Nvidia 780M Can't play Company of Heroes 2 on Ultra?!

Please check the benchmarks below:

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M - NotebookCheck.net Tech

The fps is only 23 on ultra settings.

The Nvidia GTX 780M cannot play COH2 on Ultra?! The tested laptop has only 8GB RAM but could that be the bottleneck?

Owners of the game and the GPU PLEASE confirm.

 

First of all REDUCE YOUR FONT SIZE

Second, there is no indication of drivers used or what CPU was used even.

See this review: Company of Heroes 2 Performance, Benchmarked - TechSpot

GTX 780m is roughly GTX 670 desktop. Even GTX Titan struggles.

 

Your eyes will thank me a decade from now for making it more comfortable for them to read. Besides, I didn't use caps, sir.

On Notebookcheck.com, you can click on the fps count it will show you the laptop specs. The CPU was an I7 4700 CPU and the driver was ForceWare 320.49.

Thanks for the link.

 

Company of Heroes 2: Setting The Record Straight | SemiAccurate

For those of you debating building a new system optimized specifically for playing this game, Relic told us that Company of Heroes 2 is much more likely to be CPU-bound, rather than GPU-bound. Apparently the Essence engine supports the use of up to eight threads simultaneously. But all the threads being run on those cores at some point have to come back and finish executing on the first core. Thus single threaded performance is very important according to Relic.

PS -Please reduce your font size. If my eyes start to fail I will change the dpi settings for my display. Thus all text will be bigger, and it will only affect me.

Get a better view in Windows 7 by adjusting DPI scaling - TechRepublic

 

I lost faith in humanity

 

I think my brain just shut down from this thread.

 

You're just pissing people off with that font size. Makes it seem like you're screaming at everybody. Are you implying that everyone on here is a farsighted old-timer?

Anyway, benchmarks for CoH2 are all over the place and you've already answered your own question. CoH2 brings even the mightiest desktops to their knees at max settings but I smell a poorly-optimized game and it will never support multi-GPU. Nothing more to see here...

 

^ what he said, the 780M is still a good GPU to have. Sometimes there are games that just aren't optimized well. heh, Kind of feels like every video game developers create ultra high settings options for future use or something.

 

The problem is the cpu, I know its Haswell but its the low end cpu. With that game your probably using the cpu for all its worth and the gpu is getting bottlenecked by the cpu. Plus COH2 is a very CPU intensive game. I would download the latest beta drivers first before completely blaming the cpu but the cpu is a part of the issue. try out this driver NVIDIA DRIVERS 326.80BETA and see if the performance is any better. if not, than your cpu can't handle it. my m18x with 2960xm and sli 680m only gets about 55-70 fps and thats overclocked to the hilt.

 

LOL i7-4700MQ a "low-end CPU?" Good one. And at maximum settings CoH2 is almost completely GPU-bound. And multi-GPU support will probably never happen so your second 680M isn't doing squat.

Per the TechSpot article:

While the FX-8350 performed well, i5 chips such as the i5-3470 gave much more bang, though if you plan to play with maximum quality then your GPU will probably create a bottleneck before your CPU anyway.

Unfortunately, we're a little disappointed with the results overall as CoH 2 seems far too demanding for what it is. Furthermore, for a game that requires such a tremendous amount of graphical power, its lack of multi-GPU support feels like a serious blunder to us.

 

Finished this game on 7970m and 840qm no sweat with all maximum settings. Ran great perhaps gamw is better coded on amd than nvidia?

 

Well, looks like the HD 7970 tied with the GTX 780, note both are desktop GPUs. HARDOCP - Highest Playable Settings High-End - Company of Heroes 2 Performance and IQ Review

But as noted before, CPU is a huge factor. To get better performance, turn off the replay feature. I hear running windowed helps as well.

Edit to add, that the link above later says " It's hard to say whether AMD or NVIDIA video cards performed better in Company of Heroes 2. Let's look at it from two different perspectives. NVIDIA has the only video card capable of "high" AA at 1080p. The GeForce GTX TITAN and GTX 780 were both faster than the Radeon HD 7970 GE. However, the Radeon HD 7970 GE performed better than the GeForce GTX 770 which is relative in price. The GeForce GTX 760 was also slightly slower than the Radeon HD 7950 Boost and Radeon HD 7870 GE video cards. The performance differences were also very close for each video card. We did not see any video cards around the same price point perform exceptionally better than others."

 

I dont think that's the case. AMD 8970M gave ~21fps at maximum settings, a tad lower than the Nvidia 780M.

Laptop and driver specs:

One K73-3N
Intel Core i7 4700MQ 2.4GHz
Radeon HD 8970M (900MHz), 4096MB (1250MHz) GDDR5, 13.4
8192MB RAM

Link:
AMD Radeon HD 8970M - NotebookCheck.net Tech

 

Why the large font? Do you think we are hard of seeing?

 

not really the problem is the arguments, the assumption and other stuff, my faith in humanity is forever broken, darwin is cursing me right now

 

This game seems very poorly optimized for what the graphics are, not to mention the inexcusable lack of multi-GPU support. No game should run worse than Crysis 3 while looking like a turd relative to it. For those of you who keep claiming CoH2 is very CPU-bound that is simply not the case unless you happen to have AMD or something but we all the story there. All the data points to the game being GPU-bound except at medium and low settings. For example, looking at the Notebookcheck.net chart we see almost perfectly linear scaling as you move up in GPU power at High and Maximum even though the CPU's have barely changed. The entire middle of the graph is occupied by mobile i7's, mostly the 3610QM.



