WoW: Cataclysm Benchmarks!

[Wreckage]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm-directx-11-performance,2793.html

Since this will probably be the biggest selling game this year, this should interest a lot of people. Also enabling the DX11 switch does boost performance.

CPU benchmarks as well. However the ads are annoying, but a very thorough review.

Here's a preview


2560x1600 Ultra High
580 - 94.42
480 - 89.48
5870 - 73.82
470 - 73.58
6870 - 68.88
5850 - 64.30
460 - 59.92
6850 - 58.63
5970 - 50.07

 

[SlowSpyder]

Cool, ~$200 cards get 60FPS at 2560x1600 resolution with ultra settings. Looks like this game will be plenty playable on average cards at the resolutions most people seem to be using these days (1680x1050 and 1080P).

 

[RussianSensation]

Yet another game where AMD's CPUs suck. I still can't believe people keep recommending their processors above $100.

 

[JM Popaleetus]

I have everything maxed out (both in game and in my catalyst control center) running at 1920x1200 and get 60FPS in the most populated areas (Dalaran before the shattering, etc.).

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Yet another game where AMD's CPUs suck. I still can't believe people keep recommending their processors above $100.

Pretty ignorant statement right here.

 

[RussianSensation]

Pretty ignorant statement right here.

Umm...it's actually based on facts.

Black Ops
Civ 5
Starcraft 2
Mafia II
Splinter Cell Conviction
Far Cry 2
Supreme Commander 2

The fact of the matter is, AMD still doesn't have a single CPU faster than Core i5 750 for games. It doesn't make a lot of sense to pair a $150 AMD CPU with a $300+ GPU when a $200 Intel processor with the same GPU can often net you a 20-40% performance increase.

From the review:

"Although every single benchmark result on this page is generated with the help of a GeForce GTX 480, frame rates drop under 40 FPS on the Athlon II X4 system. There's simply not enough processing horsepower in the Athlon II or Phenom II lineups to let our graphics card to stretch its legs." A stock i7 875 processor is giving double the framerates (80.63) of that X2 system which can only manage 43.86 fps at 1680x1050......D:

 

[busydude]

The fact of the matter is, AMD still doesn't have a single CPU faster than Core i5 750 for games.

What about DiRT 2 and MOH? They perform better on AMD cpu's.. and what most hardware sites fail to mention is the NB..it makes a huge difference.. and can be overclocked easily.

 

[RussianSensation]

What about DiRT 2 and MOH? They perform better on AMD cpu's..

The examples you provided show minimum differences in playability unlike the massive 10-20 fps + in the games I linked (which is a dramatic difference). Also, the benches I linked have 4AA already enabled in most cases vs. none in the examples you provided, which doesn't show a true CPU bottleneck. Are there any games where AMD CPUs are faster by 10-20 fps with 4AA?

 

[VirtualLarry]

"Although every single benchmark result on this page is generated with the help of a GeForce GTX 480, frame rates drop under 40 FPS on the Athlon II X2 system. There's simply not enough processing horsepower in the Athlon II or Phenom II lineups to let our graphics card to stretch its legs." A stock i7 875 processor is giving double the framerates (80.63) of that X2 system which can only manage 43.86 fps at 1680x1050......D:

Huh? An Athlon II X2 is a dual-core, an i7 875 is a quad-core. I should HOPE that a quad-core is giving double the framerates.

 

[Sind]

Switched to dx11 mode a couple days ago, honestly didn't notice the difference myself, but if it's there, that's cool with me! Dunno if one of my mods is bugged, sometimes I get horrible stuttering turning it into a slideshow, really irritating. Liking the expansion so far, some great scenery and models if you take the time to look around!

 

[RussianSensation]

Huh? An Athlon II X2 is a dual-core, an i7 875 is a quad-core. I should HOPE that a quad-core is giving double the framerates.

That was a typo on my part. 43.86 was achieved with Athlon II X4 640 3.0ghz quad core. But you would know that if you checked the review yourself

 

[busydude]

Also, the benches I linked have 4AA already enabled in most cases vs. none in the examples you provided, which doesn't show a true CPU bottleneck. Are there any games where AMD CPUs are faster by 10-20 fps with 4AA?

Read the extensive review at ABT.. of CPU scaling.. and do you notice any huge difference unless its a 5870 CF setup?

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=22167&all=1

I agree that Intel CPU are generally better than AMD ones.. and there is a reason AMD CPU's are so cheap..

 

[Barfo]

It doesn't make a lot of sense to pair a $150 AMD CPU with a $300+ GPU when a $200 Intel processor with the same GPU can often net you a 20-40% performance increase.

It is if your CPU budget is $150. Not everybody is interested or can afford to get the fastest stuff, and AMD is the best bang for the buck in some price brackets.

 

[RavenSEAL]

How is this relevant? WoW's graphics are ****.

 

[Daedalus685]

How is this relevant? WoW's graphics are ****.

The new expansion does look amazing in an artistic sort of way. Pretty neat what they can do with that engine after 6 years.

But also, it is by far the most played mmo in the world (perhaps game?) and how it performs on the midrange cards is very relevant to what will sell. There will be no few folks upgrading just because of cataclysm and the new effects finally forcing them off the 7600s and so forth, or forcing them to upgrade newer cards to maintain 30+fps at all times at max settings.

