Setup & Software Discussions
Total War: Three Kingdoms benchmarks
 

Total War: Three Kingdoms benchmarks  

  RSS

Kelvin Tan
(@kelvin_tan)
Estimable Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 133
May 29, 2019 2:11 pm  

Total War: THREE KINGDOMS 2019 05 29 21 43 05

Never thought this day would arrive, but an AAA title released for Mac only a few days after the Windows release?

I love the Total War series, and it's rock solid and stable (albeit slightly unoptimised on the Mac).

Playing it on a 2018 MBP 15" (i7 2.6/32GB/1TB), and it was surprisingly playable. Some benches from battle_benchmark:

Total War: THREE KINGDOMS 2019 05 29 22 01 02

Resolution @ Preset Average FPS
3440x1440 @ Ultra (Full Screen) 20.0
3440x1440 @ High (Full Screen) 30.6
3440x1440 @ Medium (Full Screen) 53.7
2560x1080 @ Ultra (Windowed) 23.7
2560x1080 @ High (Windowed) 39.6
2560x1080 @ Medium (Windowed) 72.0

Think I'll be playing on 3440x1440 High or 2560x1080 High, full screen for both. In 3440x1440 High, changing TAA to FXAA increased average fps by about 10% (3fps).

Total War: THREE KINGDOMS 2019 05 29 21 33 44

So far I think Sega and Feral Interactive did a great job on the Mac port! While I believe the fps will increase in Windows, but heck if I just want to play half-an-hour in MacOS it's possible!

If any of you have any tips on optimising the fps for MacOS, or would like to share benchmarks, please do share, thanks!

This topic was modified 4 weeks ago

X1 Yoga Gen3, X1 Tablet Gen 3, MacBook Pro 15" 2018
Razer Core X / Mantiz Venus
Asrock Radeon VII, Zotac Nvidia 1080Ti Amp Core Extreme, Powercolor Vega 56 reference (flashed to V64 bios)


itsage liked
ReplyQuote
Eightarmedpet
(@eightarmedpet)
Noble Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1603

OliverB liked
ReplyQuote
OliverB
(@oliverb)
Noble Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 1297
May 29, 2019 7:55 pm  

We (my wife and me, only playing together) played Tomb Raider 2013 through. It's really a good game. Unfortunately Return of the Tomb Raider is a little repetitive (not so much change compared to TR 2013) so we changed to Far Cry 5, which has too much dump shooting, so we changed to Far Cry 4, which starts fine, but then it's again too much dump shooting.
We will give Hitman 2 a try next. I would like to play Resident Evil 2, but my wife doesn't like Zombies.

2018 15" MBP & 2015 13" MBP connected to RTX2080Ti GTX1080Ti GTX1080 Vega56 RX580 R9-290 GTX680


ReplyQuote
nevrozel
(@nevrozel)
Active Member
Joined: 3 weeks ago
Posts: 7
Jun 2, 2019 7:13 am  

I will be purchasing my first eGPU setup next week, I ordered the the Razer Core X. I am now debating between the Vega 56 and 64 and whether the 64 is worth the money. I am a big Total War fan since Shogun in 2001 so I am really looking forward to play it on my MacBook Pro 2016 15"/i7 2,6GHz/16GB/512SSD/Radeon Pro 460. I have a 34" LG 3440*1440 monitor. My question is if you think the Vega 56 will be powerful enough to play Three Kingdoms at full 3440*1440 on at High settings. 

Also, did you need to install any scripts from this forum in order for Three Kingdoms to use the eGPU? Or it's just enabling the setting from INFO panel in Finder?

Thanks.

EDIT: I have to choose between a brand new discounted Sapphire Vega 56 (340$) or a cheaper second hand 1 year used Gigabyte Vega 64 (280$). What do you think?

This post was modified 3 weeks ago

MacBook Pro 2016/i7 2.6 GHz/16GB/512SSD/Radeon Pro 460 4GB


ReplyQuote
nevrozel
(@nevrozel)
Active Member
Joined: 3 weeks ago
Posts: 7
Jun 2, 2019 5:34 pm  

I got the used Vega 64 for a great price (235$ after some bargaining), so now I am just waiting for the Razer Core X.