@OP good for you it looks like you're making progress on the font size but don't stop now.

 

Looks like CPU is very important. Look at this: Company of Heroes 2 Performance, Benchmarked > CPU Performance - TechSpot

 

Not that important if you already have a recent Intel quad-core. Like I said, your CPU is only holding you back if you have AMD. These are from the same article:



A mainstream part like the i7-4770K already maxes out in CoH2 at stock frequency. It's not in the list but I'm sure the i5-4670K would perform nearly identically. The mobile i7's are not much slower than these desktop parts and since they're almost never driving anything even remotely close to a Titan you're gonna pretty much always be GPU-bound. CoH2 is not like BF3 or Skyrim where massive gains can be realized from overclocking or increasing the CPU core count and cache size.

All your graph tells me is that IPC and clock speed matter more than number of cores and cache size, which is why Sandy Bridge-E falls behind the mainstream Ivy Bridge and Haswell parts. Even the old i7-920 manages to keep up with the FX-8350, which just makes AMD look bad. I'm sure if you goose the 920 to 4 GHz or higher you've essentially topped out on your CPU requirement for the game.

 

All the articles talk about it being CPU demanding, even the above linked one. So you are saying it isn't? This seems to show that the game needs a good CPU and a good GPU. Also this shows AMD doing better than some Intel CPUs. Since there are no prices shown, we don't know who wins the price per performance for CPUs for this game, so I don't think it makes AMD look bad. Certainly AMD does not have the top spot, nor any of the top seven, but they do have three of the top ten.

(My next CPU will be a Intel, so I am not biased towards AMD.)

Anyway, I am not sure how this helps the OP.

Did you know the game keeps track of every single footstep in the snow. Every one, they are all shown on screen. They don't fade after a few minutes, they are there the whole campaign. And it tracks drifting snow, and snow thickness. It really is quite impressive. So it may not look as good as Crysis, but that is because they had different goals. The snow slows movement if it is deep. So drifting snow is important in your strategy. Also tracking troop movement is important, so persistant tracks is more important than looking the best.

I don't play this game, nor do I like stategy games. But I find what they are doing in this game amazing, and impresive. I see why it pushes CPUs and GPUs to the limits.

 

It's not just me saying it, the numbers don't lie. Overclocking the i7-4770K by 1 GHz yields no improvement and you actually lose performance going from Ivy Bridge and Haswell to Sandy Bridge-E. The only Intel CPU outperformed by AMD ones in the TechSpot graph is the Core i3. It's sad how an almost 5-year-old CPU like the i7-920 can keep up with AMD's latest-and-greatest in this title. I don't see any argument that can be made for AMD's lackluster showing in this game and it loses big-time in both top-end performance and price-to-performance ratio to comparable Intel chips. You want an apples-to-apples comparison? The FX-8350 gives up 16 FPS or 35% to the i5-3570K. It doesn't get more clear than that.

 

Just come and play Eve Online you guys. I got free extended 21 day invites for y'all.

Forget about company of heroes.

 

Too bad the barriers to entry for EVE are absurd. Good luck doing anything besides getting blown up by griefers in the trial period.

 

*hint* its not memory related since almost no games today are 64bit. (and thats one reson to laugh at people who believe they need 2gig + graphics memory. PCs can't even adress over 2 gig graphics memory in 32bit)

Its not CPU related since almost no game is threaded, especially over 2 threads. This means that a slow intel can MaxTurbo.

Bad programming/immature drivers are the logical conclusion.

 

What? Games can use more than 2GB VRAM. Try loading up the textures in Skyrim. Edit, per my follow up post, my point is that games can use more than 2GB, not implying that right now you need more.

The Xbox360 has three cores. Most CPUs now have four cores. How can you say almost no game is threaded. Then you add expecially over two, as if to hedge your bet. My point is there are a lot of games that use threads, of course there are many that don't nor do they need to.

And couldn't we say any game would run better if the programming was better and the drivers better. What exactly makes it bad programming. As a programmer, I would like to know.

 

Gah. Just because textures use over 2GB vRAM doesn't mean you NEED 2GB vRAM. It will still work and load fine. You think you won't be able to play if you only had 1GB vRAM?

http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2012/11/05/msi-radeon-hd-7850-1gb-review/5
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7850_RoyalQueen/22.html

Of course these days faster GPU's should have 2GB. Slower cards really aren't fast enough anyhow to take advantage of it.

 

HTWingNut, I wasn't trying to say you need more than 2GB VRAM. My point was simply a counter point to the previous post saying, or implying that games couldn't use more than 2GB. So just that they can use over 2GB, not that it is needed.

You are right, for current games you don't need it unless you are doing multiple monitor gaming. Also when Directx 11.2 drops, tiled resources will further reduce memory footprint. Of course I still expect games, over time, will use more and more Vram, but the future is unknown.

PS, Thanks for the follow up. After all, I wanted to clear up what I thought was misinformation in the previous post, I certainly don't want to mislead readers myself. I edited my previous post, hopefully it is better now.

I found this to be a very interesting read on the graphics engine in this game. Company of Heroes 2: Setting The Record Straight | SemiAccurate

 

8 months later and with the release of Nvidia 880M, the fps for COH2 at ultra settings increased by a mere one frame. It is now 24fps using an i7 4800MQ 2.7GHz processor.


Notebookcheck.net as always.

 

Weird. I got 45FPS with single 880m and 51FPS with SLI 880m at Ultra using an i7-4810MQ...

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...eview-sager-np8268-clevo-p150sm.html#gpubench
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...7-clevo-p377sm-review-htwingnut.html#gpubench