Civilization VI: Performance Analysis (Techpowerup)

[majord]

GTX 1060 ahead of Fury X and 27% faster than RX 480 at 1080p.

Damn, would be quite the toss up between a 480 and a 1060 if one bought this AND BF1, wouldn't it.

 

[Azix]

Damn, would be quite the toss up between a 480 and a 1060 if one bought this AND BF1, wouldn't it.

not really. fps in games like this are not that important, beyond maybe capping it at 60 and letting your GPU use less power as a result. But it should be smooth

 

[Bacon1]

The games apparently works just fine in DX11, even if AMD is far behind Nvidia.

Those numbers show the game running anything but fine. Its not a graphically demanding game and its running like garbage.

 

[Bacon1]

GTX 1060 ahead of Fury X and 27% faster than RX 480 at 1080p.

1060 is also only 22% slower than 1080.

1080 is whopping 2% faster than 1070.

Anyone looking at these results can tell the game isn't running very well at all.

 

[jpiniero]

1060 is also only 22% slower than 1080.

1080 is whopping 2% faster than 1070.

Anyone looking at these results can tell the game isn't running very well at all.

Is it limited to 90 fps?

 

[Carfax83]

Is it limited to 90 fps?

I doubt it. It's likely a CPU limitation, as the Radeon scores illustrate.. DX12 should easily rectify this though..

 

[SolMiester]

Microsoft still allows free upgrades to Windows 10

Quite sure this is incorrect....free upgrade finished end of July 2016

 

[Sweepr]

1060 is also only 22% slower than 1080.

42% at 4K.

1080 is whopping 2% faster than 1070.

17.6% at 4K.

Anyone looking at these results can tell the game isn't running very well at all.

GTX 1060 6GB is pushing almost 50 FPS at 4K Ultra, extending its advantage to 30.2% faster than RX 480 8GB at this resolution. Does this look like not running well at all to you? Yet another game that will need a post launch DX12 patch to 'fix' lower than expected performance on AMD cards due to CPU driver overhead.

 

[bystander36]

Those numbers show the game running anything but fine. Its not a graphically demanding game and its running like garbage.

Not everything is about graphics. The game has low performance, but that is because 1) they are using a demanding view, likely late in the game with a ton going on, and 2) because it is hugely CPU demanding when doing so. Most the game, when playing it, will most likely have much higher FPS, and a faster CPU and AMD improved overhead drivers (or just using Nvidia) are what will help the most.

This is not a FPS, or at all your typical game.

Edit: I'll add to how Civ games behave, and why they don't look like they should be graphically demanding, but are. When you zoom out, you can see hundreds if not thousands of cells on the screen at once. Each cell has both animation going on, with several items and people in them. Even though they are small, they all steal GPU and CPU time, and since there are hundreds or thousands of them in view at a time, if zoomed out, performance gets hit much harder than your typical game.

 

[imported_ats]

The only complaint I have is load times when you first start the game or load a save for the first time, basically the same issue as 5. This is on an ssd as well. Turn time seems to be slightly faster but it's hard to truly tell this early into a game.

Turn time is definitely much faster. I'm fairly deep into a game and at this point in 5, I'd be waiting forever for the turns to rotate.

 

[Bacon1]

GTX 1060 6GB is pushing almost 50 FPS at 4K Ultra, extending its advantage to 30.2% faster than RX 480 8GB at this resolution. Does this look like not running well at all to you? Yet another game that will need a post launch DX12 patch to 'fix' lower than expected performance on AMD cards due to CPU driver overhead.

You think that 1060 running faster than all of AMD's cards is normal?

Not everything is about graphics. The game has low performance, but that is because 1) they are using a demanding view, likely late in the game with a ton going on, and 2) because it is hugely CPU demanding when doing so. Most the game, when playing it, will most likely have much higher FPS, and a faster CPU and AMD improved overhead drivers (or just using Nvidia) are what will help the most.

This is not a FPS, or at all your typical game.

Edit: I'll add to how Civ games behave, and why they don't look like they should be graphically demanding, but are. When you zoom out, you can see hundreds if not thousands of cells on the screen at once. Each cell has both animation going on, with several items and people in them. Even though they are small, they all steal GPU and CPU time, and since there are hundreds or thousands of them in view at a time, if zoomed out, performance gets hit much harder than your typical game.

Did either of you bother to watch the benchmark video?

There is absolutely nothing amazing happening at all in the scenes, hardly any animation anywhere and tons of frametime spikes all around, and that was on 980 Ti / 1070 / 1080 as they averaged over 80 fps @ 1080p.

Look at Civ V which ran fine on both AMD and Nvidia like I posted from Anandtech's benchmarks in Post 16

 

[bystander36]

You think that 1060 running faster than all of AMD's cards is normal?



Did either of you bother to watch the benchmark video?

There is absolutely nothing amazing happening at all in the scenes, hardly any animation anywhere and tons of frametime spikes all around, and that was on 980 Ti / 1070 / 1080 as they averaged over 80 fps @ 1080p.

Look at Civ V which ran fine on both AMD and Nvidia like I posted from Anandtech's benchmarks in Post 16

Have you ever played a Civ game?

You will not see amazing graphics, because every scene that has decent looking graphics, is a tiny cell if zoomed out, but is rendered the same as if it were large. While you don't see everything that is going on in those cells, they are animated, and require both CPU and GPU time to render. This is NOT a first person shooter. It's not like anything you apparently play. Starcraft style gaming is the closest you'll get to this type of game in terms of demand.

