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, taking results as the average and minimum frame rates.

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

Shadow of Mordor Settings
  Resolution Quality
Low GPU Integrated Graphics 1280x720 Low
ASUS R7 240 1GB DDR3
Medium GPU MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB 1920x1080 Ultra
MSI R9 285 Gaming 2G
High GPU ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB 1920x1080
3840x2160
Ultra
Ultra
MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G

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

Shadow of Mordor on MSI R9 285 Gaming 2GB ($240)

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

Shadow of Mordor on MSI R9 290X Gaming LE 4GB ($380)

Shadow of Mordor on MSI R9 290X Gaming LE 4GB ($380)

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

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

Shadow of Mordor, in all cases except the GTX 770, puts the Pentium ahead of the Carrizo part. In a couple of circumstances, this doesn't matter much, particularly at 4K resolutions with the R9 290X and GTX 980, however at 1080p the Pentium comes out ahead.

Shadow of Mordor on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70) [Minimum FPS]

Shadow of Mordor on MSI R9 285 Gaming 2GB ($240) [Minimum FPS]

Shadow of Mordor on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245) [Minimum FPS]

Shadow of Mordor on MSI R9 290X Gaming LE 4GB ($380) [Minimum FPS]

Shadow of Mordor on MSI R9 290X Gaming LE 4GB ($380) [Minimum FPS]

Shadow of Mordor on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560) [Minimum FPS]

Shadow of Mordor on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560) [Minimum FPS]

Minimum frame rates for Shadow of Mordor are even more in favor of the Pentium here, and with the low-to-mid range graphics cards (R7 240, R9 285, GTX 770) the effect can be up to double the minimum frame rate over the Athlon.

Gaming Comparison: Grid Autosport Power Consumption
POST A COMMENT

131 Comments

View All Comments

  • Meteor2 - Saturday, July 16, 2016 - link

    Thanks. It's a little more complex than i3/5/7-nxxx, where n increments by one each generation... Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, July 18, 2016 - link

    cariizo cores use the excavator design. excavator is core design, carrizo is the product line. Reply
  • Mokona512 - Saturday, July 16, 2016 - link

    Please do this test with the Phenom II series in order to understand the generational IPC changes, and also providing a better point of reference for the Zen CPUs. The Zen claims are based on IPC changes from a CPU series where there was a drop in IPC. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, July 18, 2016 - link

    I recently redid a Phenom X6 in Bench, though that's absolute chip perf and not exactly what you're looking for, but it's there :) Reply
  • Elizabeth king - Sunday, July 17, 2016 - link

    Love spell came out tremendously, I highly recommending robinson.buckler @ yahoo . com for whatever problems you are experiencing in your relationship. He is the real deal. his love spell is absolutely wonderful. Reply
  • lwatcdr - Sunday, July 17, 2016 - link

    I find AMDs low cost offerings really interesting but this just doesn't work for me. The Carrizo on the desktop just seems too limiting. I wish that AMD would update the AM1 line. It is so inexpensive and can support a good number of PCIe lots. For things like a NAS, media pc, or even a Chrome box/low end pc they seem like a really good choice except that they have not been updated in years. Reply
  • silverblue - Monday, July 18, 2016 - link

    Puma+ is kind of like what Atom did with their earlier Atoms, a more efficient version of Jaguar. I'm surprised that they didn't just lock the turbo and produce these in Jaguar's place, unless it's not cost-effective to do so.

    The cat cores are dead now, which is a shame as we never got to see how a dual channel memory interface would improve their performance.
    Reply
  • Eris_Floralia - Monday, July 18, 2016 - link

    Another great review. I've translated all articles about Bulldozer architecture into Chinese in order to let people know why it didn't success. I believe that an eight-core Steamroller or Excavator would be competitive, but that never comes out. Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, July 18, 2016 - link

    it wont be competitive, excavator is still far behind intel is performance and in TDP, and cant overclock at all. And it is still 28nm and cache limited.

    AMD really needs to kill the bulldozer line. It is AMD's netburst.
    Reply
  • Eris_Floralia - Monday, July 18, 2016 - link

    well, with some adjustments, steamroller can still reach high frequency. with additional L3 and larger L2, the problem with excavator may get solved. I mean that latest bulldozer architecture can do better than present piledriver, but the improvement obiviously doesnt worth a try. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now