[Sweclocker] Anno 2225 benchmarked

[Mondozei]

While the Ashes of the Singularity has been stealing all of the RTS thunder lately, The Anno series is having another game released and that's the Anno 2205. It looks very nice:

Trailer

Anyway, the benches can find on this single page. Although it may seem like a given, its worth stressing that not every site include frame times in their benches and that this should be mandatory. Average/min fps simply is not enough.

 

[Silverforce11]

That's some gimped AMD performance. I happen to like this series since the first but that's unplayable slow for the hardware grunt.

Reminds me of Ark performance, or FC4 & ACU on release before the patches and drivers fixed performance.

 

[SPBHM]

yes this is like Project cars, gtx 970 ahead for fury x at 1440p

 

[RussianSensation]

yes this is like Project cars, gtx 970 ahead for fury x at 1440p

When drivers are unoptimized for the game, traditional MSAA performance hit can easily be 40-50%. This game uses traditional MSAA:

"Anno 2205 is further noted that the developers have thought about a technically clean presentation. This starts with the finely filtered Soft Shadows and culminates with the anti-aliasing measures: Thanks to the new Render method celebrates Multisample AA as real hardware antialiasing a comeback, Anno 2205 offers 2 × to 8 × MSAA."***

PCGamesHardware:

960 is 40% faster than GTX770, and 960 beats one of the fastest factory pre-overclocked GTX780s too, and then 960 ties a 390X Also, 980 is beating 780Ti by 37% (!), and 980Ti is beating 780Ti by 79% at 1080P:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Anno-2205-Spiel-55714/Specials/Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1175781/

Maxwell shows some unusual performance gains over GCN or Kepler. Computerbase.de has 980 beating 780Ti by up to 48%, 980Ti is up to 80% faster than the GTX780Ti, 46% faster than Fury X, and GTX770 is only on par with a GTX950:
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-11/anno-2205-benchmarks/2/

Another possibility is that this game is hitting AMD's DX11 API CPU bottleneck hard. From Computerbase.de results:

CPU scaling is basically non-existent with the Fury X:
FX8370 + Fury X = 67.3 fps
i7 4770K @ 4.4Ghz + Fury X = 69.5 fps (+3.3%)

vs.

FX8370 + 980TI = 77.5 fps
i7 4770K @ 4.4Ghz + 980Ti = 101.6 fps (+31%)
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-11/anno-2205-benchmarks/2/

EDIT: ***Earlier I mentioned MSAA performance hit. Looks like Computerbase has that covered too and up to 4XMSAA, it doesn't seem like the Fury X takes a much larger performance hit vs. 980Ti. At 8XMSAA, 980Ti wins big, but ironically with Ultra shaders enabled, 980Ti takes a massive performance hit while the Fury X doesn't.
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-11/anno-2205-benchmarks/

I wonder how AMD cards would have performed in this title under DX12 API.

BTW, GreenManGaming has Anno 2205 on sale 40% off already for $34.99 (and SW:BF for $44.99, Black Ops 3 for $39.99, Rainbox 6 Siege for $39.99, and AC Syndicate for $37.99).

 

[Silverforce11]

It can't possibly be without NV's guiding hand for 980 to be ~50% faster than 780Ti or 960 pwning 780. That kind of shenanigan can only be from GameWorks..

 

[Erenhardt]

Surprised 960 didn't beat fury.
As expected based on previous anno games.

 

[Good_fella]

lol @ Silverforce11. Stop blaming others for slow AMD performance. Also there is no GW in Anno 2205.

 

[Silverforce11]

Surprised 960 didn't beat fury.
As expected based on previous anno games.

Really? I've played all the previous Anno titles, they ran excellent on my GPUs.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-10/benchmark-anno-2070.html

Look at the 780Ti, at least its matching the 970.

 

[Silverforce11]

lol @ Silverforce11. Stop blaming others for slow AMD performance. Also there is no GW in Anno 2205.

Mate, learn to read because I was talking about Kepler.

"It can't possibly be without NV's guiding hand for 980 to be ~50% faster than 780Ti or 960 pwning 780."

That stuff only happens in GameWorks titles in the past, like Ark, Hatred, Kholat, with a 25% gap in ACU, FC4, etc. In neutral titles, the 780Ti is very close to the 980.

