1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Seven games benchmarked before and after Denuvo got removed

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Aug 9, 2018.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,958
    Likes Received:
    2,968
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
  2. RealNC

    RealNC Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    862
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    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.
     
  3. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,037
    Likes Received:
    564
    GPU:
    Nvidia Geforce GTX 960M
    So pretty much, nothing.

    I don't think that's what this video was meant to do. There were a lot of claims because of Denuvo running a sort of VM on the machine and taking cpu cycles that it was possibly lowering performance of games on a PC. People were making a lot of differences up, some saying performance could be doubled without it. The main concern that so many people cared about at this time as posts even on this forum and articles show, was the performance impact. As far as removing it goes, GOG is there any usually can get this handled with older games and has been.
     
  4. Kaaskop

    Kaaskop Member

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX 1080A8G
    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?
     

  5. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,037
    Likes Received:
    564
    GPU:
    Nvidia Geforce GTX 960M
    Not sure how he's trashing the 2600k? I mean he even did an article showing it's more than enough still in 2018.
    https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pag...00kthe-2018-review-time-for-an-upgrade,1.html
     
    G*addict, Koniakki and airbud7 like this.
  6. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,680
    Likes Received:
    691
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti


    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.
     
  7. RealNC

    RealNC Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    862
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
  8. Kaaskop

    Kaaskop Member

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX 1080A8G
    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.
     
  9. alanm

    alanm Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,180
    Likes Received:
    680
    GPU:
    1070 AMP!
    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.
     
    airbud7, Duke Nil and spajdrik like this.
  10. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,037
    Likes Received:
    564
    GPU:
    Nvidia Geforce GTX 960M
    How is that talking down on the CPU? It makes sense to test current gen hardware with more current gen hardware, you get the least amount of any bottlenecking factored out. You wouldn't want to do this test with say a Ryzen 2700x and pair it with a GTX 580.
     
    Aura89 and schmidtbag like this.

  11. Angantyr

    Angantyr Master Guru

    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    108
    GPU:
    GTX 980Ti EVGA SC+
    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?
     
  12. JOHN30011887

    JOHN30011887 Active Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    MSI RTX 2080
    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
     
  13. Kaaskop

    Kaaskop Member

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX 1080A8G
    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.
     
  14. Stairmand

    Stairmand Active Member

    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    nVidia GTX1080 @ 1969Mhz
    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.
     
    Fender178 and schmidtbag like this.
  15. Kaaskop

    Kaaskop Member

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX 1080A8G
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
    gx-x likes this.

  16. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,253
    Likes Received:
    2,473
    GPU:
    MSI RX 480 ARMOR 4G OC
    for 1 or 2 fps?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    :D
     
    Duke Nil and gx-x like this.
  17. Zhyr

    Zhyr Member

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX770 SLI
    A faster CPU may not affect FPS much, but it does have a bigger difference on other things like loading times.
     
    fOrTy_7 likes this.
  18. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,037
    Likes Received:
    564
    GPU:
    Nvidia Geforce GTX 960M
    If you try these same titles at 1080p though, you will notice a difference.

    I'm just gonna go ahead and point you right back to the article I posted originally, which shows at 1080p there is a bottleneck affecting performance. Sure, higher resolutions like 2160p you may not have this bottleneck show, at that point the GPU is the limiting factor and not the CPU. So at higher resolutions, yeah you limit your bottleneck more and more to the point where the cpu is not the bottleneck. But the standard today is 1080p which most try to aim for. Before anyone says something like "People on these forums aim for 4k 60, or Tom's Hardware aims for 4k 144," we are a minority in PC gaming. As well as not all games are exactly playable in 4k. Now yeah there are games that are playable in 4k, heck I bet even an FX 9590 could do some 4k gaming with a 1080 ti and not be too limited on the cpu side, but you can't aim every title and every productivity app to be more GPU bound than CPU bound. For gaming benchmarks, you don't see reviewers comparing a Ryzen 7 to a Core i7 at 4k, results show a small difference of around 1-5 fps. Which in this stage, I'm curious of what a Piledriver CPU can do with a 1080 TI in 4k lol.

    No one is saying Sandy Bridge is a bad platform or should be upgraded asap. What we're saying is for modern GPU's running the common resolution of 1080p, you are going to be limited on the cpu side. This test should be shown on a modern cpu, but someone needs to do it. Ahem @Hilbert Hagedoorn ahem ~throwinsomepiledriverresultstooigottafx9590illdonatetothecause- ahem
     
    Fender178 and MaCk0y like this.
  19. fry178

    fry178 Master Guru

    Messages:
    896
    Likes Received:
    65
    GPU:
    MSI 1080 X@2GHz
    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..
     
  20. Kaaskop

    Kaaskop Member

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX 1080A8G
    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:
    [​IMG]

    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.
     

Share This Page