{"id":60558,"date":"2024-11-23T10:40:59","date_gmt":"2024-11-23T10:40:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2024\/11\/23\/stalker-2-heart-of-chornobyl-gpu-benchmark\/"},"modified":"2024-11-23T10:42:46","modified_gmt":"2024-11-23T10:42:46","slug":"stalker-2-heart-of-chornobyl-gpu-benchmark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2024\/11\/23\/stalker-2-heart-of-chornobyl-gpu-benchmark\/","title":{"rendered":"Stalker 2: Heart of Chornobyl GPU Benchmark"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

We now have spent a substantial period of time over the previous few days staring on the Shader Compilation loading display in a brand new sport referred to as Stalker 2: Heart of Chornobyl<\/a>. For a few of you, the sport wants no introduction. However frankly, that have has been extra fulfilling than testing half the merchandise we have reviewed in 2024, so most likely not even cracking the highest 10 most boring issues I’ve achieved this yr (that was a joke \u2013 I like what I do)…<\/p>\n

Shader compilation loading screens apart, we have managed to check Stalker 2 this week, proper after the day-one patch was launched, benchmarking 31 totally different GPUs throughout three resolutions utilizing three high quality presets, plus outcomes from high quality upscaling (!). So there’s loads to go over.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

Stalker 2 is a first-person shooter\/survival horror single-player sport developed utilizing Unreal Engine 5<\/a>. It is the fourth fundamental sport within the Stalker sequence, and shockingly, it has been 15 years because the final launch, Name of Pripyat. That sport was a staple for our CPU and GPU testing again within the day, so it is thrilling to lastly see a brand new Stalker title.<\/p>\n

So with out losing any extra time, let’s get into it. The benchmark move we used for this evaluation takes place within the Lesser Zone, one of many first cities you encounter. This location was chosen as a result of it’s extremely demanding on each the CPU and GPU.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

As we simply talked about, we examined a number of high quality presets. Altering the standard settings requires restarting the sport, and this triggers shader rebuilding \u2013 a course of that takes a number of minutes. Performing this course of no less than 3 times per GPU, for a complete of 31 GPUs, made for an attention-grabbing (and prolonged) testing expertise.<\/p>\n

We examined the Epic preset each at native decision and with high quality upscaling, alongside the Excessive and Medium presets. For upscaling, we used DLSS<\/a> on GeForce GPUs, FSR<\/a> on Radeon GPUs, and XeSS<\/a> for the Arc A770<\/a>. Though the sport helps FSR and DLSS body technology, we didn’t embrace these on this evaluation.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

Earlier than diving into the benchmarks, we wish to handle the efficiency disparity between 8GB and 16GB VRAM GPUs. A number of the upcoming graphs will spotlight poor 8GB efficiency on the Epic preset, even with upscaling enabled. To raised perceive this, we have taken a more in-depth take a look at the difficulty.<\/p>\n

Benchmarks<\/h2>\n

8GB vs 16GB VRAM Body Time Comparability<\/h4>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

Epic – 1080p Native<\/h4>\n

Beginning with the native 1080p outcomes utilizing the Epic preset, we see the RTX 4090<\/a> delivering simply over 100 fps within the small city used for testing. Nonetheless, this outcome seems to be CPU-limited, despite the fact that testing was carried out with the 9800X3D<\/a>. That is evident as a result of the RTX 4090 was solely 9% sooner than the RTX 4080 Super<\/a> and 23% sooner than the Radeon RX 7900 XTX<\/a>. The Radeon GPU’s efficiency wasn’t significantly spectacular right here, roughly matching the RTX 4070 Ti Super<\/a>, whereas the RX 7900 XT<\/a> carried out equally to the RTX 4070 Super<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

Reaching 60 fps at 1080p requires no less than a Radeon RX 7800 XT<\/a> or RTX 3080<\/a>. Nonetheless, the earlier technology 10GB GPU confirmed some struggles with 1% lows \u2013 to not an alarming diploma, however there have been noticeable dips. Talking of dips, the 8GB fashions have been utterly unplayable, failing to fulfill acceptable efficiency requirements.<\/p>\n

Epic – 1080p Upscaling<\/h4>\n

Enabling upscaling considerably improves efficiency, significantly for lower-end GPUs. The RTX 4090 remained CPU-limited, with the RTX 4080<\/a>, Radeon RX 7900 XTX, and RTX 4080 Tremendous all nearing 100 fps. Reaching 60 fps was now doable with a Radeon RX 6800 XT<\/a> or a 16GB RTX 4060 Ti.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

