cpu benchmarks for Shadow of Mordor

[frozentundra123456]

http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-test-gpu.html

Unfortunately only did fps test at 720p, but based on those and the core loading tests at 1080p, the game does not seem very demanding for the CPU. Not sure why the recommendation of a 3770k. Really disappointed that game.gpu has gone to doing CPU testing at 720p though. Hoping to see more benches soon.

 

[ShintaiDK]

When it has to run on a weak console CPU. No wonder a dualcore can keep 100FPS.

Less than 1GB for the game application. And then the silly 3-4GB for VRAM.

It also shows that small core optimizations doesnt apply well to big core for AMD. And that a dualcore still beats an 8 core.

 

[AtenRa]

nm

 

[escrow4]

When it has to run on a weak console CPU. No wonder a dualcore can keep 100FPS.

Less than 1GB for the game application. And then the silly 3-4GB for VRAM.

It also shows that small core optimizations doesnt apply well to big core for AMD. And that a dualcore still beats an 8 core.

Actually there isn't exactly much in this game. All the game keeps track of is your "notoriety" so to speak and that's it. It isn't rendering a big old city with NPCs and weather and physics and all that, just a bunch of orcs and ruins with the occasional structure. There is nothing CPU heavy. Even then, AMD is still behind for 90% of its processors. A 15FPS gap is still a 15FPS gap. And I am still satisfied I chose a 780 Ti GHz back in February.

 

[jpiniero]

Looks like HT is helping out big time on the Intel Dual Cores though.

 

[sm625]

Too bad there is no G3258 score. I'm curious to know if that cpu was able to cap out at 100 fps like all the other Intels. As for the AMD FX9370 not even being able to beat an i3-2100... haha no comment.

 

[Sweepr]

As much as some people try to dismiss it, performance per core still matters. There might be some games where over half a dozen slower cores are useful but overall I'd stick with a fast quad-core.

 

[SlowSpyder]

When it has to run on a weak console CPU. No wonder a dualcore can keep 100FPS.

Less than 1GB for the game application. And then the silly 3-4GB for VRAM.

It also shows that small core optimizations doesnt apply well to big core for AMD. And that a dualcore still beats an 8 core.

Actually there isn't exactly much in this game. All the game keeps track of is your "notoriety" so to speak and that's it. It isn't rendering a big old city with NPCs and weather and physics and all that, just a bunch of orcs and ruins with the occasional structure. There is nothing CPU heavy. Even then, AMD is still behind for 90% of its processors. A 15FPS gap is still a 15FPS gap. And I am still satisfied I chose a 780 Ti GHz back in February.

Keep fighting the good fight guys.


Another game in which what CPU you have just doesn't really matter much. AMD and Intel have no trouble playing this one it would seem, even with lower end offerings.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yea, seems absurd that the developers put 3770k as the recommended cpu for this. Seems like they dont really know how to specify the requirements so just put something out that is overkill. Really hard to judge the relative merits of the various cpus based on the test I cited though, because they tested such low resolutions and the framerate is capped at 100. About all we can say is that it is not very cpu intensive. I was hoping for links to more tests at realistic resolutions, but apparently review sites did not get pre-release access to the game, so more results may be slow coming.

All in all though, it looks OK, but not exceptional, and with the relatively easy performance, it seems a strange decision to cap the frames at 100 when 120 hz monitors are starting to show up.

 

[Yuriman]

Keep fighting the good fight guys.


Another game in which what CPU you have just doesn't really matter much. AMD and Intel have no trouble playing this one it would seem, even with lower end offerings.

Exactly.

Unless you're running a 120hz monitor, the cheapest AMD dual module chips will provide the same experience as Intel's best.

If you're shooting for 120fps, AMD doesn't have a chip that will provide it, while any Intel dual core will. I don't imagine too many AMD builds will have 120hz monitors and dual or triple CF/SLI though, considering they're mainly limited to budget builds these days.

EDIT: I haven't seen a 120hz monitor in-person yet, but I'm inclined to believe I wouldn't get much from it, and that they're largely just another way to get us to buy faster video cards and increase demand. Even approaching 60fps things look great to me.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Keep fighting the good fight guys.


Another game in which what CPU you have just doesn't really matter much. AMD and Intel have no trouble playing this one it would seem, even with lower end offerings.

Exactly -- realistically, there is no difference between AMD or Intel on this game..... If you're getting 100+ frames per second, that is roughly triple the framerate of most console games as it is. After you are well above 60 fps, it really becomes a pointless argument.

 

[poohbear]

Why is everyone talking about this game as if its crysis or something? Graphics are mediocre at best. Its just poorly optimized. Heck maybe it was even a marketing ploy to get PC gamers to talk about it & generate buzz!

 

[davie jambo]

Why is everyone talking about this game as if its crysis or something? Graphics are mediocre at best. Its just poorly optimized. Heck maybe it was even a marketing ploy to get PC gamers to talk about it & generate buzz!

The graphics are as good as any game

 

[Squeetard]

EDIT: I haven't seen a 120hz monitor in-person yet, but I'm inclined to believe I wouldn't get much from it, and that they're largely just another way to get us to buy faster video cards and increase demand. Even approaching 60fps things look great to me.

You have not seen a 120hz monitor yet, so you can not comment on it. I bought an ASUS VG278HE with lightboost and immediately sold my Dell U2711. It's like playing on a crt again, halleluliah. In game, walk up to a wall with some detail or text on it and strafe left to right, everything smudges for you right? Imagine having it crystal clear while moving.

