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.

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

ASRock RX 580 Performance

Rise of the Tomb Raider (1080p, Ultra)

Rise of the Tomb Raider (1080p, Ultra)

GPU Tests: Shadow of Mordor GPU Tests: Rocket League
POST A COMMENT

115 Comments

View All Comments

  • Namisecond - Monday, July 9, 2018 - link

    There are plenty of computers with K series CPUs that are run at stock. Only people who assemble their own computers from components would even consider overclocking their K-series CPUs. I personally have a 4790K and a 7700K running at stock clocks and I built both those systems from scratch. Reply
  • mr_tawan - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    My AMD Athlon XP 1600+ didn't come with a heat sink ... Reply
  • owan - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Almost anyone dropping $425 on a chip is prepared to shell out another $100 for a CLC. They are very common in this market segment, and I think acting like its some kind of grave injustice against AMD that a CLC is being used is just asinine. Reply
  • jklw10 - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Using intel stock cooler absolutely fucking idiotic... You know intel is the scumbag company that want to get maximal profits. Hence the toothpaste on the die and a cactus for a thermal solution Reply
  • AutomaticTaco - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Every business is about profit. It is how they stay in business. You choose to make a purchase or not. Their selection of thermal compound matches the rating of the processor. The choice to simple sell a processor is fine with me. If you don't like the processor or them just buy something else. Simple enough. Your level of hatred for them is ridiculous. Simply buy an AMD or build otherwise. Reply
  • mkaibear - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    Yeah, apart from the fact that the "toothpaste" on the die avoids all the problems with solder and alternative TIMs and works sufficiently for the processor to perform as advertised at the speed they specify within the temperature range they specify, and the thermal solution works well enough for people who don't overclock.

    So basically Intel states precisely what they say they will provide, then provides it, and apparently that makes them a "scumbag company that want to get maximal profits" (as if any company doesn't want to get maximal profits...)

    Get a grip.
    Reply
  • Alexvrb - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    WHAT problems with solder? It was a cost-cutting measure, and anyone who claims otherwise is either a shill or a fanboy. That doesn't even address the fact that potential issues with "alternative TIMs" can apply to Intel's compound too. There's plenty of good pastes out there with excellent longevity and better thermal performance. They're more expensive.

    With that being said Intel's current crop of processors have enough headroom compared to their competition that they simply do not care to improve. When and if AMD's future Zen iterations are able to clock aggressively, at that point Intel will start thinking about switching back to solder (at least on their unlocked higher-end chips).
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    Correctly formulated typical solder may have a cracking issue under the stress of liquid nitrogen cooling. For water and air cooling it won't. So, for "real world" cooling, "all the problems with solder" comes down to only faulty formulations — like the formulation Nvidia used in a mobile GPU line that led to widespread premature failure throughout the industry (and, of course, no recalls). Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    "avoids all the problems with solder"

    Oh, boy, the liquid nitrogen bogeyman.
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    That would be a review of the cooler, not the CPU. And anyone buying a 400+USD CPU should invest in a decent cooler as well, that is just common sense. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now