An attention-grabbing remark is that the 16GB RTX 4060 Ti<\/a> averaged 65 fps, making it 10% sooner than the 8GB version<\/a>. Nonetheless, by way of 1% lows, the 16GB mannequin was 100% sooner, delivering a a lot better expertise. This aligns with findings at 1440p with upscaling.<\/p>\n

The takeaway right here is that 8GB graphics playing cards encounter efficiency points even at 1080p with upscaling on this sport. Whether or not future optimizations will handle this stays unsure, although some enchancment is probably going.<\/p>\n

Epic – 1440p Native<\/h4>\n

Transferring as much as native 1440p with the Epic preset dropped the RTX 4090 to a median of 88 fps. This made it 17% sooner than the RTX 4080 Tremendous, although this margin is smaller than usually anticipated. Reaching a median of 60 fps now turns into very difficult, requiring no less than an RTX 4070 Ti, whereas the Radeon RX 7900 XT simply falls quick. Past this level, enabling upscaling turns into vital.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

With high quality upscaling enabled \u2013 utilizing DLSS for GeForce GPUs, FSR for Radeon GPUs, and XeSS for the Arc A770 \u2013 efficiency improves considerably throughout most fashions. It turns into doable to exceed 60 fps with GPUs just like the Radeon RX 7900 GRE<\/a>, RTX 3090<\/a>, and RTX 4070<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Epic – 1440p Upscaling<\/h4>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

Nonetheless, 8GB graphics playing cards proceed to wrestle, and the outcomes right here should not be interpreted too actually. Operating out of VRAM results in erratic efficiency, with vital run-to-run variance. These figures are primarily based on a 3-run common, however the inconsistency resulting from VRAM limitations signifies that 8GB playing cards are successfully unplayable at 1440p with upscaling and the Epic preset.<\/p>\n

Epic – 4K Native<\/h4>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

As anticipated, native 4K is a big problem. Solely the RTX 4090 can ship near 60 fps, averaging 60 fps, whereas the RTX 4080 Tremendous managed simply 47 fps with 1% lows of 30 fps.<\/p>\n

Epic – 4K Upscaling<\/h4>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

Enabling upscaling at 4K is a should, and utilizing the standard mode permits the RTX 4090 to succeed in a median of 79 fps, offering a stable expertise. The RTX 4080 Tremendous averaged 65 fps, and the Radeon RX 7900 XTX reached 61 fps. Whereas these outcomes are respectable, the 1% lows are noticeable and will affect the general expertise. Customers would possibly take into account testing the balanced upscaling choice or dropping the decision to 1440p for smoother gameplay.<\/p>\n

Excessive – 1080p<\/h4>\n

Alternatively, you’ll be able to attempt the Excessive preset, so let’s begin at 1080p. On the excessive finish, the info stays largely CPU-limited, although we managed to push as much as 112 fps with the RTX 4090. It is also now doable to common 60 fps with the Radeon RX 7700 XT<\/a> or the 8GB RTX 4060 Ti. This implies 8GB graphics playing cards are working inside their VRAM limits utilizing the Excessive preset at native 1080p, which is a constructive improvement. Moreover, body charges round 50 fps are achievable with GPUs just like the RX 7600 XT<\/a> and RTX 4060<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

Excessive – 1440p<\/h4>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

At 1440p, the RTX 4090 nonetheless seems considerably CPU-limited, reaching 104 fps \u2013 a 20% improve over the RTX 4080 Tremendous. In the meantime, AMD’s high performer, the RX 7900 XTX, was simply 5% slower than the RTX 4080. Reaching 60 fps now requires a GPU just like the RTX 4070, RX 7900 GRE, or RTX 3090, indicating hefty GPU necessities for 1440p gaming with the second-highest high quality preset.<\/p>\n

Excessive – 4K<\/h4>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

At 4K, only a few GPUs are able to exceeding 60 fps. The truth is, solely the RTX 4090 managed to common 70 fps, whereas the RTX 4080, RX 7900 XTX, and RTX 4080 Tremendous all hovered within the mid-50s.<\/p>\n

Medium – 1080p<\/h4>\n

Utilizing the Medium high quality preset at native 1080p allowed body charges to push as much as 121 fps, although efficiency stays closely CPU-limited. The one cause for the elevated body price in comparison with the Excessive and Epic presets is the diminished CPU load.<\/p>\n

