Gaming Tests: Gears Tactics

Remembering the original Gears of War brings back a number of memories – some good, and some involving online gameplay. The latest iteration of the franchise was launched as I was putting this benchmark suite together, and Gears Tactics is a high-fidelity turn-based strategy game with an extensive single player mode. As with a lot of turn-based games, there is ample opportunity to crank up the visual effects, and here the developers have put a lot of effort into creating effects, a number of which seem to be CPU limited.

Gears Tactics has an in-game benchmark, roughly 2.5 minutes of AI gameplay starting from the same position but using a random seed for actions. Much like the racing games, this usually leads to some variation in the run-to-run data, so for this benchmark we are taking the geometric mean of the results. One of the biggest things that Gears Tactics can do is on the resolution scaling, supporting 8K, and so we are testing the following settings:

  • 720p Low, 4K Low, 8K Low, 1080p Ultra

For results, the game showcases a mountain of data when the benchmark is finished, such as how much the benchmark was CPU limited and where, however none of that is ever exported into a file we can use. It’s just a screenshot which we have to read manually.

If anyone from the Gears Tactics team wants to chat about building a benchmark platform that would not only help me but also every other member of the tech press build our benchmark testing platform to help our readers decide what is the best hardware to use on your games, please reach out to ian@anandtech.com. Some of the suggestions I want to give you will take less than half a day and it’s easily free advertising to use the benchmark over the next couple of years (or more).

As with the other benchmarks, we do as many runs until 10 minutes per resolution/setting combination has passed. For this benchmark, we manually read each of the screenshots for each quality/setting/run combination. The benchmark does also give 95th percentiles and frame averages, so we can use both of these data points.

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

 

Gears is the one test where at our 1080p Maximum settings it shines ahead of the pack. Although at high resolution, low quality, although all five CPUs are essentially equal, it still sits behind AMD's Ryzen APU.

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

Gaming Tests: Far Cry 5 Gaming Tests: GTA 5
POST A COMMENT

541 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