Overclock.net banner

[GameGPU]Sid Meier's Civilization VI Benchmarks

17K views 52 replies 34 participants last post by  mothergoose729 
#1 ·
Testing

Video Cards Benchmarks
s6_1920_11.png
s6_1920_12.png
s6_2560_11.png
s6_2560_12.png
s6_3840_11.png
s6_3840_12.png

s6_proz_11.png

s6_proz_12.png

Source
 
See less See more
1 10
#9 ·
there is something insanely wrong with those benches; I'm pegging a vsynced 60 fps in this game with every graphic setting maxed on my rig. (1080p, GTX970- stock, i5-4690k at 4.2ghz); heck my 970 rarely hits 60% utilization. How the heck are they even challenging those cards with this game?

Furthermore the cpu benches are just wrong. one of the discussion points on the steam forums (and I've seen it on my system) is how this game is 100% single threaded. the same clocked piledrivers should be showing identical results across the board.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanLoco View Post

Is this game DX11 or DX12? How in the world is a 1060 within a few FPS of a Fury X at 1440p and 4K?
It´s DX11

And Probably the DX12 version will have a lead for AMD due to better multithreading and not just limited to a single thread,like Mantle did on CIV BE


and if they add SFR to the game it would be the first game using SFR on DX12 instead AFR
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Amik Vase View Post

Exactly, and for the matter I was getting very reasonable turn times (~15 seconds) when I was over 400 turns into a 10 AI Players (+ City states) map.

If you're getting over 30fps in a Civ game you're fine, it's basically static most of the time anyway.
Great I'm already downloading it but I have a horrible downspeed atm. Will probably finish it in 20 minutes at school as always.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Amik Vase View Post

Exactly, and for the matter I was getting very reasonable turn times (~15 seconds) when I was over 400 turns into a 10 AI Players (+ City states) map.

If you're getting over 30fps in a Civ game you're fine, it's basically static most of the time anyway.
It depends on the map, sometimes turn times are fine. Sometimes they take minutes. There is plenty of debate as to what triggers this. Might be a bug, don't know. I do know I have quit a number of games because turns were taking +5 minutes to process. My current game is deep into the middle ages and turn times, while not quick are a playable 45 seconds or so.

Its believed the slow turn times might be barbarian related, I don't know if that's true; but that seems to be the running theory.
 
#14 ·
this game uses all the threads of any cpu
my 3930k ocd was around 50% in all cores with an 1080 playing at 60-100fps
it also scales well by core because the 6600 on my friends pc is running pretty "bad" with the same gpu, avg 50 fps with an usage of 90%

also that gpu performance difference is probably the cpu overhead issue that amd usually has on cpu intensive games requiring dx12 to be efficient
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcosta View Post

this game uses all the threads of any cpu
my 3930k ocd was around 50% in all cores with an 1080 playing at 60-100fps
it also scales well by core because the 6600 on my friends pc is running pretty "bad" with the same gpu, avg 50 fps with an usage of 90%

also that gpu performance difference is probably the cpu overhead issue that amd usually has on cpu intensive games requiring dx12 to be efficient
this game uses 1 core. thats a magic install of civvi you got there.

are you sure you don't have stuff in the background running?
 
#16 ·
Dear lord, this is 2016 and Civ VI uses only one thread. What a disgrace, not buying until this is fixed as turn times in late, large map games is going to be painful to the extent that you make a cup of tea, do your washing, cook a meal and hope the turn has been calculated before the next morning.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liranan View Post

Dear lord, this is 2016 and Civ VI uses only one thread. What a disgrace, not buying until this is fixed as turn times in late, large map games is going to be painful to the extent that you make a cup of tea, do your washing, cook a meal and hope the turn has been calculated before the next morning.
Given the nature of the game, I'm not sure how multithreaded you can make it.

Since every action depends on the preceding action, calculations kinda have to be done one at a time.

PC-Player 2 can't start processing until PC-Player 1 has finished their turn because there's a billion thing Player 1 can do that could change Player 2's decision. Down to simply Player 1 moving a unit 1 tile to the left instead of 1 tile straight ahead... now Player 2 might respond totally differently to either action

I wouldn't really fault Civ developers too much on this, it's just the nature of the game.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by outofmyheadyo View Post

Its clearly unoptimized looks like meh and runs even worse even on the best of systems.
Civ 5/6 aren't built for details to be entirely fair, so the looking Meh is kind of a moot point.
tongue.gif


As for unoptimized? I... I'd like to agree, but I know it's more CPU-bound in later stages than GPU bound... so I guess I'll agree? Still 50/50 about it being unoptimized. Gotta see it for myself.
 
