Gaming Tests: F1 2019

The F1 racing games from Codemasters have been popular benchmarks in the tech community, mostly for ease-of-use and that they seem to take advantage of any area of a machine that might be better than another. The 2019 edition of the game features all 21 circuits on the calendar for that year, and includes a range of retro models and DLC focusing on the careers of Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna. Built on the EGO Engine 3.0, the game has been criticized similarly to most annual sports games, by not offering enough season-to-season graphical fidelity updates to make investing in the latest title worth it, however the 2019 edition revamps up the Career mode, with features such as in-season driver swaps coming into the mix. The quality of the graphics this time around is also superb, even at 4K low or 1080p Ultra.

For our test, we put Alex Albon in the Red Bull in position #20, for a dry two-lap race around Austin. We test at the following settings:

  • 768p Ultra Low, 1440p Ultra Low, 4K Ultra Low, 1080p Ultra

In terms of automation, F1 2019 has an in-game benchmark that can be called from the command line, and the output file has frame times. We repeat each resolution setting for a minimum of 10 minutes, taking the averages and percentiles.

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

The Ego engine is usually a good bet where cores, IPC, and frequency matters.

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

Gaming Tests: Borderlands 3 Gaming Tests: Far Cry 5
Comments Locked

279 Comments

View All Comments

  • schujj07 - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    Intel 10nm is not TSMC 7nm.
  • watzupken - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    "What the he'll is that supposed to mean that you can't you can't get the frequency at 10 nm and therefore you have to stick with the 14 nm node? That's pure nonsense, AND is at 7 nm and they are getting the target frequencies. Maybe stop spreading the Coolaid and call a spade a spade...."

    I am not sure how true this is, but the clockspeed for early versions of 10nm were abysmal. If you look at the first gen of 10nm chip from Intel, Cannon Lake, not just is clockspeed low, but specs is bad. Second gen 10nm, Ice Lake, and you see similar trend of very low clockspeed. I am using an i5 Ice Lake U that is advertised with a base clock of 1Ghz. It is only with 10nm Super Fin (third gen) where you start seeing higher clockspeed. Also, yield with early 10nm is certainly an issue, or they will not have to push out Rocket Lake @ 14nm, while laptops and servers/ workstations (only recently) are on 10nm. I suspect Intel is pushing their 10nm towards the same path as their current 14nm, feed it with more power and push clockspeed as high as possible. I will not be surprise that Alder Lake may bring better performance with a max of 8 big cores, but power consumption wise may only see marginal improvements at load. Light load may not expose the power inefficiency because of the small cores will pick up the load.
  • boozed - Tuesday, March 30, 2021 - link

    There's some weirdness going on in at least one, possibly two of the FFXV 95th percentile graphs
  • watzupken - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    I feel I have to give Intel the credit of moving forward with a 14nm Rocket Lake, instead of hanging around like they did for the last 5 years with the same Skylake chip but boosted with steroids. But evidently, 14nm is becoming a burden to their progress. I know Intel supporters will claim that 14nm is capable of competing with 7nm. On the surface, yes. But at the cost of massive power draw and heat output with regression in performance as compared to the previous i9 in some cases. I would say that i5 would still be a chip worth considering, but not the i7 or i9 if you your main use case is gaming. At the respective price points, looking just at the price of an Intel i7 or i9 Rocket Lake chip appears to be cheap, but if you consider you need some hardcore motherboard and cooling to keep the chip chugging at the a high all core clockspeed, the cost actually skyrockets.
    Personally after looking at a number of reviews of Rocket Lake, it seems to me its a product that is too little and too late. Plus, if you are going for an i7 or i9, your upgrade path is dead since there will be no Rocket Lake with a higher core count. At least on the AMD camp, if you settled for a Ryzen 5 or 7, one may still have the option to scoop up a Ryzen 9 if prices come down with the introduction of Zen 4. In the absence of AMD chips at MSRP, I guess I will only recommend a Rocket Lake i5 because of the significant improvement over last gen. Otherwise, I don't think most will lose out much by going for the discounted Comet Lake chips.
  • Hifihedgehog - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    LOL. Keep dreaming...

    https://i.imgflip.com/53vqce.jpg
  • 529th - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    No chipset fans for their PCIe 4.0?
  • JMC2000 - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    Intel 500-series chipsets don't have PCI-E 4.0, only the CPU does.

    https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
  • yeeeeman - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    One of the few tech sites that remained professional and didn't use click baity titles or disrespect intel.
    Rocket is clearly a stop gap and a product that doesn't make sense, but it is what it is and as a professional tech writer you should treat it with decency not write insulting words and call it a poop like hardware unboxed did for example.
  • XabanakFanatik - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    Ok Piednoel
  • Qasar - Wednesday, March 31, 2021 - link

    go see how well gamers nexus liked this cpu.
    intel deserves ALL the flack they get for this cpu, its a joke, and a dud.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now