This post was modified 3 weeks ago

MacBook Pro 2016/i7 2.6 GHz/16GB/512SSD/Radeon Pro 460 4GB


ReplyQuote
Kelvin Tan
(@kelvin_tan)
Estimable Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 133
Jun 3, 2019 5:26 am  

@nevrozel Hey was going to reply earlier but wanted to run some benchmarks for you first. I think it's a great choice buying the Vega 64, people usually baby their components so used or new it doesn't really matter much - that V64 pricing is a no-brainer.

Total War: THREE KINGDOMS 2019 06 03 13 08 13
Total War: THREE KINGDOMS 2019 06 03 13 15 31
Total War: THREE KINGDOMS 2019 06 03 13 12 22

Good news is, very playable 3440 x 1440 @ Medium settings! Even on a tuned Vega 56 it's only about 20% slower than the Radeon VII, and still playable at 43 average fps (battle benchmark).

Resolution @ Settings Radeon VII + Mantiz Venus Vega 56 (V64 BIOS) + Razer Core X Chroma
3440x1440 @ Ultra 20.0 17.3
3440x1440 @ High 30.6 25.1
3440x1440 @ Medium 53.7 43.0

Have fun, and good luck wiping out the yellow turbies!

Edit: also running in bootcamp, TW:3K average fps is very similar to the MacOS port. Which means the port is quite optimised (the game takes a significant hit on egpu connections though).

This post was modified 3 weeks ago

X1 Yoga Gen3, X1 Tablet Gen 3, MacBook Pro 15" 2018
Razer Core X / Mantiz Venus
Asrock Radeon VII, Zotac Nvidia 1080Ti Amp Core Extreme, Powercolor Vega 56 reference (flashed to V64 bios)


ReplyQuote
nevrozel
(@nevrozel)
Active Member
Joined: 3 weeks ago
Posts: 7
Jun 3, 2019 1:47 pm  

Thanks for the benchmarks! I am now just waiting for the Razer Core X to arrive. It's interesting that BootCamp did not see a considerable improvement, it usually is. This shows the quality of the port imho, which is great.

Do you have any tips on how to improve the performance of the Vega 64 that I got? Is there a way to update its BIOS, update some MacOS drivers? I think MacOS drivers are baked in and BIOS update will only work on Windows, but you seem more knowledgeable. 🙂

What are reffering to when you say "tuned Vega 56"? Is it just BIOS related or any other tweaks?

MacBook Pro 2016/i7 2.6 GHz/16GB/512SSD/Radeon Pro 460 4GB


ReplyQuote
Kelvin Tan
(@kelvin_tan)
Estimable Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 133
Jun 3, 2019 3:18 pm  

@nevrozel the core X is a good kit. Never gonna give mine up too!

The gigabyte Vega 64 is one of the standard clocked Vega 64s (1630/945). In macOS we can only do one thing - flash the bios for a higher clocked version (flashing bios is done in windows only, but the benefits are reaped in MacOS).

When the card comes, don't do anything but just run some benchmarks look at the temps and see if it's okay. Then you will at least have a baseline. Be sure the bios switch is not in the low power position.

Once you got your baseline reference, go to techpowerup.com and grab let's say a Sapphire bios clocked at 1750/945. Make a backup of the original bios, flash, then bench it to see how much better it performs and if the cooling can take the heat.

If you are intending to keep the Vega 64 for awhile, consider getting a Morpheus II, or even invest in a water cooled setup. Or just stick with it and enjoy the performance it provides. It's a good card for 3440x1440 @ 50 to 60fps for most games on high settings. And if you are like me, the games we play(strategy, etc) do not really need high fps haha.

In Bootcamp you can tweak all sorts of things that you can't in MacOS. One of the key tweaks is to undervolt (windows only, MacOS no), that can net a good 10% performance increase easily.

