GRAND THEFT AUTO V - BENCHMARK THREAD

[IdortMasterRace]

If there is already a thread similar to this, apologies in advance. I did have a look around but didn't see anything.

 

Basically, post your computer specs (in text form, or maybe post your Speccy or something), post your GTAV graphic settings, resolution, etc, and then post what frame rates you get during gameplay. Would be interesting to see what different people get with different rigs.

 

Template:

 

Resolution:
FXAA:
MSAA:
NVIDIA TXAA:
VSync:

Population Density:
Population Variety:
Distance Scaling:

Texture Quality:
Shader Quality:
Shadow Quality:
Reflection Quality:
Reflection MSAA:
Water Quality:
Particles Quality:
Grass Quality:
Soft Shadows:
Post FX:

Anisotropic Filtering:
Ambient Occlusion:
Tesselation:

 

FPS on average:

 

Will post mine in a different post, don't want to clutter this OP.

[IdortMasterRace]

 

Resolution: 1920x1080
FXAA: Off
MSAA: 2x
NVIDIA TXAA: Off
VSync: On

Population Density: Max
Population Variety: Max
Distance Scaling: Max

Texture Quality: Very High
Shader Quality: High
Shadow Quality: Very High
Reflection Quality: Very High
Reflection MSAA: Off
Water Quality: Very High
Particles Quality: Very High
Grass Quality: Normal (tanks frame rate for me)
Soft Shadows: Softest
Post FX: Normal

Anisotropic Filtering: 16x
Ambient Occlusion: High
Tesselation: Very High

 

FPS on average: With VSync on, I get almost a constant 60 fps. When there's a lot happening on screen with explosions and stuff, I get drops into the 50s as expected.

[Unlikelyjoker]

Currently running: I7-2700K @ 4.5GHz, X2 GTX 780

+ SweetFX

 Resolution: 1920x1080

FXAA: ON
MSAA: OFF
NVIDIA TXAA: OFF 
VSync: OFF

Population Density: FULL
Population Variety:  FULL
Distance Scaling: FULL

Texture Quality: Very High
Shader Quality: Normal

Shadow Quality: Normal
Reflection Quality: High
Reflection MSAA: Off
Water Quality: Normal
Particles Quality: High
Grass Quality: High
Soft Shadows:  Softer
Post FX: Ultra

Anisotropic Filtering: X4
Ambient Occlusion: Normal
Tesselation: Normal

 

FPS on average: Game crashed on me after the test. I would say around 100-110 lowest was 89 highest was 131 

[Notree]

Resolution: 1080p
FXAA: off
MSAA: 2x
NVIDIA TXAA: 
VSync: off

Population Density: max
Population Variety: 95%
Distance Scaling: 95%

Texture Quality: very high
Shader Quality:high
Shadow Quality:high
Reflection Quality:high
Reflection MSAA:high
Water Quality: very high
Particles Quality: high
Grass Quality: Normal

Soft Shadows: AMD
Post FX: high

Anisotropic Filtering: x16
Ambient Occlusion: on

Tesselation: High

 

FPS on average: 50+

 

2500k@ 4.6ghz/ 8gb /7970

[Tim Drake]

But the benchmark sucks and doesn't show jack about ingame

 

*Reserved for when I get home*

[IdortMasterRace]

But the benchmark sucks and doesn't show jack about ingame

 

*Reserved for when I get home*

 

I didn't mean use the actual in-game benchmark, I meant just make an average estimate of what you get in normal gameplay.

 

The benchmark isn't a good tool anyway. It's very different between each test (in some tests, there's lots of shit happening, in others there isn't). NVIDIA didn't use the in-game benchmark when they did their graphic settings guide either.

[Tim Drake]

I didn't mean use the actual in-game benchmark, I meant just make an average estimate of what you get in normal gameplay.

 

The benchmark isn't a good tool anyway. It's very different between each test (in some tests, there's lots of shit happening, in others there isn't). NVIDIA didn't use the in-game benchmark when they did their graphic settings guide either.

