extremely CPU intensive (as opposed to GPU intensive), so this keeps us from CPU bottlenecking nearly as easily.

Total War: Rome 2 - 3840x2160 - Very High Quality + Med. Shadows

Total War: Rome 2 - 2560x1440 - Extreme Quality + Med. Shadows

Total War: Rome 2 - 1920x1080 - Extreme Quality + Med. Shadows

Yet again we have a situation where the winner and loser is effectively decided by the resolution in use. GTX 970 will trail at 4K, only to take a slight lead at 1440p. As we’ve stated before 1440p and 1080p are going to be the sweet spots for GTX 970 based on its $329 price tag, so for GTX 970 this means it’s winning or tying in the resolutions where it matters the most.

Of course if you factor in the FTW overclock then the point becomes moot. With the GTX 970 and R9 290XU tracking so close together, the higher clock speeds mean that a GTX 970 card can push ahead of R9 290XU on average.

Crysis: Warhead Thief
Comments Locked

155 Comments

View All Comments

  • AkibWasi - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    ain't those 896(64 per SMM) yellow colored boxes in Titan's diagram indicate FP64 cores ???
  • Ryan Smith - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    Correct. NVIDIA only includes those cores on diagrams for their compute/pro GPUs.
  • dexgen - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    I think it would be a great idea to comment on and analyze the effects of overclocking (extra OC through AB or PX) when even the non overclocked settings end up getting throttled.

    For me, the most important thing about overclocking when the card is factory overclocked already is how much the throttling changes when the power target is increased. Any comments, Mr. Smith?
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Increasing the power target helps, but it does not fully alleviate the issue. A 10% increase just isn't enough to eliminate all TDP throttling, thanks in big part to the fact that power consumption grows with the square of the voltage. GM204 would ideally like quite a bit of power to sustain a heavy workload at 1.243v. Which is why that's officially in boost territory, as NVIDIA only intends that voltage/bin to be sustained in light workloads.
  • Alexvrb - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    Wow I figured that the 970 would run into far less issues sustaining max boost than the 980. But I guess it is drawing nearly as much power. I don't want to see anyone complaining about AMD cards and boost anymore, heh.

    Anyway, the 970 still provides the absolute best bang for the buck and I'm stunned they didn't price it at $400. It's fast, reasonably priced, runs cool and quiet. It also is easy on power requirements, though I always overbuy on PSU anyway for headroom. Easy recommendation for anyone buying in the this price range!
  • AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    Square of voltage, what are you smoking? P = IV = I^2 R = V^2 /R. The IC isn't a resistor. Typically current stays close to the same as you increase supply voltage.
  • Ryan Smith - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    The formula for dynamic power consumption:

    P = C * V^2 * f

    Where C is capacitance, f is frequency, and V is voltage. Those high boost bins are very expensive from a power standpoint.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    You're right, thanks! Thinking about it, dynamic power increases by the square, and static is by a direct proportion, so total should be between the two. Dynamic probably dominates so it's probably much closer to the square.
  • Footman36 - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    What really bothers me is that EVGA is getting lazy, reusing older pcb's. This one looks like a 760... The VRM and phases look very primitive next to a card like the Asus Strix GTX 970. There was a time when EVGA used to wow me with custom designs, the last few years not so much as they invariably use reference boards. the issue I have with most of the reference boards is that coil buzz is noticeable. The Asus and MSI boards are using custom digital VRM's and super alloy caps....
    Anyhow, nice review.
  • Iketh - Monday, September 29, 2014 - link

    i'm sure it has to do with their big heat sink design + bracing so the card doesn't flex

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now