Shadow of Mordor

The next title in our testing is a battle of system performance with the open world action-adventure title, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (SoM for short). Produced by Monolith and using the LithTech Jupiter EX engine and numerous detail add-ons, SoM goes for detail and complexity. The main story itself was written by the same writer as Red Dead Redemption, and it received Zero Punctuation’s Game of The Year in 2014.

A 2014 game is fairly old to be testing now, however SoM has a stable code and player base, and can still stress a PC down to the ones and zeroes. At the time, SoM was unique, offering a dynamic screen resolution setting allowing users to render at high resolutions that are then scaled down to the monitor. This form of natural oversampling was designed to let the user experience a truer vision of what the developers wanted, assuming you had the graphics hardware to power it but had a sub-4K monitor.

The title has an in-game benchmark, for which we run with an automated script implement the graphics settings, select the benchmark, and parse the frame-time output which is dumped on the drive. The graphics settings include standard options such as Graphical Quality, Lighting, Mesh, Motion Blur, Shadow Quality, Textures, Vegetation Range, Depth of Field, Transparency and Tessellation. There are standard presets as well.

We run the benchmark at 1080p and a native 4K, using our 4K monitors, at the Ultra preset. Results are averaged across four runs and we report the average frame rate, 99th percentile frame rate, and time under analysis.

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

 

ASRock RX 580 Performance

Shadow of Mordor (1080p, Ultra)Shadow of Mordor (1080p, Ultra)

Shadow of Mordor (4K, Ultra)Shadow of Mordor (4K, Ultra)

GPU Tests: Civilization 6 GPU Tests: Rise of the Tomb Raider
Comments Locked

111 Comments

View All Comments

  • mkaibear - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    "Total flop"

    I suggest benchmarking the CPU in your phone against this CPU and try again.
  • SanX - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    They mostly serve different purposes and apps and have different TDP. But if you restrict consumption power of Intel processors to the same one of mobile processors then in the same apps it's not clear in advance which one will win.

    Time for ARM to look at the server and supercomputers markets.
  • iranterres - Monday, June 11, 2018 - link

    HAHA. Intel once again trying to fool some people and appeasing the fanboys with something worthless and expensive.
  • xchaotic - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    So are the regular i7-8600K unable to run all core 5GHz? If so, what't the max stable freq for a non-binned i7-8600K? Personally I went for an even lower/cheaper i5-8400 CPU, but I see why some people prefer to be running max speed all the time...
  • Rudde - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    I assume you mean the i7-8700k.
    There is a phenomenon called 'the silicon lottery.' Basically, when you buy an i7-8700k, you can't know the max stable frequency. It could max out at 5.2GHz or it could only reach 4.7GHz before going unstable. The thing is, you can't know what you'll end up with.
    This brings us to the i7-8068k. The i7-8068k is pretty much guaranteed to have a max stable frequency above 5GHz. Of course, this matters only when overclocking.
  • Bradyb00 - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    Is it a lower temp than a 8700k for a given multiplier though? i.e. both 8700k and 8086k at 46x which is cooler? 8700k obviously has to be averaged as not everyone is lucky with the silicon lottery.
    Presumption is the 8086k will run cooler on average due to the better binning.

    In which case I'm happy to pay more to save some degrees in my wee itx build
  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    Why not simply pick the Ryzen 5 2600, same thing with actual lower temps from using high quality solder...

    $189
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, June 18, 2018 - link

    Depends on the use case. For pure gaming, I'd stick with intel, which is a bit faster now and, if history is any indication, will hold up a LOT better for gaming in 5 years then the AMD chip will.

    Especially if you run games or emulators dependent on IPC (like PCSX2) the intel chip will perform a lot better then the AMD chip.

    There is also the memory controller. Ryzen 2000 improved, but intel's controller is still superior, and that matters for things like RTS games that consume memory bandwidth like black holes consume stars.
  • Stuka87 - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    Props to Asrock for providing the system so that you could get us stuff so quickly Ian. Not sure why everybody is complaining about the system and cooling that was used. The system was loaned to you so that you could get us numbers fast, which personally I am happy about. Thanks for your hard work Ian!
  • El Sama - Tuesday, June 12, 2018 - link

    This is quite the premium cost for a small increase in frequency that should be close to what you get to a 8700k OCed, an interesting offering regardless.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now