Whereas it is unclear which particular settings triggered this alteration (after spending a number of days testing 31 GPUs throughout three resolutions with 4 high quality configurations), settings like rendering distance and stage of element usually have an effect on CPU load. This highlights why testing CPU efficiency with low-quality settings is often unsuitable outdoors of aggressive shooters.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

With the Medium preset, the RTX 4090 was simply 6% sooner than the RTX 4080 Tremendous and 10% sooner than the RX 7900 XTX. Reaching 100 fps or extra was now doable with GPUs just like the RX 7900 XT, whereas most GPUs supplied a 60 fps or higher expertise. For instance, the previous-generation RX 6750 XT<\/a> averaged 61 fps, making Medium a stable choice for enhancing efficiency.<\/p>\n

Medium – 1440p<\/h4>\n

Growing the decision to 1440p dropped the RTX 4090’s efficiency to 113 fps, which made it 18% sooner than the RTX 4080 Tremendous and 26% sooner than the RX 7900 XTX. Nonetheless, the Radeon GPU nonetheless carried out nicely, averaging 90 fps.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

For 60 fps or higher, the RX 6800 XT or RTX 3080 carried out successfully, whereas current-generation choices just like the RX 7800 XT or RTX 4070 additionally delivered stable outcomes.<\/p>\n

Medium – 4K<\/h4>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

Lastly at 4K it is doable to render 60 fps or extra on the native decision utilizing both the 7900 XTX, 4080, 4080 Tremendous or 4090. Under that you’ll want to allow upscaling.<\/p>\n

Pushing the Limits in Stalker 2<\/span><\/h2>\n

Stalker 2 is an extremely detailed online game, and consequently, this can be very demanding. That mentioned, we’re assured there’s room for additional optimization, although to what diploma stays tough to find out at the moment.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, this is not a sport the place you want huge body charges to take pleasure in it. Ideally, we might intention for round 100 fps, however that is a big problem proper now. A extra reasonable goal for many configurations is 60 fps, supplied you are keen to tinker with the standard settings.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

Many players are more likely to encounter CPU limitations with this title, a development we have noticed in a number of current releases. The sport is especially CPU-heavy in cities and settlement areas. Open-world video games with NPCs and AI typically place higher pressure on the CPU than different forms of video games, and on this case, it is presumably exacerbated by Unreal Engine 5<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Decreasing high quality settings has minimal affect on CPU efficiency in demanding areas although. Turning down settings primarily improves efficiency in much less demanding areas, creating a bigger FPS discrepancy between the lighter, open areas and the heavier city environments. This disparity shall be particularly noticeable on mid-range CPUs.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

One other more and more widespread development, as we predicted a number of years in the past, is the fast growing old of 8GB graphics playing cards. For instance, you probably have an entry-level product just like the Radeon RX 6600<\/a>, you’ll be able to doubtless play at 1080p with medium-quality settings, reaching a modest 44 fps with out upscaling.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, in case you invested in an RTX 4060 Ti<\/a>, you would possibly count on 1440p with upscaling on the Epic preset to be possible. It’s \u2013 in case you bought the 16GB mannequin.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

The 8GB model, nonetheless, struggles considerably on this state of affairs and requires dropping to the Excessive preset, which is an affordable compromise. Nonetheless, it feels much less so once you’ve spent $400 on an RTX graphics card.<\/p>\n

The floaty controls and “reasonable” animations make this sport significantly appropriate for body technology, which might improve the smoothness of CPU-intensive areas with out absolutely addressing the latency problems with gaming at or beneath 60 fps.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

On that be aware, body technology is actually unusable with 8GB graphics playing cards \u2013 no less than with the Epic preset, even at 1080p.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/picture><\/a><\/p>\n

There are additionally points with the Excessive preset at 1440p, as VRAM utilization usually exceeds 8GB and, in some circumstances, climbs above 9GB. As soon as once more, this highlights how 8GB fashions typically end in a compromised expertise. If these playing cards had been geared up with 12GB or, ideally, 16GB of VRAM, these issues can be pointless. As Jensen would say, it “just works.”<\/a><\/p>\n

In case you loved all of the testing we put into this benchmark overview, please share it, subscribe to our publication to obtain information of future articles like this one, and take a look at our TechSpot Elite subscription choice for ad-free searching and extra perks.<\/p>\n

Procuring Shortcuts:<\/h5>\n