EU5 Benchmark = Measure TRUE CPU Performance: Simulation Time Per Year/Days per Minute ! (Free Marketing)

[Quendi]

Paradox Team,

Proposal: Implement a benchmark that measures SIMULATION SPEED – specifically, how many seconds it takes to simulate a fixed period (e.g., 3 years) at maximum speed. This is the ideal metric for real-time-with-pause games!

Why? This is HUGE Free Advertising & Credibility:

1. Become THE CPU Benchmark: Your games are RARE in being heavily CPU-bound. This instantly makes the EU5 benchmark THE go-to tool for reviewers and gamers testing real-world CPU performance in strategy games.
2. Ubiquity in Reviews: Imagine every single tech site/Youtube channel using the EU5 Paradox Benchmark when reviewing every new CPU. Your logo/game name would be in thousands of reviews, reaching millions.
3. Showcase Engine Power: It directly demonstrates the complexity and power of your new engine – a tech showcase.
4. Solve Player Pain: Gives players a clear tool to diagnose late-game slowdowns (CPU vs GPU bottleneck) and optimize settings/upgrades.
5. Future-Proof: Embed this standard in your new engine for all future titles (Stellaris 2, CK4, etc.).

Why This is Revolutionary (and Free Marketing):​

1. Measures Real Pain Points: Players don’t complain about "low FPS" – they complain about "late-game slowdown." This benchmark shows "X seconds to simulate Y years" – their actual measure of smoothness!
2. Unique & Meaningful: No other major game benchmarks like this. "EU5’s 3-Year Simulation Time" will become a famous CPU metric, showcasing how processors handle heavy strategy simulation.
3. Tech Review Dominance: Every hardware reviewer will use it. Imagine headlines:
   "New Ryzen 9 Crushes Intel... in EU5 Benchmark (Only 238 sec for 3 years!)".
   Your game & engine featured in EVERY CPU review!
4. Simple & Tangible: Results like "238 seconds for 3 years" or "Avg. 276 days/minute" are instantly understandable and comparable , better than "average FPS" .
5. Live Metrics:Display during benchmark:
   • Simulating year: [time] sec (core metric!)
   • Avg. days simulated per minute (e.g., "276 days/s = smooth")
   • CPU/GPU utilization %

How It Works:​

• User selects a time period (e.g., 2, 5, or 10 years) and starting era (1337 or late save = heavier simulation!).
• Benchmark runs the game at MAX SPEED, disabling menus/pausing, and measures TOTAL REAL-TIME needed to simulate the period.
• Result: Clear output: "5 years simulated in [X] seconds" + "Avg. [Y] days/minute". Exportable data.

Why Simulation Time > FPS:​

• FPS in pausable RTS is volatile (spikes during menus/pausing).
• "Simulation Time" directly measures the core Paradox engine performance – AI, economy, diplomacy, warfare logistics.

The Marketing Goldmine:​

This isn’t just a benchmark – it’s Paradox’s tech flagship.

• Becomes the DEFACTO STANDARD for CPU reviews of strategy/Sim-heavy workloads.
• Your game title + engine featured globally in hardware articles/videos.
• Proves Paradox’s mastery of complex simulation tech.

Zero marketing cost. Infinite visibility. Industry leadership cemented.

 

[Sindai]

You literally can't do this without the "benchmark" being pretty much the entire game, since performance is affected by everything in the game sim. Locations, pops, events, AI, army pathfinding, everything.

Graphics benchmarking is different since you just need to include a representative level, or some cells of an open world.

 

[MegaVHS]

Stellaris is used for this type of benchmark, would be good to have a dedicated "benchmark" that runs the world in a uniform way, for players and for the "marketing" OP commented about.

 

[myrogia]

Meiou and Taxes is the Crysis of map game benchmarks

 

[Knarraldin]

You literally can't do this without the "benchmark" being pretty much the entire game, since performance is affected by everything in the game sim. Locations, pops, events, AI, army pathfinding, everything.

Graphics benchmarking is different since you just need to include a representative level, or some cells of an open world.

I think you could probably make it work by making a special benchmark mode that runs a script generated from the first 5 years of the game being simulated while the player is in observer mode. It wouldn't be perfectly accurate because every decision would have to check what it was supposed to select before it actually selected something, and you would also have to store this somehow (so it would probably be a pretty big file), but once you had done so it would probably be relatively simple to keep functional.

It wouldn't be zero cost, though. Dev time would have to go into this. If it's not there already, then it really shouldn't be a release goal.

 

[NosgothKingdom]

Nexus had Stellaris on their 9800x3d benchmark and it was "simulation time", but they must have done it manually and TBH I did not understand exactly how they calculated it based on the video.

I have done it manually when I upgraded my PC with Stellaris, EU4 and TW Warhammer 3. I aggree that an official benchmark would be very helpful and would likely put EU5 on all CPU reviews.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Every CPU review that uses this instantly goes out of date when EU5 updates.

