Patriot Viper V765 Keyboard Review
Combo deal: Office 2016 Pro and W10 for $34
Shadow of the Tomb Raider: RTX and DLSS Update
ASUS RT-AX88U (AX6000) router review
The Division 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
URCDkey Spring Sale(up to 86% off) Windows 10 Pro $11
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming X review
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 VENTUS XS 6G OC review
Palit GeForce GTX 1660 StormX OC review
Corsair Crystal 680X PC Chassis Review
Seven games benchmarked before and after Denuvo got removed
We all know that copy and DRM protection eat CPU cycles, and that can influence game performance. The problem is that to be able to measure that you would need to compare a cracked game with an original one, that all by itself is a red flag. Recently, however, some game scrapped from Denuvo and that effect has been tested on seven games.
First off, credits go to Overlord who posted a Youtube video on it. Secondly, it's good to see he is using our homegrown Afterburner RTSS overlay ;) Overlord tested 7 games with and without Denovo activated. The results are a bit all over the place. Now, he has been using a Core i7 2600K in combo with a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, that was done on purpose to show a greater effect. 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.
Among the titles tested are: Hitman - Mass Effect: Andromeda - Abzu - Sherlock Holmes the Devil's Daughter - Mad Max - Agents of Mayhem - Sniper Ghost Warrior 3. A few games showed performance drops with Denuvo enabled. Mass Effect: Andromeda dropped 7 FPS towards 57 FPS. Mad Max saw a more meager that was 6 FPS coming from 60. Pretty much all other games including Hitman, Abzu, did not show a significant enough perf difference or scaled negative.
So on a Core i7 2600K with a GTX 1080 ti at worst the performance drop was 10%. While that is noticeable, I wouldn't call it substantial. With a modern age CPU that difference would have been smaller.
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 14205
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 14205
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5572332 Posted on: 08/09/2018 07:28 PM
So pretty much, nothing.
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.
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.
So pretty much, nothing.
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.
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.
Kaaskop
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2013-03-05
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2013-03-05
#5572333 Posted on: 08/09/2018 07:29 PM
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?
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?
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 14205
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 14205
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5572337 Posted on: 08/09/2018 07:39 PM
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?
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-pages/intel-sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600kthe-2018-review-time-for-an-upgrade,1.html
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?
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-pages/intel-sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600kthe-2018-review-time-for-an-upgrade,1.html
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 11941
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 11941
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5572340 Posted on: 08/09/2018 07:44 PM
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.
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.
RealNC
Senior Member
Posts: 2787
Joined: 2011-11-24
Senior Member
Posts: 2787
Joined: 2011-11-24
#5572341 Posted on: 08/09/2018 07:44 PM
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 shit-cake. And IMO, even 1% slower perf is 1% too much. It makes the game objectively worse, since this is now hard data.
As far as removing it goes, GOG is there any usually can get this handled with older games and has been.
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 shit-cake. And IMO, even 1% slower perf is 1% too much. It makes the game objectively worse, since this is now hard data.
Kaaskop
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2013-03-05
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2013-03-05
#5572346 Posted on: 08/09/2018 07:58 PM
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.
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"?
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-pages/intel-sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600kthe-2018-review-time-for-an-upgrade,1.html
"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.
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.
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"?
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-pages/intel-sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600kthe-2018-review-time-for-an-upgrade,1.html
"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.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8447
Joined: 2004-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 8447
Joined: 2004-05-10
#5572353 Posted on: 08/09/2018 08:18 PM
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.
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.
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 14205
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 14205
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5572355 Posted on: 08/09/2018 08:36 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Angantyr
Senior Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 2013-11-23
Senior Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 2013-11-23
#5572357 Posted on: 08/09/2018 08:43 PM
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?
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?
JOHN30011887
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 2014-10-26
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 2014-10-26
#5572361 Posted on: 08/09/2018 09:09 PM
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
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
Kaaskop
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2013-03-05
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2013-03-05
#5572369 Posted on: 08/09/2018 10:03 PM
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.
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.
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.
Stairmand
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 2007-07-25
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 2007-07-25
#5572381 Posted on: 08/09/2018 10:54 PM
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.
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.
Kaaskop
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2013-03-05
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 2013-03-05
#5572387 Posted on: 08/09/2018 11:19 PM
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.
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.
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 6563
Joined: 2011-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 6563
Joined: 2011-07-20
#5572399 Posted on: 08/10/2018 12:38 AM
Look, the 2600 was a great CPU, but it is pretty dated now and worth replacing.
.
for 1 or 2 fps?
Look, the 2600 was a great CPU, but it is pretty dated now and worth replacing.
.
for 1 or 2 fps?
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2787
Joined: 2011-11-24
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.