Saturday, January 26th 2019

Anthem VIP Demo Benchmarked on all GeForce RTX & Vega Cards

Yesterday, EA launched the VIP demo for their highly anticipated title "Anthem". The VIP demo is only accessible to Origin Access subscribers or people who preordered. For the first hours after the demo launch, many players were plagued by servers crashes or "servers are full" messages. Looks like EA didn't anticipate the server load correctly, or the inrush of login attempts revealed a software bug that wasn't apparent with light load.

Things are running much better now, and we had time to run some Anthem benchmarks on a selection of graphics cards, from AMD and NVIDIA. We realized too late that even the Anthem Demo comes with a five activation limit, which gets triggered on every graphics card change. That's why we could only test eight cards so far.. we'll add more when the activations reset.
We benchmarked Anthem at Ultra settings in 1920x1080 (Full HD), 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 (4K). The drivers used were NVIDIA 417.71 WHQL and yesterday's AMD Radeon Adrenalin 19.1.2, which includes performance improvements for Anthem.

At 1080p, it looks like the game is running into a CPU bottleneck with our Core i7-8700K (note how the scores for RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Ti are very close together). It's also interesting how cards from AMD start out slower at lower resolution, but make up the gap to their NVIDIA counterparts as resolution is increased. It's only at 4K that Vega 64 matches RTX 2060 (something that would be expected for 1080p, when looking at results from recent GPU reviews).

We will add test results for more cards, such as the Radeon RX 570 and GeForce GTX 1060, after our activation limit is reset over the weekend.
Add your own comment

134 Comments on Anthem VIP Demo Benchmarked on all GeForce RTX & Vega Cards

#76
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
xkm1948
I dont see rabid nvidia fans in RaY Tracing threads. Care to point one for me here?
There is no hardware requirement for raytracing to work so I am personally upset with amd for not pushing a driver that makes it work and nvidia for showing it can work with out rt cores (titan V) and not offering a driver that makes it at least work on pascal.
Posted on Reply
#77
SystemMechanic
Okay, most people probably havent even played this demo. I finally had to make an account after following TPU since 2008. because the website quality seems to be degrading since last year.

1. So many click bait articles.
2. Lots of spelling mistakes and other mistakes where RTX 2080Ti is suddenly a RTX 1080Ti in the following paragraph.


I am not sure how Wizzard benched the game but I I have played this and the 4k Numbers are wrong for the 2080Ti. Would be helpful if he posted all the the other numbers like his clock speeds, tempsand system specs.

With my 5Ghz 8700k, 2666 RAM OC'd to 2800Mhz, 2080Ti running at 2040-2055Mhz and 16gbps on VRAM I dont even get avg 60fps.

AT 4k:

So these benchmark numbers dont really represent actual gameplay numbers. In fact they are not even close. I get FPS dps to as low as 40fps during group play in strongholds. card struggles to hold 60fps on ultra so let alone 72fps.

The game seems to be CPU heavy even at 4k, usage goes upto 50% with 60fps cap and shoots to 80-90% if the cap is removed.

So you can all stop defending. Play the game for and test for yourself.

Wizzard needs to add 1% lows as well.
Posted on Reply
#78
moproblems99
SystemMechanic
Snip...
Couple points in no specific order
  • I'm willing to bet that for every person who benches the game, there will be a different set of results.
  • Live action games are really hard to produce consistent results.
  • 1% is within margin of error.
  • EA sucks and should be avoided.
Posted on Reply
#79
Tsukiyomi91
or you guys could just don't bother trying out the demo build of the game entirely & keep it to yourselves. No one is pushing you into playing the game or even have such a luxury in spending one's time benching a game that's still in beta phase with different GPUs using the latest driver build, changing to the next GPU & redo the entire bench all over again etc. Benchmarking is not an easy task, no matter how you look at it. If you're not happy with how w1zz do, how about go start your own testing methodology & show some proofs other than crapping here all day saying that the results are "not feasible".
Posted on Reply
#80
Divide Overflow
Assimilator
Only EA could be incompetent enough to put an activation limit on a demo.
I'm surprised they didn't monetize it and make a micro-transaction to reset activation counters.
Posted on Reply
#81
Tsukiyomi91
with all the negative backlash they've been getting lately, I doubt they're stupid enough to pull a fast one on the already angry consumers.
Posted on Reply
#82
cucker tarlson
eidairaman1
Core i9 and Threadripper relative performance in games is about the same as the 8700K, and 2700X, no sense in spending 800+ on HEDT when you gain no gaming performance advantage to offset the cost.
except for high refresh gaming where threadripper straight up sucks,ryzen is very mediocre and x299 cpus are still lagging behind the mainstream i7s and i9.
even when comparin clock for clock and with faster memory, ryzen just can't keep up with 8700k when it comes to high refresh gaming