This post was modified 3 weeks ago

X1 Yoga Gen3, X1 Tablet Gen 3, MacBook Pro 15" 2018
Razer Core X / Mantiz Venus
Asrock Radeon VII, Zotac Nvidia 1080Ti Amp Core Extreme, Powercolor Vega 56 reference (flashed to V64 bios)


ReplyQuote
nevrozel
(@nevrozel)
Active Member
Joined: 3 weeks ago
Posts: 7
Jun 3, 2019 4:14 pm  

The card I got is exactly this one, by the QR code on the box. They say it's an OC edition with 1560/945 MHz.  I usually play RTS games on PC and FPS on my PlayStation, so they should work all right. About the undervolting, if we do it in Windows, will it stick to MacOS? 

offtopic: how do you mention someone on this forum like @nevrozel, I can't seem to find it. 🙂

MacBook Pro 2016/i7 2.6 GHz/16GB/512SSD/Radeon Pro 460 4GB


ReplyQuote
Yukikaze
(@yukikaze)
Prominent Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 920
Jun 4, 2019 6:39 pm  

I don't often buy AAA gaming titles close to release (or at all, to be honest), so I am not often useful for benchmarks on the latest games, but I love the Total War games, and Three Kingdoms has raving reviews, so I just had to buy it. As a result, I have some Three Kingdoms benchmarks from the Windows side of things, comparing my old Asus GTX980Ti Strix and a shiny new Palit Game Rock GTX1080Ti which I just picked up to replace it for 470$. I am not overclocking the cards beyond their factory settings. The Strix is a massively overclocked card with a 20% core overclock over a regular GTX980Ti, the Game Rock runs at nearly the same clocks as the reference design, so the difference between the two is smaller than between two reference cards of each type.

battle_benchmark - All of these are on external monitors, full-screen, with a second monitor active in windows. The same driver (430.97 - latest one available) is used for both cards:

Settings Ultra High Medium Low
Asus GTX980Ti Strix Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min)
1920x1080 40 (31) 53 (39) 85 (59) 147 (96)
2560x1440 30 (24) 38 (30) 61 (48) 111 (78)
3840x2160 17 (14) 21 (18) 34 (29) 64 (49)
5120x2880 14 (12) 21 (17) 25 (22) 40 (35)

1080p is playable at High (Ultra is doable at 30fps).
1440p is playable at Medium (High is doable at 30 fps).
4K is barely bearable at Medium.
5K looks like crap and isn't worth it.

Settings Ultra High Medium Low
Palit GTX1080Ti Game Rock Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min)
1920x1080 54 (40) 71 (46) 103 (64) 165 (101)
2560x1440 42 (33) 54 (40) 86 (61) 147 (96)
3840x2160 25 (21) 31 (26) 52 (42) 93 (70)
5120x2880 16 (13) 21 (17) 33 (28) 61 (49)

1080p is playable at High. Ultra is doable with FPS dips.
1440p runs decent on High and very well on Medium.
4K is doable on Medium. Low is too ugly to be worth it. This is a pretty good setting, as Medium looks good and 4K on a 27" monitor looks very crisp.
5K is doable at ~30 FPS on Medium. Not worth it, to be honest.

There are three interesting things here:
1) The High preset behaves weird, providing the same results at 4K and 5K on the GTX980Ti, and an identical 5K result on both cards, which no other preset does.
2) The best GPU scaling is on the medium and high presets at 2K and 4K. Ultra settings scale worse and I suspect that a lot of the extra eye-candy (probably things like unit sizes) is either CPU bound, or uses extra CPU computation, which means that the TB3 latency has a greater effect. With all due respect to my i7-7820HK, it isn't as fast as a desktop 8700K or 8600K, which is what most of the desktop benchmarks are done with.
3) The minimum frame rates in the benchmarks are nearly universally achieved at the end of the scene when a lot of foliage is on screen. In other words, if you're not staring at trees, but rather at your units, your FPS is likely going to be higher than this.

Desktop Comparison:
Let's compare to desktop results. Surprisingly there isn't a lot of good data I could find on the GTX1080Ti performance, but be can extrapolate from a GTX1080. The GTX1080Ti is ~30% faster than the GTX1080 on average, so lets see how I fared. This is on the High preset:
1080p: 91 (71) vs 71 (46)
1440p: 56 (48) vs 54 (40)
4K: 27 (23) vs 31 (26)

Likewise, here, GTX1080Ti results are missing and the same is true for a GTX1080 (Why wouldn't they try to find two of the most popular cards out there is beyond me), but a GTX1070Ti makes its appearance, and it is a card that is very close to a GTX1080 in performance, so we can use it instead:
At 1080p, the 1070Ti result is 64fps on average on Ultra (no minimum specified) vs my 54.
At 1440p, they have 55fps on average on high (again, no minimum specified) vs my 54. On Ultra, the performance is all by identical to mine, with 42 average FPS, and a minimum around 37-ish. I have 42 (33).
At 4K on medium, the 1070Ti has 43 FPS vs my 52. At high the frame rate is 26fps (identical to the GTX1080 result above) vs my 31.

