Rise of the Tomb Raider

One of the newest games in the gaming benchmark suite is Rise of the Tomb Raider (RoTR), developed by Crystal Dynamics, and the sequel to the popular Tomb Raider which was loved for its automated benchmark mode. But don’t let that fool you: the benchmark mode in RoTR is very much different this time around.

Visually, the previous Tomb Raider pushed realism to the limits with features such as TressFX, and the new RoTR goes one stage further when it comes to graphics fidelity. This leads to an interesting set of requirements in hardware: some sections of the game are typically GPU limited, whereas others with a lot of long-range physics can be CPU limited, depending on how the driver can translate the DirectX 12 workload.

Where the old game had one benchmark scene, the new game has three different scenes with different requirements: Geothermal Valley (1-Valley), Prophet’s Tomb (2-Prophet) and Spine of the Mountain (3-Mountain) - and we test all three. These are three scenes designed to be taken from the game, but it has been noted that scenes like 2-Prophet shown in the benchmark can be the most CPU limited elements of that entire level, and the scene shown is only a small portion of that level. Because of this, we report the results for each scene on each graphics card separately.

 

Graphics options for RoTR are similar to other games in this type, offering some presets or allowing the user to configure texture quality, anisotropic filter levels, shadow quality, soft shadows, occlusion, depth of field, tessellation, reflections, foliage, bloom, and features like PureHair which updates on TressFX in the previous game.

Again, we test at 1920x1080 and 4K using our native 4K displays. At 1080p we run the High preset, while at 4K we use the Medium preset which still takes a sizable hit in frame rate.

It is worth noting that RoTR is a little different to our other benchmarks in that it keeps its graphics settings in the registry rather than a standard ini file, and unlike the previous TR game the benchmark cannot be called from the command-line. Nonetheless we scripted around these issues to automate the benchmark four times and parse the results. From the frame time data, we report the averages, 99th percentiles, and our 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.

#1 Geothermal Valley

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

Geothermal Valley had some issues in our benchmark test suite, where the 1080p benchmark wouldn't output frame time data for the first section. The issue has been debugged from our end and future reviews should contain all the data.

#2 Prophet's Tomb 

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

 

#3 Spine of the Mountain 

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

 

Gaming Performance: Shadow of Mordor (1080p, 4K) Gaming Performance: Rocket League (1080p, 4K)
POST A COMMENT

140 Comments

View All Comments

  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    You make a couple good points. Ryzen 3 is definitely on my watchlist Reply
  • iwod - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    What are the Power Load for each CPU and not whole system? Zen is more SoC like and harder to compare to Intel. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    System is variable. CPU numbers in a CPU review. Reply
  • ampmam - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Great review but biased conclusion. Any idiot can sense it. Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    For us idiots, can you possibly elaborate what bias you're seeing? Reply
  • vMax65 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    ampmam, good to know you are an idiot...Great review Ian. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Biased in what way? I've been called an Intel shill and an AMD shill this week, will be glad to listen to what you think. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Then don't open yourself up for these accusations by doing things like kneecapping Zen with 2400 speed RAM.

    If you think 2400 speed RAM is more beneficial than not then, at least, show the best case results for 3200 speed RAM and say "See — it's not important"

    It's not good to see the same site that overclocking by telling people testing for serious stability isn't important and which pumps unwise levels of voltage in hobbling the RAM that's used to test Zen, a platform that most everyone knows benefits more from faster RAM than Intel does.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    Perhaps it does, but it's not massive. Also, Ian did say he would test at faster settings at a later date.

    RAM prices are quite high at the moment for the higher clocked parts, which brings about an interesting observation - the Ryzen 3 is the cheapest part of this entire setup.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    The RAM that he used was rated at 3000 and he chose to downclock it. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now