cdawall
There is no hardware requirement for raytracing to work so I am personally upset with amd for not pushing a driver that makes it work and nvidia for showing it can work with out rt cores (titan V) and not offering a driver that makes it at least work on pascal.
RTX works on Titan V,but it's slower than flagship RTX cards. Down to 2060-2070 level.
Posted on Reply
#83
Nkd
y0y0
it also costs 2.5x less...
na more like 3-3.5x. Vega 64 is around 400-450 now and most 2080ti's are around 1200-1600.

SystemMechanic
Okay, most people probably havent even played this demo. I finally had to make an account after following TPU since 2008. because the website quality seems to be degrading since last year.

1. So many click bait articles.
2. Lots of spelling mistakes and other mistakes where RTX 2080Ti is suddenly a RTX 1080Ti in the following paragraph.


I am not sure how Wizzard benched the game but I I have played this and the 4k Numbers are wrong for the 2080Ti. Would be helpful if he posted all the the other numbers like his clock speeds, tempsand system specs.

With my 5Ghz 8700k, 2666 RAM OC'd to 2800Mhz, 2080Ti running at 2040-2055Mhz and 16gbps on VRAM I dont even get avg 60fps.

AT 4k:

So these benchmark numbers dont really represent actual gameplay numbers. In fact they are not even close. I get FPS dps to as low as 40fps during group play in strongholds. card struggles to hold 60fps on ultra so let alone 72fps.

The game seems to be CPU heavy even at 4k, usage goes upto 50% with 60fps cap and shoots to 80-90% if the cap is removed.

So you can all stop defending. Play the game for and test for yourself.

Wizzard needs to add 1% lows as well.
I have been reading the same on reddit. Almost everyone unanimously is agreeing that these numbers are way off. And wondering how it was tested because I read almost the same thing in game play there numbers are no were close to numbers in this review.
Posted on Reply
#84
cucker tarlson
he probably just benched the prlogue not actual gameplay.
Posted on Reply
#85
Kaotik
TheLostSwede
Because it's the only site that has ever messed up benchmarks, right..? That's a very sweeping statement imho and unless you can prove something is wrong here, you can keep it to yourself.
Didn't say it's the only site which sometimes messes up their results.
But since you asked, here's a recent one: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/30.html
High and Medium are not supposed to be close together in performance, Low and Medium and High and Ultra are, this is shown by every single other BFV DXR benchmark, including TPUs benchmarks on the other RTX cards.
Posted on Reply
#86
cucker tarlson
Kaotik
Didn't say it's the only site which sometimes messes up their results.
But since you asked, here's a recent one: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2060_Founders_Edition/30.html
High and Medium are not supposed to be close together in performance, Low and Medium and High and Ultra are, this is shown by every single other BFV DXR benchmark, including TPUs benchmarks on the other RTX cards.
well that all depends on the choice of the scene.
what is it with all those friggin know it all experts on tpu recently ?
are you the same person ?

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/why-are-reviewers-so-lazy-not-talking-about-tpu.251199/

no one asks you to take tpus results as the only ones,get some perspective.
if that's a recurring pattern then it's not a one-off result.

