Guild Wars 2 - Retail Release - CPU and GPU Performance Testing - GameGPU.ru

[RussianSensation]

Just when I thought Bulldozer was starting to pull ahead of Phenom II, it again disappoints:

This game really pounds the GPU and slower IPC processors. We are looking at less than 50 fps on $500 GPUs at 1600P. The general trend of MMOs strongly benefiting from a high-clocked /strong IPC processor continues with this game. The number of CPU cores is far less relevant than the IPC / high clock speed throughput. A dual-core HT Core i3 is actually faster than a Core i7 930, 6-core Phenom IIs or 8-core Bulldozers.

Full Performance Review

 

[BallaTheFeared]

This game really pounds the GPU and slower IPC processors. We are looking at less than 50 fps on $500 GPUs at 1600P.

A lot of people with overclocked i5-2500ks are complaining about low fps in WvWvW.

Best thing can do in a MMO like this is tone down the graphical settings that cause additional cpu workload.

http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25608

Things like shadows, reflections, and animations can devastate your fps in higher population areas.

 

[balane]

Those charts don't say if Supersampling is turned on. That pounds my computers. At 1920x1200 my overclocked GTX 680 will drop into the mid 40fps range. It's all great with Supersampling off but it's like a totally different game when you switch it on, performance wise.

 

[RussianSensation]

FXAA was used for AA and Supersampling turned on.

Here is the exact testing protocol:

 

[railven]

Those charts don't say if Supersampling is turned on. That pounds my computers. At 1920x1200 my overclocked GTX 680 will drop into the mid 40fps range. It's all great with Supersampling off but it's like a totally different game when you switch it on, performance wise.

That's a good point. Using Super drops me into 30-40 land. Off, I'm costing 50+.

The few WvWvW skirmeshes I got into it felt like 50+ players having at it with all the special effect eye candy, I dropped to a dibilating 20FPS haha.

GF didn't fair any better, but my CPU is beefier and clocked higher.

 

[railven]

FXAA was used for AA and Supersampling turned on.

Here is the exact testing protocol:

That would do it. FXAA in this game is very lean, but Super is devastating.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

This is a very nitpicky thing, but in some of the charts the AMD card has the same minimum FPS as the Nvidia card but higher average and the put the nvidia card on top? Also, for the same minimum FPS the nvidia bar is slightly longer... Do they do this with all their graphs or was someone not paying attention.

Strange to me and just looks wrong.

 

[RussianSensation]

I believe that is a function of the way the videocards are sorted based on minimum frames.

For example, the charts show 35 fps min for 7970 Ge and 680 at 1080P but I am guessing the AMD card got 35.0-35.1 (or maybe 34.8-34.9) and the latter may have gotten 35.2-35.4. It's really splitting hairs using decimal points like that but I presume that's what they have done.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Testing was done in a way where the cpu wasn't as limiting as it could be, even in the cpu tests. It kind of miffs me a bit that they do this, they do it with WoW tests too, it leaves out a big part of the story imo.

 

[railven]

Testing was done in a way where the cpu wasn't as limiting as it could be, even in the cpu tests. It kind of miffs me a bit that they do this, they do it with WoW tests too, it leaves out a big part of the story imo.

The pics aren't loading for me, but what do you mean? Did they turn off those CPU extensive options you mentioned in your ABT post or are they staring out into the ocean and not doing WvWvW scenarios?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

The pics aren't loading for me, but what do you mean? Did they turn off those CPU extensive options you mentioned in your ABT post or are they staring out into the ocean and not doing WvWvW scenarios?

Nah I'm saying their cpu performance is well above what you'll experience in an event with several people around with those settings.

My i3-540 @ 4,378MHz isn't even as fast as their stock 530 when tested (imo) properly.

Their runs (seemingly) like Tom's Hardware WoW runs of running from one dead area to another are worthless as an actual player. They don't represent what you'd actually experience while playing, unless you were a massive shut in and avoid all contact with other players at all costs.



When I tested I didn't do WvWvW it's too hard to reproduce it since you might skirmish for awhile or get into huge battles all over. What I did was run an area with high population and went between two timed events, I tried to represent what it would actually be like if you were actively playing the game as it was meant to be played.

