Rocket League

Hilariously simple pick-up-and-play games are great fun. I'm a massive fan of the Katamari franchise for that reason — passing start on a controller and rolling around, picking up things to get bigger, is extremely simple. Until we get a PC version of Katamari that I can benchmark, we'll focus on Rocket League.

Rocket League combines the elements of pick-up-and-play, allowing users to jump into a game with other people (or bots) to play football with cars with zero rules. The title is built on Unreal Engine 3, which is somewhat old at this point, but it allows users to run the game on super-low-end systems while still taxing the big ones. Since the release in 2015, it has sold over 5 million copies and seems to be a fixture at LANs and game shows. Users who train get very serious, playing in teams and leagues with very few settings to configure, and everyone is on the same level. Rocket League is quickly becoming one of the favored titles for e-sports tournaments, especially when e-sports contests can be viewed directly from the game interface.

Based on these factors, plus the fact that it is an extremely fun title to load and play, we set out to find the best way to benchmark it. Unfortunately for the most part automatic benchmark modes for games are few and far between. Partly because of this, but also on the basis that it is built on the Unreal 3 engine, Rocket League does not have a benchmark mode. In this case, we have to develop a consistent run and record the frame rate.

Read our initial analysis on our Rocket League benchmark on low-end graphics here.

With Rocket League, there is no benchmark mode, so we have to perform a series of automated actions, similar to a racing game having a fixed number of laps. We take the following approach: Using Fraps to record the time taken to show each frame (and the overall frame rates), we use an automation tool to set up a consistent 4v4 bot match on easy, with the system applying a series of inputs throughout the run, such as switching camera angles and driving around.

It turns out that this method is nicely indicative of a real bot match, driving up walls, boosting and even putting in the odd assist, save and/or goal, as weird as that sounds for an automated set of commands. To maintain consistency, the commands we apply are not random but time-fixed, and we also keep the map the same (Aquadome, known to be a tough map for GPUs due to water/transparency) and the car customization constant. We start recording just after a match starts, and record for 4 minutes of game time (think 5 laps of a DIRT: Rally benchmark), with average frame rates, 99th percentile and frame times all provided.

The graphics settings for Rocket League come in four broad, generic settings: Low, Medium, High and High FXAA. There are advanced settings in place for shadows and details; however, for these tests, we keep to the generic settings. For both 1920x1080 and 4K resolutions, we test at the High preset with an unlimited frame cap.

For all our results, we show the average frame rate at 1080p first. Mouse over the other graphs underneath to see 99th percentile frame rates and 'Time Under' graphs, as well as results for other resolutions. All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance


1080p

4K

ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire R9 Fury 4GB Performance


1080p

4K

Sapphire RX 480 8GB Performance


1080p

4K

Rocket League Notes on GTX

The map we use in our testing, Aquadome, is known to be strenuous on a system, hence we see frame rates lower than what people expect for Rocket League - we're trying to cover the worst case scenario. But the results also show how AMD CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs do not seem to be playing ball with each other, which we've been told is likely related to drivers. 

Gaming Performance: Rise of the Tomb Raider (1080p, 4K) Gaming Performance: Grand Theft Auto (1080p, 4K)
POST A COMMENT

140 Comments

View All Comments

  • HollyDOL - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Ian hasn't failed us. Thorough review on day one. Now to read it whole :-) Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Results are still coming in for the 1300X, this will take another day or two and I'll add in the graphs but all the Ryzen 3 1200 data is in Bench.

    Each of the 3 GPUs still to go is about 5 hrs each to test, Chrome Compile and SYSMark is another 10 hr. I've still got results for the 7300 coming in as well on my second test-bed.
    Reply
  • srkelley5 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Thank you! I know that it's more work, but is there any chance of getting charts that compare these results against Vishera cpu's? Reply
  • 0ldman79 - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    Seconded.

    It is a shame that we still don't have a direct comparison between AMD's big CPU from last gen vs the current generation.
    Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    Can't compare my Sandy-Bridge-E 3930K either.
    Or the Phenom 2 x6...
    Reply
  • 0ldman79 - Wednesday, August 02, 2017 - link

    It looks like a lot of the information is already on the bench, just formatted differently.

    Shame.
    Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link

    I've got a regression testing project ongoing which is taking most of my regular time to get sorted. More details soon. Reply
  • AndrewJacksonZA - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Thanks for your hard work, Ian (and team?) We appreciate it. I must say, I'm impressed with what this 1300X can do - and for only $130 too!

    Correction on the last graph: the X-axis title says, well, "Title." :-)
    Reply
  • ddriver - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    You should do relative x scale for the price/performance charts. It will be more informative than absolute scale, besides, how many CPUs under 50$ are there, and how many go as low as 0$? Reply
  • coolhardware - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Agreed, thank you for the review Ian! I've been waiting for a nice Ryzen close to the $100 price point, the 1300X is close enough in price for me and I like what I read in the review.

    Especially interested to see how performance in my daily work compares to my trusty 2500K and some more modern i7 mobile CPUs.

    Excited to pick one of these up! :-)

    NewEgg shows 7/31 release:
    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N...

    Amazon usually ships faster for me so I plan on ordering from them:
    http://amzn.to/2v1fJqh (url shortened)

    PS Does MicroCenter usually have CPUs in store on launch day?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now