The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested
by Ian Cutress on April 19, 2018 9:00 AM ESTGrand 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
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
545 Comments
View All Comments
eek2121 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Their benchmarks are garbage? You are welcome to buy a 2700X and test for yourself. The benchmarks they used are built in for the most part to each game. It coincides pretty much with what I know of Ryzen, Coffee Lake, and Ryzen 2xxx.AndersFlint - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
While out of respect for the reviewer's hard work, I wouldn't describe the results as "garbage", they certainly don't match up with results from other publications.ACE76 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Yes, Anandtech's are honest and objective...I believe Tech Radar was comparing Coffee Lake OC'd to 5.2ghz vs Ryzen 2700x at 4.1ghz...the stock turbo alone hits 4.3ghz...they are slanting to benefit Intel...a 5.2ghz stable overclock on Coffee Lake alone is very hard to achieve and maybe 10-15% of CPUs can do it.Luckz - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
I haven't really heard of anyone unable to reach 5 GHz.SkyBill40 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Well, golly gee... did the other reviewers use the *exact* setup as used here? No? Hmm... I guess that then makes your grouchy mcgrouchface missive not worth consideration then, no? If anyone is to not be taken seriously here, it's you.Typical ad hominem and burden of proof fallacies. Well done, Chris113q.
Flying Aardvark - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
WRONG. AT has it right, these are properly patched systems. Heavy IO perf loss with Intel Meltdown patches has been well known for months. See top comment here. https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/7obo...Prove your claim that the data is incorrect or misleading in any way whatsoever, child.
RafaelHerschel - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
One of the problems is that other reviewers see a less pronounced difference between the new AMD Ryzen CPU's and the older ones. Most reviewers claim that they have tested with all available patches in place.Your conclusion that AT has it right is based on what? Your belief that AT can't make mistakes? Maybe there is a logical explanation, but for now, it seems that AT might have done something wrong.
Flying Aardvark - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
I have evidence to backup my claim, users with no motivation to mislead agree with AT, and did months ago. You have no evidence, simply butthurt. Good luck.boozed - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Let's ask a total jerk from the internet what he thinks.aliquis - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
They definitely used slower memory. Don't know if that's the thing. Don't know what fps others get in the same games and settings. Otherwise maybe it's ASUS doing special tricks like with MCE before or have better memory timits or can use some trick to get similar of precision boost overdrive already. Or a software mistake.Sweclockers is the best for game performance. They do 720p medium so the gpu limits will be smallest there.