Shadow of Mordor

The next title in our testing is a battle of system performance with the open world action-adventure title, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (SoM for short). Produced by Monolith and using the LithTech Jupiter EX engine and numerous detail add-ons, SoM goes for detail and complexity. 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.

A 2014 game is fairly old to be testing now, however SoM has a stable code and player base, and can still stress a PC down to the ones and zeroes. At the time, SoM was unique, offering a dynamic screen resolution setting allowing users to render at high resolutions that are then scaled down to the monitor. This form of natural oversampling was designed to let the user experience a truer vision of what the developers wanted, assuming you had the graphics hardware to power it but had a sub-4K monitor.

The title has an in-game benchmark, for which we run with an automated script implement the graphics settings, select the benchmark, and parse the frame-time output which is dumped on the drive. The graphics settings include standard options such as Graphical Quality, Lighting, Mesh, Motion Blur, Shadow Quality, Textures, Vegetation Range, Depth of Field, Transparency and Tessellation. There are standard presets as well.

We run the benchmark at 1080p and a native 4K, using our 4K monitors, at the Ultra preset. Results are averaged across four runs and we report the average frame rate, 99th percentile frame rate, and time under analysis. 

For all our results, we show the average frame rate at 1080p first. Mouse over the other graphs underneath to see 99th percentile frame rates and 'Time Under' graphs, as well as results for other resolutions. All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance


1080p

4K

ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire R9 Fury 4GB Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire RX 480 8GB Performance


1080p

4K

Shadow of Mordor Conclusions

Again, a win across the board for Intel, with the Core i7 taking the top spot in pretty much every scenario. AMD isn't that far behind for the most part.

Gaming Performance: Ashes of the Singularity Escalation (1080p, 4K) Gaming Performance: Rise of the Tomb Raider (1080p, 4K)
Comments Locked

176 Comments

View All Comments

  • djayjp - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Ian, why didn't you check if the OC was being thermally throttled? Easy enough to check this. And easy enough to see if it's the temperature of the cores or not. Surprising you wouldn't include temperature or power consumption data with the OC (though I understand this hasn't typically been a focus of AT). Another site demonstrated throttling at ~95+ C.
  • mapesdhs - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Is that the same site which showed that the TIM Intel is using is just not allowing the heat to get from the die to the cap? Die temp shoots up, cap temp doesn't, even with a chiller cooler.
  • melgross - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    This article gives a good reason why huge numbers of core are a waste of money for most users.

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/3209724/compu...
  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Yeah, don't bother starting the article unless you're willing to create yet another useless online identity. Shame, since it seemed moderately interesting, but...
  • alpha754293 - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    re: overclocking
    That works well for the occasional heavy workload, but if you are going to be constantly running at peak load (like I did for engineering analysis), overclocking of any kind, from my experience, isn't worth the dead core or entire CPU.

    I've already fried a core on the 3930K once before taking it up from 3.2 GHz stock, 3.5 GHz max TurboBoost to 4.5 GHz.
  • mapesdhs - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Alas this stuff does vary according to the invidual CPU, mbd, RAM, etc. What cooling did you use? Could also be the vcore was too high - a lot of SB-E users employed a high vcore, not realising that using a lower PLL would often make such a high vcore unnecessary. It's even more complicated if one fills all 8 RAM slots on a typical X79 mbd.
  • alpha754293 - Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - link

    The cooling that I was using was Corsair H80i v2.

    The temps were fine and were consistently fine.

    RAM was 8x 8 GB Cruical Ballistix Sport I think DDR3-1600? Something like that. Nothing special, but nothing super crappy either. I actually had the entire set of RAM (all eight DIMMs RMA'd once) so I know that I got a whole new set back when that happened about oh...maybe a-year-and-a-half ago now? Something like that.

    Motherboard was Asus X79 Sabertooth.

    Yeah, I had all 8 DIMM slots populated because it was a cheaper option compared to 4x 16 GB. Besides, using all 8 DIMMs also was able to make use of the quad-channel memory whereas going with 4x 16 GB - you can't/won't (since the memory needed to be installed in paired DIMM slots).

    That CPU is now "castrated" down to 4 cores (out of 6) because 1 of the cores died (e.g. will consistently throw BSODs, but if I disable it, no problems). Makes for a decent job scheduler (or at least that's the proposed task/life for it).
  • Dr. Swag - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Hey Ian, on the first page you listed the turbo of the 7700k as 4.4, whereas it's actually 4.5
  • Yuriman - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    Shouldn't the 7700K read "4.2-4.5ghz" rather than 4.2-4.4?
  • Dug - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link

    On RoTR-1-Valley 1080p it shows i5 7600k at 141fps and the i7 7700k at 103fps. Have a feeling these might be transposed.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now