Bonus: Radeon RX Vega 64 vs. GeForce GTX 1080
Let’s quickly take a look at the performance of our two most powerful cards: Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition and AMD's Radeon RX Vega 64.
It is no surprise that these two beastly boards run Wolfenstein II in a perfectly smooth manner at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 with max'ed-out quality settings. AMD's Radeon RX Vega 64 posts a better frame rate at 1080p, averaging more than 120 FPS. But the GeForce GTX 1080 FE catches up at 1440p.
While there is almost no difference in CPU usage between these two cards at 1440p, the Radeon is noticeably more hungry for processor resources than the GTX 1080 at 1920x1080. On a positive note, this translates to a much higher frame rate, so we're hardly complaining.
Our utilization analysis confirms what we just saw in condensed form: mainly, Radeon RX Vega 64 is more hungry for CPU resources than the GTX 1080. Moreover, the id Tech 6 engine does a fantastic job at implementing threading, as our 6C/12T Ryzen 5 1600X is used in a homogeneous manner.
Differences between these two cards practically evaporate at 1440p. Once again, host processing resources are well-utilized by the game engine.
MORE: Destiny 2 Performance Review
MORE: DiRT 4 Performance Review
MORE: Prey Performance Review
i can run the game at near max settings (just turn the textures down from ultra) and when vsync is on it shows a solid 60fps... i turn vsync off and get between 40 and 55 fps. so im guessing the fps counter isnt that accurate in game.
Don't have one myself, but 4K/2160p benchmarks would be nice too. Kinda underwhelmed, considering how long the title has been out.
I would also like to have seen other CPUs tested. It's great that the game uses 6 cores and 12 threads, but will it still run well on 4c/4t? Lots of people are still on processors like that.
Something strange as well: the minimum/recommended Intel CPUs were 4C/4T or 4C/8T CPUs, implying that you need at least 4 physical cores to run this (i.e. just having 4 threads won't work, so no 2C/4T Core i3/Pentium CPUs). And that's kind of supported by the listed FX CPUs. But why would Machine Games say that you can't use a Ryzen 3 (4C/4T) CPU to run this game? The R3 1200 is almost identical to the minimum R5 1400 listed (same Boost/XFR speeds, only 100MHz slower on base, & is a 4C/4T CPU vs. the 4C/8T 1400), & the R3 1300X runs almost as fast as the 6C/12T R5 1600X. Also, would this perhaps be a game that a Coffee Lake Core i3 (4C/8T) could handle, or would you still need to use a Core i5 or i7?
Just what I was wondering, especially since they listed Ivy Bridge/Haswell Core i5 (4C/4T) CPUs in the minimum/recommended CPU sections.
There were four 4GB cards tested, and so was the 1060 3GB.
What it looks like they should have tested, given their results, is something along the lines of an 8GB 560 - a mid or lower range GPU with a large amount of memory.
Don't know about that, since the minimum was supposed to be the GTX 770. But I do think they should have used a different GPU list:
■ They probably should have skipped the GTX 1050 or RX 460, as both are 2GB GPUs (well below the supposed minimum 4GB VRAM threshold) & well below the minimum GTX 770/R9 290 minimums. Although it did confirm that low-end cards aren't going to cut it. Maybe they would have been better in a follow-up article, i.e. "Can low-end GPUs handle Wolfenstein II?".
■ They should have tested the GTX 770 & R9 290, since both are listed as the minimum GPU needed for the game. Yes, I know that the 6GB GTX 1060 is roughly comparable (1 tier up from the 770, same tier as the 290), but there have been a number of games where similarly-tiered GPUs don't always have similar performance.
■ Not only was it strange that the GTX 1080/RX Vega 64 testing was "bonus" testing, but they didn't even bother testing with the GTX 1070/1070TI (or even anything like the Fury X or Vega 56). Considering that those GPUs are the current recommendation for 1440p gameplay (which was a resolution they tested), it would have been nice to see that testing.