Gaming Tests: GTA 5

The highly anticipated iteration of the Grand Theft Auto franchise hit the shelves on April 14th 2015, with both AMD and NVIDIA to help optimize the title. At this point GTA V is super old, but still super useful as a benchmark – it is a complicated test with many features that modern titles today still struggle with. With rumors of a GTA 6 on the horizon, I hope Rockstar make that benchmark as easy to use as this one is.

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.

We are using the following settings:

  • 720p Low, 1440p Low, 4K Low, 1080p Max

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. The benchmark can also be called from the command line, making it very easy to use.

There is one funny caveat with GTA. If the CPU is too slow, or has too few cores, the benchmark loads, but it doesn’t have enough time to put items in the correct position. As a result, for example when running our single core Sandy Bridge system, the jet ends up stuck at the middle of an intersection causing a traffic jam. Unfortunately this means the benchmark never ends, but still amusing.

AnandTech Low Resolution
Low Quality
Medium Resolution
Low Quality
High Resolution
Low Quality
Medium Resolution
Max Quality
Average FPS
95th Percentile

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

Gaming Tests: Gears Tactics Gaming Tests: Red Dead Redemption 2
Comments Locked

339 Comments

View All Comments

  • LithiumFirefly - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link

    I thought the whole point to a civilization game benchmark was a time to complete turn not FPS who cares about FPS and a turn-based game.
  • dagobah123 - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link

    The more benchmarks the better. These are general purpose CPUs. Wouldn't it be a shame if you bought a 120hz+ 4k monitor with an expensive graphics card, only to find out your CPU was limiting your frames? Sure the game is playable @ 5 FPS as the author mentioned. However, it's getting harder to make the CPU the bottleneck in a lot of these games at higher resolutions and quality settings, so they have to resort to this. Would anyone play a game @ 360p? No, but if you want to see which CPU is better I say lets include every benchmark we can find.
  • CookieBin - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link

    I find it funny that these huge gains mean literally nothing at 4K. So all these different review sites highlight sky high fps at 1080p because at 4K that huge advantage becomes less than a 0.3% improvement.. keep pounding sand linus tech tips. I've never seen such a big nothing burger. No idiot out there buys a $800 5950X to play video games at 1080p.
  • chuyayala - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link

    The reason they test 1080p is because game processing is CPU-bound at that resolution (they are testing the CPU after-all). The higher the resolution, the more the GPU is working (not the CPU). The reason why there aren't much gains in 4k is because processing is limited by the GPU power. If we assume we get ultra powerful GPUs that can run 4k games at 120+ frames per second, then the CPU becomes more important.
  • dagobah123 - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link

    This is simply not true. It only appears to 'mean nothing' if you don't realize the bottleneck in the testing system on most of the benchmarks are the GPU. Meaning the GPU is maxed out at 100%. In this case you're right, the difference between many CPUs will not matter, but what about next year when you decide to buy the next high-end GPU, only to find out the CPU you choose couldn't handle much more. This is why 360p, 720p, even 1080p benchmarks are included to show you just how much more ahead one CPU is over another. Check out the test setup--they are using a 2080 Ti. Come check out the updated reviews after they test all this on 3090s and 6900 XTs.
    Pit a Ferarri and a Ford Model T against one another. Sure they both keep up with one another in the grocery parking lot @ 15mph. Take em out on the freeway with a 70mph speed limit and you'll have a clear winner. Let alone let em loose on the race track.
    Future proof yourself a bit, buy a 5600k or 5800k for your 4k gaming. If you don't update your CPU often you'll be glad you did a couple years out if you drop in that next GPU.
  • nandnandnand - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link

    5950X will make your web browsing snappier... so you can load more AnandTech ads. ;)
  • zodiacfml - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link

    duh? Steam survey shows 1080p the most popular resolution for gaming. Aside from that, it is difficult to maintain frame rates for 240Hz/360Hz monitors.
    You might have a point with 720p res though
  • realbabilu - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link

    First: I think you should compare with F or KF Intel version, for price comparison. Since they don't have internal Gpu. Somehow AMD not included the FAN also, beware good cooling isn't cheap.
    SECOND: it's nice to had coding bench with optimization here windows, with AVX2 and some flags compiling, Amd only provide optimization compiling on Linux only, I think they should be on windows too with optimized math kernel and compiler.
    ThIrd: the price performance is justified now. In zen2 release the price was lower than Intel that time, made Intel justified the price for 10th Gen. Now from price sensitive, Intel still fine per price / performance ratio,even though it's need more power consumption.
  • duploxxx - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link

    the ryzens have a base TDP of 105W and peaking towards 140-150W
    not like the intels that peak at +200ish W, there you need good cooling.

    A Dark rock slim or shadow rock can easily handle this and it will cost you 50-60$..

    go find a cooler for the +200W so that it wont throttle all the time for the Intel
  • realbabilu - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link

    Great. I think Anand tech should do cooling shootout for 5900x/5950x bench.
    To find the minimum air cooler for this,
    AMD only list noctua and bequiet as air cooler, others as liquid cooler at https://www.amd.com/en/processors/ryzen-thermal-so...

    The slim rock and nh14s maybe the cheapest on the list. It is interesting could more budget double fan tower should enough for 5900x/5950x that has 145 watt max like deepcool gammax 400 pro (double fan), coolermaster ma410p, and shadow rock 2/3, and maybe cheapest aio coolermaster liquid master 120 lite that not listed on amd list.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now