Grand Theft Auto V

The highly anticipated iteration of the Grand Theft Auto franchise finally hit the shelves on April 14th 2015, with both AMD and NVIDIA in tow to help optimize the title. GTA doesn’t provide graphical presets, but opens up the options to users and extends the boundaries by pushing even the hardest systems to the limit using Rockstar’s Advanced Game Engine. Whether the user is flying high in the mountains with long draw distances or dealing with assorted trash in the city, when cranked up to maximum it creates stunning visuals but hard work for both the CPU and the GPU.

For our test we have scripted a version of the in-game benchmark, relying only on the final part which combines a flight scene along with an in-city drive-by followed by a tanker explosion. We record both the average frame rate and the percentage of frames under 60 FPS (16.6ms).

For this test we used the following settings with our graphics cards:

Grand Theft Auto Settings
  Resolution Quality
Low GPU Integrated Graphics 1280x720 Lowest
ASUS R7 240 1GB DDR3
Medium GPU MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB 1920x1080 Very High
MSI R9 285 Gaming 2G
High GPU ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB 1920x1080 Very High
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

Integrated Graphics

Grand Theft Auto V on Integrated Graphics

Grand Theft Auto V on Integrated Graphics [Under 60 FPS]

The APUs take a large, almost double FPS lead for average frame rates, and again the Core i3 staircase shows that the L3 cache makes a difference. On the Low FPS graph, we see that none of the Intel CPUs make it above 60 FPS at any point, whereas the APUs can expect to see 15-30% of their time at or above 60 FPS.

Discrete Graphics

Grand Theft Auto V on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70) Grand Theft Auto V on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70) [Under 60 FPS]

Grand Theft Auto V on MSI R9 285 Gaming 2GB ($240) Grand Theft Auto V on MSI R9 285 Gaming 2GB ($240) [Under 60 FPS]

Grand Theft Auto V on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245) Grand Theft Auto V on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245) [Under 60 FPS]

Grand Theft Auto V on MSI R9 290X Gaming LE 4GB ($380) Grand Theft Auto V on MSI R9 290X Gaming LE 4GB ($380) [Under 60 FPS]

Grand Theft Auto V on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560) Grand Theft Auto V on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560) [Under 60 FPS]

It's an onslaught of data, but clicking through to each graph will expand it in finer detail.

Again, with a discrete GPU, the Core i3s sit very pretty at the top of our graphs. In most cases, against similarly priced AMD CPUs, they can be from 5% to 20% quicker in average frame rates - the higher power the GPU, the more that it matters.

An interesting graph is the final one, with the GTX 980 and lookng at the percentage of frames over 16.6ms (i.e., the percentage time the game spends under 60 FPS). With the Core i3 parts, the game spends at least 50% of its time above 60 FPS running at 1080p Very High settings, however with similarly priced AMD APUs, this drops down to 15-25%. While running at V-Sync, this will be noticable. The FX CPUs get a better showing with the GTX 980, with the FX-6350 and the FX-8350 straddling the Core i3s for average frame rates and the 60 FPS metric.

Gaming Comparison: Total War: Attila Gaming Comparison: Grid Autosport
Comments Locked

94 Comments

View All Comments

  • junky77 - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    No DX12 comparison?
  • Meteor2 - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    Another good point!
  • BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    Ian mentioned in the article that they're still using their 2015 game benchmark suite for this review. I would expect AT's 2016 benchmark list, once finalized, will include more DX12 titles. I'm not sure when those benchmarks are normally confirmed since I've never really given it much thought, but as we're wading into August, one would hope that the 2016 list will be as forward-looking as possible. However, they'll probably need to keep something from the 2015 list in order to have a comparative basis for new and old products. It's also important to retain a DX11 title or two as the older version of the API is very much alive and well at the moment.
  • jeffry - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    I think if your running an oced Sandy-Bridge (2500K) and you use your pc for gaming, its not worth the upgrade cost. Perhaps its worth to upgrade for the very high-end games with maxed out resolution and graphics features, but then id not pick an i3 (-> i7 instead).

    If you run simulations or any kind of HPC, you most likely have another setup anyways.
  • jeffry - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    95% of all pp are shopping on a budget anyways, so i would spend my bucks on a new GPU instead of CPU, eg AMD Polaris or Nvidia Pascal GPU.
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNjT5R5XI4 You can get quite a few frames more with a modern, equally overclocked CPU. If you have the budget or get a good deal, an i7-3770k seems to be a good upgrade without having to get a completely new system with motherboard and RAM. Can be the difference between 45fps and 60fps.
  • Voldenuit - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    Thanks for the review Ian.

    A bit perplexed at the choice of GPUs and CPUs and game titles tested in this review.

    The Core i5-2500K is a natural point of comparison since so many people are still on it. Though they are unlikely to switch to an i3 Skylake, still a useful comparison for a data point.

    Those GPUs are really old. Someone building a new Skylake system would most likely be getting a 480 or 1060. Also, it would be useful to know if the i3 is bottlenecking games from reaching high framerates on 120/144 Hz monitors.

    Which brings us to the choice of games. Following (in my opinion, somewhat dubious) claims by various youtube reviewers that even a skylake i5 is not sufficient for 144 Hz gaming, I'd like to know if an i3 is a bottleneck on games where framerates matter: Overwatch, DOOM, Crysis 3, Battlefield 4, etc. As well as games that stress the number of CPU cores like AOTS, TW:WH, etc.
  • Icehawk - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link

    They run their benches w/o V-sync... so monitor Hz doesn't matter, you can see the maximum frame rates.

    I agree, some slightly newer GPUs would be good - at least a 470 or something.
  • leopard_jumps - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    i3 6100 + RX 470 4GB ($200) will make $550 gaming PC
  • leopard_jumps - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link

    PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/gfHsXH
    Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/gfHsXH/by_merchant/

    CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($110.99 @ SuperBiiz)
    Motherboard: ASRock Z170M Pro4S Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($77.98 @ Newegg)
    Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2800 Memory ($40.98 @ Newegg)
    GPU Asus Strix RX 470 4GB - $200
    Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.49 @ OutletPC)
    Case: Deepcool TESSERACT SW ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ SuperBiiz)
    Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($43.99 @ SuperBiiz)
    Total: $561.42
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-08-15 13:01 EDT-0400

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now