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

  • SanX - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    They aren't making that much profit off each chip? If they aren't making huge profits then all mobile chip factories lose money by selling the same transistor count processors like the one in Apple or Samsung phones for just $25 Reply
  • Hxx - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    who said binned chips? that would imply added costs. Did intel make some official statement? There is now way the 8086ks are binned chips. Intel clocked the 4.7ghz core to 5ghz on a 8700k. That's doable on any cooler you dont need a binned chip for that. Perhaps additional testing was done to make sure they're stable but there is no way intel cherry picked these chips. Reply
  • AutomaticTaco - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Okay. So people make purchases. So be it. If it's not better you can purchase something else. And others can make up their own minds. Reply
  • LemmingOverlord - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    No real explanation why the 8086K underperforms the 8700K in multithreaded CPU tests, then. Considering they are rated the same at more than dual-core usage I can't really understand.

    Utter waste of money, that's for sure
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    As noted in the testbed section, this wasn't run on our standard testbed since Ian didn't have it with him in Taiwan. Every motherboard is different, sometimes infuriatingly so. Reply
  • npz - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    DPC latency? Speedstep / clookspeed ramp up differences? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    They all tend to implement uncore clocking differently, even among different products within the same manufacturer. Reply
  • AsParallel - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Because ASRock and configuration. ASRock boards are a pain to dial in, and sometimes their firmware is an immovable object. Reply
  • artifex - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    Waiting for the i7-80286K, so I can hit the turbo button Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, June 18, 2018 - link

    I'm waiting for the AMD 5x86 4700x that will slot into an intel motherboard. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now