[Sweclocker] Anno 2225 benchmarked

[happy medium]

Not the point my friend. The point is that using a game in which only one architecture does well makes 0 sense to draw performance conclusions from a game optimized for only 1 gpu architecture.

I think the easy choice is to buy the gpu that plays the games you play better.

I want to play project cars, a bunch of older games I missed, and I will be using a slower cpu @ 1080p, solution, I bought Nvidia for the slower cpu and a gtx960.

Next year or so ,I'll buy a Skylake i7 refresh and a next gen gpu.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Gikaseixa, you stand before us accused of that most foul and heinous crime: a reasonable and even handed opinion. You are aware that the punishment for a crime of this magnitude is lynching by pitchfork equipped mob. How do you plead?

hahaha good one mate

 

[happy medium]

When drivers are unoptimized for the game

That my bet, its just not ready for prime time.
Nvidia is usually better at drivers at release.

In 2 or 3 months AMD does better.

 

[tential]

I think the easy choice is to buy the gpu that plays the games you play better.

I want to play project cars, a bunch of older games I missed, and I will be using a slower cpu @ 1080p, solution, I bought Nvidia for the slower cpu and a gtx960.

Next year or so ,I'll buy a Skylake i7 refresh and a next gen gpu.

That's why I won't play or buy this game. 1080p 60 fps for a GTX 980Ti? That's unacceptable. You're welcome to support it. I won't.
You're happy Nvidia does better in this game. I get it.
I don't care. I'm unhappy the game has horrendous performance and clear issues with different architectures which means that it may not support FUTURE gpus I purchase. So what am I supposed to do? Put a GTX 960 in for one game, a GTX 770 back in for another game, and put in my Pascal or future GPU for new games that I play? Just wow.
I expect to be able to purchase a new GPU and replay my favorite games again. Not to have to keep my old GPUs just in case the game only works on ONE architecture.

 

[RussianSensation]

That's why I won't play or buy this game. 1080p 60 fps for a GTX 980Ti? That's unacceptable. You're welcome to support it. I won't.
You're happy Nvidia does better in this game. I get it.
I don't care.

I think the most important question to ask before even looking at the game performance is if the game is any good? In this case, it looks like one of the worst Anno games ever made, with the game getting mediocre user reviews, criticizing it for being too easy and dumbed down. Since there is no multi-player, and the game is to easy, the re-playability factor is basically non-existent.

"Save your money. This one is barely worth $25. It's good for one playthrough only and this is not an angry exaggeration. You play the tutorial only to find out that the tutorial is the entire game and that's all there is to the game. You just play it over and over again, but it's the same every time. The goal is to build a generator on the moon. Since there's nothing to stop you from doing that and there's no more randomly generated maps, after you've done it once, you've experienced everything the game has to offer. No more challenges, scenarios, multiplayer, factions, trade, or real combat. It's Anno, with everything that makes Anno sucked out of it."

The hardcore Anno gamers are giving this game huge thumbs down.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/375910/

That means to start with save your $40-60 and get something worth buying like Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, Dying Light, Mad Max, Rainbox 6 Siege, MGS V, GTA V, etc. With so many games to play, unless you are swimming in cash and free time to play every new game that comes out, even if this game ran at 144 FPS on integrated graphics, is it actually any good and worth purchasing? The consensus seems to be no. Save your $ and pick it up for $5 when it's patched. At least when it's $5 you won't feel bad about its poor performance or lack of challenge/re-playability factor.

Of course this doesn't change the poor performance of GCN and Kepler relative to Maxwell, and it would be interesting to see how GCN/Kepler fare in this game over time as it gets patched and NV/AMD improve their drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD's drivers for this game are basically not optimized at all. It's hard to explain how a GTX960 is on the heels of an R9 390/390X.

 

[LTC8K6]

Thread sub title:

"The Same Thing Happens Every Time"

Card A is way better than card B in game X!

Bastards!

Oh please!

Get a grip, man!

A is clearly in their pocket.

What about B and game Y?

Time passes...

What was that all about, anyway?

 

[happy medium]

That's why I won't play or buy this game. 1080p 60 fps for a GTX 980Ti? That's unacceptable. You're welcome to support it. I won't.
You're happy Nvidia does better in this game. I get it.
I don't care. I'm unhappy the game has horrendous performance and clear issues with different architectures which means that it may not support FUTURE gpus I purchase. So what am I supposed to do? Put a GTX 960 in for one game, a GTX 770 back in for another game, and put in my Pascal or future GPU for new games that I play? Just wow.
I expect to be able to purchase a new GPU and replay my favorite games again. Not to have to keep my old GPUs just in case the game only works on ONE architecture.

