[Gamegpu] GTA V PC Benchmark

[Deders]

1gb gtx650 results at 1366x768 all minimum outside of 16xaf and population density and distance scaling maxed.Vram usage hits 997mb while any other settings go pass pegging the 1gb.

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 23.951298, 68.619865, 54.588207
Pass 1, 47.107800, 88.441795, 70.489258
Pass 2, 38.874527, 100.878143, 75.689018
Pass 3, 29.931765, 85.076729, 71.068977
Pass 4, 20.530666, 119.398071, 66.921593

Card runs the game damn smooth,it was paired with a i3 3220.I notice occasional low gpu usage in-game which means a i5 could open up perhaps a few more fps.

That's useful to know, Thanks!

 

[skipsneeky2]

That's useful to know, Thanks!

No problem,my cousin wants this game for PC and wasn't so sure if it would run so i benched his chip and gpu for him.Figured i mind as well post the results here since i did all that work as it is.We both played it a bit and he is getting it.

Everyone is more or less focused on maximum graphics,higher end hardware so i figured these results would be a nice change from the usual.

 

[Red Hawk]

Seriously i posted this on this first page.This is not AMD evolved or Gameworks game because it is using TXAA ,Nvidia PCSS.

U dont need to get excited for AMD.

Can't it be both? AMD's CHS and Nvidia's TXAA and PCSS both being present says to me that both companies supported the development of the game. Not being Gaming Evolved or Gameworks (is TWIMTBP not a thing, anymore?) would mean that none of those features would be present.

 

[XFXSupport]

1gb gtx650 results at 1366x768 all minimum outside of 16xaf and population density and distance scaling maxed.Vram usage hits 997mb while any other settings go pass pegging the 1gb.

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 23.951298, 68.619865, 54.588207
Pass 1, 47.107800, 88.441795, 70.489258
Pass 2, 38.874527, 100.878143, 75.689018
Pass 3, 29.931765, 85.076729, 71.068977
Pass 4, 20.530666, 119.398071, 66.921593

Card runs the game damn smooth,it was paired with a i3 3220.I notice occasional low gpu usage in-game which means a i5 could open up perhaps a few more fps.

I not surprised at how well this did, in similar lower tier graphics cards we've seen similar results. The engine is really built well and seems to adapt quickly... Im not recommending crossfire though, not yet anyway

 

[Deders]

Can't it be both? AMD's CHS and Nvidia's TXAA and PCSS both being present says to me that both companies supported the development of the game. Not being Gaming Evolved or Gameworks (is TWIMTBP not a thing, anymore?) would mean that none of those features would be present.

The game doesn't advertise itself as either. I say it's better that way.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I not surprised at how well this did, in similar lower tier graphics cards we've seen similar results. The engine is really built well and seems to adapt quickly... Im not recommending crossfire though, not yet anyway

Yup,scales incredibly well that is for sure.I was expecting perhaps the memory just to be enough for like 800x600 with like maybe half the frame rate when you see where memory usage peaks to with very high settings.

That 650 isn't exactly leaps ahead of a 9800gt 1gb recommendation either the last time i checked.

 

[psolord]

AMD Driver overhead

I3 4130 with GTX 750 Ti beating I3 4130 with R9 280 and there no excuse for this plain and simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxeF08qmtg

I am afraid I have witnessed the same thing, again.

I made this video with my Core i5 2500k@4.3Ghz and 7950 (same as r9 280).

GTA V will eat your cpu for breakfast

In this video the cpu is shown to be running at very close to 100% and the framerate is less than 50fps for the most part.

I have benchmarked my GTX 970 with the same cpu (with higher settings) and in the outdoors section it was above 65fps, were the 970 kept the game at a gpu limited situation, as it should be, with cpu usage less than 85% although I used higher clock for that benchmark.

I will post the real life gameplay video, along with 570,5850 and 7950 custom gameplay benchmarks once they finish uploading, which will be a couple of days.

Also note that these recordings are recorded with an external recorder, so no cpu cycles are wasted with the recording itself.

Until then, I can post other videos that I have uploaded that may be of interest for some people. Warning for spicy wallpaper on the last one.