The last 2 MMO's I've played, ESO and Archeage have been heavily CPU dependant. My 7970's sit at 30-60% while a couple cores on my 4770k are maxed. I can clock it from 4.2 to 4.4 and see a linear increase in FPS.

 

[SlowSpyder]

But this game doesn't appear to care if you have all the CPU horsepower in the world, it is capped at 100FPS. And it would seem an i3 or even a moderately overclocked FX4300 or above will get you there.

 

[Yuriman]

But this game doesn't appear to care if you have all the CPU horsepower on the world, it is capped at 100FPS. And it would seem an i3 or even a moderately overclocked FX4300 or above will get you there.

According to my math (assuming linear scaling) you'd need 4.6GHz on the 4300 to get 100FPS minimums. However, the FX-9370 seems to be just a little shy, so probably 4.7-4.8GHz to be safe for an FX chip.

That's doable on most FX chips, right?

 

[frozentundra123456]

I am wondering if somehow the CPU load goes up a lot at higher resolution. Would not expect it to, but otherwise the system requirements make no sense. They are just scaring people away that don't have a top end system.

GO VIKINGS!!!!!!

 

[SlowSpyder]

According to my math (assuming linear scaling) you'd need 4.6GHz on the 4300 to get 100FPS minimums. However, the FX-9370 seems to be just a little shy, so probably 4.7-4.8GHz to be safe for an FX chip.

That's doable on most FX chips, right?

I would assume so. I only have a sample size of one that I can report on, though. Mine does 4.9GHz on the factory setting of 1.5v and good cooling. I imagine 4.7GHz would be achievable on most FX's so long as they have adequate cooling. I know I've seen numerous 4.6-4.8GHz FX's in signatures here.

GO VIKINGS!!!!!!

 

[escrow4]

Why is everyone talking about this game as if its crysis or something? Graphics are mediocre at best. Its just poorly optimized. Heck maybe it was even a marketing ploy to get PC gamers to talk about it & generate buzz!

I'd disagree on the optimization. It supports 1920x1200 out the box, Dead Rising 3 doesn't, its actually stable (barring an odd captain glitch, I swear two of them had the same name and some slow cutscene triggering) and it actually has some meat - there are 24 main missions, and 10 missions apiece on each of your weapons alone to turn them into legends. Plus the side quests.

It also looks pretty good. I suppose I could nitpick and say the sound seems optimized for 5.1 (default option is "home theatre'), and the speech seems to be centred on the centre speaker and comes out soft on my 2.1 setup but there isn't really anything unoptimized about it.

 

[Rakehellion]

Actually there isn't exactly much in this game. All the game keeps track of is your "notoriety" so to speak and that's it. It isn't rendering a big old city with NPCs and weather and physics and all that, just a bunch of orcs and ruins with the occasional structure. There is nothing CPU heavy. Even then, AMD is still behind for 90% of its processors. A 15FPS gap is still a 15FPS gap. And I am still satisfied I chose a 780 Ti GHz back in February.

Yeah, it's basically Skyrim. They have to strip these games way down to run on the PS360.

 

[SPBHM]

When it has to run on a weak console CPU. No wonder a dualcore can keep 100FPS.

good job on ignoring all the other console ports,

this game was also made to run on the Xbox 360

I was watching a 4.3GHz 2500K + 780 ti and I've seen drops to under 50 (1080P "ultra", high textures), it looked like CPU limited performance, on that specific part; but I'm far from sure about it.

it would be nice to see a different source testing this game, because it (CPU performance) looks odd.

 

[Denithor]

You have not seen a 120hz monitor yet, so you can not comment on it. I bought an ASUS VG278HE with lightboost and immediately sold my Dell U2711. It's like playing on a crt again, halleluliah. In game, walk up to a wall with some detail or text on it and strafe left to right, everything smudges for you right? Imagine having it crystal clear while moving.

Hmm. But you only get this effect if you have enough GPU horsepower to push a consistent 120 fps, right? Which, for many (most) modern games, at 1080p, is quite a lot of horses...

 

[frozentundra123456]

it would be nice to see a different source testing this game, because it (CPU performance) looks odd.

Agreed. I have been trying to find more benchmarks without much success. I was really curious about the cpu performance of this game, since the recommended processor was FX8350 or i7 3770k. I was expecting to see some indication of the effect of hyperthreading on newer games, but it looks not demanding at all. So it seems either we are missing something or the requirements were grossly overstated.

 

[Kallogan]

next gen consoles are already outdated. What a pity.

 

[Sharkyx1]

http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-test-gpu.html

Unfortunately only did fps test at 720p, but based on those and the core loading tests at 1080p, the game does not seem very demanding for the CPU. Not sure why the recommendation of a 3770k. Really disappointed that game.gpu has gone to doing CPU testing at 720p though. Hoping to see more benches soon.

Yea, seems absurd that the developers put 3770k as the recommended cpu for this. Seems like they dont really know how to specify the requirements so just put something out that is overkill. Really hard to judge the relative merits of the various cpus based on the test I cited though, because they tested such low resolutions and the framerate is capped at 100. About all we can say is that it is not very cpu intensive. I was hoping for links to more tests at realistic resolutions, but apparently review sites did not get pre-release access to the game, so more results may be slow coming.

All in all though, it looks OK, but not exceptional, and with the relatively easy performance, it seems a strange decision to cap the frames at 100 when 120 hz monitors are starting to show up.

Why should they be testing at higher resolutions when that is a GPU related load, when testing CPUS you should be runninng min settings at the lowest resolution