Company of Heroes 2 CPU & GPU Performance

Carfax83 · Jun 28, 2013

RussianSensation said:
In Grid 2, TR and Sleeping Dogs, NV has been unable to make up the difference in performance.

The 320.49 drivers supposedly help quite a bit in Grid 2, and with the latest drivers in Tomb Raider, the gap is basically completely closed, with NVidia gaining a slight edge even; unless you turn TressFX on then AMD gains a slight lead..

AMD still has Sleeping Dogs and Hitman Absolution, but they lost the performance crown in several other GE titles, including Bioshock Infinite, Far Cry 3, Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3.

So basically, just because AMD has the edge in CoH2 right now, doesn't mean it's always going to be like that...

toyota · Jun 28, 2013

I dont care about that tressfx at all. I run Tombraider with FXAA and at max settings except normal hair and normal shadows and I never drop below 60 fps at 1080. not bad for a modest 660ti.

raghu78 · Jun 28, 2013

Carfax83 said:
The 320.49 drivers supposedly help quite a bit in Grid 2, and with the latest drivers in Tomb Raider, the gap is basically completely closed, with NVidia gaining a slight edge even; unless you turn TressFX on then AMD gains a slight lead..

AMD still has Sleeping Dogs and Hitman Absolution, but they lost the performance crown in several other GE titles, including Bioshock Infinite, Far Cry 3, Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3.

So basically, just because AMD has the edge in CoH2 right now, doesn't mean it's always going to be like that...

RussianSensation · Jun 28, 2013

Carfax83 said:
AMD still has Sleeping Dogs and Hitman Absolution, but they lost the performance crown in several other GE titles, including Bioshock Infinite, Far Cry 3, Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3.

This misinformation continues to be repeated. If you are talking about 780 / Titan vs. 7970GE, sure. With latest drivers, 770 cannot really beat 7970GE in those games you listed, except maybe BF3.

June 21, 2013 Review by GameGPU

FC3
1080P 4AA - 770 stock and 770 OC leads by 1 fps
1600P 4AA - 7970 GE vs. 770 leads by 2 fps, 7970 GE OC vs. 770 OC leads by 3 fps

C3
1080P 4AA - 7970GE leads by 3 fps, 7970GE OC leads by 1 fps
1600P 4AA - 7970GE leads by 1 fps, 7970GE OC leads by 2 fps

TR
1080P 4AA - 7970GE leads by 3 fps, 7970GE OC leads by 3 fps
1600P 4AA - 7970GE leads by 1 fps, 7970GE OC leads by 1 fps

Second review by TechReport

C3 - 770 has higher fps, but 7970GE delivers smoother gameplay experience

TR - 7970GE delivers higher fps and smoother gaming experience

Sleeping Dogs - 7970GE is beating 780 in fps and Titan in gaming experience

Here is the punchline - 770 4GB costs $450 while 7970GE costs just $350. The 770 OC card is slower in most GE titles and in some by a LOT (Sleeping Dogs, Dirt Showdown, Grid 2, COH2, Hitman Absolution where 7970GE is trading blows with 780).

770 2GB needs to be $349 and 770 4GB needs to be $379-399 to make sense, with a small premium given for SLI/PhysX and lower power consumption. Otherwise, 7970GE undercuts it by up to $100 and is as fast or faster in a lot of latest games, which happen to be GE titles.

http://techreport.com/review/24996/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-graphics-card-reviewed/10

Carfax83 said:
So basically, just because AMD has the edge in CoH2 right now, doesn't mean it's always going to be like that...

It's in at least 5-6 GE titles as posted by myself and raghu78.

Why do you keep ignoring price of 770 though?

A 1Ghz 7970 at $310 makes a $450 770 is ridiculously overpriced in comparison. NV is asking a 45% premium for a card that's not faster by more than 10%; in fact slower in many GE games. If the situation was reversed and AMD's 7970GE was $450 and NV released a card for $310 with 90% of the performance, this board wouldn't hear the end of it how AMD's card is outrageously overpriced.

