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. Despite this, the 11700K isn't showing much of a generational improvement.

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

Gaming Tests: Borderlands 3 Gaming Tests: Far Cry 5
POST A COMMENT

540 Comments

View All Comments

  • jacropolis - Sunday, March 7, 2021 - link

    The 10700K is regularly $279 at Micro Center and isn't a bad buy for that price at all. Reply
  • Jadi - Sunday, March 7, 2021 - link

    350 Dollar you want a 10700k and comparing it with a 5800X?
    Why?
    The 5800X don t have a gpu, and the 10700ks was under 320 euros allways!
    Now the 10700K not KS cost 316 euros!
    Hot a 14nm Chip this is the advantage its only 60 c and a 5800X comes easy over 85 c and more.

    More expansiv a 5800X cost 440 euros! A 5600X cost 350 euros, more then the 10700k!
    Slower its a K CPU and can boost it up. When you OC the 5800X you have less fps.

    Why you think it needs more power? Becouse the 40 sec boost? That is all and under AVX512 is it the only cpu that have it.
    Games and other stuff its the same power, And 5800X dosen t stop at 105 Watt it goes like 118 watts. Thats are very close too 125 watts and more is only a limit time!
    Reply
  • Spunjji - Monday, March 8, 2021 - link

    @Jadi - that last bit of your post makes no sense. The 10700K and 11700K objectively require more power than the 5800X to do the same amount of work; the 5800X only hits 118 Watts under the same conditions that the other two approach 200 Watts. If you're comparing power draw during gaming, the 5800X uses less power than those two - roughly 25W less than the 10700K.

    Comparing temperatures is daft too. 85 degrees is way under the CPU's junction temperature, so it's not a problem to runa cPU at that temp - and it's objectively easier to keep an AMD CPU at that temperature than to keep an Intel chip at 60 degrees, because your cooler isn't dissipating as much heat.
    Reply
  • TrueJessNarmo - Tuesday, March 9, 2021 - link

    10700k is $320 on amazon and 9900k is $250 at microcenter.

    At this point 5900x is best for serious users and 9900k/10700k is for gamers. 5600x and 5800x are overpriced for what it is, but 5900x is a sweet deal at $550
    Reply
  • rfxcasey - Wednesday, March 17, 2021 - link

    I got my 10700K for 330 dollars new, I've seen them go for as low as 300. Reply
  • Makste - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    With gaming it's not the power consumption that's the problem here, it is the gaming performance in these benchmarks against comet lake obviously due to a higher latency.
    Zen 3's efforts have been put into perspective here, those engineers did quite a commendable job.
    Reply
  • Bfree4me - Sunday, March 7, 2021 - link

    Agreed! The Zen architecture is top shelf. But it took far too long. My last AMD Cpu was an Athlon 1800 because at that time AMD was the value leader and Intel was the performance king for a price. At the time came where I needed performance over value.
    So I have been Intel since then. Time to start looking towards Zen 🤔
    Reply
  • Timoo - Monday, March 8, 2021 - link

    If I may be so free: "Took way too long": I agree.
    I just keep in mind that it took them way too long, because Intel managed to create some very shady deals with retailers, effectively pushing AMD out of the market and to the brink of bankruptcy. So, for years AMD has been struggling to stay alive.

    Agreed, buying ATi didn't help either. But without those shady deals they might have pulled it off. From 2006 to -say- 2015 AMD was only struggling to stay alive. I believe they had some huge cash injection at the time, together with getting one of the best CPU designers in the world (what's his name?) back in the house.

    So, in my opinion, AMD is forgiven for their 10-year "heart-attack".
    Reply
  • GeoffreyA - Monday, March 8, 2021 - link

    I also believe it was because the K10, or Phenom, while being faster than the Athlon 64, was not aggressive enough. It had already been designed before Core 2 Duo came out, and by then, Intel was ahead of them. Who knows, they might have narrowed the gap if they had persisted with the K10 design, widening everything till it matched/surpassed Nehalem, but they shot too far, going for Bulldozer, which was supposed to turn the tables round but sank them further in the ditch. Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, March 8, 2021 - link

    And yet AMD was having trouble supplying enough chips to the limited market they did have. Much like today. OEMs are not going to sign up with a company that cant consistently supply CPUs.

    Dont forget the billiosn they poured into making GF and pissing off TSMC in the process.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now