GTX 760 Vs R7 370 4G In Company Of Heroes 2

TheBoss has done his initial port reports and such so it's my turn to feed you some information. I'm once again putting my GTX 760 against the R7 370 to see what kind of performance we can expect from Company of Heroes 2.

Let's start with the Nvidia results since Nvidia is officially supported and Feral recommends 760 or higher for Company of Heroes 2. The game doesn't have setting presets so I tested on three different setting combinations: one with everything on minimum, one where settings were on medium and one where everything was maxed out. Anti-aliasing was disabled in all three test cases. Keep in mind that the performance test is a stress test meant to demonstrate the worst case scenario. Normally the game will run better than it does in these tests.

The testing was conducted on the same system with Intel i5-2500k clocked at 3.3 GHZ and 8GB of RAM.



The results look quite reasonable considering Liam's benchmarking on his 970. Average framerates stay above 30 though the game doesn't reach a stable 60 FPS ever. It might quickly touch the 60 FPS line but it will quickly go back to around the averages. For an RTS framerates like these are fairly reasonable but they are neither mind-blowing nor something to brag about.

Let's move on to the other contender of this fine duel: the R7 370 with 4GB of VRAM. It's worth noting that Feral doesn't officially support AMD GPUs for Company of Heroes 2 and the game will even have a pop up telling you so. I tried using the Catalyst 15.7 driver but it's been broken for my distribution (Xubuntu 15.04) for a while now and I couldn't utilize it. 15.3 worked but proved to work very poorly. The performance was unplayable levels of bad and it even crashed my OS when I attempted to play the campaign. Thus I was left with the RadeonSI driver. Surprisingly enough, RadeonSI was nearly 2x faster than Catalyst in the performance test. Testing was done with the latest Mesa drivers from the Oibaf repository.



So there are the results from the R7 370 with RadeonSI. You don't need to be a genius to see that something is very wrong here. I'm also feeling a slight déjà vu…



Yeah, like I thought. Just like with Shadow of Mordor on AMD, the performance drop-off is very minimal but the performance itself is quite poor. The game reaches a maximum of 30 FPS but most of the time it runs worse than that. Averages are quite horrifying to look at with them being around 20 FPS. However, like I already mentioned, the game does run better in the campaign. There I was able to maintain a playable 30 FPS or thereabouts most of the time. That is, until the game froze and locked up. On Nvidia side the game is quite robust and stable but the AMD side saw crashes nearly constantly. The game simply locks up and will have to be forced to close. On Catalyst similar things happened but there instead of just the game locking up, my whole system froze.

It seems that Feral's latest port is once again quite exclusive to the Nvidia-using population of Linux gamers. Intel Iris Pro is mentioned as the minimum on the Steam store page but I doubt that setup would run this game at a reasonable speed. Unless something drastic has happened, an Iris Pro is slower than my R7 370 and both are running on Mesa, though they do have their differences. I was hoping that Iris Pro being there would mean wider Mesa-compatibility but that doesn't seem to be the case. Well, maybe the next port will work better. For now I recommend the AMD users to look elsewhere for their entertainment. Nvidia people are better off but the game could still be too cinematic for those that demand constant 60 FPS output. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.