Conclusions:
1) 1080p a desktop with a GTX1080/1070Ti outperforms my GTX1080Ti eGPU setup by a lot, setting minimum frame rates that are equal to my averages. Getting a high-end card for a 1080p eGPU is a fool's errand, but not one we were not aware of.
2) At 1440p on High, I am suffering about a 30% performance hit compared to the desktop, with a bigger hit on the minimum frame rates, as my card becomes essentially equivalent to a GTX1080 or so.
3) At 4K on Medium, my card pulls ahead closer to its expected performance advantage, being ~20% faster.
4) At 4K on High the GTX1080Ti pulls ahead in both average and minimum frame-rates, and the performance hit compared to the desktop is about 15%, but the performance of both cards is poor.
5) On Low graphics the game looks like crap. Medium looks pretty good. The gains from Ultra over High are very hard to spot and are probably not worth it.

It is hard to say how much of this is to blame for the TB3 connectivity and how much of this is to blame on the weaker CPU compared to the faster desktop benchmarks, since the Total War games are CPU intensive both on the campaign level and in the battle view, but the eGPU fares better on the Medium setting and higher resolutions. Medium at 4K is a particular sweet spot, and gives a hint about what I should focus on when tweaking settings.

There is also a helpful article here about the performance impact of various graphics settings over here. Spoilers: Shadows and AA reduce frame rates a lot, and unit sizes are also an important consideration. The impact of settings on eGPU performance may be different than on a desktop and is worth looking into, so:
I plan to compare the effect of the various settings on the performance of my setup so we can recommend the eGPU crowd which settings we should avoid. I will use the GTX1080Ti and try to narrow down the effect of each setting between Medium and the higher settings (Low is not worth my time). Stay tuned!

As usual: I buy a game, and then spend more time benchmarking it than playing it, but I can't help it: FOR SCIENCE! 🙂

This post was modified 3 weeks ago

My eGPU Zoo - Link to my Implementations.
Want to output [email protected] out of an old system on the cheap? Read here.
Give your Node Pro a second Thunderbolt3 controller for reliable peripherals by re-using a TB3 dock (~50$).

"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."- Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love."


ReplyQuote
OliverB
(@oliverb)
Noble Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 1297
Jun 4, 2019 7:40 pm  

@yukikaze

In my opinion, a well clocked GTX 1080 Ti is still the best card in the gaming market. 470$ for yours is a fantastic price, it won't fall a lot in the next years, it's like investing in gold (almost ;p). There a lot of reviews which call it the best card of all time and I kind of concur.

I made a lot of comparisons with other GPUs (Radeon VII and RTX 2080 Ti) and especially for eGPU setups, GTX 1080 Ti has the best yield, by far. By the way, I know this effect, 90% of my time with my EVGA GTX1080Ti SC2 I spent benchmarking and not gaming..

This post was modified 3 weeks ago

2018 15" MBP & 2015 13" MBP connected to RTX2080Ti GTX1080Ti GTX1080 Vega56 RX580 R9-290 GTX680


ReplyQuote
Yukikaze
(@yukikaze)
Prominent Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 920
Jun 4, 2019 8:02 pm  

@oliverb - That is why I picked it up. I was sitting on my GTX980Ti for a long time now (which I bought used after selling the R9 Fury I had for 100$ more than I bought it for new - The mining days were wild), and waiting for a decent card for 4K (and 5K in the lighter titles) to hit under 500$. Last week there was a guy on /r/hardwareswap selling a hoard of about 20 GTX1080Ti cards which vanished pretty quickly, but I spotted it fast enough to grab one of them. The Palits he was selling were back from RMAs, not used and still in the original sealed packaging and in all the plastic film coating. For 470$ it was hard to pass up.

Once I finish my small stint in Three Kingdoms benchmarks I'll see about overclocking the card.

