Recent COH2 benchmark results w/AMD FX CPU & Radeon graphics

Hi all. Just wanted to share some up-to-date benchmark results, as many people will only find results that are over a year old at this point when looking at how an AMD FX CPU will perform in this game, and I know how frustrating that can be when you're looking to get new hardware, and you can't find recent info. So...

I have an FX-8350 CPU clocked at 4.5GHz with a very minor voltage bump. Graphics card is a Gigabyte 7950 card (3GB) that I've bios flashed to 1GHz stable. I decided to try to figure out exactly how many cores this game likes with an AMD FX chip, and what effect, if any, using the '1 core per module' setting would have.

I run the game on a 1680x1050 monitor with the following quality settings:

Game Play Resolution: 100%
Image Quality: High
AA: Low (setting this any higher on just about any graphics card will completely cripple the game!)
V-sync: off
Texture Detail: High
Snow Detail: Medium
Physics: Medium (just realized this can be set to high with only a very marginal impact - ie. 2 FPS loss!)

Here are the results of the built-in benchmark - FPS:

With 4 cores enabled:

Min: 23.82
Max: 61.14
Avg: 40.81

With 6 cores enabled:

Min: 32.90
Max: 64.10
Avg: 46.59

With 8 cores enabled:

Min: 32.23
Max: 65.67
Max: 46.94

With 4 cores - 1 per module enabled:

Min: 31.78
Max: 66.07
Avg: 48.30

So, the results I obtained seem to indicate that with the AMD 7950 graphics card I have, at 1680x1050 resolution, and the game graphics settings I used, an AMD FX-6300 or FX-6350 chip clocked at 4.5GHz would give you virtually identical performance to my FX-8350 chip with all 8 cores clocked at 4.5GHz. In fact, the game will run every so slightly faster with only 4 cores enabled, using the 1 core-per-module setting on an 8 core FX CPU at that clock rate! This is quite fascinating, because it makes me wonder why the 4 core FX CPUs do so much worse than the 6 and 8 core FX CPUs? I know the FX-4350 is a two-module chip, but I would have thought there would be much less resource-sharing contention between the chips on the same module than is indicated by my results.

Finally, I just want to say that I think an FX-6300 or FX-6350 chip would be the best bang-for-the-buck chip for someone who is primarily looking to play COH2, and wants to keep their CPU budget as low as possible. I'm quite happy with my FX-8350, and essentially, a 6 core FX chip clocked to the same MHz (4.5GHz) will perform identically well in this game.

Now, if AMD will only release an R9 390(X) graphics card that will double the frame rates of the R9 290(X) cards in this game on my current platform, I will be all over that card!!

Hope some of you find this information helpful!

I play with an FX-6300 CPU, Radeon 7790 GPU, 4GB RAM and I don't notice any meaningful difference between the graphics settings FPS-wise, aside from when I set the texture details to anything but medium the load times become unbearably long. In the range of 5+ minutes. Once in game, FPS is fine, however. I have 1GB of VRAM on this graphics card, so I suppose it could be that. I play with everything maxed except the texture details.

I play with an FX-6300 CPU, Radeon 7790 GPU, 4GB RAM and I don't notice any meaningful difference between the graphics settings FPS-wise, aside from when I set the texture details to anything but medium the load times become unbearably long. In the range of 5+ minutes. Once in game, FPS is fine, however. I have 1GB of VRAM on this graphics card, so I suppose it could be that. I play with everything maxed except the texture details.

You could try an SSD and see if that helps your load times. It made a huge difference for mine. I doubt that it's the 1GB of VRAM on your graphics card, though I could be wrong.

my specs

CPU: I7-4790k 4.4(ghz)

GPU: gtx 780

ram: 8g corsair vengeance

mobo: GIGABYTE Z97X-GAMING 7

i play at 1080p all max with v-sync disabled

MY average fps is 67.6

COH 2 is very cpu heavy. i had an a8-3870k at 3(ghz) before

ran coh2 horrible.

Iv'e had very bad experiences with amd hardware. Constant crashing and bad performance. i recommenced getting intel

my specs

CPU: I7-4790k 4.4(ghz)

GPU: gtx 780

ram: 8g corsair vengeance

mobo: GIGABYTE Z97X-GAMING 7

i play at 1080p all max with v-sync disabled

MY average fps is 67.6

COH 2 is very cpu heavy. i had an a8-3870k at 3(ghz) before

ran coh2 horrible.

Iv'e had very bad experiences with amd hardware. Constant crashing and bad performance. i recommenced getting intel

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the AMD APUs are terrible for this game, as they lack LVL 3 cache, as are the Intel dual core CPUs, even the ones with hyper threading (Core i3). However, the crashing you're talking about is definitely not the result of an AMD CPU. More likely, you had a driver issue, or even an unstable overclock or an unstable motherboard/GPU. I've only had good experiences with AMD hardware, but then again, I always go for a top-end AMD CPU, never an APU or CPU without LVL3 cache.

The minimum CPU I'd suggest as decent is an AMD Phenom II (not Athlon II) or an Intel Core i5 desktop CPU (the laptop core i5s are really core i3 chips labelled as i5, as they only have two cores + hyperthreading). The AMD FX 6 core or 8 core are better than the Phenom II, and are closer to the i5 than the Phenom II.

Anybody else want to share their system specs/benchmark results?

Are these the results you get from the graphics test in coh2?

I have a GTX780 + the other cool stuff, I think it gives me an average of like 30 fps. IDK why.

Are these the results you get from the graphics test in coh2?

I have a GTX780 + the other cool stuff, I think it gives me an average of like 30 fps. IDK why.

check ur cpu. coh2 is cpu intensive

u could also have v-sync on

u could also have v-sync on

I feel lik ethe biggest idiot

You should specify your driver version.

Are these the results you get from the graphics test in coh2?

I have a GTX780 + the other cool stuff, I think it gives me an average of like 30 fps. IDK why.

Yes, these results were derived from the built-in benchmark under 'menu' --> 'options' --> 'graphics' --> 'performance test' button.

I suspect the CoH2 is so CPU bound that the most efficient/cheapest solution would be getting a G3258 and overclocking the hell out of it.

At the moment I have a fast GPU (bought an used R9 290 cheap lol) but a laughable old CPU (C2Q OC'ed@3.7ghz), and my framerates hurt a lot in longer games. In fact, it doesn't even matter if I turn everything to low. It doesn't have an effect on my FPS!

if you have the thermal room i would try overclocking. i've got a 3930k@4.4Ghz and have 0 cpu issues. any lag i get is from splats and particles.

I suspect the CoH2 is so CPU bound that the most efficient/cheapest solution would be getting a G3258 and overclocking the hell out of it.

Buying a G3258 is a horrible purchasing decision right now. Games are transitioning into a minimum of quad core, with newly released games not even booting with a dual core.

Anyway I'm running an FX 8350 @ 4.3 GHz & a pair of Asus R9 270X, but only one card can be used by Coh2. I capped my framerate at 32 with riva tuner to try and keep a nice smooth framerate with few drops.

Here's my graphical settings and benchmark results. I'm able to run the game on maximum settings with a max framerate of around 55-60 on some maps, but I prefer to maintain a stable framerate with a little bit of compromise on the fidelity. The benchmark is as tough as the game gets, and most of the time I rarely drop from 32-30.