Grand Theft Auto

The highly anticipated iteration of the Grand Theft Auto franchise hit the shelves on April 14th 2015, with both AMD and NVIDIA in tow to help optimize the title. 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.

For our test we have scripted a version of the in-game benchmark. 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.

There are no presets for the graphics options on GTA, allowing the user to adjust options such as population density and distance scaling on sliders, but others such as texture/shadow/shader/water quality from Low to Very High. Other options include MSAA, soft shadows, post effects, shadow resolution and extended draw distance options. There is a handy option at the top which shows how much video memory the options are expected to consume, with obvious repercussions if a user requests more video memory than is present on the card (although there’s no obvious indication if you have a low end GPU with lots of GPU memory, like an R7 240 4GB).

To that end, we run the benchmark at 1920x1080 using an average of Very High on the settings, and also at 4K using High on most of them. We take the average results of four runs, reporting frame rate averages, 99th percentiles, and our time under analysis.

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

 

Gaming Performance: Rocket League (1080p, 4K) Power Consumption
POST A COMMENT

138 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