My eGPU Zoo - Link to my Implementations.
Want to output [email protected] out of an old system on the cheap? Read here.
Give your Node Pro a second Thunderbolt3 controller for reliable peripherals by re-using a TB3 dock (~50$).

"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."- Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love."


ReplyQuote
OliverB
(@oliverb)
Noble Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 1297
Jun 4, 2019 8:11 pm  

@yukikaze
If you have a look at benchmark table, you will see that most games have over 30 FPS with 5K and a good GTX 1080Ti, not only "lighter titles". And we talk about the highest settings.
Overclocking can be a challenge when the card is already superclocked by factory like yours. Don't expect to much from it.

2018 15" MBP & 2015 13" MBP connected to RTX2080Ti GTX1080Ti GTX1080 Vega56 RX580 R9-290 GTX680


ReplyQuote
Yukikaze
(@yukikaze)
Prominent Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 920
Jun 4, 2019 8:15 pm  

@oliverb - 30fps is too low, but the results on that table are pretty impressive aside of a few things that do dip that low. I guess Total War is murder on systems, which the series always has been.

My GTX1080Ti is barely overclocked: The Palit Game Rock is not an OC card (well, it has a 2% OC, but that's not much). I should be able to bump the (effective) boost clocks to the 2Ghz mark or close to it to edge a bit more performance.

My eGPU Zoo - Link to my Implementations.
Want to output [email protected] out of an old system on the cheap? Read here.
Give your Node Pro a second Thunderbolt3 controller for reliable peripherals by re-using a TB3 dock (~50$).

"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."- Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love."


ReplyQuote
OliverB
(@oliverb)
Noble Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 1297
Jun 4, 2019 8:18 pm  

@yukikaze
30 FPS a little bit low of course, but lot of games are over 45, 50FPS and this is already quite playable with monitor sync. Don't forget that you can still lower the details settings.
What is the base and boost clock of your card?

2018 15" MBP & 2015 13" MBP connected to RTX2080Ti GTX1080Ti GTX1080 Vega56 RX580 R9-290 GTX680


ReplyQuote
Yukikaze
(@yukikaze)
Prominent Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 920
Jun 4, 2019 8:21 pm  

@oliverb - 1506/1620Mhz are the clocks (a reference design is 1481/1582). Memory is stock at 11,008Mhz.

My eGPU Zoo - Link to my Implementations.
Want to output [email protected] out of an old system on the cheap? Read here.
Give your Node Pro a second Thunderbolt3 controller for reliable peripherals by re-using a TB3 dock (~50$).

"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."- Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love."


ReplyQuote
OliverB
(@oliverb)
Noble Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 1297
Jun 4, 2019 8:29 pm  

@yukikaze
The EVGA GTX 1080 Ti SC2 goes with 1557/1671 Mhz by factory, I thought the Palit Game Rock was similar. You will bring it to this, I am very sure 😉

2018 15" MBP & 2015 13" MBP connected to RTX2080Ti GTX1080Ti GTX1080 Vega56 RX580 R9-290 GTX680


ReplyQuote
(@bill_yang)
New Member
Joined: 3 weeks ago
Posts: 1
Jun 4, 2019 10:32 pm  

I have to ask, what drivers were you using in Bootcamp? I'm attempting to do the same with a Vega 64, but am getting terrible performance!

Pending: Add my system information and expected eGPU configuration to my signature to give context to my posts


ReplyQuote
Yukikaze
(@yukikaze)
Prominent Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 920
Jun 11, 2019 5:27 am  

Okay, so here are the promised setting analysis results, plus some OC data!

Overclocking:
Before delving into the details of the various settings, let's cover OC. Armed with Intel's XTU I decided to see if overclocking the CPU was of any benefit. I reached 3.9Ghz stable on all cores by raising the turbo-boost multipliers, while dropping the vcore by 0.135v. This keeps the system from thermal throttling even under a Prime95 small FFT load and is stable.