"GTX 770 delivers 102% of the performance of 7970GE at both our high quality 2560x1440 and high quality 1920x1080 settings." ~ AT Review

770 badly needs a price drop based on its actual statistical performance, but because NV knows its loyal customs will pay $100-150 premiums, they have no incentive to lower prices. If you are satisfied with your 770 4GB SLI that's great, but why did you create a thread of buyer's remorse then and ignored everyone's recommendation in that thread for many other superior GPU combinations, including GTX760 OC SLI? This is the same story that we heard for 680's price premium. Look at where the 680 sits now, 7970GE is beating it in soooo many games and now people are shifting the comparison to 770 vs. 7970GE. This is ironic since the same people didn't acknowledge how 7970GE was already beating 680 for the last 12 months. Now when 7970GE is trading blows with 770 for less $, 770 is again being defended. Why does NV continue get a pass for worse price/performance time and time again?

frozentundra123456 · Jun 28, 2013

BallaTheFeared said:
Dat haswell baby

I was just going to say that-- a nice result for the 4770k. To bad they didn't test the 3770k for a direct comparison with HT ivy.

It does appear that this is another game where ht is showing a fairly strong benefit, yet while also liking high Ipc since 8350 is well behind non ht Intel quads. Kind of surprising since the spec requirements don't seem that high.

SirPauly · Jun 28, 2013

RussianSensation said:
770 badly needs a price drop

Why?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=-1&isNodeId=1

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=-1&isNodeId=1

So, let me understand you: You cherry pick one sku and blanket price/performance as a whole?

Silverforce11 · Jun 28, 2013

RussianSensation said:
Why does NV continue get a pass for worse price/performance time and time again?

Because:

1. They have better drivers.. when it doesn't randomly kill your GPU. Hey, at least when it dies, we can bake it back to life, amirite?
2. They have ambient occlusion, darker shadows are dark!
3. Adaptive vsync man! You spend some time to setup a profile for your game or do a global profile.. works just like Radeon Pro, except with less features.. umm..
4. PhysX. It makes ultra settings into ultra ++, its impressive visual gains cannot be denied... or tolerated, so many particles and debris everywhere on my screen!! Really, who cares if you can't see the action due to exaggerated fake fluff everywhere. It's impressive!!

ps. I snagged a new gtx670 for $299 recently during a special sale, it was significantly cheaper than a 7950 here (normally its around $400 in Australia). Hence, im not biased against NV. I'm simply biased against being RIPPED OFF, by either company.

Grooveriding · Jun 28, 2013

Wow. Look at that 1000mhz 7970 in that link.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202008

$310 after rebate with 4 free games. That deal is amazing!

Face2Face · Jun 28, 2013

Grooveriding said:
Wow. Look at that 1000mhz 7970 in that link.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202008

$310 after rebate with 4 free games. That deal is amazing!

Yes, that is an amazing deal....

Carfax83 · Jun 28, 2013

I already addressed RS in the other thread, and pointed out that his benches were bogus because they used practically unplayable settings with very high levels of AA to artificially boost the Radeon's performance relative to the GTX 770.

Really, come on now. Who on Earth is going to be playing Crysis 3 at 2560x1600 with SMAAx4 on a single card? You'd have to be an idiot to do that..

I mean, look at the performance, even the Titan is struggling:

And some of the benches Raghu78 posted were bogus too, because they used older drivers. The Tech Report link he posted had the 7970 GHZ on par with the Titan, which indicates the test was done before NVidia released optimized drivers:

770 has higher fps, but 7970GE delivers smoother gameplay experience

Yeah, and according to that same graph, the 7970GE delivers smoother gameplay than the 780 and Titan as well :sneaky:

raghu78 · Jun 28, 2013

Carfax83 said:
Really, come on now. Who on Earth is going to be playing Crysis 3 at 2560x1600 with SMAAx4 on a single card? You'd have to be an idiot to do that..

And some of the benches Raghu78 posted were bogus too, because they used older drivers. The Tech Report link he posted had the 7970 GHZ on par with the Titan, which indicates the test was done before NVidia released optimized drivers:

Yeah, and according to that same graph, the 7970GE delivers smoother gameplay than the 780 and Titan as well :sneaky:

techreport used 314.22 drivers. here is guru3d with the same 314.22 drivers using in game benchmark where GTX 680 is faster than HD 7970 Ghz.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/bioshock_infinite_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,5.html

"We use Windows 7 64-bit SP1 all patched up. Each card runs on the same PC with the same operating system clone. GeForce cards use the latest 314.22 WHQL drivers (download) and for AMD Radeon graphics cards we used the latest 13.3 Beta build 3 driver (download). "

read this article from nvidia which says "GeForce 314.22 WHQL Drivers: Ready For BioShock Infinite"

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforce-314-22-whql-drivers-released

also fyi i posted 7 review links which show gtx 680 and hd 7970 ghz on par in farcry 3 and crysis 3 . hardocp , hexus , tpu, computerbase.de, hardware.fr tested both these games at 1080p with different settings and levels of AA.

