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.

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 6G Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire Nitro R9 Fury 4G Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire Nitro RX 480 8G Performance


1080p

4K

Depending on the CPU, for the most part Threadripper performs near to Ryzen or just below it.

CPU Gaming Performance: Rocket League (1080p, 4K) Power Consumption and Distribution
Comments Locked

347 Comments

View All Comments

  • coolhardware - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    Hi B3an, what will you primarily be using your 1950X for?

    I do not really have the workload to justify that CPU, but I wish I did ;-)
  • Mugur - Sunday, August 13, 2017 - link

    I suggest you to read other TR reviews. Some were testing GPU rendering and they show that even in this case you need the best cpu you can get.
  • minde - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    i see in foto on amd processor MADE IN CHINA . without comment. what difference
    between intel and amd quality , class
  • mr_tawan - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    TSMC perhaps?
  • tuxRoller - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    I'm very curious as to how this will perform with smt enabled and numa being exposed.
  • franzeal - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    On page 1, does Ryzen use an AMD implementation of SMT or hyper-threading (i.e. licensed from Intel). I've been under the impression it's the former, and referring to SMT as hyper-threading in this instance is incorrect. Intel's was not the first or the only way to implement SMT.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    When you went with 2400 speed RAM to slow down TR you forgot to make it single channel.
  • franzeal - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    Error in Dolphin benchmark description: "Results are given in minutes, where the Wii itself scores 17.53 minutes." should be results are given in seconds.
  • franzeal - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    On the last page it states "On the side of the 1920X, users will again see more cores, ECC support, and over double the number of PCIe lanes compared to the Core i7-7820X for $100 difference."

    According to the accompanying chart it's a ~$200 difference. Either the chart is wrong or that statement.
  • quadi9 - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link

    I picked up an I9-7900x at a local Micro Center for $899 this week. And it is running stable at 4.6 GHZ. How well does the Ryzen overclock? My Blender BMW score was 181 seconds. Just opened the file and clicked Render.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now