 

[railven]

Nah I'm saying their cpu performance is well above what you'll experience in an event with several people around with those settings.

My i3-540 @ 4,378MHz isn't even as fast as their stock 530 when tested (imo) properly.

Their runs (seemingly) like Tom's Hardware WoW runs of running from one dead area to another are worthless as an actual player. They don't represent what you'd actually experience while playing, unless you were a massive shut in and avoid all contact with other players at all costs.



When I tested I didn't do WvWvW it's too hard to reproduce it since you might skirmish for awhile or get into huge battles all over. What I did was run an area with high population and went between two timed events, I tried to represent what it would actually be like if you were actively playing the game as it was meant to be played.

Ah gotcha. Yeah, definitely - I can stand in areas of Queensdale turn off v-synch and hit 80+ FPS, then I can run up one flight of stairs and get crippled to 55 FPS haha.

There should be some kind of benchmark for MMOs where the screen just fills in with characters doing their random animations.

 

[sxegloxx]

Does this game really warrant such high end hardware. GOOD GRIEF!!!

or is this just normal early symptoms of things being unoptomized????

New phrase: "But can it run Guild Wars 2.."

LMAO

 

[balane]

I was not expecting it to run as slowly at times as it does. Surprisingly, Secret World runs better, at least for me.

GW2 is absolutely beautiful at times, stunning landscapes with very long draw distances. I know a game is gorgeous when I find myself just walking around and sight-seeing. I've found that many people aren't impressed initially with the graphics but come around after spending time with it. I'm convinced that's because the game is bright and very colorful. Your first impression is that it's just like Warcraft in a cartoonish way, but it really isn't.

MMO's are more demanding now than ever. They stress every aspect of your computer and any weak links will quickly reveal themselves with issues like slow frame rates, staggering, lag and slow load times.

Does it really warrant such a high level of needed hardware to enjoy everything maxxed out at higher resolutions? Yes, because it looks great and it's a complicated game. Most importantly is that it scales very well so if you don't have the hardware for ultra settings it's OK because you can just dial stuff down. I get a rock solid 35FPS at 720P on my T9600/9800M GTS (Both overclocked.) laptop which I won't PVP on but I'll do anything else in the game with and it still looks pretty good. It does pump out the heat while I'm playing though.

To me a sign of a well made game is one that can tax the latest hardware but also scale down to allow slower systems to enjoy it as well. This game does do that.

 

[RussianSensation]

I personally don't think the performance is acceptable at all. Look at last generation high-end cards. They perform about as slow at 1080P as they would in far better looking games such as Witcher 2, Crysis 1 / Warhead, BF3, and Metro 2033.

Given the texture quality, the level of polygons/overall graphical effects, foliage details in the game and lack of any serious physics effects, this game is horribly unoptimized on the GPU side imo.

Is GW2 a good looking MMO? Sure. Is it a good looking game given the performance? Not even close imo.

GW2

vs.

Witcher 2

On GameGPU, based on user feedback, this game is currently getting an Optimization Rating of 1.5 / 5 Stars.

 

[balane]

When compared to a non-mmo game then absolutely, it's not a huge deal graphically speaking. I've always place mmo's into their own little category because I consider them a different style of gaming all together and, well, I'm just used to them being nothing special in the visual category. Which MMO's have good optimization ratings?

IMO, for an mmo, this game has very good graphics. To me Secret World has the best and this game is right behind it. MMO's are demanding, that's just the nut of it and you're never going to get back in return in as much as you would from a mainstream, typical gaming experience.

Another item that should be taken into account when comparing games is that GW2 has absolutely massive maps and colossal cities and buildings, the largest I've ever seen in any game.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

OT, how do you like the warrior class? I have a 80 Ranger I leveled up through pve, I've been leveling a Guardian but sword and board namely board seems kind of "meh" solo so I was thinking about maybe warrior what are your thoughts?

I tried the Mesmer with a Greatsword didn't really like it, but dual wield swords was alright except the images are kind of worthless? Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, perhaps I should post in the official thread though, heh.

Sorry, felt a strong desire to ask since he's a warrior!

