I believe that was the gpu being a limiting factor there. with medium details, the framerate hit 65. although, in both cases, I smell a horribly coded game, which is probably to blame.I hope no feelings get hurt here, but... complementing Steve's last sentence: the graphics quality observed don't appear to match the workload and the frames. Who's fault here? Graphics drivers, poorly optimized engine? Because really it looks a lot like World in Conflict, maybe sub-par and that game is not demandant for these cards, I don't think DX11 simply justifies it.
And on a side-note, just as Steve noted before: an eight-core Bulldozer OCed @4.5 GHz is below a quad-core/8 threads i7 Haswell @2.5 GHz in this benchmark as observed before in other games -not all, but is a repeated scenario. The odd behaving of the i7 frame caping means the system bandwidth limit was reached and couldn't give even 1 more frame? Cause 41 is pretty low for OCing it up to 4.5 GHz and having no difference from the 2.5 GHz test.
Horribly optimized game...
RTS games have a lot of features that eat away at the CPU. they have a lot of computing to do along side the graphics part. The same happens when you use NVIDIA PHYSX on the CPU (non NVIDIA GPU).Can someone please explain why this is - I've experienced lowest framerates always when I play RTS titles as opposed to any other type of game. Is this because of number of units on screen at a time or is there something else about RTS games that make them the most power hungry?
On my first computer, I played quake 3 at the highest settings - but age of empires 2 brought it to its knees
On my current two year old computer, skyrim is maxed out as is witcher 2 but shogun 2 makes it struggle at high settings ans resolution
What is it about RTS games really?
Interesting results... not sure if the results are comparable or not but guru3d got much better performance in this game (~48 fps max settings 1440p on a 780/Titan)
Interesting results... not sure if the results are comparable or not but guru3d got much better performance in this game (~48 fps max settings 1440p on a 780/Titan)
Can you provide the link 'cause I don't find it in the recent posts of the corresponding sections, even got no results during the search.
I can't provide the link because it doesn't allow HTML, but they have CoH 2 in their new MSI GTX 780 Gaming review on the front page - you can see some results there. They said they have a performance review for the game forthcoming.
Was just thinking the exact same thing. If even the Titan gets that low FPS, then it can't be the hardware setup thats killing the frames. For how the game looks I would expect the frames to be at least double the frames that they got in the test.