Rise of the Tomb Raider (1080p, 4K)

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: Spine of the Mountain (1-Valley), Prophet’s Tomb (2-Prophet) and Geothermal Valley (3-Mountain) - and we test all three (and yes, I need to relabel them - I got them wrong when I set up the tests). 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.

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

#1 Geothermal Valley Spine of the Mountain

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance


1080p

4K

ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6G Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire Nitro R9 Fury 4G Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire Nitro RX 480 8G Performance


1080p

4K

#2 Prophet’s Tomb

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance


1080p

4K

ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6G Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire Nitro R9 Fury 4G Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire Nitro RX 480 8G Performance


1080p

4K

#3 Spine of the Mountain Geothermal Valley

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance


1080p

4K

ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6G Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire Nitro R9 Fury 4G Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire Nitro RX 480 8G Performance


1080p

The 4K

It's clear from these results that the 1950X is not the best gaming chip when in its default mode.

CPU Gaming Performance: Shadow of Mordor (1080p, 4K) CPU Gaming Performance: Rocket League (1080p, 4K)
Comments Locked

347 Comments

View All Comments

  • Notmyusualid - Sunday, August 13, 2017 - link

    Yep, I'll get the door for him.
  • Jeff007245 - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    I don't comment much (if ever), but I have to say one thing... I miss Anand's reviews. What happened to AnandTech?

    What ever happened to IPC testing when IPC used to be compared on a clock for clock basis? I remember the days when IPC used to be Instructions Per Clock, and this website and others would even use a downclock/overclock processors at a nominal clock rate to compare the performance of each processor's IPC. Hell, even Bulldozer with a high clock architecture was downclocked to compare is "relative IPC" in regards using a nominal clockrate.

    And to add to what other's are saying about the bias in the review... Honestly, I have been feeling the same way for some time now. Must be because AnandTech is at the "MERCY" of their mother company Purch Media... When you are at the mercy of your advertisers, you have no choice but to bend the knee, or even worse, bend over and do as they say "or else"...

    Thanks for taking the time in creating this review, but AnandTech to me is no longer AnandTech... What other's say is true, this place is only good for the Forums and the very technical community that is still sticking around.
  • fanofanand - Tuesday, August 15, 2017 - link

    Downclocking and overclocking processors to replicate a different processor within the same family can lead to inaccurate results, as IPC can and does rely (at least to a degree) on cache size and structure. I get what you are saying, but I think Ian's work is pretty damn good.
  • SloppyFloppy - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Why did you leave out the i9s from the gaming tests?
    Why didn't you include the 7700k when you include 1800x for gaming tests?

    People want to know that if they buy a $1k 7900X or 1950X if it's not only great for media creation/compiling but also gaming.
  • silverblue - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Stated why at the bottom of page 1. Also, he used the 7740X, so there is little to no point in putting the 7700K.
  • Lolimaster - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    The 1950X is as good at gaming as the 1800X, OCed 1700, with many more cpu resource to toy with.
  • Swp1996 - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Thats The Best Title I have ever seen ...😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Steroids 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
  • corinthos - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    in other words.. AMD Ryzen is still the best bet for most people, and the best value. 1700 OC'd all day!
  • BillBear - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    >Move on 10-15 years and we are now at the heart of the Core Wars: how many CPU cores with high IPC can you fit into a consumer processor? Up to today, the answer was 10, but now AMD is pushing the barrier to 16

    I don't personally think of Threadripper or parts like Broadwell-E as being consumer level parts.

    For me, the parts most consumers use have been using for the last decade have been Intel parts with two cores or four cores at the high end.

    It's been a long period of stagnation, with cutting power use on mobile parts being the area that saw the most attention and improvement.
  • James S - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link

    Agree the HEDT platforms are not for the average consumer they are for enthusiasts, professional workstation usage, and some other niche uses.

    When the frequency war stopped and the IPC war started. We should have had the core competition 5-8 years back since IPC stagnated to a couple percent gains year on year.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now