For Honor Performance Review

CPU & RAM Resources, And Conclusion

Processor Usage, Intel Core i5-6500

We noticed that For Honor reports higher CPU utilization on a GeForce than the Radeons, even more so when shifting down from Extreme quality to High.

System Memory Usage

The game also seems to tie up more system memory on GeForce cards. Strangely, the High preset is more RAM-intensive than Extreme, and this applies to AMD and Nvidia cards alike.

Note that our tally counts total system memory, so you have to subtract what the OS and other services use as well. When we do that, For Honor appears quite thrifty with its RAM utilization.

Video Memory Usage

At 1080p, For Honor doesn't come close to utilizing all of the GDDR5 memory these two cards offer. In fact, the AnvilNext 2.0 engine only monopolizes about one-third of it during our benchmark sequence.

While selecting graphics options, the game estimates how much memory it'll need, and those values were only slightly higher than our observations.

Conclusion

Although it's visually pleasing and seems like it'd be pretty demanding, For Honor proves to be playable at 1920x1080 using the Extreme quality preset on mid-range graphics cards. To achieve truly smooth frame rates on lower-end hardware, though, you'll need to make some sacrifices on the detail settings front, particularly if you own a Radeon RX 470 or GeForce GTX 970.

The AnvilNext 2.0 engine does a great job, but we are even more excited about the next version with DirectX 12 support.

MORE: Best Deals

MORE: All Gaming Content

This thread is closed for comments
18 comments
    Your comment
  • Sakkura
    While it is nice to see how last-gen cards like the 970 and 390 compare to current-gen cards, I think it would have been nice to see cards outside this performance category tested. How do the RX 460 and GTX 1050 do at 1080p High, for example.
  • coolitic
    I find it incredibly stupid that Toms doesn't make the obvious point that TAA is the reason why it looks blurry for Nvidia.
  • alextheblue
    746565 said:
    I find it incredibly stupid that Toms doesn't make the obvious point that TAA is the reason why it looks blurry for Nvidia.

    They had it enabled on both cards. Are you telling me Nvidia's TAA implementation is inferior? I'd believe you if you told me that, but you have to use your words.
  • Yannick_5
    Interesting test, thanks for your report.
  • irish_adam
    746565 said:
    I find it incredibly stupid that Toms doesn't make the obvious point that TAA is the reason why it looks blurry for Nvidia.


    as has been stated setting were the same for both cards, maybe Nvidia sacrificing detail for the higher FPS score? I also found it interesting that Nvidia used more system resources than AMD. I was confused why the 3GB version of the 1060 did so poorly considering the lack vram usage but after looking it up nvidia gimped the card, seems a bit misleading for them to both be called the 1060, if you didnt look it up you would assume they are the same graphics chip with just differing amounts of ram.
  • anthony8989
    ^ yeah it's a pretty shifty move . Probably marketing related. The 1060 3 GB and 6 GB have a similar relationship to the GTX 660 and 660 TI from a few gens back. Only they were nice enough to differentiate the two with the TI moniker. Not so much this time.
  • ElectrO_90
    Maybe it's my eyes, but the Nvidia pictures look blurrier than the AMD.
  • cmi86
    Still using reference rx-480's... Nice...
  • Martell1977
    359683 said:
    I was confused why the 3GB version of the 1060 did so poorly considering the lack vram usage but after looking it up nvidia gimped the card, seems a bit misleading for them to both be called the 1060, if you didnt look it up you would assume they are the same graphics chip with just differing amounts of ram.


    I've been calling this a dirty trick since release and is part of the reason I recommend people get the 480 4gb instead. Just a shady move on nVidia's part, but they are known for such things.

    Odd thing though, the 1060 3gb in laptops doesn't have a cut down chip, it has all its cores enabled and is just running lower clocks and VRAM.
  • ohim
    Nvidia`s screen looks like a lowered res upscaled image,,,
  • iam2thecrowe
    blurrier and using less vram for the Nvidia cards..... I'd probably go away from the presets and try to figure out whats wrong, there's not direct performance comparison with different settings. Nvidia's AA techniques lately seem to often produce a blurry image.
  • bramahon
    Seems like an optimized and scalable game where performance is in-line with the visuals. Not something we can say about most of the ports these days!
  • xerxes-the king of kings
    It is nothing to do with nvidia and related to amount of graphics memory like RX 460 2GB poor texture quality in Gears of War 4
  • anbello262
    Maybe the picture quality is just some kind of driver related issue for nVidia? There is too much difference, if it's just different algorithms.
  • tomohiko
    a bit small "Memory Usage" on "High" than "Extreme High" ?
    I am only guessing but
    Switching ON a specific setting may
    allow CPU/GPU to cut some calculation
    for shadows or rendering
    behind the specific well-placed Objects. (it is unintentional and very situational).
  • tomohiko
    Small memory usage on "Extreme High" ??
    I am only guessing but.
    Switching "ON" specific settings may allow CPU/GPU
    to cut some calculations for shadows or rendering
    Behind the "well-placed" objects. (un-intentional, very situational)
  • Olle P
    To me it's quite obvious that the differences in CPU and RAM usage comes from the frame rate.
    Since the GTX 1060 can produce more frames the CPU needs to work harder to keep up with the demand, and while doing so it also use more RAM to store intermediate data.
  • Martell1977
    362640 said:
    To me it's quite obvious that the differences in CPU and RAM usage comes from the frame rate. Since the GTX 1060 can produce more frames the CPU needs to work harder to keep up with the demand, and while doing so it also use more RAM to store intermediate data.


    Higher frames but lower quality. Something is off, I'm starting to question nVidia's performance numbers.Who cares if you are getting 100 frames if the image is garbage.