 

[Jarvin]

I think you could probably make it work by making a special benchmark mode that runs a script generated from the first 5 years of the game being simulated while the player is in observer mode. It wouldn't be perfectly accurate because every decision would have to check what it was supposed to select before it actually selected something, and you would also have to store this somehow (so it would probably be a pretty big file), but once you had done so it would probably be relatively simple to keep functional.

So we're benchmarking simulation speed... by running a pre-generated script of the simulation

At which point we're probably testing the I/O bottlenecking more than anything else

 

[Quendi]

EU5's new engine will likely power all future Paradox titles (Stellaris 2, CK4, etc.). Here’s why you should build in a simple, repeatable benchmark tool – it’s a game-changer for players AND marketing:

1. ️ Clausewitz Engine = Universal Paradox Game Benchmark:
   This isn't just for EU5. Embed a standardized benchmark in the new engine, and it becomes the defacto CPU-testing tool for every future Paradox game – showcasing your tech for years.
2. Unique, Meaningful Metric (Free Press!):
   Measure "Days Simulated Per Minute" at MAX speed (e.g., "238days/min").
   → No other major game benchmarks this! Tech reviewers will JUMP at a tool measuring true strategy-game performance, not just FPS. It fills a huge gap.
3. Free Marketing = Cyberpunk 2077-Style Impact:
   Imagine: *"CPU ... Review: Crushing EU5's Days-Per-Minute Benchmark!"*
   → This becomes your "Path Tracing/DLSS" moment. Constant visibility in CPU/GPU reviews = endless free ads for EU5 and your engine.
4. Future-Proof & Standardized:
   Benchmarks always use the latest patches/drivers.
   → Engine updates? No problem! Reviewers will re-test with the newest optimized version, keeping results relevant and highlighting engine improvements.
5. Win-Win: Players & Paradox Benefit:
   → Players: Diagnose late-game lag, compare CPUs, optimize settings.
   → Paradox: Massive brand exposure, proven tech leadership, potential sales boost from performance-hungry strategy fans.
   → "Days-Per-Minute" becomes THE metric for Paradox performance.

Do it. It’s low-cost, high-impact tech marketing. Let EU5 set the standard.
Every benchmark chart featuring your engine is free global advertising.

 

[MasterPaw]

EU5's new engine will likely power all future Paradox titles (Stellaris 2, CK4, etc.). Here’s why you should build in a simple, repeatable benchmark tool – it’s a game-changer for players AND marketing:

Is it a new engine?
Even if that's the case, I assume it would evolve with each game

I am ignorant how benchmark reviews work, but redoing every benchmark with each update of the game/engine sounds like a nightmare

Is there any example of videogame having made good marketing from a benchmark?
To me it wouldn't have that much marketing impact

Also I'm not sure how appealing eu5 would be for manufacturers, or even if eu5 wants to be categorizes as a heavy consumer of CPU rather than trying to be optimized

Day per minute metric only make sense for game using days with the same amount of ticks, which is unlikely to be widespread similarity

 

[Lord Lambert]

Is it a new engine?

No.

I assume it would evolve with each game

Basically this. PDX has been using Clauswitz for a while now, and since Imperator they've been using the "Jomini" layer ontop of it. But every game comes with little updates and changes to better suit the game. Its still all Clauswitz, and since Imperator (and including EU5) it's all still Jomini.

The engine isn't new... it's just getting updated with a new game exactly as normal.

 

[NosgothKingdom]

Every CPU review that uses this instantly goes out of date when EU5 updates.

Not all updates will significantly affect performance and more importantly affect performance relatively between products. And why does it matter? It is true for all benchmarks for all games as all games are constantly being updated. So what is your point, nobody should benchmark anything ever?

Regardless the reviewers I follow redo tests for comparison products whenever they are reviweing a new product (and usually it does not change anything).

 

[Quendi]

The ONLY Benchmark That Matters for Strategy Games​

No other RTS/GSG measures raw simulation speed. Not Civilization (turns), not Total War (FPS), not Stellaris (yet).

Paradox’s Opportunity:
A 1-click benchmark in EU5 that outputs:

“Avg. Y days/minute” (like FPS/sec for GPU)

…would instantly become the GO-TO CPU TEST for:

• Hardware reviewers (needing repeatable, real-world metrics),
• Players (diagnosing late-game lag),
• Tech sites (starved for strategy-game benchmarks).

Why?
Zero competition in this niche.
One click = instant result (no complex setup).
Finally quantifies what actually bogs down Paradox games.

Do this, and EU5 dominates every CPU review for a decade.

 

[Quendi]

I’m upgrading my PC this year primarily for Europa Universalis V, AI workloads, and Unreal Engine 5 games – and I’ve hit a massive frustration: There’s ZERO reliable data on how different CPUs perform in Paradox titles.

