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. Both the average and minimum frame rates are recorded.

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

GRID: Autosport Settings
  Resolution Quality
Low GPU Integrated Graphics 1920x1080 Medium
ASUS R7 240 1GB DDR3
Medium GPU MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB 1920x1080 Maximum
MSI R9 285 Gaming 2G
High GPU ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB 1920x1080 Maximum
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

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

GRID: Autosport on MSI R9 285 Gaming 2GB ($240)

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

GRID: Autosport on MSI R9 290X Gaming LE 4GB ($380)

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

It would seem that GRID is a repeat of Grand Theft Auto: for AMD cards that are mid-to-high end, the Athlon X4 845 performs at the top of the class, whereas for the NVIDIA cards, performance would suggest to chose the Pentium CPU.

GRID: Autosport on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70) [Minimum FPS]

GRID: Autosport on MSI R9 285 Gaming 2GB ($240) [Minimum FPS]

GRID: Autosport on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245) [Minimum FPS]

GRID: Autosport on MSI R9 290X Gaming LE 4GB ($380) [Minimum FPS]

GRID: Autosport on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560) [Minimum FPS]

The minimum frame rate results also get the same result: AMD + AMD or Intel + NVIDIA.

Gaming Comparison: Grand Theft Auto Gaming Comparison: Shadow of Mordor
POST A COMMENT

131 Comments

View All Comments

  • aryonoco - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    Oh great, another AMD Bulldozer CPU, on 28nm, in 2016.

    I can't even begin to pretend to be enthusiastic about this.

    The only people who will buy this are internet cafe/game centres in developing countries; none of whom care about AT says. I wonder why Ian thought he should spend so much time thoroughly reviewing a part that not one of AT's readers will ever buy.
    Reply
  • Cryio - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    To be fair this is an architecture from 2015 brought to desktops half-hearted and it wasn't released for any good reason IMO.

    Given the improvements Kaveri and Carizzo pose over the previous generations most of the time, if AMD would have released FX CPUs based on Stream Roller and Excavator, we would've got some interesting CPUs.
    Reply
  • kondor999 - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    Oh look, another shitty, hot, antiquated AMD CPU that only (gosh, I can't actually think of anyone) would buy.

    I really wish they'd get their act together. Not necessarily because I'd buy their products, but just to force Intel into giving us more than a 3% (or so) IPC iterative improvement.
    Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    So, if you only want AMD to be competitive so that intel is more competitive, how do you expect them to do that when nobody buys their stuff? R and D needs money. Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    Though temperature readings appear to be a bit hard to come by, the 845 appears to idle at 26 degrees and full load on AIDA64 at 40 degrees which puts it below anything else AMD has, making it comparable to the Pentium G3220 (though the former does have a better cooling solution).

    Source: http://www.eteknix.com/amd-athlon-x4-845-carrizo-p...

    It's up to you whether you want to believe that or not.
    Reply
  • Meteor2 - Saturday, July 16, 2016 - link

    I don't think there's more than 3℅ IPC increase annually available. Apple, ARM, Qualcomm and Intel all seem to be converging at any given power. Reply
  • zodiacfml - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    Waste of time. Yes, it competes with the Pentium, but the Intel chip has integrated graphics which could be useful whether the user has a graphics card or not. Paying more for less.

    Talking about Zen, it will just compete with Haswell generation chips. Intel knew this which is why their tick-tock strategy has slowed down.
    Reply
  • cocochanel - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    Intel didn't slow down because of AMD. It's because of x86. It's harder and harder even for mighty Intel engineers to squeeze more performance from an antiquated ISA. The fact that Zen took so long to get here it's a clear indication of the same. Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, July 18, 2016 - link

    There is no clear indication

    AMD has far fewer resources then intel does, so it makes sense it would take them much longer to make a new CPU arch then intel.

    Intel isnt making any advancements because they have no competition. There may be more performance sitting in their arch they are not using, since there really is no reason to.
    Reply
  • Lolimaster - Saturday, July 16, 2016 - link

    Carrizo totally gimped by l2 cache.

    The problem is that Bristol Ridge comes with the same pathetic 2MB for their 4 cores APU.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now