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

  • happy medium - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    this review could not have purposely made the Ryzen cpu's look any better.
    This site is ruined.
    Reply
  • Drumsticks - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    Care to elaborate? Reply
  • mmegibb - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    This review is consistent with what I saw with the Ryzen 7 reviews on multiple sites. In multi-threaded tests, Ryzen beats Intel because, well, it has more threads. Single thread performance lags Intel. It's up to the user to figure out price/performance for their particular needs.

    I'm with Drumsticks, please elaborate. This kind of drive-by comment does nothing to advance the conversation.

    Anandtech's suite of benchmarks is one of the best.
    Reply
  • fanofanand - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    Not only is Anandtech's benchmark suite the best, Ian is the best CPU reviewer in the business, and quite probably in the world. I would love to know what reviewer out there has a better understanding of uArches and has the experience of a professional overclocker who pushed every component to the limits. Ian's experience and background is ideal to review CPUs, and after having read the entire thing I didn't detect even a whiff of bias. Claims of bias towards AMD at Anandtech, that's a new one to me! Reply
  • ddriver - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    Well, the JS benchmarks are pointless really.

    There is much to be demanded from the benches.

    Too much emphasis put on games, do really 50% of the people use computers primarily for games?

    Too little on practical tests, number crunching tests are with software barely anyone uses.

    People need to see performance in premiere, after effects, cubase, pro tools, vray and similar.

    Bias towards AMD however is hilarious, it is quite the opposite actually.
    Reply
  • th3ron - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    You seem to forget this is a review of $250 budget cpu's. No one's going to be running pro apps like the ones you listed on cpu's like these. The number crunching test are there for comparison with the more expensive cpu's. I don't think anyones ever bought a cpu based on its Winrar score.

    A lot of people will uses these cpu's for gaming so lots of gaming benchmarks make sense.
    Reply
  • ddriver - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    People who use winrar most likely do not make logical considerations, because if they did, they wouldn't be using garbage like winrar.

    It is not a budget product, it is mid-range. And it is perfectly capable of doing a good job in content creation and such at a great value. Most of the software used in this review can barely make use of 4 threads, making such tests 66.66% pointless. Most of the tests that can actually scale to utilize the chip are software barely anyone uses or isn't even practically useful to begin with. And contrary to your beliefs, that doesn't accurately translate into performance in software that people actually use.
    Reply
  • wolfemane - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link

    Get off your high horse. People with midrange CPUs aren't going to use pro software? Are you really serious? I know far more people on i5s and Older AMD CPU's who use premier and after effects. My wife and I use the Adobe suite regularly. Both our systems are running 2500k's. She is photographer and has been using mid-range components for just as long. I've been using premier, after effects, and Adobe media encoder longer than she's been using Photoshop. Adobe makes it pretty cheap to use their software. When they went to a monthly rate for their entire suite with free cloud based storage for $25 a month (I think it's a bit more expensive now) we jumped on it. The cloud storage alone is worth twice that.

    There's no way in hell I'd drop $500+ just on a processor and Intel has made it impossible for mid to low budget builders to afford 6+ cores. But with a pretty quick 6c/12t CPU, I'll be going with AMD for our next range of CPUs, which is coming soon. Sandy bridge is getting old. Just waiting for AM4 mITX.
    Reply
  • calken99 - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 - link

    Are you really telling me that the 70,000 i5 computers in the business that I work don't use any pro applications? That's just one small corporation. Businesses will dwarf the annual sales of CPUs in comparison to the domestic market. Reply
  • Meteor2 - Sunday, April 16, 2017 - link

    I was trying to get some numbers on this. I think consumer computers outnumber corporate by a good two to one. Not sure the average age is that different either -- most places I've seen have been holding on to their PCs for years. Core 2s abound! Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now