 

[ronnn]

Cool, ~$200 cards get 60FPS at 2560x1600 resolution with ultra settings. Looks like this game will be plenty playable on average cards at the resolutions most people seem to be using these days (1680x1050 and 1080P).

Yep my 6870 does just fine, but not sure if wow is acceptable with my friends.

 

[RavenSEAL]

The new expansion does look amazing in an artistic sort of way. Pretty neat what they can do with that engine after 6 years.

But also, it is by far the most played mmo in the world (perhaps game?) and how it performs on the midrange cards is very relevant to what will sell. There will be no few folks upgrading just because of cataclysm and the new effects finally forcing them off the 7600s and so forth, or forcing them to upgrade newer cards to maintain 30+fps at all times at max settings.

True

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Yet another game where AMD's CPUs suck. I still can't believe people keep recommending their processors above $100.

The fact of the matter is, AMD still doesn't have a single CPU faster than Core i5 750 for games.

The 750 costs... $200. So I guess you're saying there are no processors worth buying between $100-$200. Interesting.

Although every single benchmark result on this page is generated with the help of a GeForce GTX 480, frame rates drop under 40 FPS on the Athlon II X4 system.

Athlon II X4s are at or under $100, generally. The Phenom II X4 processors are the ones right in that $100-$200 range, hence why I think your statement was ignorant. The Phenoms are the overall best perfomers at their price. So I don't see how this quote helps your case.

Umm...it's actually based on facts.

Black Ops
Civ 5
Starcraft 2
Mafia II
Splinter Cell Conviction
Far Cry 2
Supreme Commander 2

Ok, nice facts. Even though they aren't represented of the entire picture.

I think you should look at the Mafia II results again. The Phenom II is slower than the i5 750, yes, but it's also cheaper. I don't see how these results back up your argument. Same thing with the Black Ops results, and Splinter Cell Conviction results. Phenoms are behind Intel quad cores but a good deal ahead of the Intel dual cores. Price reflects that.

The Supreme Command results show Phenom and i7 having the same bottom end framerate. On the same page there are Metro results, and all of the processors perform the same.

On the same page of the Far Cry 2 results the Bad Company 2 shows the Phenom and i7/i5 tied, again. Also check out the Far Cry 2 results on the Alienbabel link. Those are interesting and don't show quite the disparity.

Also see the following...

Read the extensive review at ABT.. of CPU scaling.. and do you notice any huge difference unless its a 5870 CF setup?

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=22167&all=1

I agree that Intel CPU are generally better than AMD ones.. and there is a reason AMD CPU's are so cheap..

 

[Bryf50]

How is this relevant? WoW's graphics are ****.

Its no crysis but it does manage to look pretty good in some places.

 

[Arkadrel]

2560x1600 Ultra High
580 - 94.42

A 250$ vs a 400$ card... again naturally the 480 wins. (150$ for ~15 more fps)
480 - 89.48
5870 - 73.82

the 470 is a bit more expensive than a 6870, so natural its abit ahead.
470 - 73.58
6870 - 68.88

Same price range right? both get almost full 60fps avg. rates. 6850 might be a tad bit cheaper.
460 - 59.92
6850 - 58.63



It seems the midrange cards of today can play WoW-Cat at 2560x1600 Ultra settings and get full 60 fps playing experiance. For a mmo you dont really need 120 fps, Im sure people gameing at 60+ fps are getting a enjoyable game play experiance.


@Bryf50
those pics look nice, better than I remember WoW looking.

 

[Silverforce11]

I'm playing cataclysm atm, dx11 and maxed settings, it's actually a very pretty game. Not realistic but its style and artistic flair makes it better looking than most MMOs.

Full HDR water dynamic reflections and the new lighting engine really made a huge difference. It's a very CPU limited game though. OC my old Q9400 to 3.6ghz bumped min fps from 15 in town with a few hundred people to about 40.

 

[epidemis]

it's character models are in a need of an update though, they are kind of blocky.

 

[Silverforce11]

Could use some tessellation update on models yeah.

 

[soccerballtux]

Wow, some shady coding going on by Blizzard. A dual core i3 beats AMD's 6-core 1100T?

Also, what's with the CPU scaling w/ respect to cores on the AMDs? Going from 3->4 cores and 4->5 cores nets you no performance improvement, but adding a 6th core you magically get more performance? There also aren't any graphs showing CPU utilization during the benchmark. I recall back in my WoW days I was CPU limited but they were only running at ~40% load.

I'm not impressed with their "optimizations", this reeks of them pandering to Intel. Kinda like the Blue Moderators on the forums saying things like "and if you have an Intel CPU you get a bonus called "turbo mode" which makes some cores on the CPU go faster!" All the while quad core CPUs were sitting unutilized.

 

[RussianSensation]

It is if your CPU budget is $150. Not everybody is interested or can afford to get the fastest stuff, and AMD is the best bang for the buck in some price brackets.

Ya I know that's why I said at or below $100 AMD is the way to go. Athlon II X4s are great for a budget built, but anything above $100, and you might as well splurge for Intel. The point is more and more games keep coming out in which Core i5/i7s are only getting faster against Phenoms; and that doesn't instill any confidence for the longevity of these CPUs in games.