Buy a gpu that gives you the fps you want in the resolution/settings you play at until it no longer does that. Then upgrade. Its that simple. Try not to worry about what some company does with its old tech and why it better supports its newer tech.. I think that's an easy one.
Makes you wonder why GM no longer makes parts for my 69 Camaro S/S?
Its still fast and looks great? There is still thousands of them on the road.
hmmmm I wonder.

 

[tg2708]

Slightly off topic but if fallout 4 runs at or above 60 fps I will be one happy puppy. I'm hoping its a brand agnostic game.

 

[happy medium]

Slightly off topic but if fallout 4 runs at or above 60 fps I will be one happy puppy. I'm hoping its a brand agnostic game.

I believe that's a Gameworks game or will receive gameworks effects.
another reason I bought the 960.

min req. for fallout 4..... gtx550 or 7870 AMD card? wow sounds like a Nvidia performing games to me.

 

[boozzer]

I think the most important question to ask before even looking at the game performance is if the game is any good? In this case, it looks like one of the worst Anno games ever made, with the game getting mediocre user reviews, criticizing it for being too easy and dumbed down. Since there is no multi-player, and the game is to easy, the re-playability factor is basically non-existent.

"Save your money. This one is barely worth $25. It's good for one playthrough only and this is not an angry exaggeration. You play the tutorial only to find out that the tutorial is the entire game and that's all there is to the game. You just play it over and over again, but it's the same every time. The goal is to build a generator on the moon. Since there's nothing to stop you from doing that and there's no more randomly generated maps, after you've done it once, you've experienced everything the game has to offer. No more challenges, scenarios, multiplayer, factions, trade, or real combat. It's Anno, with everything that makes Anno sucked out of it."

The hardcore Anno gamers are giving this game huge thumbs down.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/375910/

That means to start with save you $40-60 and get something worth buying like Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, Dying Light, Mad Max, Rainbox 6 Siege, MGS V, GTA V, etc. With so many games to play, unless you are swimming in cash and free time to play every new game that comes out, even if this game ran at 144 FPS on integrated graphics, is it actually any good and worth purchasing? The consensus seems to be no. Save your $ and pick it up for $5 when it's patched. At least when it's $5 you won't feel bad about its poor performance or lack of challenge/re-playability factor.

Of course this doesn't change the poor performance of GCN and Kepler relative to Maxwell, and it would be interesting to see how GCN/Kepler fare in this game over time as it gets patched and NV/AMD improve their drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD's drivers for this game are basically not optimized at all. It's hard to explain how a GTX960 is on the heels of an R9 390/390X.

that reads like a 5$ game you buy on steam sales.

 

[happy medium]

that reads like a 5$ game you buy on steam sales.

Didn't you get the memo? "all games that run faster on Nvidia cards suck"
:\

 

[Headfoot]

I think the most important question to ask before even looking at the game performance is if the game is any good? In this case, it looks like one of the worst Anno games ever made, with the game getting mediocre user reviews, criticizing it for being too easy and dumbed down. Since there is no multi-player, and the game is to easy, the re-playability factor is basically non-existent.

"Save your money. This one is barely worth $25. It's good for one playthrough only and this is not an angry exaggeration. You play the tutorial only to find out that the tutorial is the entire game and that's all there is to the game. You just play it over and over again, but it's the same every time. The goal is to build a generator on the moon. Since there's nothing to stop you from doing that and there's no more randomly generated maps, after you've done it once, you've experienced everything the game has to offer. No more challenges, scenarios, multiplayer, factions, trade, or real combat. It's Anno, with everything that makes Anno sucked out of it."

The hardcore Anno gamers are giving this game huge thumbs down.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/375910/

That means to start with save you $40-60 and get something worth buying like Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, Dying Light, Mad Max, Rainbox 6 Siege, MGS V, GTA V, etc. With so many games to play, unless you are swimming in cash and free time to play every new game that comes out, even if this game ran at 144 FPS on integrated graphics, is it actually any good and worth purchasing? The consensus seems to be no. Save your $ and pick it up for $5 when it's patched. At least when it's $5 you won't feel bad about its poor performance or lack of challenge/re-playability factor.

Of course this doesn't change the poor performance of GCN and Kepler relative to Maxwell, and it would be interesting to see how GCN/Kepler fare in this game over time as it gets patched and NV/AMD improve their drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD's drivers for this game are basically not optimized at all. It's hard to explain how a GTX960 is on the heels of an R9 390/390X.

Well at least Anno 2070 still looks great, and its really quite a good game especially with the Deep Ocean DLC.

