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)
POST A COMMENT

255 Comments

View All Comments

  • Phiro69 - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    Thank you Ian!
    Maybe at some point as part of your benchmark description you have a url to a page showing basic (e.g. exactly the level of information you provided above but not step by step hand holding) benchmark setup instructions. I know I wonder if I've configured my builds correctly when I put together new systems; I buy the parts based on benchmarks but I don't ever really validate they perform at that level/I have things set correctly.
    Reply
  • qupada - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I was curious about this too. Obviously a direct comparison between your Windows test and my Linux one is going to be largely meaningless but I felt the need to try anyway. Since Linux is all I have, this is what we get.

    My Haswell-EP Xeon E5-1660v3 - approximately an i7-5960X with ECC RAM, and that CPU seems to be oft-compared to the 1800X you have put in your results - clocks in at 78:36 to compile Chromium (59.0.3063.4), or 18.31 compiles per day (hoorah for the pile of extra money I spent on it resulting in such a small performance margin). However that's for the entire process, from unpacking the tarball, compiling, then tarring and compressing the compiled result. My machine is running Gentoo, it was 'time emerge -OB chromium' (I didn't feel like doing it manually to get just the compile). Am I reading right you've used the result of timing the 'ninja' compile step only?

    I only ask because there definitely could be other factors in play for this one - for the uninitiated reading this comment, Chromium is a fairly massive piece of software, the source tar.xz file for the version I tried is 496MB (decompressing to 2757MB), containing around 28,000 directories and a shade under 210,000 files. At that scale, filesystem cache is definitely going to come into play, I would probably expect a slightly different result for a freshly rebooted machine versus one where the compile was timed immediately after unpacking the source code and it was still in RAM (obviously less of a difference on an SSD, but probably still not none).

    It is an interesting test metric though, and again I haven't done this on WIndows, but there is a chunk in the middle of the process that seems to be single-threaded on a Linux compile (probably around 10% of the total wall clock time), so it is actually quite nice that it will benefit from both multi-core and single-core performance and boost clocks.

    Also with a heavily multi-threaded process of that sort of duration, probably a great test of how long you get before thermal throttling starts to hurt you. I have to admit I'm cheating a bit by watercooling mine (not overclocked though) so it'll happily run 3.3GHz on a base clock of 3.0 across all eight cores for hours on end at around ~45°C/115°F.
    Reply
  • rarson - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    14393.969 was released March 20th, any reason you didn't use that build? Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Friday, April 14, 2017 - link

    Because my OS is already locked down for the next 12-18 months of testing. Reply
  • Konobi - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I don't know what's up with those FPS number in rocket league 1080p. I have ye olde FX-8350 @ 4.8GHz and a GTX 1070 @ 2.1GHz and I get 244fps max and 230FPS average at 1080p Ultra. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I'm running a 4x4 bot match on Aquadome. Automated inputs to mimic gameplay and camera switching / tricks, FRAPS over 4 minutes of a match. Reply
  • jfmonty2 - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link

    Why Aquadome specifically? It's been criticized for performance issues compared to most of the other maps in the game, although the most recent update has improved that. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Friday, April 14, 2017 - link

    On the basis that it's the most strenuous map to test on. Lowest common denominator and all that. Reply
  • Adam Saint - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    "Looking at the results, it’s hard to notice the effect that 12 threads has on multithreaded CPU tests"

    Perhaps you mean *not* hard to notice? :)
    Reply
  • coder543 - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    I agree. That was also confusing. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now