Seven games benchmarked before and after Denuvo got removed

Perf is not the only concern. What about games that never get updated to remove Denuvo? When Denuvo stops working (Denuvo server goes away and/or Denuvo itself is not compatible anymore with future Windows versions), your game doesn't work anymore?

See your various Star Force or SecuROM or Tages game CDs or DVDs from the 2000's. Good f'ing luck getting them to work. Meanwhile, the pirated, illegal copies of those discs work perfectly fine, so you have to break the law to play the game you paid for.

Denuvo should be illegal.

 

Can you stop trashing the 2600k.

Like I commented on his YT too, besides a few games (like AC:O or The Division), this CPU isn't being a bottleneck in many games.

So unless you got actual proof that this CPU was affecting anything besides the occasional CPU bottleneck in some instances.
In his video it ONLY bottlenecked around 7:30 while being underground in Agents.

So why would this CPU be not sufficient enough to handle such games and effect results, when you can clearly see the CPU usage in his video.

Besides that, his was even on stock speeds, while most that still got it, it's on 4.2 or higher. So 4 core/8 threads at 4.2GHz (minimum), isn't sufficient these days and could affect results? Let alone, not be "a match" for a GTX1080TI?

 

It's slower in nearly every game than a more modern CPU - clock for clock - even on GPU intensive titles. When you're running a test like the one here and literally looking for margin of error differences, it's going to play a role in overall results.

 

I don't intent to pay again for a game I already paid for. Many StarForce/SecuROM/Tages/whatever games are on GOG now. But that doesn't help me. My only option is to torrent them, or buy the same game twice...

Games that remove the DRM after a while are fine. I can wait (bought Doom 4 the same day it removed Denuvo, for example.) But many games never remove it, and it's almost certain that they never will (updates for games that are 10 years old are extremely rare.)

The perf problem is just an additional problem to all that. Just the icing on the crap-cake. And IMO, even 1% slower perf is 1% too much. It makes the game objectively worse, since this is now hard data.

 

That's not the point, he stated that the GTX1080TI and 2600k ain't "a match" and that modern games should be tested on modern CPU's.
Yet where does it show in Overlord his video that this CPU is a bottleneck for results, that the results are "saturated and bottlenecked"?

"Personally, I believe that you should test modern games with modern hardware, so the results are a bit let's call it 'saturated and bottlenecked', both pieces of hardware are not exactly a match either."

This, talking down about the CPU. He might have had a different opinion before in that other article, but his tone in this one is obviously talking down on that CPU.

 

Wish there was a non-Denuvo version of AC Origins to test. That game hammers the hell out of the CPU like no other game before it, even on pause or alt-tabbed out.

 

I think the one that stood out the most to me in the video, was Mass Effect Andromeda @ 3.30 mark. The Denuvo version seemed to use 3GB more ram, think that was a fault of the DRM or something they fixed later on via patching?

 

Performance aint the issue for me, its the connecting to a stupid server, so it has an online requirement and once those servers are gone do people really think devs will care and remove it, heck they dont even fix many bugs and other issues with games nowadays so why after say many years later would they bother when they will prob have many other newer games to focus on

There was also a glimpse in what could happen because i remember all WB games went down as there was a denuvo server issue that stopped people from playing Batman, Mad Max and Shadow of War, since then iv been very selective on what i now pay for

 

Where is this bottleneck you're talking about?
Once again, this CPU only has 2-3 games where it actually reaches 100% cpu and bottlenecks at 4.2GHz (mine wouldn't go further at all), this is paired with a GTX1080.
Everyone keeps spewing that this CPU is a bottleneck with "modern" GPU's, but actual experience shows completely different things.

The ONLY thing that "could" cause a (very minor) bottleneck with this CPU, is memory bandwidth. Seeing it only supports DDR3-1066/1333. But that's it. Though nobody mentioned that, so don't start using that as an excuse now.

 

Look, the 2600 was a great CPU, but it is pretty dated now and worth replacing.

It had (or the motherboards it ran on) no PCIe 3 support, no M.2 support hardly any SATA 6Gbps support, crappy USB3 support...… the list goes on. Stop defending it and realise it's had a good run but now it's time to take it out around the corner and put both barrels in it.

 

Not really, as long as the newer games aren't hitting 100% usage (and thus being an actual bottleneck), I don't see a reason to upgrade.
USB3 is pointless when you're not using any external storage. Hell, even my Vive won't properly work on USB3 (not uncommon problem FYI).
M.2 not being there is sad, but for now, the real world difference between a SATA3 SSD and M.2 SSD in normal workload (browsing a few pages, playing a few games, listening to music and watching a show/movie) is virtually non-existent and only showing in benchmark numbers for e-peen.
Same goes for PCI-e 3, the actual difference can't even be noticed till this day. Even for the 1080TI, PCI-e 2 (x16) still has enough bandwidth.
I got 2 SATA3 connections on here, 1 for my Windows SSD and 1 for my game SSD. Why would I need more when SATA2 has enough bandwidth to support my storage HDD.

So try again.

 

for 1 or 2 fps?

 

A faster CPU may not affect FPS much, but it does have a bigger difference on other things like loading times.

 

Lol, right.
Because ppl that spend +700$ on the gpu alone, are usually running a 19in with FHD res..
Lol again.
And you werent talking about high fps, so dont bring it up..

 

Sorry to burst your bubble there my friend, but I'm actually on dual 1080p monitors (27 (ASUS MX279H) and 24 inch (Acer V243HQ). My experience is from 1080p gaming.
I've always got stuff like RTSS running, secondary monitor displaying things like this:


So I do actually keep track of what my hw does and notice if stuff actually bottlenecks my system.
The only 2 games I've seen it hit 100% and became unplayable was AC:O in the cities (but solved that by a temp OC to 4.5) and The Division, strangely with same settings as I had on my 770 (4GB) and where it didn't display that issue. Though performance on that game, especially the CPU side, is really wonky.
Yeah I see the occasional 100% in other games, like FC5 or FFXV, but that's maybe 0.5-1% of the time.
I should also mention that I'm still a 60hz user though. So I'm v-syncing all my games.