GTA V graphics settings and impact on performance

GTA V this is what could happen if you go over your vram limits

Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 v.high (fxaa) GTX 970 @1.5Ghz CORE i7-860 @4Ghz

I have to say though that I was surprised that the game run as it did, on the 570 and 5850. It seems to run on a leaps and bounds better code, than the one on GTA IV.

I will also make a Q9550+GTX 970 GTA V video, for people with weaker cpus, so stay tuned.

 

[Eric1987]

So is anyone able to play 4k with 290x's crossfired without major stutter? I can't seem to.

 

[ocre]

I am afraid I have witnessed the same thing, again.

I made this video with my Core i5 2500k@4.3Ghz and 7950 (same as r9 280).

GTA V will eat your cpu for breakfast

In this video the cpu is shown to be running at very close to 100% and the framerate is less than 50fps for the most part.

I have benchmarked my GTX 970 with the same cpu (with higher settings) and in the outdoors section it was above 65fps, were the 970 kept the game at a gpu limited situation, as it should be, with cpu usage less than 85% although I used higher clock for that benchmark.

I will post the real life gameplay video, along with 570,5850 and 7950 custom gameplay benchmarks once they finish uploading, which will be a couple of days.

Also note that these recordings are recorded with an external recorder, so no cpu cycles are wasted with the recording itself.

Until then, I can post other videos that I have uploaded that may be of interest for some people. Warning for spicy wallpaper on the last one.

GTA V graphics settings and impact on performance

GTA V this is what could happen if you go over your vram limits

Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 v.high (fxaa) GTX 970 @1.5Ghz CORE i7-860 @4Ghz

I have to say though that I was surprised that the game run as it did, on the 570 and 5850. It seems to run on a leaps and bounds better code, than the one on GTA IV.

I will also make a Q9550+GTX 970 GTA V video, for people with weaker cpus, so stay tuned.

That would be great psolord

I really am impressed with what rockstar did with gta5 PC. The wait, it was so worth it.

I look forward to your testing. Especially the q9550. Will it be at stock or overclocked?

I think it would be cool to take the data from your videos and have a mini Review thread. You know, put together some of the data so people can easily compare different CPUs and gpus. You can have the videos listed as well. I think it would make an awesome thread and many people will find it extremely useful

 

[psolord]

Hello Ocre.

Thank you for taking an interest in my amateur testing!

Yes the Q9550 will be overclocked @4Ghz, the i7 860@4Ghz and the i5 2500k@4.8Ghz.

I respect that many people don't want to overclock their systems, but I am always showing detailed graphs at the end of the video (MSI AB), so people can extract information and proceed to conclusions for lower clocked systems.

Unfortunately from what I have seen so far, Yorkfield, Lynnfield and Sandy Bridge owners, will not have the option to not overclock, if the user wants everything maxed and has a target framerate of 60fps in the outdoors section. This game should be an interesting test when Skylake arrives.

That being said, I have found a specific setting that can help cpus A LOT (more than 50%). And yes of course it would be distance related.

GTA V - CPU limited? Try this! (GTX 970+Q9550)

Now I am not sure this board would need a new thread with my testing. I believe a post in this thread would suffice. After all, I have prepared a huge test between the Q9550,i7 860 and i5 2500k paired with my GTX 970@1.5Ghz, which I will publish in its own thread soon.

Until then, this is the i5-2500k@4.8Ghz vs the i7-860@4Ghz in the outdoors chase Franklin and Lamar mission.

 

[Head1985]

This is very disappointing.
i5 2500K at 4,8Ghz barely faster than old i7 870 only at 4Ghz.I think 4thread cpus are dead in near future.HT makes so much difference...

And intel still sells i5 without HT...:thumbsdown:
I think buying skylake i5 will be suicide for future games.

 

[tential]

This is very disappointing.
i5 2500K at 4,8Ghz barely faster than old i7 870 only at 4Ghz.I think 4thread cpus are dead in near future.HT makes so much difference...

And intel still sells i5 without HT...:thumbsdown:
I think buying skylake i5 will be suicide for future games.

No one is forcing you to get an i5? Get an i7 if you want HT. Next thing you know, you'll get upset that intel doesn't sell the i5 with hexacores... If you want more, pay for it. Their prices are extremely reasonable, and the longevity of their processors has been amazing... Stop asking for something for nothing.

