Gaming Performance 2015

Alien: Isolation

If first person survival mixed with horror is your sort of thing, then Alien: Isolation, based off of the Alien franchise, should be an interesting title. Developed by The Creative Assembly and released in October 2014, Alien: Isolation has won numerous awards from Game Of The Year to several top 10s/25s and Best Horror titles, ratcheting up over a million sales by February 2015. Alien: Isolation uses a custom built engine which includes dynamic sound effects and should be fully multi-core enabled.

For low end graphics, we test at 720p with Ultra settings, whereas for mid and high range graphics we bump this up to 1080p, taking the average frame rate as our marker with a scripted version of the built-in benchmark.

Alien Isolation on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70)

Alien Isolation on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

Alien Isolation on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

Total War: Attila

The Total War franchise moves on to Attila, another The Creative Assembly development, and is a stand-alone strategy title set in 395AD where the main story line lets the gamer take control of the leader of the Huns in order to conquer parts of the world. Graphically the game can render hundreds/thousands of units on screen at once, all with their individual actions and can put some of the big cards to task.

For low end graphics, we test at 720p with performance settings, recording the average frame rate. With mid and high range graphics, we test at 1080p with the quality setting. In both circumstances, unlimited video memory is enabled and the in-game scripted benchmark is used.

Total War: Attila on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70)

Total War: Attila on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

Total War: Attila on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

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. For low end systems we test at 720p on the lowest settings, whereas mid and high end graphics play at 1080p with very high settings across the board. We record both the average frame rate and the percentage of frames under 60 FPS (16.6ms).

Grand Theft Auto V on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70)

Grand Theft Auto V on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

Grand Theft Auto V on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

GRID: Autosport

No graphics tests are complete without some input from Codemasters and the EGO engine, which means for this round of testing we point towards GRID: Autosport, the next iteration in the GRID and racing genre. As with our previous racing testing, each update to the engine aims to add in effects, reflections, detail and realism, with Codemasters making ‘authenticity’ a main focal point for this version.

GRID’s benchmark mode is very flexible, and as a result we created a test race using a shortened version of the Red Bull Ring with twelve cars doing two laps. The car is focus starts last and is quite fast, but usually finishes second or third. For low end graphics we test at 1080p medium settings, whereas mid and high end graphics get the full 1080p maximum. Both the average and minimum frame rates are recorded.

GRID: Autosport on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70)

GRID: Autosport on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

GRID: Autosport on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

Middle-Earth: Shadows of Mordor

The final title in our testing is another battle of system performance with the open world action-adventure title, Shadows of Mordor. Produced by Monolith using the LithTech Jupiter EX engine and numerous detail add-ons, SoM goes for detail and complexity to a large extent, despite having to be cut down from the original plans. The main story itself was written by the same writer as Red Dead Redemption, and it received Zero Punctuation’s Game of The Year in 2014.

For testing purposes, SoM gives a dynamic screen resolution setting, allowing us to render at high resolutions that are then scaled down to the monitor. As a result, we get several tests using the in-game benchmark. For low end graphics we examine at 720p with low settings, whereas mid and high end graphics get 1080p Ultra. The top graphics test is also redone at 3840x2160, also with Ultra settings, and we also test two cards at 4K where possible.

Shadows of Mordor on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70)

Shadows of Mordor on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

Shadows of Mordor on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

Shadows of Mordor on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

Shadows of Mordor on 2x ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

CPU Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

57 Comments

View All Comments

  • s0urce - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    View that users post history, clearly a novice OCer. Shit can happen when you OC, especially when you're using the jumper setting to allow such high voltage (which he used, and is not necessary). I'm running the x99 Sabertooth without a hitch. Great board, there will always be noobs.
  • Achaios - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    If you had bothered to read the thread you'd realize that several different people had their CPUs destroyed by an ASUS X99 motherboard, including -but not limited to- Poster "66racer" an overclock.net Moderator and longtime overclocker.

    I believe that around 10 different people have had their CPUs destroyed by an ASUS X99 motherboard in that thread alone and dozens more in other forums all over the internet.
  • sonny73n - Friday, July 24, 2015 - link

    "novice OCer" hmm... Nowhere on ASUS website or any MB manufacturer's site that I can see their MBs with OCing capabilities are built only for professional OCers and you were once also a noob.

    OCing is about trials and failures, often ends in frustration, to where you get that sweet spot between performance and temp with stability. MB makers should make sure it'll be safe for OCers to try new settings without frying other components.

    I'm wondering why ASUS even have jumpers for CPU voltage increment while they have DIGI VRM (Digital Voltage Regulator Module) which can be controlled via software? And why would they allow such extreme voltage pumps into the CPU on this board which is 1.825v?

    Despite some flaw and if money isn't a factor, I would still prefer ASUS's over any other MB.
  • Makaveli - Wednesday, July 22, 2015 - link

    The x99 chipset hasn't even been out a year.

    "i have SIX asus X99 boards and they run flawless for years"

    do you have a time machine?
  • sonny73n - Wednesday, July 22, 2015 - link

    Haha... Good one.
  • sonny73n - Wednesday, July 22, 2015 - link

    "i have SIX asus X99 boards and they run flawless for years."
    What a big fat lie! Lol

    Since 2002 I've only built systems with Intel CPUs so I can't speak for AMD's. As far as I know, it's nearly impossible to kill modern Intel CPUs by overclocking, even for an amateur, because Intel have excellent safety measures for their CPUs. Sometimes the system won't even boot if you had some crazy settings, unless there's a design flaw with the motherboard. Moreover, Asus have their Ai overclock settings in most of their MBs and some overclockers probably tried that with too high of settings and fried their CPUs.

    I'm an addict when it comes to overclocking and I think "easy" or "1-click" overclocks that come with the BIOS for general CPUs aren't good enough. Especially when it automatically provides the voltage it thinks necessary for the CPU frequency I set. Nevertheless, CPU should not be fried when AI OC settings is used, regardless how ridiculous the settings are, because after all, the MB manufacturers are the ones who put those settings in there, they should have safety measures and they're also the ones who designed voltage regulations for the CPUs. So, when an OCer fries the CPU with MB settings, it's clearly the MB fault.
  • extide - Wednesday, July 22, 2015 - link

    Uhh you can EASILY fry a chip with too much voltage.
  • tabascosauz - Wednesday, July 22, 2015 - link

    AI Tweaker is pretty questionable. A friend had a 3570K on a stock cooler; AI Tweaker applied some pretty high voltages to achieve 4.2GHz, and by the time he reported it to me his 3570K was in the deep fryer nearing 100°C and his VRMs were burning up (he had an LE board so only half the MOSFETs had a heatsink). I wouldn't trust Asus' OC software with any of my CPUs.
  • tabascosauz - Wednesday, July 22, 2015 - link

    Also, once you get far enough past 1.5V, it can be an insta kill for any Haswell CPU.
  • sonny73n - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link

    No one can apply 110V to the CPU via the MB, can't they? What I'm saying is MB manufacturers should always consider Intel specs and limit OCing voltages in their softwares. Just leave the rest for the CPU which will throttle or shut down when temp hits around 100C (95 to 105C). That's pretty safe bet to me.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now