Cause zoomed out you're rendering way more stuff in general(GPU load could stay constant or potentially increase).. and the cpu workload is a lot higher with 10-100x as many things on screen.
I don't think we can make any accurate judgments without more information.
Just look at the actual scene though. Watch the video. The framerate goes nuts and spikes all over and the only animations I could see @ 1080p upscaled to 1440p were the three I marked.
Do you honestly think that the graphics shown should be bringing $600 cards to their knees? I mean 4x / turn based should have the lowest hardware requirements compared to RTS / FPS.
Just look at the actual scene though. Watch the video. The framerate goes nuts and spikes all over and the only animations I could see @ 1080p upscaled to 1440p were the three I marked.
Do you honestly think that the graphics shown should be bringing $600 cards to their knees? I mean 4x / turn based should have the lowest hardware requirements compared to RTS / FPS.
I'm not really talking about performance, just about trying to guess how the game works.
It doesn't seem that bad though. How is a 1080 with 70+ fps at 4k(with 8xMSAA too) being brought to it's knees?
Civ VI doesn't appear to be optimized poorly on the graphics pipeline side, it's poorly threaded/optimized on the CPU side which makes it slow everywhere else.
Again, how do we know that?
GPUs at 30% utilization is a good hint.
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...ysis-techpowerup.2489523/page-5#post-38535361 is another.
Yeah, it's CPU bound. That doesn't necessarily mean it's poorly optimized.
Turn the resolution up to 4k and GPU utilization will improve, that doesn't mean the game suddenly optimized itself, it just means there are more factors you aren't considering.
I have seen 2 videos on this thread. 1 was done with a 980ti, and the FPS were mostly 100+ with dips down to the 80's. That is pretty good if you ask me. The other one, the one you liked, and assume you are harping on, was done with a Celeron with a GTX 650 and that one had poor performance. But consider we are looking at a GTX 650, an entry level GPU from a few generations ago.Just look at the actual scene though. Watch the video. The framerate goes nuts and spikes all over and the only animations I could see @ 1080p upscaled to 1440p were the three I marked.
Do you honestly think that the graphics shown should be bringing $600 cards to their knees? I mean 4x / turn based should have the lowest hardware requirements compared to RTS / FPS.
It's CPU bound without using all of the resources available to the CPU. Is that not, by nature, poorly optimized?
No, not necessarily.
That's pretty much a definition of poorly optimized.
If it takes more CPU execution resources to keep the GPU busy, and there are more CPU resources available but are unused, that's poorly optimized. What I personally don't know is how resource utilization is reported in Windows, like if the FPUs are all busy but the INT units are unused, is that 100% utilization?
The other one, the one you liked, and assume you are harping on, was done with a Celeron with a GTX 650 and that one had poor performance. But consider we are looking at a GTX 650, an entry level GPU from a few generations ago.
It doesn't seem that bad though. How is a 1080 with 70+ fps at 4k(with 8xMSAA too) being brought to it's knees?
What? Why do you think it was on a celeron? I linked to the benchmark from TPU.
Lots of cards aren't even hitting 80+ @ 1080p and as we already discussed, its not CPU bound until ~90 fps.
No the video with the "good" performance is bad performance as well, it shows heavy framerate spikes at the same points the celeron stalls,stronger CPUs just brute force through it but it is still bad performance for both systems.Because I watched the video, and it showed it had a Celeron in it. That is the one with poor performance. The one with 80-100+ FPS had something else, obviously.
This is the one with poor performance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eQcyfFJDFo
At the 2 second mark, it shows it has a Celeron in it and a GTX 650. The only other video I saw on this thread had awesome performance.
Lots of cards aren't even hitting 80+ @ 1080p and as we already discussed, its not CPU bound until ~90 fps.
The only other video I saw on this thread had awesome performance.
If 40 FPS is the lowest it got, that's pretty good performance for a turn based game. That said, I did not see the 47 fps dip, but still. It's a turn based game, with some ridiculous settings that can be turned down. Just because settings exist, doesn't mean they have to be used.
TIL Frametimes like that and mid 40 fps is awesome performance
If 40 FPS is the lowest it got, that's pretty good performance for a turn based game. That said, I did not see the 47 fps dip, but still. It's a turn based game, with some ridiculous settings that can be turned down. Just because settings exist, doesn't mean they have to be used.
DX12 patch is out - Civilization VI ‘Fall 2016’ Update Now Live
Hmm, I can see boost for AMD cards in those reports
Let's wait for some performance reviews