Ah ok.

 

I will update my post when I get home then

[Wesleydn]

CPU: i5 4690k @ 4.5Ghz

GPU: MSI GTX 970 @ 1500mhz core and 3900mhz memory

RAM: 16GB 1600mhz

-GRAPHICS-

Resolution: 1920x1080
FXAA: On
MSAA: X2
NVIDIA TXAA:  On
VSync: Off

Population Density: Max
Population Variety: Max
Distance Scaling: Max

Texture Quality: Very high
Shader Quality: High
Shadow Quality: Very high
Reflection Quality: Very high
Reflection MSAA: Off
Water Quality: Very high
Particles Quality: Very High
Grass Quality: High
Soft Shadows: NVIDIA PCSS
Post FX: Very high

Anisotropic Filtering: X16
Ambient Occlusion: High
Tesselation: High

 

-ADVANCED GRAPHICS-

Long Shadows: On

High Resolution Shadows: On

High Detail streaming while flying: On

Extended Distance Scaling: 1/4

Extended Shadows Distance: Max

 

FPS on average In game: 65+

FPS on average GTA benchmark: 60+

[D3MON]

I drive to the ponsbys just south east of micheals house (in his audi) drive down to teh end of the road, loop around, drive back up, turn around at the intersection above and then skid into the parking space outside, I get highs of 68ish fps with lows working down to 50fps but averaging 59/60, the game looks freakin' beautiful!!! if i could get a 4k 50in tv with DP or HDMI2.0 on the cheap id do it.
Non-gta5 drivers
fx8320@4.5ghz 45-50% cpu usage suckers..
16gb kingston beast 2400
msi r9-290 twin frozr at 1000/1250 using 3.2gb of vram
click on them then open in new tab to see more detail

[SkilledRebuilds]

If there is already a thread similar to this, apologies in advance. I did have a look around but didn't see anything.

 

Basically, post your computer specs (in text form, or maybe post your Speccy or something), post your GTAV graphic settings, resolution, etc, and then post what frame rates you get during gameplay. Would be interesting to see what different people get with different rigs.

Keen but wouldn't different locations/angles/fidelity in certain sections that people use also sway results of expected 'Average' performance they give overall like the benchmark changing.

Maybe pick a spot for people to go to?....take a selfie at a certain location with fraps (or whatever) on

/Also a seperate Day/Night result..? If one is more intensive than another... maybe I'm asking for it to be too complex.... but it would finetune extected performance results maybe..

[Adreyu]

i7 4790k 4.7ghz
corsair h80i
8gb 1866 ddr3
z97 Krait SLI 
240gb ssd (its on this)
1tb 7200 hdd
zotac gtx 970 1475 core clock and +400 on memory
750w gold rosewill capstone psu
raidmax seiran blue/white

Resolution: 2560x1440
FXAA: no
MSAA: no
NVIDIA TXAA: 2
VSync: no

Population Density: max
Population Variety: max
Distance Scaling: max

Texture Quality: Very High
Shader Quality: very high
Shadow Quality: high 
Reflection Quality: very high
Reflection MSAA: x4
Water Quality: very high
Particles Quality: very high
Grass Quality: very high
Soft Shadows: soft
Post FX: high

Anisotropic Filtering: x16
Ambient Occlusion: high
Tesselation: high

 

FPS on average: 65    (40 in grass)

[Adreyu]

People should also post their offroading average. it makes a big difference with foliage turned high

[IdortMasterRace]

Keen but wouldn't different locations/angles/fidelity in certain sections that people use also sway results of expected 'Average' performance they give overall like the benchmark changing.

Maybe pick a spot for people to go to?....take a selfie at a certain location with fraps (or whatever) on

/Also a seperate Day/Night result..? If one is more intensive than another... maybe I'm asking for it to be too complex.... but it would finetune extected performance results maybe..

 

Just an average during all kinds of gameplay. Like what I posted, I get 60 fps all the time no matter the day/weather, but drops to 50s when explosions and heavy action is happening. Others can post similar, like I've heard some people get low FPS in forest areas but otherwise consistent FPS.

