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
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


View All Comments

  • Peichen - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    I stopped reading at the messy chart where Athlon X4 750 is available from 2 µArch and there is no science to naming. AMD's CPU division was a bigger failure than its GPU division and it still it. I used to have 3 AMD systems at the same time back in 2005 but have steadily moved away and was considering replacing the last AMD system (Phenom II 840) using Prime Day sales. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    The 750 and 750K are two different SKUs. As mentioned, trying to find the 750 at retail (and in stock) is *really difficult*, and I'd probably point to it being an OEM-only SKU for a certain design. If anyone has a 750/can find one, let me know. Reply
  • artk2219 - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    I found a link for one, but I think its just an OEM one, and it's from Aliexpress, so it may take a while to get to you. I hope I could help!


  • jefeweiss - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    I don't think poignant is the word you are looking for here. That would be something that makes you very sad, or emotionally touches you deeply. Reply
  • wallysb01 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    I guess I don't totally understand the comparison to the G3258. I know its a fairly popular processor (I have its non-overclockable little brother, the G3250, and love it in a simple home office set up that I use occasionally for light gaming too). However, its 2 years old. Where is the G4500 or G4520? Supposedly the skylake Pentium would be about 10% faster than haswell, no? And with some perf/W gains too?

    Speaking of which, where's the comparison to Intel in the power consumption? Do I just not want to see that? If in these multithreaded tasks the 845 is chugging along using 80-85 W, while the Intel parts are still near their stated TDP, it more or less invalidates the small performance gain of the AMD chip in those tasks. Looking back at the skylake review, it seems at load the Intel chips might be using anything from 0-20% more than their TDP, this AMD chip is going 30% above.

    I'd love it if AMD could push intel into offering more cores at lower price points, but this doesn't seem good enough to do that....
  • stardude82 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    Tacking on a G4500 is not terribly pertinent to the task at hand and they are just using archived results here. The comparison from the 2 i3 parts should give you an idea of relative performance. Otherwise, I'm surprised we get such an in depth review from an hollowed out Anandtech.

    You are confusing TDP with total system draw.

    You have a "four core" CPU here for $70, what more do you want? They soundly thrash the dual-core Pentiums and i3s in some well parallelized applications. The problem is the world isn't well parallelized and the CPUs don't have 4 real cores which is why you have i3s still competitive 8 core FX chips.
  • yannigr2 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    WOW. This is an amazing work. It does explain too much about AMD's Bulldozer versions. It does explain why AMD doesn't bother to bring the full Carrizo line in desktop. It does show, at least from my perspective, that Bulldozer architecture was not a bad architecture to begin with, but a dead end from the beginning. Reply
  • artk2219 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    Sigh, poor Llano and your FM1 package, always forgotten. Granted it was the last of the stars cores, and not a bulldozer derivative, but it would still be nice to see it included with its brethren. Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    The last of AMD's good cores. Mobile Llano was fantastic for OCing and undervolting. Reply
  • artk2219 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    Indeed it was/is, my fiance is still using my old Asus K53TA. I overclocked the A6 (back when A6's came with 4 cores) in that laptop to run at 2.4 instead of 1.4 for the base, and the turbo to 3Ghz. while overclocking i was able to undervolt at base clocks, and slightly overvolt the turbo clocks. In effect I got better battery life and waaayyyy better performance by just spending a little time playing with the P-States. I still think thats one of the best laptops I've ever owned in terms of reliability and capability, if only it weren't so clunky. Sigh, well you cant have it all.


Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now