#20 ·
this game barely touches the CPU. I just loaded into a late game save, most of the map discovered (1890s), i have a large continent under my thumb, dozens of units moving, all graphic settings maxed.

All I see are 2 cores being used. 2 cores. (so I admit, it's a 2 core game not a 1 core, my bad) none of my other cores are going over 20%, and I assume Chrome, windows 10, msi afterburner, and my antivirus, windows file history and whatever else is running on my pc probably is causing that.

CIV VI however spikes one core hard, particularly during cinema scenes, maybe even up to 90% utilization (this is a haswell i5, 4.2ghz, 8gb ram, I have all SSD storage). there is a 2nd core which hovers around 40% during your turn that soon matches the 1st core when you sim the computer's turn. so 2 cores at 60-70% utilization is the most I've ever seen in this game.

THIS GAME DOES NOT EVEN FULLY UTILIZE MY CPU.

It is spiking my gtx 970 fairly hard, hovering around 100% utilization from the moment I start it, but then I do have vsync on and it is holding a perfect 60fps on it without wavering at 1100 or so mhz (thanks to gpu boost)
 
#21 ·
Something is off with those graphs. Firaxis & AMD probably didn't optimize for DX11 so the gains in D12 would look huge.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by jologskyblues View Post

Something is off with those graphs. Firaxis & AMD probably didn't optimize for DX11 so the gains in D12 would look huge.
Very speculative. It really will depends on how they will utilize DX12, if they will be even using async compute or not. This isn't a RTS, so the benefits of async compute are pretty minor.

Also in DX11, optimization is mostly based on drivers, so for firaxis to optimize the game for AMD GPUs, AMD are the ones who really need to do the work. For DX12, the developer will need to do all the work.
So unless AMD did something bad with their DX11 day one drivers and they might be able to fix it, I don't know how much the developer is going to get better with AMD, unless they pull back on some settings for AMD.

Even if in DX12 AMD gains 20% extra performance, depends on the review, they might still be behind nvidia. The 1060 is 27% faster than the 480 at 1440p according to TPU, and the 980 TI is 17% faster than furyx at 4K or 26% at 1440p. According to gamegpu, the 1070 is 22% faster than the furyx at 1440p. So AMD has a very long way to gain performance.

It could be that overall, the game isn't really utilizing the full potential of every GPU or CPU, and it just requires a "brute force" performance out of CUs/ROPs, which is where nvidia have a certain advantage over AMD on this game.
This is also a bit speculative though. We will have to wait and see.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by azanimefan View Post

there is something insanely wrong with those benches; I'm pegging a vsynced 60 fps in this game with every graphic setting maxed on my rig. (1080p, GTX970- stock, i5-4690k at 4.2ghz); heck my 970 rarely hits 60% utilization. How the heck are they even challenging those cards with this game?

Furthermore the cpu benches are just wrong. one of the discussion points on the steam forums (and I've seen it on my system) is how this game is 100% single threaded. the same clocked piledrivers should be showing identical results across the board.
They're just using the inbuilt benchmark which doesn't have those spots where the AI isn't doing anything and FPS jumps dramatically due to less of a CPU load.
It's also not 100% singlethreaded, it uses 2 cores fully on my 3570k. I have a strange feeling that given that they're going DX12 after having BE have Mantle (iirc they openly admitted AMD asked them to do it and paid/helped for it) that it's purposely done that way in order to make the DX12 port look that much better given that Civ is so CPU intensive. It's also a damned shame they're going DX12 instead of Vulkan...All that needs to happen is Bethesda announces TESVI/FO5 are DX12 and that's my 3 favourite series' that are on it (Forza, TES/FO, Civ) and it still won't even be close to enough to make me jump to Win10 for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

It´s DX11

And Probably the DX12 version will have a lead for AMD due to better multithreading and not just limited to a single thread,like Mantle did on CIV BE


and if they add SFR to the game it would be the first game using SFR on DX12 instead AFR
They already did SFR on Mantle, so I'd be hopeful

And one thing not shown in the benchmarks is how smooth Mantle was compared to DX on BE...I was getting 60fps on both but Mantle felt that much smoother it was insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcosta View Post

this game uses all the threads of any cpu
my 3930k ocd was around 50% in all cores with an 1080 playing at 60-100fps
it also scales well by core because the 6600 on my friends pc is running pretty "bad" with the same gpu, avg 50 fps with an usage of 90%

also that gpu performance difference is probably the cpu overhead issue that amd usually has on cpu intensive games requiring dx12 to be efficient
That's Windows, not the game. The game can't use more than 2 threads at once but Windows can spread the load of those 2 threads across however many cores it wants to slightly increase performance. (ie. Send a new instruction to an otherwise idle core rather than one that was finishing up another instruction) You can clearly see it in Sins of a Solar Empire, the developers confirmed that it was purely and utterly single threaded until the big engine revamp in Rebellion (Which only made it dual threaded) yet it spreads a small load on all 4 cores in my CPU, however it never goes far above 25% total usage. Proper multithreading means that it won't hit and stay at 25% but go to 100% if it needs to...Much like how Civ VI only goes up to 50% on my CPU even though not a single core is actually pegged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mejobloggs View Post

Given the nature of the game, I'm not sure how multithreaded you can make it.