 

[SPBHM]

This is very disappointing.
i5 2500K at 4,8Ghz barely faster than old i7 870 only at 4Ghz.I think 4thread cpus are dead in near future.HT makes so much difference...

And intel still sells i5 without HT...:thumbsdown:
I think buying skylake i5 will be suicide for future games.

2500K is also old, the 870 is only a year and few months older, and it was more expensive than the 2500K.

compare an OC 2600K vs 4690K, it should be worse for the i5, and the age difference is bigger.

 

[Face2Face]

My 3570K @ 4.8GHz is getting closed to being max out in this game. It looks like X99 may be in my future...

From the looks of it, just adding hyper-threading to a QC CPU isn't really adding much.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1911-gta-v-cpu-benchmark-4790k-3570k-9590-more

 

[psolord]

I just finished my custom pc gameplay benchmarks for anyone that is interested. The benchmark contains the first 15 minutes of the game, including most real time cutscenes, hence it is mainly focused on the GPU.

The end part is the Franklin and Lamar mission, which tends to shift the cpu/gpu load balance. I should have thought to extract a different benchmark number on that part, but I can still show you what I found out.

For starters, GTX 970 on 2500k,860 and Q9550, maxed settings with no MSAA (spicy wallpaper alert on all links)

Grand Theft Auto V 1920x1080 v.high GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Core i5 2500k @4.8GHz - 97fps

Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 v.high GTX 970 @1.5Ghz CORE i7-860 @4Ghz - 92fps

Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 V.High GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Q9550 @4GHz - 82fps

Secondly

GTX 970 vs 7950, both on the 2500k, again maxed settings with no MSAA (first below video is the same as the first above)

Grand Theft Auto V 1920x1080 v.high GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Core i5 2500k @4.8GHz - 97fps


Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 v.high 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i5-2500K @4.8GHz - 62fps

and last but not least

GTX 570 vs 5850 on the Q9550, quite high settings (1480MB vram needed), no MSAA, 570 has one degree higher tesselation setting. This discrepancy occurred because I figured the 5850 would manage the same settings and while it did for the most part, the higher tesselation made it stutter a lot, so I had to turn it down a notch.

Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 v.high(-) GTX 570 @850Mhz Q9550 @4GHz - 56fps

Grand Theft Auto V 1920X1080 v.high(-) 5850 @950Mhz Q9550 @4GHz - 38fps

Now the interesting part comes in exactly this last test, because it has again to do with AMD's driver higher cpu needs.

Here are two captures from their respective videos, that show the framerate, along with the cpu usage.



You will see that the q9550+570 combination can produce ~50fps, while the 5850 is even more severly cpu limited and the system can only achieve ~30fps.

Here is a side by side comparison, with the two runs at the same location. You will need a fast internet connection and you may want to increase to 720p for both windows, to see the OSD better.

The same thing happens in the 970 vs 7950 on the 2500k.




For about the same cpu load, the 970 is producing 65+fps while the 7950 less than 50fps.

I think it will be best to do a q9550+7950 test with the 5850 settings, to see if this 30fps limit will also manifest in this configuration.


Be aware of what desktop background you post screenshots of. Nudity, even partial, isn't allowed.

-Elfear

Sorry about that, won't happen again.

-Psolord

 

[guskline]

Nice work psolord.

 

[Erenhardt]

@pslord, something doesn't stick. Amd setups have lower CPU usage than nvidia setups according to the screenshots you posted.

 

[TheELF]

@pslord, something doesn't stick. Amd setups have lower CPU usage than nvidia setups according to the screenshots you posted.

The GPU maxes out so the cpu can't give you its maximum performance, that's called bottlenecking.

 

[Erenhardt]

The GPU maxes out so the cpu can't give you its maximum performance, that's called bottlenecking.

Yes, but he stated there is move driver CPU overhead shown on these graphs, but in reality it doesn't show any of that.

 

[psolord]

My friend Erenhart, look closely at the 570/5850 graphs, at the part where the mouse pointer is. This is the cpu limited part.

The 570's cpu usage, is like 5% higher than the 5850, BUT the 570 system is spitting out 50fps while the 5850 is giving 30fps.