I for example tend to think their choice of locations for cpu-bound gaming tests is not representative of what you may experience in the most cpu-intensive parts of games,and their ram tests are likewise. But that provides me with another perspective of how things will run in scenarios other than cpu-bound.
Posted on Reply
#87
Kaotik
cucker tarlson
well that all depends on the choice of the scene.
In case of BFV DXR, no it doesn't, there's clear cut difference in the settings, high and ultra are similar, low and medium are similar, it's seen in both the actual effects themselves as well as in performance.
It's not that hard, even TPU's own earlier results contradict the RTX 2060 ones.
what is it with all those friggin know it all experts on tpu recently ?
I've mainly activated here after noticing worrysome trends in news reporting on the site going down hill.
are you the same person ?

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/why-are-reviewers-so-lazy-not-talking-about-tpu.251199/
Nope
no one asks you to take tpus results as the only ones,get some perspective.
if that's a recurring pattern then it's not a one-off result.
No-one said anything like that. I was asked to back up my claim that "even though W1z surely knows what he's doing, he still gets his results messed up sometimes", so I did.
Posted on Reply
#88
nguyen
SystemMechanic
Okay, most people probably havent even played this demo. I finally had to make an account after following TPU since 2008. because the website quality seems to be degrading since last year.

1. So many click bait articles.
2. Lots of spelling mistakes and other mistakes where RTX 2080Ti is suddenly a RTX 1080Ti in the following paragraph.


I am not sure how Wizzard benched the game but I I have played this and the 4k Numbers are wrong for the 2080Ti. Would be helpful if he posted all the the other numbers like his clock speeds, tempsand system specs.

With my 5Ghz 8700k, 2666 RAM OC'd to 2800Mhz, 2080Ti running at 2040-2055Mhz and 16gbps on VRAM I dont even get avg 60fps.

AT 4k:

So these benchmark numbers dont really represent actual gameplay numbers. In fact they are not even close. I get FPS dps to as low as 40fps during group play in strongholds. card struggles to hold 60fps on ultra so let alone 72fps.

The game seems to be CPU heavy even at 4k, usage goes upto 50% with 60fps cap and shoots to 80-90% if the cap is removed.

So you can all stop defending. Play the game for and test for yourself.

Wizzard needs to add 1% lows as well.
Lol, if you know a game is CPU intensive yet don't even realize your system RAM might be holding you back, next time may be research harder before you start your bashing. I mean W1 benchmark with 16Gb @ 3867 MHz 18-19-19-39 (as every other video card review he did) compare to your 16 GB @ 2666mhz OCd to 2800mhz at who know what timings could result in massive fps differences. BTW I would think twice about putting highest end GPU together with bargain bin RAM lol.
Posted on Reply
#89
Frutika007
I just love how the AMD fanboys needs to come up with excuses as soon as they see their company fail. The article clearly says they are using adrenaline 19.1.2 which is anthem optimized driver,fanboys are still giving driver excuses for red team's failure. Also this game wasn't gimped/sponsored. It uses frostbyte engine which is AMD biased and yet AMD fails on a neutral frostbyte engine game.

Nkd
na more like 3-3.5x. Vega 64 is around 400-450 now and most 2080ti's are around 1200-1600.



I have been reading the same on reddit. Almost everyone unanimously is agreeing that these numbers are way off. And wondering how it was tested because I read almost the same thing in game play there numbers are no were close to numbers in this review.
Vega 64 is 500$+. And good RTX 2080Ti is easily found in 1300$ region. So yeah, it's 2.5x. Stop exaggerating things.
Also these numbers are 100% accurate. Only AMD biased people are crying bcz it's hurting their feelings that their red team is failing in a neutral frostbyte engine game.
Posted on Reply
#90
moproblems99
R4WN4K
Only AMD biased people are crying bcz it's hurting their feelings that their red team is failing in a neutral frostbyte engine game.
No correction. Only delusional people get this worked up. On either side.
Posted on Reply
#91
Kaotik
R4WN4K
I just love how the AMD fanboys needs to come up with excuses as soon as they see their company fail. The article clearly says they are using adrenaline 19.1.2 which is anthem optimized driver,fanboys are still giving driver excuses for red team's failure. Also this game wasn't gimped/sponsored. It uses frostbyte engine which is AMD biased and yet AMD fails on a neutral frostbyte engine game.

