Total War: WARHAMMER III Linux Performance Across 24 NVIDIA / AMD GPUs

[hoohoo]

The graphs main text - title, gpu names - are showing up as very offwhite, nearly indistinguishable from the background. At least this is the case on my Samsung S10/Opera setup.

[kayosiii]

The power consumption at exactly 100 watts without any variation with the rx 6600 looks very suspicious. I am willing to bet that the setup is limiting the card to that amount of power draw which may affect the other benchmark scores.

[Jahimself]

Hello Michael, if you read this comment, was Smart Access Memory activated on this benchmark?

The result for AMD cards are faster than on windows, while Nvidia are slower in symetrical ways @1080p, if we compare with the data from Kitguru, who use the same CPU for their benchmark.

But when we increase the resolution at 1440p Nvidia card are almost equal to windows numbers, AMD are way faster in the meanwhile.

At 4K Linux takes the lead even for Nvidia. Note for instance that the 6800 XT is at 36fps average on windows, while reaching 45fps on linux! Maybe some specificities of your setup induce those results. It might be way too time demanding, but it would be interesting to do those benchmarks on the same machine for both OS, with like 4 RX cards from AMD and 4 RTX cards from Nvidia, to see if really Linux perf are slapping Windows with this port.

Thanks a lot once again for those data Michael!

[BHZeto]

Amazing, this is more interesting than the game itself (sadly for the game).
Does somebody know how these results compare to same system running TWW2?

[baka0815]

I currently have an AMD RX580, which current gen AMD card would be "the successor" to that card? Would that be an 6700?
What is the "RX580" of the "6xxx" cards?

[Melcar]

I currently have an AMD RX580, which current gen AMD card would be "the successor" to that card? Would that be an 6700?
What is the "RX580" of the "6xxx" cards?

Price wise? The closest card would be the 6500XT. The 6500XT is like a slight sidegrade but can be a worse card in certain situations due to the narrow bus width and it being only a PCIe 4.0 x4 card. 1080p is fine and even some 1440p, but at this point this card chokes badly. And then you have the lack of hardware encode features on the 6500XT, which makes it a worse card than the Polaris.

A proper performance upgrade would be a 6600/50XT (or even a 6600 if you want cheaper) as that card will be able to power most games at 1080p and 1440p (not high refresh rate), just like a RX 580 can (I run an OC RX 480 myself and pay all my games at 1440p). Maybe more than what you are willing to spend for a proper "successor" to your card, as most of those cards are $380-$400 right now. It certainly is for me, hence why I'm still on a Polaris card. The 66xx cards are PCIe 4.0 x8, so make sure your motherboard and CPU are PCIe 4.0 compliant.

I plan to wait for RDNA3 release (end of the year I guess) and see how prices adjust. Maybe I can snag a 6650XT or even a 6750XT for cheap as I don't really care for the latest tech (and Linux always takes a few months to catch up to hardware releases), or maybe the new RDNA3 cards will have more sensible pricing (fat chance). AMD's efforts in the budget tier was lackluster this gen, to put it mildly. There is a huge price/performance gap between the 6500XT and the next tier up. They totally ignored the sub $300 market and only did low effort releases (repackaged mobile 6500XT and 6400 cards) just to have something to show.

[baka0815]

Melcar
Thank you very much for the write-up, that helped me a lot!