Isn't that a clear indication of AMD's driver cpu overhead?

In any case I will test the 7950 on the Q9550 tomorrow, with the same settings as the 5850 and if it produces worse results than the 570, I will be greatly disappointed.

 

[TheELF]

The 570's cpu usage, is like 5% higher than the 5850, BUT the 570 system is spitting out 50fps while the 5850 is giving 30fps.

Isn't that a clear indication of AMD's driver cpu overhead?

These graphs show usage over time,you will have to look at the actual threads and see if the amd driver thread is bigger than the nvidia driver thread and if it is then by how much and in which scenarios.
You will have to run process explorer/hacker to see this.
Like in this video here you can see a atidxx64.dll (ati dx x64) thread that changes depending on what is shown on screen.

 

[StinkyPinky]

This is very disappointing.
i5 2500K at 4,8Ghz barely faster than old i7 870 only at 4Ghz.I think 4thread cpus are dead in near future.HT makes so much difference...

And intel still sells i5 without HT...:thumbsdown:
I think buying skylake i5 will be suicide for future games.

If they sold i5's with HT......they would be i7's.

 

[Silverforce11]

My friend Erenhart, look closely at the 570/5850 graphs, at the part where the mouse pointer is. This is the cpu limited part.

The 570's cpu usage, is like 5% higher than the 5850, BUT the 570 system is spitting out 50fps while the 5850 is giving 30fps.

Isn't that a clear indication of AMD's driver cpu overhead?

In any case I will test the 7950 on the Q9550 tomorrow, with the same settings as the 5850 and if it produces worse results than the 570, I will be greatly disappointed.

During that part, the 5850's 1GB vram may be hurting it a lot, we can see it's failing to be loaded at 99% GPU, the 570 is still running max loaded.

This suggest vram swap, which causes fps tanking.

As to the % CPU usage, the graphs just shows higher for NV because their GPUs are stronger so they need more grunt to drive it. Otherwise its not showing what some of you claim, more driver overhead.

To do that, you would have to use setups that are driving similar FPS to ensure the test is proper. ie. 970 vs R290X would be close in performance according to benches from various sites. Once the FPS are similar, then compare the CPU usage.

 

[RussianSensation]

To do that, you would have to use setups that are driving similar FPS to ensure the test is proper. ie. 970 vs R290X would be close in performance according to benches from various sites. Once the FPS are similar, then compare the CPU usage.

I wish sites did FCAT testing.

NV is delivering better FPS but it's not as smooth.

It's interesting that per Sweclockers, GTX980's CPU usage is higher on avg. compared to R9 290X's, but R9 290X delivers the smoother gameplay while 980 spikes beyond 20ms.

 

[SPBHM]

During that part, the 5850's 1GB vram may be hurting it a lot, we can see it's failing to be loaded at 99% GPU, the 570 is still running max loaded.

This suggest vram swap, which causes fps tanking.

As to the % CPU usage, the graphs just shows higher for NV because their GPUs are stronger so they need more grunt to drive it. Otherwise its not showing what some of you claim, more driver overhead.

To do that, you would have to use setups that are driving similar FPS to ensure the test is proper. ie. 970 vs R290X would be close in performance according to benches from various sites. Once the FPS are similar, then compare the CPU usage.

yes it's an interesting to analyze, VRAM could be the problem here since you are comparing 1.28 vs 1.0 GB cards at the very limit,

it's clear that the 5850 GPU load is not being fully utilized and the framerate is much lower with the same CPU and the CPU load is lower overall because the framerate is lower, it looks like VRAM could explain this as you said, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's not more CPU limited on the 5850 just because is not loading more overall (considering all cores), since we know AMD's DX11 overhead is a lot more critical, and GTA V should be bad case for it?

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph8962/71451.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph9112/73050.png

and the CPU/driver bottleneck could mean lower load for other CPU work?

the 7950+Q9550 and 970+q9550 vs 7950+2500K-OC and 970+2500K-OC could help if it showed a significantly different performance loss with the 7950, but the 970 is much faster and it can also cause confusion (perhaps downclock the 970 to where it can match the 7950 OC in most GPU limited benchmarks!?)