Vega 64 is 500$+. And good RTX 2080Ti is easily found in 1300$ region. So yeah, it's 2.5x. Stop exaggerating things.
Also these numbers are 100% accurate. Only AMD biased people are crying bcz it's hurting their feelings that their red team is failing in a neutral frostbyte engine game.
I'm not sure who you're referring to with the "AMD fanboys", but I find it hilarious how you first call Frostbite (not byte) AMD biased engine and then you call it neutral, try to make up your mind.
Posted on Reply
#92
msimax
just finished playing and vega is memory starved in this game oc hbm to 1155 and 1440p is 60 to 72 \ 4k is 45 to 52fps
Posted on Reply
#94
Nkd
R4WN4K
I just love how the AMD fanboys needs to come up with excuses as soon as they see their company fail. The article clearly says they are using adrenaline 19.1.2 which is anthem optimized driver,fanboys are still giving driver excuses for red team's failure. Also this game wasn't gimped/sponsored. It uses frostbyte engine which is AMD biased and yet AMD fails on a neutral frostbyte engine game.



Vega 64 is 500$+. And good RTX 2080Ti is easily found in 1300$ region. So yeah, it's 2.5x. Stop exaggerating things.
Also these numbers are 100% accurate. Only AMD biased people are crying bcz it's hurting their feelings that their red team is failing in a neutral frostbyte engine game.
Not sure where you are seeing that. Seriously you are just going to outright lie what Vega 64s are going for? Jeez! 399 at Newegg for reference with 3 free games. $369.99 on Newegg eBay brand new. What did I say about 2080ti I have the range. I didn’t say they were all 1500+. So go back and check again on Vega 64 prices before you say I am making things up and exaggerating. You must have been living under a rock where you haven’t seen the Vega 64 prices for a few months.

And lol at frostbite being AMD biased. And you call everyone else amd fanboy but yet managed to sound like nvidia fanboy. Haha.
Posted on Reply
#95
Frutika007
Kaotik
I'm not sure who you're referring to with the "AMD fanboys", but I find it hilarious how you first call Frostbite (not byte) AMD biased engine and then you call it neutral, try to make up your mind.
Actually what i meant is the frostbite (it was auto correcting) engine itself is AMD favouring. But the game itself is neutral as it wasn't sponsored by neither of the company nor it has any gimping such as nvidia gameworks.
Posted on Reply
#96
Frutika007
Nkd
Not sure where you are seeing that. Seriously you are just going to outright lie what Vega 64s are going for? Jeez! 399 at Newegg for reference with 3 free games. $369.99 on Newegg eBay brand new. What did I say about 2080ti I have the range. I didn’t say they were all 1500+. So go back and check again on Vega 64 prices before you say I am making things up and exaggerating. You must have been living under a rock where you haven’t seen the Vega 64 prices for a few months.

And lol at frostbite being AMD biased. And you call everyone else amd fanboy but yet managed to sound like nvidia fanboy. Haha.
I don't really care about what i sound like cz i have owned several gpus from both brands and currently using vega 56. Also i said brand new prices of Vega 64, those prices you said are of used/refurbished vega 64.
Posted on Reply
#97
shadad
will GTX 1060 able to run this game on Ultra settings?
Posted on Reply
#98
Frutika007
shadad
will GTX 1060 able to run this game on Ultra settings?
Yes,with 55-58fps.
Posted on Reply
#99
Tsukiyomi91
Should be able to at 1080p. Though you may need to turn off anti-aliasing if you want to reach near 60fps. Some OCing is needed.
Posted on Reply
#100
SystemMechanic
nguyen
Lol, if you know a game is CPU intensive yet don't even realize your system RAM might be holding you back, next time may be research harder before you start your bashing. I mean W1 benchmark with 16Gb @ 3867 MHz 18-19-19-39 (as every other video card review he did) compare to your 16 GB @ 2666mhz OCd to 2800mhz at who know what timings could result in massive fps differences. BTW I would think twice about putting highest end GPU together with bargain bin RAM lol.
Then He needs to Bench it with other lower speed RAM, like 3000 or 3200Mhz, Not everyone uses 4000Mhz ram and Ram shoudnt make 12fps + difference at 4k resolution.

BFV uses the same engine and my FPS matches with TPU's benchmarks, both use same engine.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment