Can I run this game?

[Cultist]

My specs:

Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Six-Core Processor 3.20 GHz
RAM: 16.0 GB

I've really been wanting to get into Total War but I'm not having any luck. I installed Attila and I couldn't get above 45fps in battles and the game would constantly stutter. When I checked online, I saw that a lot of people were complaining about it's performance so I thought it may have just been Attila.

I don't really want to buy this for the same thing to happen again. Does anyone have similair specs to me that could reassure me here? Could I run this on high/ultra? I just want the game to sit at 60fps steadily, that's all.

Thanks in advance.

[Ruinae Retroque Rursus]

well given it runs at 15 FPS on my machine which doesn't have any graphics card, either the optimization in WH2 is awful on some systems or it should be a breeze.

Given Atilla's disaster I'd suggest the latter. After all, there's a refund button.

[Kblocks]

you can handle it. go ahead. I've worse specs

[TheAlmightyProo]

You can run it... but at present it is pretty much the fantasy Attila.

Comparison:

i7 6700K currently @ 4.4 GHz, GTX 1070, 16 Gb RAM @ 2560x1080...

Rome 2 100? fps av
Attila 59 fps av
Warhammer 1 86 fps av
Warhammer 2 56 fps av

All on ultra preset in the benchmark.

There'll be drops ingame when things get busy (and Warhammer 2 is a particular pig for that, much like Attila)
Sure, Warhammer 2 has a slight requirement lift over the first but not one that should see such a significant drop in performance (imo 10 fps max)
It's unoptimised thus far, compared to the first... maybe the same could've been said of Attila but it's had time to mature. We can only hope CA get to work on that soon.

It's not all bad though, it's a great game, like it's predecessor(s)... and being a strategy game is fine imo down to 30-45 fps at a stretch (as I play it on my laptop with lower specs than above)
I reckon you should be able to run this at least high @ 1080p with 45-60 fps. Dropping SSAO and the AA down to lowest will help a lot with overall fps if more is required.

Well worth a try anyway and if nah, refund.

PS: You do have decent specs though, if Attila was running at 45 fps yet stuttering something else was wrong imo. Also, if you have a good cooler (better than the stock one) and decent mobo on that CPU you could try an OC, that could help boost things a bit.

[burningmime]

Yes, you can definitely run it but you won't get 60 on any settings. I'd say try it and refund if you can't stand the FPS.

[Cultist]

Originally posted by burningmime:

Yes, you can definitely run it but you won't get 60 on any settings. I'd say try it and refund if you can't stand the FPS.

What upgrades would I need to make hardware-wise to be able to run it at steady 50-60?

[Hunny]

Originally posted by Geth:

Originally posted by burningmime:

Yes, you can definitely run it but you won't get 60 on any settings. I'd say try it and refund if you can't stand the FPS.

What upgrades would I need to make hardware-wise to be able to run it at steady 50-60?

I dont think its a hardware issue.

[TheAlmightyProo]

Originally posted by Geth:

Originally posted by burningmime:

Yes, you can definitely run it but you won't get 60 on any settings. I'd say try it and refund if you can't stand the FPS.

What upgrades would I need to make hardware-wise to be able to run it at steady 50-60?

Simple answer: More than is a reasonable cost, certainly for just one game.

Check out my specs above, that's a decent step up in terms of CPU... 2 cores less (though this game probably won't make best use of more than 4, if at all) but a significantly higher speed... and the next tier up GPU.
Playing at 1080p I could imagine a boost of 10, maybe just 15 fps over what I get now... but it'll still be in the 60-70 fps zone and will still get significant drops below 60 fps under load.

Just my two cents... honestly, it's best for now to tweak settings for the best stable range around 45-60 fps you can get (still very playable) and hope CA get patching, rather than blow potentially hundreds of whatever your currency is, even after selling the older parts (at a loss) for a minor uplift in just one game mainly.

Give it 6-12 months and then upgrade... you'll presumably have more money and will be able to undertake a significant upgrade rather than a stopgap measure.
Ryzen+ should be a better gaming CPU with a better supported upgrade path (you'll be able to use the same mobo, one of Ryzens main advantages)
Or go for Intel and grab a current i7 at a comparatively lower price (and beat mine for less than I paid btw) Of course, as is usual for Intel, that socket/chipset will most likely be a dead end when the next gen releases.
The same general idea goes for the GPU.

In the meantime OC that R5 1600 to the wall. With the right cooling/mobo you can squeeze anything up to 4 GHz out of it, and it'll be cheaper than a whole upgrade... that should net you a few fps for way less cost than a whole upgrade right now.
Again, there's nothing 'wrong' or lacking in your PC specs, this game is simply an unoptimised SOB... it runs below reasonable expectations for everybody.
Obviously, if you have a ton of spare cash to spend, go ahead and upgrade. I'd just hate to see you spec up and still be disappointed.

[TheAlmightyProo]

Originally posted by Mossa:

Originally posted by Geth:

What upgrades would I need to make hardware-wise to be able to run it at steady 50-60?

I dont think its a hardware issue.

Nope. This game simply runs below reasonable expectations for everybody... even folks with i7 8700K's and up with GTX 1080ti's, even running as low as 1080p.

It's just (hopefully only for the present) pretty damn unoptimised... and much so compared to warhammer 1.

[Zebedee]

Assuming max settings. Was getting pretty steady 60 fps at 1080p with a 1600x (@ ~4ghz) and a gtx 1080. Step up to 1440p and nah, that's not happening and you'll need a 1080ti or to dial back graphics options.

So, if you can, take TheAlmightyProo's advice there on investigating how to safely OC your 1600 closer to 4ghz. Wouldn't bother upgrading your GPU until at least the new Nvidia cards (Volta) are released some time this year. And even then, at 1080p, you may not find a lot of value in too big a step up from a 1060.

[Cultist]

It just bothers me a lot because Total War was one of the main reasons I even upgraded to PC gaming from console.

This is my first gaming PC, and to have it not play one of the main games I was hoping to play is pretty frustrating. Especially when I checked all the required specs beforehand and even emailed CA asking if the specs would be enough to handle high/ultra 60fps and they said yes, so you can imagine how annoying that is.

I have, however, noticed a lot of people telling me that Warhammer 1 runs well? I'd be willing to just buy that instead if I can have it working at high graphical quality, 60fps. I might just have to buy/refund to try it out since these later Total War's don't come with demo's anymore for some strange reason.

I really think CA should up the "required specs" on the steam page, because obviously they aren't really honest.

Thanks for all the advice though, a lot of replies within a short time. +1 to the community here.

[Zebedee]

Warhammer 1 runs a lot faster than 2, yeah. As others have said, there will probably be further work done on 2 over time to try and narrow that gap a bit - although requirements of 2 are still going to be a step beyond 1.

Hear you on Total War and hardware. The series has always been pretty intensive because it demands a decent CPU and a decent GPU. But it is getting a little crazy when to get 60fps reliably at 1080p you need a gtx 1080. And a 1080ti at 1440p. There are obviously trade-offs you can make to claw some fps back (whether AA or shadows or whatever). But still, yeah, know the frustration far too well. At the same time, if you're willing to make compromises on not being at the bleeding edge of how graphics look, you can have them running pretty well with a potato.

[TheAlmightyProo]

Originally posted by Geth:

It just bothers me a lot because Total War was one of the main reasons I even upgraded to PC gaming from console.

This is my first gaming PC, and to have it not play one of the main games I was hoping to play is pretty frustrating. Especially when I checked all the required specs beforehand and even emailed CA asking if the specs would be enough to handle high/ultra 60fps and they said yes, so you can imagine how annoying that is.

I have, however, noticed a lot of people telling me that Warhammer 1 runs well? I'd be willing to just buy that instead if I can have it working at high graphical quality, 60fps. I might just have to buy/refund to try it out since these later Total War's don't come with demo's anymore for some strange reason.

I really think CA should up the "required specs" on the steam page, because obviously they aren't really honest.

Thanks for all the advice though, a lot of replies within a short time. +1 to the community here.

Argh... I totally feel your frustration. Honestly, if I were happy with only first/third person shooters and other console regulars, I'd have stuck with my PS4, but the likes of TW, CoH, DoW, the Endless series etc etc kept me buying lower spec laptops to keep up until 2 years ago I just thought f@ck it and went full on PC.

On top of being a TW fan since the first game (despite those less than spectacular laptops I had) it sucks to have more trouble with this game than any other TW yet, including the notoriously poor at launch Empire and Rome 2.
Also, yeah... you splash several times the price of a console to have that performance edge and choice over consoles and... nope. Grrrr.