Then I decided to compare results between a stock run and an OC run at 1080p and 4K (battle_benchmark):

Resolution / Setting Ultra High Medium Low
  Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min)
1920x1080 54 (40) 71 (46) 103 (64) 165 (101)
1920x1080 + CPU OC 54 (40) 71 (46) 108 (69) 173 (108)
3840x2160 25 (21) 31 (26) 52 (42) 93 (70)
3840x2160 + CPU OC 26 (21) 31 (26) 52 (42) 93 (70)

As we can see, there is pretty much no difference in the benchmark result except at Medium or Low settings at 1080p. I did a 1440p test at Low and received on gains either, so I didn't bother with Medium and higher. In short, OCing your laptop CPU seems to be rather meaningless if you already have a quad-core i7 that can run at stable 3.5-3.6Ghz turbo boost clocks.

What about video card OC? I gained a grand total of 1-2 minimum and average FPS at low settings when running at 4K. I managed to eke out 1 more FPS on high and ultra at the same resolution. We're talking sub-5% gains at best. Due to the bottlenecks inherent at 1080p, making your video card go faster likely would help even less.

In short, overclocking the laptop and eGPU for Three Kingdoms is pretty much a waste of time if you have a modern quad-core (or hexa-core) laptop that can reliably run the CPU at 3.5Ghz or higher. I think a well-cooled undervolted 8550U would be able to achieve the same results, which is good news for those on Ultrabooks equipped with those chips (and their other cousins) - Assuming your cooling is up to snuff.

As always, YMMV on OC results, and for people with less powerful cards OCing the GPU may be much more beneficial at 1080p, but for those of us with a high-end card, you can just load the game up and play.

Settings and FPS Impact:
So, what about the various settings and their impact on FPS? This took a while to do: I ran the benchmark 38 times to make sure you don't have to 🙂

For the baseline, I used what I called a "true medium" setting, which is as follows:

Baseline

All the benchmarks were done at 4K, so that the CPU and TB3 bottleneck would be diminished, and the GPU impact would be relatively isolated. Each setting was tweaked, with the rest remaining at baseline, and the impact measured to isolate how lightweight, or how heavy, this setting is. Something worth noting is that I did not test crosses between the settings, as it would've taken a mindboggling amount of time to even attempt to do so, and some settings in combination may have an impact that is greater than each one separately (more complex models might, in theory, create more complex shadows, for example).

I did not bother with the low settings, as they look pretty horrible: You should strive for medium at a minimum, and lower your resolution so you can do so if the performance calls for it. Not all settings have an Extreme preset, so that column is not fully populated.

Alright, to the data!

The baseline result was a 58 FPS average, with a 44 FPS minimum. Again, all the results are at 4K. I did not use resolution scaling.

Setting High Ultra Extreme  
  Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min)  
Texture Quality 58 (46) 58 (43)    
Shadow Detail 57 (46) 57 (43) 51 (43)  
VFX Detail 56 (42) 55 (41)    
Tree Detail 58 (45) 57 (45)    
Unit Detail 57 (44) 55 (42)    
Grass Detail 57 (46) 55 (44)    
Terrain Detail 58 (43) 57 (45)    
Building Detail* 58 (45) 57 (45)    
         
  ASx2 ASx4 ASx8 ASx16
  Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min)
Texture Filtering 58 (46) 58 (46) 58 (46) 57 (45)
         
  FXAA TAA    
  Avg (Min) Avg (Min)    
Anti-Aliasing 58 (43) 45 (38)    
         
  Large Ultra Extreme  
  Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min)  
Unit Size 56 (44) 54 (40) 51 (32)  
         
  On      
  Avg (Min)      
SSAO 53 (43)      
Unlimited Video Memory 59 (47)      
Screen Space Shadows 54 (44)      
Vignette 59 (46)      
Proximity Fading 59 (46)      
Sharpening 58 (46)      
Screen Space Reflections 47 (39)      
         
  Low High    
  Avg (Min) Avg (Min)    
Depth of Field 56 (45) 54 (44)    

*The benchmark has no buildings - So this was most likely a waste of two benchmark runs.
Note 1: The Post Effects setting had no effect on frame-rate. 
Note 2: Maximum GPU memory consumption with "Unlimited Video Memory" enabled was somewhere between 6GB and 7GB. If your GPU has 8GB or higher, you might as well just enable this setting, it raised my minimum FPS a little.