Certainly not being matched by the lowly 960.

Ubisoft and NV are very close from their past GameWorks titles, and this:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/ar...-2205-powered-by-geforce-gtx-at-gamescom-2015

So, no surprise to see another Ubifail title where Kepler is 50% behind Maxwell.

 

[Mondozei]

When a game like this is so massively gimped on AMD hardware, a question is warranted as to why this is the case.

Project CARS devs also denied that there was any bias until it was no longer to deny it. I make a difference between titles that are leaning one side or another.

SW: Battlefront is biased towards AMD GPUs but this is because the newest iteration of Frostbite is maximising physically based rendering, which happens to be what GCN is better at. Even so, the advantage we're seeing is 7-10%. That's an "acceptable" bias, especially when it's a byproduct.

When we're seeing these massive numbers, you can't explain it away on the game engine. It's either that AMD has flopped massively or the devs have done a terrible job on AMD software(or both).

I'd also point out that the 900-series shouldn't be so massively ahead of the 700-series, so while it's too early to say that it's NV's guiding hand trying to force people to upgrade(let's refrain from conspiracy theories), it's nevertheless very odd.

This necessitates further inquiry.

 

[Silverforce11]

I'd also point out that the 900-series shouldn't be so massively ahead of the 700-series, so while it's too early to say that it's NV's guiding hand trying to force people to upgrade(let's refrain from conspiracy theories), it's nevertheless very odd.

This necessitates further inquiry.

Hah! If you had pay attention to every single GameWorks title so far, Maxwell has always had an extraordinary performance lead over Kepler that does NOT reveal itself across Neutral or even AMD sponsored games.

It is only when NV guides a game's development does it turn out like this.

So it's not a question IF they are doing it. They are. The question is "Why?".

 

[Sunaiac]

I don't see anything strange here, just a game developped on nvidia hardware, and tested by websites before AMD made a driver for it, to keep helping nVidia sell mid range cards at high end prices.

Nothing new, keep calm and carry on.

 

[Silverforce11]

I don't see anything strange here, just a game developped on nvidia hardware, and tested by websites before AMD made a driver for it, to keep helping nVidia sell mid range cards at high end prices.

Nothing new, keep calm and carry on.

You mean developed for Maxwell. Unless Kepler is now considered "not nvidia hardware" cos its a few years old...

 

[Sunaiac]

Whatever needs to be moved from the shelves at time of testin of course

 

[Pariah]

Hah! If you had pay attention to every single GameWorks title so far, Maxwell has always had an extraordinary performance lead over Kepler that does NOT reveal itself across Neutral or even AMD sponsored games.

It is only when NV guides a game's development does it turn out like this.

So it's not a question IF they are doing it. They are. The question is "Why?".

You don't have to be a super genius to assume Nvidia is making sure developers are using the features unique to the Maxwell 2 architecture that give it a significant performance advantage vs every other arch out there including their previous generation. Everything from Nvidia and AMD is pretty much in line where you would expect, just the GM20x cards are way out of whack. It is ridiculous to try and hypothesize that NVidia is in cohorts with game developers and they are both spending time crippling every architecture about the same that isn't GM20x based. The not retarded viewpoint is that there are certain feature that GM20x based hardware is simply better at than anything else, and some games take advantage of this, and some don't.

yes this is like Project cars, gtx 970 ahead for fury x at 1440p

Don't worry about it. As someone brilliantly stated in another thread. You don't want the performance advantage now. When you really want it, is 2 years from now. So, if you are using AMD, just wait. 2 years from now when AMD gets the drivers right, the Fury X will be faster than the 970.

 

[Silverforce11]

You don't have to be a super genius to assume Nvidia is making sure developers are using the features unique to the Maxwell 2 architecture that give it a significant performance advantage vs every other arch out there including their previous generation.

Don't worry about it. As someone brilliantly stated in another thread. You don't want the performance advantage now. When you really want it, is 2 years from now. So, if you are using AMD, just wait. 2 years from now when AMD gets the drivers right, the Fury X will be faster than the 970.

I'm not okay with gimping on purpose of a barely old top of the line GPU. 780Ti was $750 in 2014.

