Grand Theft Auto

The highly anticipated iteration of the Grand Theft Auto franchise hit the shelves on April 14th 2015, with both AMD and NVIDIA in tow to help optimize the title. GTA doesn’t provide graphical presets, but opens up the options to users and extends the boundaries by pushing even the hardest systems to the limit using Rockstar’s Advanced Game Engine under DirectX 11. Whether the user is flying high in the mountains with long draw distances or dealing with assorted trash in the city, when cranked up to maximum it creates stunning visuals but hard work for both the CPU and the GPU.

For our test we have scripted a version of the in-game benchmark. The in-game benchmark consists of five scenarios: four short panning shots with varying lighting and weather effects, and a fifth action sequence that lasts around 90 seconds. We use only the final part of the benchmark, which combines a flight scene in a jet followed by an inner city drive-by through several intersections followed by ramming a tanker that explodes, causing other cars to explode as well. This is a mix of distance rendering followed by a detailed near-rendering action sequence, and the title thankfully spits out frame time data.

There are no presets for the graphics options on GTA, allowing the user to adjust options such as population density and distance scaling on sliders, but others such as texture/shadow/shader/water quality from Low to Very High. Other options include MSAA, soft shadows, post effects, shadow resolution and extended draw distance options. There is a handy option at the top which shows how much video memory the options are expected to consume, with obvious repercussions if a user requests more video memory than is present on the card (although there’s no obvious indication if you have a low end GPU with lots of GPU memory, like an R7 240 4GB).

To that end, we run the benchmark at 1920x1080 using an average of Very High on the settings, and also at 4K using High on most of them. We take the average results of four runs, reporting frame rate 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.

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: Rocket League (1080p, 4K) Power Consumption
POST A COMMENT

140 Comments

View All Comments

  • uibo - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I thought you guys hated misleading scales on graphs.
    Looking at the performance per dollar graphs, I think the lowest point vertically should be -100%
    Reply
  • lefenzy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    That's silly. 0% is the zero on that graph, not some arbitrary -100% Reply
  • akrobet - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Keep in mind that Intel is pulling the G4560 from the market, because it's "too good" for its price. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Source? Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Not counting it as a "source" but I saw this pop up at wccftech. I didn't spend any time looking, but I haven't stumbled upon any corroboration on other sites in my tech reading. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I just found the article on wccftech. It actually said that Intel is NOT killing off the G4560 Reply
  • T1beriu - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    wccftech

    ....

    ....

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    Reply
  • GreenMeters - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    SHED does not exist. Ryzen 7 maps to the standard i7 market that has never been called HEDT. Threadripper is HEDT. The fact that it puts Intel's HEDT to shame doesn't mean it's a new segment. It means Intel better get with the program. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Ryzen 7 was mapped against Intel's Broadwell-E HEDT platform at launch for core count, performance, and aggressive pricing. Threadripper is a stage above that, and isn't even called HEDT internally at AMD. Then we have the HCC core count silicon coming from Intel. SHED exists. Reply
  • DrKlahn - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Ok I'm seriously beginning to wonder about the objectivity here. So your conclude this:

    "First is that the Ryzen 3 1200 does not look like an attractive option. It performs +2-3% of the Pentium but is $30 more expensive, and the Core i3-7100 beats it by 8% for only a sub-$10 cost."

    But aren't mentioning that the Pentiums are locked parts and the 1200 isn't? Your competing sites do have overclocking data and the Pentiums are hopelessly outclassed. Granted not everyone overclocks, but on an enthusiast site that at least warrants a mention. Not everyone will read your followup(s) and that conclusion does not tell the full story. I know if I was building a machine a 1200 4 core that overclocks to 3.8-4GHz is well worth the $30.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now