The Problem:​

1. CPU Black Box:
   We’re forced to rely on makeshift community benchmarks (like Nexus’ tests) to guess performance. There are no official tools measuring what matters: simulation speed (e.g., days processed per minute).
2. EU5’s Dual Demands:
   • Brutal CPU Load: The game simulates entire populations + dynamic trade systems – a giant leap in complexity over EU4.
   • ️ Heavy GPU Needs: The new 3D map and visuals will push graphics cards harder than any previous Paradox title.
3. The Domino Effect:
   If EU5 succeeds (and I believe it will), future Paradox games (Stellaris 2, CK4) will adopt this deep, realistic simulation model. Without benchmarks, we’re blindly buying hardware.

The Solution for Paradox:​

A built-in benchmark that measures:

• CPU: "Days per minute" metric.
• GPU: Stress test with the new map (e.g., FPS at 4K with crowds/trade routes).

Why This Matters NOW:​

• I’m spending $2,000+ on a new rig targeting EU5. Should I buy an X3D CPU? 32GB or 64GB RAM? Without data, I’m gambling.
• Paradox’s unique "simulation-first" design deserves unique metrics – not just FPS counters made for shooters.

Paradox, you’re pioneering a new era of GSGs. Give us the tools to experience them properly.

 

[Lord Lambert]

I’m upgrading my PC this year primarily for Europa Universalis V, AI workloads, and Unreal Engine 5 games – and I’ve hit a massive frustration: There’s ZERO reliable data on how different CPUs perform in Paradox titles.

The Problem:​

1. CPU Black Box:
   We’re forced to rely on makeshift community benchmarks (like Nexus’ tests) to guess performance. There are no official tools measuring what matters: simulation speed (e.g., days processed per minute).
2. EU5’s Dual Demands:
   • Brutal CPU Load: The game simulates entire populations + dynamic trade systems – a giant leap in complexity over EU4.
   • ️ Heavy GPU Needs: The new 3D map and visuals will push graphics cards harder than any previous Paradox title.
3. The Domino Effect:
   If EU5 succeeds (and I believe it will), future Paradox games (Stellaris 2, CK4) will adopt this deep, realistic simulation model. Without benchmarks, we’re blindly buying hardware.

The Solution for Paradox:​

A built-in benchmark that measures:

• CPU: "Days per minute" metric.
• GPU: Stress test with the new map (e.g., FPS at 4K with crowds/trade routes).

Why This Matters NOW:​

• I’m spending $2,000+ on a new rig targeting EU5. Should I buy an X3D CPU? 32GB or 64GB RAM? Without data, I’m gambling.
• Paradox’s unique "simulation-first" design deserves unique metrics – not just FPS counters made for shooters.

Paradox, you’re pioneering a new era of GSGs. Give us the tools to experience them properly.

are you a bot? Just posting the same shit again and again without actually engaging with the feedback to your post?

 

[Quendi]

I use AI to write in english without error.

Which doesn't change the fact that no strategy game has a CPU benchmark and for me the only games that matter are Paradox games, mainly EU 5 and Stellaris.

 

[Jarvin]

I use AI to write in english without error.

Errors are honestly more preferable to this.
And you will learn by forcing yourself to write in English over having AI spew a bunch of weird bullcrap

 

[Knarraldin]

So we're benchmarking simulation speed... by running a pre-generated script of the simulation

At which point we're probably testing the I/O bottlenecking more than anything else

You could probably load the script in memory and it wouldn't be a problem, you just need something to make the simulation deterministic rather than randomized so the results are reliable from run to run. Otherwise, your results will be affected by randomness and therefore be less reliable because you have hardware randomness on top of software randomness. As long as you can make the I/O not the primary bottleneck, it should be fine.

 

[Ekyman]

I use AI to write in english without error.

I think most people would prefer you write in your native language and use an AI translator instead of using AI to generate the whole post. We’d get something that reads like your own thoughts instead of what reads sort of like generic overhyped marketing text, that some people are gonna gloss over because it’s so obviously AI.

But regardless, using AI to write the post isn’t a reason to post essentially the same thing over and over instead of participating in the discussion.

 

[Knarraldin]

I use AI to write in english without error.

Which doesn't change the fact that no strategy game has a CPU benchmark and for me the only games that matter are Paradox games, mainly EU 5 and Stellaris.

It might be legible and understandable but that does not mean it is without error, and if you can't understand the language people are using to respond to you, then you will not be able to engage in any meaningful conversation. This is an English language forum. All posts here are made in English. You may be fairly excited about the game and you may want to engage with the community, but I'm afraid the primary barrier to entry is understanding the language people use to communicate in said community.

Instead of relying on tools to convert everything to your native language so you can read a pale bastardization of what was actually said, and using the same tools to convert your posts in your native language to the foreign one you don't understand to do the same, if you really are interested in communicating here, you should simply start learning English.