 

[Bacon1]

You will not see amazing graphics, because every scene that has decent looking graphics, is a tiny cell if zoomed out, but is rendered the same as if it were large. While you don't see everything that is going on in those cells, they are animated, and require both CPU and GPU time to render. This is NOT a first person shooter. It's not like anything you apparently play. Starcraft style gaming is the closest you'll get to this type of game in terms of demand.

Spending the time to render things which aren't output on the screen is opposite of optimized and the point I'm trying to make. There is no reason the game should be running so poorly for what graphics are displayed. This is a turn based game, not even RTS which has tons of AI logic that needs to be processed constantly.

I mean the same people that said AOTS looks terrible and performs bad while it was using real time lightning on every laser beam and was real time with advanced AI are calling this one optimized and performing well?

 

[bystander36]

And I'll just add this here, before you come in to say how it's stupid to animate those cells when zoomed out. You just have to turn down settings to fix the issue. If you are playing zoomed out, you don't need all the graphical settings anyway, and can gain a ton of FPS at the same time.

You really have to view the game as if every cell is a different window. Imagine rendering a 1000 games at a time? You are going to have lower FPS than typical. This is what is going on in Civ games.

 

[Dave2150]

Something is obviously wrong with the Fury X, if it only performs ~11% better than the rx 480 @ 1080p. Hopefully we'll see a fix for it soon, or maybe performance improvements from DX 12.

Although, the 1060 6gb has a 30% FPS advantage over the 480 which is also really abnormally high.

As a side note, I like that I already know what to expect from benchmark results these days based on who is posting the thread.

The Fury ran out of memory. 4GB is laughable, hence the laughable sales of the Fury range.

 

[Bacon1]

The Fury ran out of memory. 4GB is laughable, hence the laughable sales of the Fury range.

It's not out of memory or it wouldn't be able to run 4k

All AMD cards were having issues and most have 8GB.

Also not out of VRAM there... so try again.

 

[bystander36]

Spending the time to render things which aren't output on the screen is opposite of optimized and the point I'm trying to make. There is no reason the game should be running so poorly for what graphics are displayed. This is a turn based game, not even RTS which has tons of AI logic that needs to be processed constantly.

I mean the same people that said AOTS looks terrible and performs bad while it was using real time lightning on every laser beam and was real time with advanced AI are calling this one optimized and performing well?

If you play zoomed out, just turn some graphical settings down. You won't notice a difference. But the thing is, these animations are there, they are just really small. Having a 1000 tiny rendered scenes is going to be more demanding than having 1 complex scene.

The game is designed to scale to however your zoom level is set to. They do not make the choice to stop animation for you. They let it scale.

And the reason people are ok with Civ VI doing it this way, is it is the only way we know. It's been this way from the beginning.

EDIT:
I forgot to mention, for those who do zoom out really far, there is a toggle button you can hit that turns off animation, and turns everything into a 2D square (at least the previous Civ's had this). So if you go back and forth between zoomed out and zoomed in, you can have high settings, and high FPS, even with a slower system.

 

[linkgoron]

The Fury ran out of memory. 4GB is laughable, hence the laughable sales of the Fury range.

While this is an obvious troll post, it's puny 4gb is obviously why the 3gb 1060 performed better at 1080p.

On a more serious note, there is obviously something wrong with AMD cards, as performance is bad even on 8gb cards. Hopefully it will get better with a patch/driver or dx12

 

[TheRyuu]

Quite sure this is incorrect....free upgrade finished end of July 2016

You can still use Windows 7/8/8.1 keys during the Windows 10 install. It will work and activate still. It's just one of those things where they aren't really telling anyone about it but it still works. Odds are they just want as many people on W10 as possible so I doubt they'll ever stop the free upgrade. It's more worthwhile in the long run for them to keep allowing it.

 

[TheRyuu]

I doubt it. It's likely a CPU limitation, as the Radeon scores illustrate.. DX12 should easily rectify this though..

IIRC Civ was pretty CPU limited (draw call limited?) so I wouldn't be surprised if DX12 improves performance even for Nvidia (if only a little). I think it'd also be interesting to see frame time analysis once DX12 is added for nvidia as well. One of the things I remember the devs saying in the past is that they weren't really interested in getting the highest fps but having lower latency especially with multi-GPU setups (see them using split frame rendering).

 

[Thinker_145]

1060 is also only 22% slower than 1080.

1080 is whopping 2% faster than 1070.

Anyone looking at these results can tell the game isn't running very well at all.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out there is a CPU bottleneck.

 

[Bacon1]

Doesn't take a genius to figure out there is a CPU bottleneck.

Exactly, yet people are quoting these as great optimized game solely because Nvidia is doing better.

 

[Unreal123]

Edited due to Toxic comment.

 

[Gorbugal]

It is great optimized not because it running better only on Nvidia but , in fact it is it is running better for more then 80% PC users on DX11.

Could you clarify what you mean? When you say 80% of PC users you mean Nvidia users right? (Let's ignore the fact that AMD's worst quarter of sales doesn't equal it's install base) Doesn't that contradict your first sentence? Is this just sarcasm, or a chance to take a cheap-shot?

 

[Bacon1]

It is great optimized not because it running better only on Nvidia but , in fact it is it is running better for more then 80% PC users on DX11.

TIL 80% of users are using 1060 or greater GPUs...

Its ridiculous that you guys are defending these results. You are making these forums go downhill