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

Rounding out our look at game performance is Total War: Warhammer II.

Here, the GTX 1660 Ti lags behind the RTX 2060 and GTX 1070 FE more than in the other games, offering only somewhere around 80% of the RTX 2060 speed and 90% of the GTX 1070. In turn, it doesn't improve as much upon the GTX 1060 6GB and GTX 960, though practically speaking it has rendered its RX 590 competition as last-generation performance, given that it's neck-and-neck with the GTX 1060 6GB FE.

F1 2018 Compute & Synthetics
POST A COMMENT

157 Comments

View All Comments

  • C'DaleRider - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    Good read. Thx. Reply
  • Opencg - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link

    gtx at rtx prices. not really a fan of that graph at the end. I mean 1080 ti were about 500 about half a year ago. the perf/dollar is surely less than -7% more like -30%. as well due to the 36% perf gain quoted being inflated as hell. double the price and +20% perf is not -7% anand Reply
  • eddman - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link

    They are comparing them based on their launch MSRP, which is fair.

    Actually, it seems they used the cut price of $500 for 1080 instead of the $600 launch MSRP. The perf/$ increases by ~15% if we use the latter, although it's still a pathetic generational improvement, considering 1080's perf/$ was ~55% better than 980.
    Reply
  • close - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link

    In all fairness when comparing products from 2 different generations that are both still on the market you should compare on both launch price and current price. The purpose is to know which is the better choice these days. To know the historical launch prices and trends between generation is good for conformity but very few readers care about it for more than curiosity and theoretical comparisons. Reply
  • jjj - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    The 1060 has been in retail for 2.5 years so the perf gains offered here a lot less than what both Nvidia and AMD need to offer.
    They are pushing prices up and up but that's not a long term strategy.

    Then again, Nvidia doesn't care much about this market, they are shifting to server, auto and cloud gaming. In 5 years from now, they can afford to sell nothing in PC, unlike both AMD and Intel.
    Reply
  • jjj - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    A small correction here, there is no perf gain here at all, in terms of perf per dollar. Reply
  • D. Lister - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    Did you actually read the article before commenting on it? It is right there, on the last page - 21% increase in performance/dollar, which added with the very decent gain in performance/watt would suggest the company is anything but just sitting on their laurels. Unlike another company, which has been brute-forcing an architecture that is more than a decade old, and squandering their intellectual resources to design budget chips for consoles. :P Reply
  • shabby - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    We didn't wait 2.5 years for such a meager performance increase. Architecture performance increases were much higher before Turing, Nvidia is milking us, can't you see? Reply
  • Smell This - Friday, February 22, 2019 - link

    DING !
    I know it's my own bias, but branding looks like a typical, on-going 'bait-and-switch' scam whereby nVidia moves their goal posts by whim -- and adds yet another $100 in retail price (for the last 2 generations?). For those fans who spent beeg-buckeroos on a GTX 1070 (or even a 1060 6GB), it's The Way You Meant to Be 'Ewed-Scrayed.
    Reply
  • haukionkannel - Saturday, February 23, 2019 - link

    Do you remember how much cpus used to improve From generation to generation... 3-5%...
    That was when there was no competition. Now when there is competition we see 15% increase between generations or less. Well come to the future of GPUs. 3-5 % of increase between generations if there is not competition. Maybe 15 or less if there is competition. The good point is that you can keep the same gpu 6 year and you have no need to upgrade and lose money.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now