 

[balane]

I played a dps Warrior in WoW from vanilla up to cata so melee is just what I'm used to. I couldn't pass up the opportunity on a class in this game called Warrior. I like heavy armor, I like big melee weapons. The ranged is fairly decent too if you get the right weapon. I think dual axes is my favorite so far. I've passed on upgrades because I didn't want to give up some of their advantages. Combined with a rifle I feel it's a fairly versatile spec.

I was ranged in SWTOR and also ranged in Secret World so I was happy to come back to melee for this game, being called a Warrior was just a plus for me.

In the end melee is melee, you either love it or hate it. I don't feel as much like a black sheep in this game as I did in WoW though. Overall GW2 has a typical melee experience that one would expect. I still cuss when large, powerful mobs pwn me while leaving the squishy ranged folks completely unharmed.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah one of the reasons I thought to try Guardian (played a Ret Paladin in WoW) was while leveling in huge fights I'd see you guys in there treading through the onslaught while I'd get killed almost instantly if I had agro too long.

However I now see it wasn't just one of you holding it down in there, after one died another was just there to take his place lol.

 

[Despoiler]

OT, how do you like the warrior class? I have a 80 Ranger I leveled up through pve, I've been leveling a Guardian but sword and board namely board seems kind of "meh" solo so I was thinking about maybe warrior what are your thoughts?

I tried the Mesmer with a Greatsword didn't really like it, but dual wield swords was alright except the images are kind of worthless? Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, perhaps I should post in the official thread though, heh.

Sorry, felt a strong desire to ask since he's a warrior!

Guardians are monsters. Standard weapon load outs are sword/focus and scepter/shield. I also run sword/focus and greatsword. Blind > everything. I don't lose to any other class in PvP 1v1. It's kinda silly.

 

[Yuriman]

Does this game really warrant such high end hardware. GOOD GRIEF!!!

or is this just normal early symptoms of things being unoptomized????

New phrase: "But can it run Guild Wars 2.."

LMAO

I have an overclocked 3570K and a pair of HD4870 512MB's, and GW2 runs like butter.

My settings are maxed with the exception of supersampling disabled and shadows on high instead of ultra. (shadows ultra->high brings my FPS from 40 average to 65 average in dense, populated areas)

So if you have plenty of CPU, you can get a graphical experience that's (arguably) 95% as good as on a modern high-end card, with a pair of cards from 2007. I'd bet that a single HD58xx would be smooth with similar settings.

 

[blackened23]

I have an overclocked 3570K and a pair of HD4870 512MB's, and GW2 runs like butter.

My settings are maxed with the exception of supersampling disabled and shadows on high instead of ultra. (shadows ultra->high brings my FPS from 40 average to 65 average in dense, populated areas)

So if you have plenty of CPU, you can get a graphical experience that's (arguably) 95% as good as on a modern high-end card, with a pair of cards from 2007. I'd bet that a single HD58xx would be smooth with similar settings.

GW2 doesn't seem optimized, I play with FXAA (no SSAA) with otherwise maxed settings at 2560x1600. SLI generally gives me 40-60% usage per GPU which is obviously not ideal - I do get dips below 60 fps in dense areas.

Thats not too unusual for MMOs in player dense areas, but the SLI profile at a minimum could use some tweaking.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

GW2 doesn't seem optimized, I play with FXAA (no SSAA) with otherwise maxed settings at 2560x1600. SLI generally gives me 40-60% usage per GPU which is obviously not ideal - I do get dips below 60 fps in dense areas.

Thats not too unusual for MMOs in player dense areas, but the SLI profile at a minimum could use some tweaking.

Should be interesting to see if they can improve it, but it sounds like you're just cpu limited at this point. The devs are getting feedback from people because evidently they weren't aware that MMO's are cpu limited with modern hardware.

 

[Jules]

A lot of people with overclocked i5-2500ks are complaining about low fps in WvWvW.

Best thing can do in a MMO like this is tone down the graphical settings that cause additional cpu workload.

http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25608

Things like shadows, reflections, and animations can devastate your fps in higher population areas.

Is the 2500k not strong enough?

 

[zaydq]

Is the 2500k not strong enough?

I honestly don't think it is at stock, no. The system in my sig runs the games with massive frame drops in densely populated areas. going from a 1200/1800 overclock to stock settings on my 7950 yields a 2fps difference during these times. I full-heartedly believe that my i5 2550k is the bottleneck for me in this game, not the gpu.