GPU Tests: Rocket League (1080p, 4K)

GTX 1080

(1080p) GTX 1080: Rocket League, Average Frame Rate(1080p) GTX 1080: Rocket League, 99th Percentile(1080p) GTX 1080: Rocket League, Time Under 90 FPS(4K) GTX 1080: Rocket League, Average Frame Rate(4K) GTX 1080: Rocket League, 99th Percentile(4K) GTX 1080: Rocket League, Time Under 60 FPS

1060

(1080p) GTX 1060: Rocket League, Average Frame Rate(1080p) GTX 1060: Rocket League, 99th Percentile(1080p) GTX 1060: Rocket League, Time Under 60 FPS(4K) GTX 1060: Rocket League, Average Frame Rate(4K) GTX 1060: Rocket League, 99th Percentile(4K) GTX 1060: Rocket League, Time Under 30 FPS

R9 Fury

(1080p) R9 Fury: Rocket League, Average Frame Rate(1080p) R9 Fury: Rocket League, 99th Percentile(1080p) R9 Fury: Rocket League, Time Under 120 FPS(4K) R9 Fury: Rocket League, Average Frame Rate(4K) R9 Fury: Rocket League, 99th Percentile(4K) R9 Fury: Rocket League, Time Under 60 FPS

RX 480

(1080p) RX 480: Rocket League, Average Frame Rate(1080p) RX 480: Rocket League, 99th Percentile(1080p) RX 480: Rocket League, Time Under 120 FPS(4K) RX 480: Rocket League, Average Frame Rate(4K) RX 480: Rocket League, 99th Percentile(4K) RX 480: Rocket League, Time Under 60 FPS

GPU Tests: Rise of the Tomb Raider DX12 (1080p, 4K) GPU Tests: Grand Theft Auto DX11 (1080p, 4K)
Comments Locked

254 Comments

View All Comments

  • SkipPerk - Wednesday, May 3, 2017 - link

    These are low-end CPU's. People use those for gaming and web-surfing. I have a proper Xeon machine at work like a normal person. Not to mention, you reference video software. What tiny percentage of computer users ever own or use video software? That is a tiny industry. It reminds me of the silly youtube reviews where the reviewer assumes everyone is editing videos, when less than one percent of us will ever do so.

    Most people buying non-Xeon CPU's really will be using basic software (MS Office, WinZip,...) or games. The only time I have used non-Xeon CPU's for work was when I had software that loved clock speed. Then I got a bunch of 6-core's and overclocked them (it was funny to watch the guys at Microcenter as I bought ten $1k CPUs and cheesy AIO water coolers). Otherwise one uses the right tool for the job.
  • AndrewJacksonZA - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    On the last page, "On The Benchmark Results"
    "Looking at the results, it’s hard to notice the effect that 12 threads has on multithreaded CPU tests."
    Don't you mean that it's NOT hard to notice?
  • Drumsticks - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I didn't see the 7600k in gaming benchmarks, was that a mistake/not ready, or is it on purpose?

    Thanks for the review guys! This new benchmark suite looks phenomenal!
  • mmegibb - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I was disappointed not to see the i5-7600k in the gaming benchmarks. Perhaps it wouldn't be much different than the i5-7600, but I have sometimes seen a difference. For my next build, it's looking like it's between the 1600x and the 7600k.
  • fanofanand - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    "Platform wise, the Intel side can offer more features on Z270 over AM4"

    Aside from Optane support, what does Z270 offer that AM4 doesn't?
  • MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    Z270 has more PCIe lanes off the chipset for controllers and such that AM4 does not
  • fanofanand - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I won't disagree with that, but I'm not sure a few extra pci-e lanes is considered a feature. Features are typically something like M.2 support, built-in wifi, things like that. The extra pci-e lanes allows for MORE connected devices, but is a few extra pci-e lanes really considered a feature anymore? With Optane being worthless for 99.99999% of consumers, I'm just not seeing where Z270 gives more for the extra money.
  • JasonMZW20 - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    Let's do a rundown:

    Ryzen + X370
    20 (3.0) + 8 (2.0)
    Platform usable total: 28

    Core i7 + Z270
    16 + 14 (all 3.0)
    Platform usable total: 30

    Intel's Z270 spec sheet is a little disingenuous, as yes it does have a maximum of 24 lanes, but 10 are reserved for actual features like SATA and USB 2.0/3.x. 14 can be used by a consumer, giving you a total of 2 NVMe x4 + 1 NVMe x2 leaving x4 for other things like actual PCIe slots. That 3rd NVMe slot may share PCIe lanes with a PCIe add-in slot, if configured that way.

    Ryzen PCIe config (20 lanes): 1x16, 2x8 for graphics and x4 NVMe (or x2 SATA when NVMe is not used)

    Core i7 config (16 lanes): 1x16, 2x8, or 1x8+2x4 for graphics

    They're actually pretty comparable.
  • mat9v - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    No, not more PCIEx lines, those from chipset are virtual, they all go to CPU through DMI bus that is equivalent to (at best) 4 lines of PCIEx 3.0. All those chips (Intel and AMD) offer 16 lines from CPU for graphic card, but Zen also offers 4 lines for NVMe. Chipsets are connected by DMI (in Intel) and 4 lines of PCIEx 3.0 (in AMD), so that is equal, now Intel from those DMI lines offer virtual 24 lines of PCIEx 3.0 (a laugh and half) while AMD quite correctly offers 8 lines of PCIEx 2.0 (equivalent to 4 lines of PCIEx 3.0).
  • psychobriggsy - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link

    Indeed. If a user is going to need more than that, they're more likely going to be plumping for a HEDT system anyway. AMD's solution is coming in a bit, but that should be able to ramp up the IO significantly.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now