Amen to the honesty on actual real use requirements... but still, at least give Warhammer 1 a try if not this one. On sale you could get the game and most or all DLC for around the price of Warhammer 2. Maybe in a few weeks/months game 2 will get patched up and be a smoother experience, we can only hope.

As for the replies and advice, no worries dude, you're most welcome.
Best of luck with the game(s)

[Æsir]

Short answer: Yes,

Long answer: I would suggest you the following settings with that hardware setup:

Directx: 11 (Directx 12 doesnt work great with Nvidia Graphic Cards, lower performance across the board)
Texture quality : Ultra (You got enough VRAM and bandwith, High or Ultra is just fine)
Shadow detail: High (Hits FPS a lot, you could turn it to medium, but High or even Ultra is possible with your setup)
VFX detail: High (This setting, in my opinion, can be turnet to low. Moderate to extremely high FPS hit)
Tree detail: Ultra (High or Ultra, does hit FPS by a good margin)
Unit detail: Ultra (This setting eat up a lot of fps in bigger battles, you may want to turn it to high)
Depth of field:Off (Unoptimised, hits FPS by a huge margin)
Screen space reflections: On (Looks good, so why not, FPS hit is moderate)
Fog: Low/High (This settings hit fps quite high, you should still be able to run at High if you prefer the visuals. I would suggest low though)

Ant-aliasing: FXAA (Everything above FXAA is unoptimised)
Texture filtering: Anisotropic 16x (You got enough VRAM, low fps hit)
Water detail: High (Water tends to hit FPS by a huge margin, high should be fine though)
Grass detail: Ultra (High or Ultra, high FPS hit)
Terrain detail: Ultra (High or Ultra, high FPS hit)
Building detail: High (Tend to hit FPS a lot on some maps, i personally don't see any difference between High and Ultra)
Unit size: Large (Heavy FPS hit, multiplayer is balanced around Large unit size)
Porthole quality: 3D (Slight FPS hit, you can turn it off if you want to)


Unlimited video memory: On (Usually improves by a slight margin FPS)
V-sync: Off (Works poorly ont his game, Steam overlayer may cause issues too)
SSAO: Off (Biggest FPS hit there is with DOF, Shadow Extreme and x8 AA)
Vignette; On (low FPS hit)
Proximity Fading: On/Off (low FPS hit or none)
Blood effects: On (High FPS hit, especially later-on in battles. If you don't care about blood effects or dont have the DLC, Off is better)
Sharpening On/Off (I would turn it off, but if you like the sharpening effect, you can use it.)

Edit: This game runs better than Attila. The latter tends to not even use hardware as much as it should.

[Cultist]

Thank you very much for that reply, very in depth suggestion. I've just now given those settings a try with a benchmark test and I'm still only getting 39 avg FPS with occassional stutters.

I'm not really sure what's wrong at this point. It seems like maybe something else could be causing issues, but this is a brand new PC that I haven't installed too much on, there's no viruses or weird third party programs etc. I only have Steam, my browser and Avast Antivirus.

Thanks for the help though, guys. I just wish CA would dedicate a bit more resources towards optimization. They have 2-3 games coming out just in this year alone but they can't spare anything on some optimization?

[Æsir]

Originally posted by Geth:

Thank you very much for that reply, very in depth suggestion. I've just now given those settings a try with a benchmark test and I'm still only getting 39 avg FPS with occassional stutters.

I'm not really sure what's wrong at this point. It seems like maybe something else could be causing issues, but this is a brand new PC that I haven't installed too much on, there's no viruses or weird third party programs etc. I only have Steam, my browser and Avast Antivirus.

Thanks for the help though, guys. I just wish CA would dedicate a bit more resources towards optimization. They have 2-3 games coming out just in this year alone but they can't spare anything on some optimization?

I found that the benchmark is not helpful at all FPS wise to make an average. Better to create your own scenario with lets say 1500, 3000 or/and 6000 units. Fight manually, and then use the replay as baseline to mesure FPS.

Please turn of Steam overlayer also. It causes heavy shuttering for some people.

Visual difference between medium and ultra is with some settings negligable (you can live without it), so play around. I made sure to get 50 fps average in the in-game benchmark (battle benchmark), in most scenarios i get between 30ish and 80 fps.Yet always around 70 in battles has less than 2500 Units and without zooming (to much) in.

You are welcome! Glad to be somewhat helpful.