hardwarecanucks tested crysis 3 at 1440p very high FXAA. both gtx 680 and hd 7970 ghz are doing just above 30 fps.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...1369-nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-2gb-review-5.html

here is techreport testing crysis 3 at 2560 x 1440 High SMAA 1x. both HD 7970 Ghz and gtx 680 are at 44 fps.

http://techreport.com/review/24996/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-graphics-card-reviewed/4

hardocp tested crysis 3 at 2560 x 1600 Very high SMAA 2x in apples to apples comparison. HD 7970 Ghz does just above 30 fps. GTX 680 is just below 30 fps.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/17/asus_geforce_gtx_770_directcu_ii_video_card_review/6

there is so much data to prove the HD 7970 ghz is on par with gtx 680 in crysis 3, farcry 3, bf3.

Jaydip · Jun 28, 2013

This game is indeed brutal on hardware http://gamegpu.ru/rts-/-strategii/company-of-heroes-2-test-gpu.html is the graphics that good? Edit: shame they couldn't optimize the game for their cpus

moonbogg · Jun 28, 2013

Nvidia might be fine in the long run, but we all know how this story goes, don't we? If they get complacent and over confident while AMD busts their asses, then Nvidia might find themselves very surprised one day. If we, as gamers, find ourselves having to spend twice as much on Nvidia hardware to get similar performance, then I won't be buying Nvidia of course. We will all sit back one day and wonder what happened to Nvidia when all along it was the process of AMD busting their asses like crazy and Nvidia sitting back going, "Dun worry. They'll buy our GK110 for bazillions derp cause its green like money".

Kippa · Jun 28, 2013

Does Company of heroes 2 make use of six cores? Or is it mainly optimised for 2 to 4 cores?

tviceman · Jun 28, 2013

RussianSensation said:
In Grid 2, TR and Sleeping Dogs, NV has been unable to make up the difference in performance. 7970GE absolutely crushes the 680 in those 3 games and is very close to the $650 780. Now COH2 is a 4th such game where NV has to use a $650 card to compete against AMD's $350 card. If AMD has hardware faster than NV, combined with GE involvement, NV would be in trouble. It's an interesting approach that AMD believes optimizations on the software side are better bank for the buck than making faster GPU hardware. I feel that NV will get more aggressive soon on the developer relations.

Nvidia closed the gap with Tomb Raider. The difference between the gtx770 and 7970GHZ is smaller than the difference between the 7970GHZ and the gtx780. Insofar as Sleeping Dogs is concerned, the AA used in the game very much favors AMD hardware. Turn off the AA, and the performance difference advantage completely disappears (only reason I say this is because people in the past complained about Nvidia specific optimizations in games). No excuses for Grid though, AMD owns in that game much like Nvidia owns in Civ V. I'm sure the performance we're seeing today in CoH2 on either company isn't going to be the same as it will be in 1-2 months time, but I think it's a safe bet to say Nvidia will squeeze out more gains with future driver revisions than AMD for CoH2.

Insofar as the future is concerned, UE4 will be firmly in Nvidia's camp. Every demo Epic has used to demonstrate UE4 has been on Nvidia hardware, and I've read (though not sure it's 100% verified) that physx will be built into UE4 from the start (like how UE3 added physx down the road). Another big wild card is Valve. If, as has been alluded, Valve ends up using an Nvidia GPU in it's steam box, then the next iteration of Source (which has been confirmed by Gabe to be in development) will probably favor Nvidia hardware, at least at first.

I'm just glad to see AMD getting more aggressive with developers. It will force Nvidia to not be lax and will essentially make the driver teams on both sides work harder to bring us bigger gains.

r07 · Jun 28, 2013

Amd optimizations = add some graphic effect optimized for amd that adds nothing or almost nothing to the iq just for the sake of running better on amd, like that global ilumination in dirt and grid 2, for example.

Maximilian · Jun 28, 2013

Kippa said:
Does Company of heroes 2 make use of six cores? Or is it mainly optimised for 2 to 4 cores?

Looks like 4 cores. Its built on DX11 tech so it should be using those 4 cores pretty efficiently.

raghu78 · Jun 28, 2013

tviceman said:
Nvidia closed the gap with Tomb Raider. The difference between the gtx770 and 7970GHZ is smaller than the difference between the 7970GHZ and the gtx780. Insofar as Sleeping Dogs is concerned, the AA used in the game very much favors AMD hardware. Turn off the AA, and the performance difference advantage completely disappears (only reason I say this is because people in the past complained about Nvidia specific optimizations in games). No excuses for Grid though, AMD owns in that game much like Nvidia owns in Civ V. I'm sure the performance we're seeing today in CoH2 on either company isn't going to be the same as it will be in 1-2 months time, but I think it's a safe bet to say Nvidia will squeeze out more gains with future driver revisions than AMD for CoH2.

not really. tombraider is faster on HD 7970 Ghz compared to gtx 770. also when you bring in overclocking the gap is significant. all these tests use gameplay benchmarks instead of in game benchmark tool.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/06/msi_n770_lightning_overclocking_review/3

"The GIGABYTE Radeon HD 7970 overclocked blows away both the MSI N770 Lightning and MSI GTX 680 Lightning overclocked in Tomb Raider. It is 23% faster than both. Also, even with these high overclocks the MSI N770 Lightning and MSI GTX 680 Lightning are not playable with TressFX enabled at this resolution still. The HD 7970 is. "

http://techreport.com/review/24996/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-graphics-card-reviewed/6

"Our Tomb Raider scenario is a a bit more challenging than our Blood Dragon test, but otherwise, the outcomes are almost exactly the same. I'm a little surprised at how modest the benefits are from the GTX 770's faster GDDR5 memory"

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...1369-nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-2gb-review-8.html

"The GTX 770 once again looses by a narrow margin to the GHz Edition while managing to stay well ahead of the GTX 670."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-770-gk104-review,3519-11.html

"The GeForce GTX 770 bests Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 680, but neither card is really fluid enough to call the Ultimate Quality preset smooth. AMD’s Radeon GHz Edition maintains an advantage in this title."

wand3r3r · Jun 29, 2013

r07 said:
Amd optimizations = add some graphic effect optimized for amd that adds nothing or almost nothing to the iq just for the sake of running better on amd, like that global ilumination in dirt and grid 2, for example.

And physx being proprietary makes sense? What's your point, at least it still runs on NV.

Carfax83 · Jun 29, 2013

raghu78 said:
techreport used 314.22 drivers. here is guru3d with the same 314.22 drivers using in game benchmark where GTX 680 is faster than HD 7970 Ghz.

Well whatever they did, they must have screwed something up, as the 7970 and the Titan are basically tied.

also fyi i posted 7 review links which show gtx 680 and hd 7970 ghz on par in farcry 3 and crysis 3 . hardocp , hexus , tpu, computerbase.de, hardware.fr tested both these games at 1080p with different settings and levels of AA.

In the end, I suppose it all comes down to who you trust. At any rate, we should be looking at the latest reviews to make sure drivers aren't an issue.

In the Anandtech 770 review, the GTX 770 and GTX 680 are faster than the 7970 GE in Far Cry 3, BF3 and Crysis 3 for the most part.

hardwarecanucks tested crysis 3 at 1440p very high FXAA. both gtx 680 and hd 7970 ghz are doing just above 30 fps.

Those kinds of benchmarks should be ignored, because as I said earlier, they do not have playable frame rates. Who's going to run 2560x1440 very high settings in Crysis 3 on a single card?

Only a fool.

hardocp tested crysis 3 at 2560 x 1600 Very high SMAA 2x in apples to apples comparison. HD 7970 Ghz does just above 30 fps. GTX 680 is just below 30 fps.

Like I said, those tests don't matter because the game is unplayable at those frame rates.

there is so much data to prove the HD 7970 ghz is on par with gtx 680 in crysis 3, farcry 3, bf3.

I remember after the 7970 GE came out, people were saying how the base 7970 was the GTX 680s immediate competitor, and not the 7970 GE. The 7970 GE was in a league of it's own for a while.

Until NVidia managed to make up a lot of ground with driver updates, and now it's head to head against the 7970 GE. The 770 on the other hand is quicker..

raghu78 · Jun 29, 2013

Carfax83 said:
Well whatever they did, they must have screwed something up, as the 7970 and the Titan are basically tied.

thats speculation. its as simple as "In techreport testing HD 7970 Ghz is much faster than GTX 680". the level they tested in bioshock infinite might run well on HD 7970 Ghz. anandtech tests "Thunder run" in BF3 where the GTX 770 is significantly faster than HD 7970 Ghz with even the GTX 680 faster than HD 7970 Ghz. but all other reviews show the HD 7970 Ghz on par or slightly slower wrt GTX 770 in BF3 and mostly ahead of GTX 680. you immediately point out anandtech result and say the GTX 770/GTX 680 is much faster than HD 7970 Ghz in BF3 though that is not the case according to majority of reviews.

In the end, I suppose it all comes down to who you trust. At any rate, we should be looking at the latest reviews to make sure drivers aren't an issue.

in the end it comes down to looking at a lot of sites and not just one. also sites which clearly run gameplay benchmarks instead of using the in game benchmark tool should be preferred.

In the Anandtech 770 review, the GTX 770 and GTX 680 are faster than the 7970 GE in Far Cry 3, BF3 and Crysis 3 for the most part.

again a single review could always skew things. the GTX 680 and HD 7970 Ghz are on par according to multiple reviews in Farcry 3, crysis 3. In BF3 the HD 7970 Ghz is faster than GTX 680 and depending on review HD 7970 Ghz and GTX 770 trade blows.

Those kinds of benchmarks should be ignored, because as I said earlier, they do not have playable frame rates. Who's going to run 2560x1440 very high settings in Crysis 3 on a single card ? Only a fool. Like I said, those tests don't matter because the game is unplayable at those frame rates.

30+ fps avg and 20+ fps min is playable. also with a slight overclock these cards can easily run at 35 fps which is very much playable.

I remember after the 7970 GE came out, people were saying how the base 7970 was the GTX 680s immediate competitor, and not the 7970 GE. The 7970 GE was in a league of it's own for a while. Until NVidia managed to make up a lot of ground with driver updates, and now it's head to head against the 7970 GE. The 770 on the other hand is quicker..

its the other way around. GTX 680 on launch beat the HD 7970. when the HD 7970 GE came out most reviews called it a tie in performance wrt GTX 680. now with newer games and driver updates its the HD 7970 GE and GTX 770 which are tied.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...369-nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-2gb-review-13.html

"Despite the ridiculously fast memory speeds, the GK104 architecture still becomes a slight hindrance when placed directly alongside the AMD's HD 7970 GHz Edition. This causes the GTX 770 to fall ever so slightly behind the Radeon competitor from an average framerate perspective and in some cases it trails by a significant amount."

http://techreport.com/review/24996/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-graphics-card-reviewed/10

"Meanwhile, the GTX 770 is in a tougher spot. When it was introduced a couple of weeks ago, its $399.99 price tag undercut the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition. The price advantage was especially welcome since the 7970 GHz is apparently still the faster card. Now, AMD and board makers have cut 7970 GHz prices in response, and the Radeon occupies the better spot in our value plots. In fact, it looks like AMD has queued up some limited-time offers to drop below $399, likely in anticipation of this next round of reviews."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-770-gk104-review,3519-31.html

"If you run an average of the single-card frame rates generated in this review, GeForce GTX 770 is a 52.4 FPS card. The Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition lands at 53.8 FPS. These two are as close to even as you can get when it comes to gaming on one GPU."

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...104-Speed-Bump/Performance-Pricing-and-Availa

"Compared to the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, the primary concern for both NVIDIA and AMD, the GTX 770 doesn't change the story too dramatically. While it varies with some games, I often saw a pattern with the GTX 770 having a slight performance lead at 1920x1080 testing and then matching performance (or falling ever so slightly behind) at 2560x1440. I saw that occur in Battlefield 3, Crysis 3, Skyrim and Far Cry 3. In those cases though I also found that the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition with its 3GB frame buffer offered better performance at 5760x1080 triple-monitor configurations. In Sleeping Dogs and DiRT 3 though the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition was faster at all three resolutions and in the case of Sleeping Dogs, by quite a bit - 17%! "

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/55857-nvidia-geforce-gtx-770/?page=14

"Starting today, the GTX 770 - or, GTX 680 OC, if you prefer - is available for £330 from a wide range of retailers, with overclocked models to be sold for a small premium. This pricing should mean GTX 680 GPUs - which remain perfectly good high-end cards - will likely drop to comfortably below £300 as stock is cleared. Such an introduction heralds good news for the gamer who is after a decent card, as it will also put renewed focus on AMD to look at the price of the performance-comparable Radeon HD 7970 GHz."

VulgarDisplay · Jun 29, 2013

r07 said:
Amd optimizations = add some graphic effect optimized for amd that adds nothing or almost nothing to the iq just for the sake of running better on amd, like that global ilumination in dirt and grid 2, for example.

What the heck do you mean forward+ rendering (global illumination) adds nothing? Do you like MSAA?

Hopefully more dev's make use of it so we can get proper anti aliasing again.

Company of Heroes 2 CPU & GPU Performance

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Senior member

Diamond Member

Junior Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member