 

[RussianSensation]

Didn't you get the memo? "all games that run faster on Nvidia cards suck"
:\

No, but in this case the criticism is 100% valid. Why stress that a game runs so poorly on almost all hardware when it's not even any good? I am pretty sure an objective PC gamer will first consider if the game is worth buying before even worrying about its performance. If this game ran at 120 fps on a GTX750/R9 280, would it change the community's opinion that it's not a good Anno game? No. Since it runs so poorly on almost all GPUs besides 980/980Ti/Titan X and it's not even very good from user feedback, that makes it even more likely that a lot of people will wait until it's $5-10 on a Steam sale.

Also, it sounds like you got too caught up with GPU standings and didn't actually look at the actual performance and what level of GPU is required to hit 60 fps.

Ultrahigh-preset, 2 × MSAA Shader Quality Ultra @ 1080P:

GTX960 = 27.9 fps
GTX970 = 39.3 fps
GTX980 = 49.6 fps
GTX980Ti = 59.3 fps

If we ignore Kepler and GCN for a second, this game can't even be fully maxed out with 4XMSAA on a GTX980Ti at 1080P. That's some steep GPU requirements. Some of us have 1440P monitors. I am not going to lie as it's a gorgeous looking game for its genre but realistically for a lot of gamers even with Maxwell, there is no way to max this game out. We'll probably need a $700 Big Pascal before this game has any hope of hitting 60 fps @ 1440P; likely even more GPU horsepower than that.

On the list of priorities for which games to upgrade for, what is more important, SW:BF, Fallout 4, MGS V, GTA V, Dying Light, The Witcher 3, Deus Ex Mankind Divided or this Anno 2205 game?

Most PC gamers would not go out and buy a $650 980Ti for Anno 2205, especially since this isn't even a great Anno game.

Slightly off topic but if fallout 4 runs at or above 60 fps I will be one happy puppy. I'm hoping its a brand agnostic game.

Considering the thus far leaked graphics of FO4, if that game doesn't run at 1080P @ 60 fps maxed on an R9 290, it will be because of 2 factors: GW's cripple fest black source code or Bethesda's game engine is garbage and they have no clue how to optimize games. I mean look at the level of graphics in SW:BF -- it looks like a game 4-5 years ahead of FO4 graphics and it runs like butter on an R9 290.

 

[96Firebird]

I knew you wouldn't. Try with a more neutral mindset

EDIT: That was a bit harsh, but for real, history is not on their side pal

Yes, I should jump to conclusions without proof.

I'd rather not join the sheep here.

 

[happy medium]

this game footage seems real nice, but its not my type of game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FicajO_J5D8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QMmlvR6gIk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBaN96RY4-c

Recommended System Requirements
OS: Windows 7/8/10 x64
Processor: Intel Core i5 @ 3.2 GHz / AMD FX @ 3.6 GHz
Memory: 8 Gb
Hard Drive: 35 Gb free
Video Memory: 2 Gb
Video Card: nVidia GeForce GTX 680 / AMD Radeon HD 7970
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible
DirectX: 11
Keyboard
Mouse

 

[PhonakV30]

You didn't understand the only partially sarcastic point I was making. The AMD cards will be faster in current games in 2 years. So in 2017, when Anno 2225 is for sale on steam for $5, Fury X users can pick it up on the cheap and enjoy playing it a better fps than a 970. Win/win for AMD users, better performance and cheaper games. All you have to do is wait a couple of years.

The strengths of the Fury X are at high resolutions. Anyone buying it to play at 1080p didn't read any reviews before they bought it. At what appear to be regular settings, the 980Ti is dominating the Fury X at 1440p (76 vs 54). There is an even larger playability difference at 2160p (42.6 vs 34.4). But like I said, no worries, in 2 years AMD will catch up, and then AMD fans will be able to gloat about the Fury X beating a 980Ti, even though none of them actually bought a Fury X, and the Nvidia users have moved on to something faster.

Fury X , this god damn card with price $650 , Is rival of 980Ti, why would you say 970 ? this is unacceptable that someone says FuryX is faster than 970.

 

[happy medium]

But like I said, no worries, in 2 years AMD will catch up, and then AMD fans will be able to gloat about the Fury X beating a 980Ti

In 2 years I'd hope that a gtx980ti and furyx will be 175$ door stops.
We should have Pascal and artic island refreshes that are 2x faster by then.

 

[tential]

Buy a gpu that gives you the fps you want in the resolution/settings you play at until it no longer does that. Then upgrade. Its that simple. Try not to worry about what some company does with its old tech and why it better supports its newer tech.. I think that's an easy one.
Makes you wonder why GM no longer makes parts for my 69 Camaro S/S?
Its still fast and looks great? There is still thousands of them on the road.
hmmmm I wonder.

You seriously don't get it. Next year pascal comes out. This game is optmize for one architecture, maxwell.
If it doesn't work well on pascal, I would Need to keep my maxwell gpu in order to play old games.

