Total War: Attila CPU Benchmarks

Dave2150 · 16 Feb 2015 at 17:48

Started looking up benchmarks for Total War: Attila, in preperation for the release day tomorrow. Was nice to see a game that heavily stresses the CPU. Unfortunately I haven't found any benchmarks with X99 systems yet, I'm curious as to the FPS they can obtain.

Worth noting that these benchmarks include both the CPU at stock and with a decent overclock on it:

Max quality settings:

Max Performance mode:

MoonBoots · 16 Feb 2015 at 20:22

Wow, that is absolutely brutal. AMD taking a bit of a pasting but even a 4770K only gets 39FPS on ultra.

Is Max Performance mode basically low settings? I've not familiar with that term on benchmarks.

I'm a big total war fan - hopefully my 4670K can do a half decent job.

WingZero30 · 16 Feb 2015 at 20:49

What gpu is being used?

GoogalyMoogaly · 16 Feb 2015 at 20:55

Those AMD CPUs!

Raptor · 16 Feb 2015 at 20:57

These have always been CPU and GPU killers

JonSmith · 16 Feb 2015 at 21:16

What's up with those Haswell i3 results? I'd be expecting them to beat a 2500k tbh.

Martini1991 · 16 Feb 2015 at 21:24

JonSmith said:
What's up with those Haswell i3 results? I'd be expecting them to beat a 2500k tbh.

Why would an i3 Haswell beat an i5 2500K? The game's clearly somewhat threaded.

Bonjour · 16 Feb 2015 at 23:19

I was hoping my 8320 would see me through to Zen.

Bonjour · 16 Feb 2015 at 23:22

What does the kl/s mean?

David Bisset · 16 Feb 2015 at 23:29

JonSmith said:
What's up with those Haswell i3 results? I'd be expecting them to beat a 2500k tbh.

Almost no IPC gain since first gen of the 'core' processors except in a handful of particular operations that are not very common, 2 core vs 4, not even a contest. The 2500k is still a good processor!

MrMD · 17 Feb 2015 at 03:38

By the looks of it x99 wont fare much better,extra threads making very little difference on the normal I7's over the I5.

I never really got into the TW games,are they so demanding due to complexity(like arma is) or is it just a lot of awful optimization?.I know theirs a lot of AI at play and such,but the game always seems to run not particularly well even on beast machines

Dave2150 · 17 Feb 2015 at 04:13

MrMD said:
By the looks of it x99 wont fare much better,extra threads making very little difference on the normal I7's over the I5.

I never really got into the TW games,are they so demanding due to complexity(like arma is) or is it just a lot of awful optimization?.I know theirs a lot of AI at play and such,but the game always seems to run not particularly well even on beast machines

The 15MB/20MB cache on the X99 range will benefit it for sure, would love to see benchmark results though!

McGraw · 17 Feb 2015 at 07:54

Don't think is be bothering playing this with a pentium at stock.

Bonjour · 17 Feb 2015 at 08:17

Bonjour said:
What does the kl/s mean?

S'alright. Figured it out. They're taken from a polish website, so 'kl' = 'klatek' = frames.

cheesyboy · 17 Feb 2015 at 09:45

Bonjour said:
I was hoping my 8320 would see me through to Zen.

To be fair, it's not really any different to Rome TW II;

If you cope with Rome II, then Attila will be fine.

Bonjour · 17 Feb 2015 at 09:59

Shogun 2 is fine. I'll give Rome 2 a crack.

Kelt · 17 Feb 2015 at 10:03

Meh, pointless graph.

My Q6600 isn't listed, and it would totally kick Attila's ***.

Spils · 17 Feb 2015 at 10:39

If you cope with Rome II, then Attila will be fine.

The above statement is incorrect. It runs at 30-35 frames per second on ultra when using an I7

theMilitant · 17 Feb 2015 at 21:21

I've got several Total War titles sitting in my Steam library which I've yet to play. I didn't realise realise these games were so cpu bound though. Attila seems like the most cpu bound game I've seen for a long time from the graphs in the OP.

Bonjour · 17 Feb 2015 at 21:34

It's the sheer number of units, probably.

This is the sort of game that could benefit immeasurably from Mantle or DX12.