Now - Conclusions:
1) If you want to murder your FPS, feel free to enable TAA anti-aliasing and/or Extreme unit sizes. At 4K, AA is often of questionable value, so this was pretty much the first thing I eliminated. Unit-size wise, sticking to Large or Ultra gives the effect of large battles, but without the crazy slowdown that Extreme brings to the table.
2) Texture quality has no effect on performance. This also explains why all the game settings have textures at Ultra, so you should avoid changing this: The game will look worse for no gain. As long as the GPU has enough memory for the more detailed textures, just stick to Ultra here.
3) Screen Space Reflections are another great way to tank your performance, and you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference in normal gameplay.
4) Shadows, unsurprisingly, are also of a significant performance impact, and the performance impact of the Extreme preset is again not worth the visuals.
5) Terrain and Tree Detail seems relatively optional as you will rarely be focusing on either, and the visual gains seem to be pretty small. Sticking with Medium and saving a couple FPS is likely a good idea here.
6) There are no buildings in the benchmark, so my comment on this is based on later gameplay during urban assaults: Ultra seems to be manageable (I was expecting this to murder my performance into nothing, but the game kept on playing very well), but High should be enough if the larger cities cause bigger slowdowns.

Something to keep in mind that the minimum settings in the benchmark occur when the camera moves to view a lot of units through up-close foliage - I played Total War games for a long, long time, and I never felt the need to get that same camera shot: Even on the highest settings the trees don't look particularly realistic, and during game play you have better things to do. As a result, in "normal" gameplay, your performance will be better than the battle_benchmark will show.

I eventually settled on the following in-game settings which benchmark at a 40fps average and a 28fps minimum, with a silky smooth sailing so far in the game itself, even in urban battles of some size and with nearly 1,000 archers filling the sky with flaming arrows. If I run into issues in the late game, I will drop unit quality to High, disable AA entirely, drop texture filtering to trilinear and set the unit size to Large. Enabling vsync to lock the game to essentially 30fps might not be a bad idea: The game doesn't really rely on fast-paced visuals, and getting rid of any jitter in the frame rate might actually be more enjoyable.

Gamesettings

This post was modified 2 weeks ago

My eGPU Zoo - Link to my Implementations.
Want to output [email protected] out of an old system on the cheap? Read here.
Give your Node Pro a second Thunderbolt3 controller for reliable peripherals by re-using a TB3 dock (~50$).

"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."- Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love."


ReplyQuote
nevrozel
(@nevrozel)
Active Member
Joined: 3 weeks ago
Posts: 7
Jun 11, 2019 5:10 pm  

A great detailed review of the settings! Very useful especially knowing that settings like "texture quality" can be set higher without affecting performance. I will be playing with your recommended set and see what I will get, based on my 3440*1440 resolution and Vega 64 setup.

MacBook Pro 2016/i7 2.6 GHz/16GB/512SSD/Radeon Pro 460 4GB


ReplyQuote
Yukikaze
(@yukikaze)
Prominent Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 920
Jun 13, 2019 6:43 pm  

For fun, I decided to benchmark my dGPU (a Quadro M1200M 4GB, which is essentially a slightly overclocked GTX750Ti 4GB) to see if the game is at all playable on such a GPU. Spoiler: The short version is that it is somewhat doable, but only at sub-1080p resolutions.

Quadro M1200M 4GB (dGPU) Ultra High Medium Low
  Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min) Avg (Min)
1024x768 27 (23) 37 (32) 63 (52) 123 (100)
1280x720 23 (20) 33 (28) 54 (44) 109 (92)
1920x1080 14 (12) 18 (15) 29 (23) 56 (45)

Note: The menu UI looks horrible at 1024x768 as it was clearly not made for such low resolutions.

1) The GTX980Ti eGPU was about 3 times faster than the M1200M at 1080p High settings, which is about right: The GTX980Ti is a little over three times faster than the 750Ti on average.
2) The game is very rough on lower end video cards, with only Low settings playable at 1080p. I guess some mix or Low and Medium would be doable, but gaming on the go is going to be rough on my laptop for this one.
3) Good luck running this on ANY settings with an IGP. Ouch.

My eGPU Zoo - Link to my Implementations.
Want to output [email protected] out of an old system on the cheap? Read here.
Give your Node Pro a second Thunderbolt3 controller for reliable peripherals by re-using a TB3 dock (~50$).

"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."- Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love."


ReplyQuote