I can't believe you'd seriously advocate games being exclusive to 1 gpu architecture but if you love nvidia that much you're willing to own all the gpus to play all games great.

I will not support a game that works only on one architecture, an works horrendously on. I'm not sure why you're so happt nvidia beats amd (and kepler) in this game. Performance is horrendous on a gtx 980ti...

No one should ever have to think the phrase 1080p/60 fps 980ti. Ever.

The game is poorly optimized period. There is no debate. Youre welcome to reply and dispute it, this is the fact though. Couldn't care less how you want to make this into an nvidia is the best in this game scenario. Game is horrendous, will not purchase this game or other ubisoft games until ubisoft gets gpu performance where it should be. Gtx 970 should run 1080p 60fps. Not 30fps.

 

[Techhog]

Please tell me that AMD hasn't released a beta driver for this game yet. Though, not even drivers could explain something like this...


By the way, this game is running about on par with Batman: Arkham Knight with GameWorks on based on these benchmarks. Yeah...

 

[happy medium]

I'm not sure why you're so happt nvidia beats amd (and kepler) in this game. Performance is horrendous on a gtx 980ti...

No one should ever have to think the phrase 1080p/60 fps 980ti. Ever.

The game is poorly optimized period. There is no debate. Youre welcome to reply and dispute it, this is the fact though. Couldn't care less how you want to make this into an nvidia is the best in this game scenario. Game is horrendous, will not purchase this game or other ubisoft games until ubisoft gets gpu performance where it should be. Gtx 970 should run 1080p 60fps. Not 30fps.

I don't see why you think I care about this game? I already stated its not my type of game. Looks nice is all I said.

Its not even out yet how can you say its not optimized? How can you say its horrendous? There is no real gameplay footage?

ANd I've owned both AMD and Nvidia over the past 6 years. Actually more AMD cards.
WHy so personal?

My gtx960 4gb overclocked should play all the games I like @ 1080p till next year. I have no worries.

See post 53 and 65

 

[Techhog]

I don't see why you think I care about this game? I already stated its not my type of game. Looks nice is all I said.

Its not even out yet how can you say its not optimized? How can you say its horrendous? There is no real gameplay footage?

ANd I've owned both AMD and Nvidia over the past 6 years. Actually more AMD cards.
WHy so personal?

My gtx960 4gb overclocked should play all the games I like @ 1080p till next year. I have no worries.

See post 53 and 65

You think that a game which can't run at 60FPS at 1080p with a 980 Ti and only works to a relevant capacity on Maxwell could possibly be optimized? Did you call AC: Unity and Batman: AK optimized as well? By the way, it is out. It released yesterday.

 

[tential]

I don't see why you think I care about this game? I already stated its not my type of game. Looks nice is all I said.

Its not even out yet how can you say its not optimized?

ANd I've owned both AMD and Nvidia over the past 6 years. Actually more AMD cards.
WHy so personal?

Anno 2205
Release Date: Nov 3, 2015
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Anno+2205+Release+Date

I am 100% against a 1 architecture game. If you are too, great. If you aren't, give your reasoning why.
Otherwise, you have no reason to respond to my posts.
---------------------------------------
Edit: Sidenote
This isn't AMD vs Nvidia.... Look how many times I've mentioned Ubisoft. Pretty much, if you aren't referencing Ubisoft, you are completely missing the point of my posts, and aren't responding in ANY relevant manner to what I'm saying.
Edit2:
Optimizations... I'm going to answer this ridiculous question with another one.
Do you think the GTX 980Ti is SO bad that it can only deliver 1080p/60fps in a game and that's it?

 

[happy medium]

You think that a game which can't run at 60FPS at 1080p with a 980 Ti and only works to a relevant capacity on Maxwell could possibly be optimized? Did you call AC: Unity and Batman: AK optimized as well? By the way, it is out. It released yesterday.

you didn't read post 53?

that's my answer. for the 3rd time.

 

[littleg]

Leaving aside the AMD or Nvidia stuff the performance is still really bad for what it is. Look at the spikes and the inconsistent frame times they're getting.

Hopefully they just rushed it out and can optimise it properly in a patch or have it done through drivers. Ubisoft man, they're to quality gaming what McDonalds is to fine dining.

 

[Mondozei]

Allow me to sum up: it looks like both AMD and Nvidia have some work to on their respective drivers. Is this a big deal? No.

That's not just oversimplification, that's directly misleading. You're trying to equalise what is happening here when it's completely unwarranted. There's a massive, huge, advantage to one side. So why are you trying to avoid this topic by blaming both? It's not equal at all.

There are good reasons to ask why the game is another Project CARS, reasons which you obviously don't want discussed by trying to pin blame on both as a saving maneuver.