Since every action depends on the preceding action, calculations kinda have to be done one at a time.

PC-Player 2 can't start processing until PC-Player 1 has finished their turn because there's a billion thing Player 1 can do that could change Player 2's decision. Down to simply Player 1 moving a unit 1 tile to the left instead of 1 tile straight ahead... now Player 2 might respond totally differently to either action

I wouldn't really fault Civ developers too much on this, it's just the nature of the game.
Just do it all at once but give priority for whichever thread finishes first as 1) it's AI and doesn't really matter too much how they interact with each other (Compared to players interacting with the AI) and 2) that's kinda how MP works anyway. (All players take turns at the same time, whoever moves their unit to a particular spot first gets that spot for instance)

Civ V had better multi-threading at launch than Civ VI does at this point. (Note that its apparent poor multi-threading at launch had zero to do with the game and much more to do with nVidia and AMD not supporting the DX11 parts that allowed for Civ V to use 12 threads or BF3 to scale across more than 2 cores, for example. At least until just before BF3 came out iirc)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imglidinhere View Post

Civ 5/6 aren't built for details to be entirely fair, so the looking Meh is kind of a moot point.
tongue.gif


As for unoptimized? I... I'd like to agree, but I know it's more CPU-bound in later stages than GPU bound... so I guess I'll agree? Still 50/50 about it being unoptimized. Gotta see it for myself.
That's the weird thing, the graphics are well optimised but the CPU load isn't. That's why I really believe that they're getting some kind of benefit from MS to push the DX12 version, especially as Civ is usually CPU bottlenecked and they had better CPU multi-threading in V...Even under DX11 it could max out 12 threads once nVidia and AMD supported the version of multithreading DX11 has. (nVidia had it shortly after Civ Vs launch and AMD shortly before BF3 came out iirc)
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by azanimefan View Post

this game barely touches the CPU. I just loaded into a late game save, most of the map discovered (1890s), i have a large continent under my thumb, dozens of units moving, all graphic settings maxed.

All I see are 2 cores being used. 2 cores. (so I admit, it's a 2 core game not a 1 core, my bad) none of my other cores are going over 20%, and I assume Chrome, windows 10, msi afterburner, and my antivirus, windows file history and whatever else is running on my pc probably is causing that.

CIV VI however spikes one core hard, particularly during cinema scenes, maybe even up to 90% utilization (this is a haswell i5, 4.2ghz, 8gb ram, I have all SSD storage). there is a 2nd core which hovers around 40% during your turn that soon matches the 1st core when you sim the computer's turn. so 2 cores at 60-70% utilization is the most I've ever seen in this game.

THIS GAME DOES NOT EVEN FULLY UTILIZE MY CPU.

It is spiking my gtx 970 fairly hard, hovering around 100% utilization from the moment I start it, but then I do have vsync on and it is holding a perfect 60fps on it without wavering at 1100 or so mhz (thanks to gpu boost)
Despite the link provided showing at least half of that 8-thread CPU being used on average, at any point in time? That's a quad core being used there. There were spikes to 100% usage or damn close to it. You are mistaken also, as Civ 5 uses the fullest potential that my i5 can put out, meaning there's zero logic to you claiming that this game will only use half that for a sequel.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by jologskyblues View Post

Something is off with those graphs. Firaxis & AMD probably didn't optimize for DX11 so the gains in D12 would look huge.
DX12 is W10 only.
DX11 works with 7, 8,,8.1, 10 and W10 represents ~50% OS adoption on Steam for example.
Quite an incorrect calculation if DX12 is the only good version for AMD. Hope they will fix DX11 performance in this game.
 
#26 ·
Civ 5 was multi-threaded. So I don't see why Civ 6 wouldn't be. Unless the developers are all different:
Quote:
"# Civ 5 is completely rewritten with a highly distributed processing model. Instead of large subsystems, every task is broken down into hundreds or even thousands of "jobs" that can be queued and processed independently of each other.

# This allows Civ 5 to take full advantage of multithreading and the latest graphics hardware on the high end, rendering tens of thousands of warriors on one screen in a vivid demonstration of how much more complex Civ 5 scenes could be."


EDIT: Man look at some of those proc recommendations. Has it really been that long since the last true Civ game? Wow
smile.gif
.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top