We're not talking about 150 fps vs 100 fps. We're talking overall crap performance vs image quality even on Maxwell, but everything else gets a -50% performance penalty.

I don't support game developers & hardware makers who choose to "optimize" only for the latest and greatest and ignore everything else. There's plenty of other games to enjoy, that's certainly not something gamers are lacking.

Edit: Fixed bold for emphasis. It doesn't matter about AMD getting it right when it comes to Ubisoft games developed exclusively for Maxwell, are you people okay with NV gimping Kepler?

 

[Pariah]

I'm not okay with gimping on purpose of a barely old top of the line GPU. 780Ti was $750 in 2014.

We're not talking about 150 fps vs 100 fps. We're talking overall crap performance vs image quality even on Maxwell, but everything else gets a -50% performance penalty.

I don't support game developers & hardware makers who choose to "optimize" only for the latest and greatest and ignore everything else.

Nothing you said had anything to do with my post, so why did you quote it?

 

[Mondozei]

Just in case anyone is too lazy to click:

So yeah, fairly crazy differences.

 

[Sunaiac]

Don't worry about it. As someone brilliantly stated in another thread. You don't want the performance advantage now. When you really want it, is 2 years from now. So, if you are using AMD, just wait. 2 years from now when AMD gets the drivers right, the Fury X will be faster than the 970.

There's that funny thing called statistics. Other words that come with it can be "mean", "standard deviation".

So, the funny thing is, that if AMD and nvidia cards are in the same ballpark when taking the mean value without removing results out of the standard deviation, like we see here, it means you actually have a better gaming experience on AMD in most of the games.

Funny how you can prove the exact opposite of what you want if you're not carefull, isn't it ?

 

[96Firebird]

Good showing by Nvidia, AMD better get to workin'!

I've never played any Anno games, is it like Cities: Skylines but set in the future? Terrain looks good, but the trailer didn't show much...

 

[caswow]

Good showing by Nvidia, AMD better get to workin'!

I've never played any Anno games, is it like Cities: Skylines but set in the future? Terrain looks good, but the trailer didn't show much...

do you guys do this on purpose or why are people like you completely blank out abysmal kepler performance?

when you see ubisoft you dont need to wonder if its performing bad. pc gaming 20xx for you guys.

 

[Snafuh]

Computerbase made more interesting tests
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-11/anno-2205-benchmarks/2/#diagramm-anno-2205-1920-1080

AMD cards lose less performance on ultra settings than Nvidia cards.
In 1080p with ultra settings the Fury X beats the 980, in 1440 it closes the gap to the 980ti (still playable framerate) and in 4k the Fury X beats the 980 ti (not playable anymore).

 

[tential]

It's hilarious how this thread nvidia fans are trying to make it amd vs nvidia rather than asking why a gtx 960 is faster than a gtx 780 (Titan class) gpu.

Anytime gameworks does this though the game will not be purchased by me.

 

[nurturedhate]

It's hilarious how this thread nvidia fans are trying to make it amd vs nvidia rather than asking why a gtx 960 is faster than a gtx 780 (Titan class) gpu.

Anytime gameworks does this though the game will not be purchased by me.

Malicious or ignorant, take your pick.

 

[railven]

You don't have to be a super genius to assume Nvidia is making sure developers are using the features unique to the Maxwell 2 architecture that give it a significant performance advantage vs every other arch out there including their previous generation. Everything from Nvidia and AMD is pretty much in line where you would expect, just the GM20x cards are way out of whack. It is ridiculous to try and hypothesize that NVidia is in cohorts with game developers and they are both spending time crippling every architecture about the same that isn't GM20x based. The not retarded viewpoint is that there are certain feature that GM20x based hardware is simply better at than anything else, and some games take advantage of this, and some don't.



Don't worry about it. As someone brilliantly stated in another thread. You don't want the performance advantage now. When you really want it, is 2 years from now. So, if you are using AMD, just wait. 2 years from now when AMD gets the drivers right, the Fury X will be faster than the 970.

Haha, zing!



On the subject, what could possibly be in the engine for an RTS that explains such a gap between Kepler and Maxwell?

Whatever NV changed from Maxwell to Kepler was definitely big. Glad Kepler won't be staying around my house for very long.