 

I'd say something like that is more accurate than "I get this FPS in this one specific location", because one specific location isn't representitive of general gameplay.

[Laurysss]

Currently running: I7-2700K @ 4.5GHz, X2 GTX 780

+ SweetFX

 Resolution: 1920x1080

FXAA: ON

MSAA: OFF

NVIDIA TXAA: OFF 

VSync: OFF

Population Density: FULL

Population Variety:  FULL

Distance Scaling: FULL

Texture Quality: Very High

Shader Quality: Normal

Shadow Quality: Normal

Reflection Quality: High

Reflection MSAA: Off

Water Quality: Normal

Particles Quality: High

Grass Quality: High

Soft Shadows:  Softer

Post FX: Ultra

Anisotropic Filtering: X4

Ambient Occlusion: Normal

Tesselation: Normal

 

FPS on average: Game crashed on me after the test. I would say around 100-110 lowest was 89 highest was 131 

Why are you on normal on a few settings? 780.

[Thony]

Why are you on normal on a few settings? 780.

Eitherhe has high refresh monitor and wants 90+ FPS / had crashes (this are stable settings) or doesnt care about the settings he turned down.

Thats my best guess.

[Samfisher]

Benchmarks mean nothing if you don't standardize the settings used.

[No Nrg]

i5-4690k OC to 4.4Ghz

8gb 2133Mhz ram

GTX 980 1444Mhz core/7.52Ghz Memory

 

Resolution: 2560x1440p
FXAA: On
MSAA: 2x
NVIDIA TXAA: On
VSync: off (G-sync)

Population Density: Max
Population Variety: Max
Distance Scaling: Max

Texture Quality: Very High
Shader Quality: Very High
Shadow Quality: Very High
Reflection Quality: Ultra
Reflection MSAA: Off
Water Quality: Very high
Particles Quality: Very High
Grass Quality: Very High
Soft Shadows: Softest
Post FX: Ultra

Anisotropic Filtering: 16x
Ambient Occlusion: High
Tesselation: Very High

 

 

Noticed Advanced settings aren't included, but here are mine:

Long Shadows: Off

High Resolution Shadows: On

High Detail Streaming While Flying: Off

Extended Distance Scaling: 80%

Extended Shadow Distance: 60%

 

FPS on average 45-60 outside (haven't made it to wilderness areas, may be lower with lots of grass), 70-85 inside, cutscenes

No true benchmark ran, just observation of FPS ranges during over three hours of gameplay

[Samfisher]

For easier benchmarking, set a default setting that everyone runs at (that's the true reason to benchmark, to determine the difference with the same workload).

 

Also Benchmark scores are saved, and many people don't know that.

 

Documents\Rockstar Games\GTA V\Benchmarks

 

Open with WordPad (Notepad formatting screws it up).

[Syh]

For easier benchmarking, set a default setting that everyone runs at (that's the true reason to benchmark, to determine the difference with the same workload).

 

Also Benchmark scores are saved, and many people don't know that.

 

Documents\Rockstar Games\GTA V\Benchmarks

 

Open with WordPad (Notepad formatting screws it up).

 

Yeah, I agree. I was thinking that it was a bit odd there wasn't standard settings for this test.

 

I guess the OP just wanted people to be able to check what settings their setup might run at and at what FPS.. but I don't know.

[No Nrg]

This works as-is for comparison of settings people use and the resulting framerates at different resolutions. The in-game benchmark gives a different reading every time and is just as random as the game itself.

 

there are plenty of different official benchmarks out there if people want to read them:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/gta-v-pc-graphics-performance-review,1.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Rockstar/GTA_V_Performance/

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/04/27/grand_theft_auto_v_single_gpu_performance_review_part_1

[IdortMasterRace]

This works as-is for comparison of settings people use and the resulting framerates at different resolutions. The in-game benchmark gives a different reading every time and is just as random as the game itself.

 

there are plenty of different official benchmarks out there if people want to read them:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/gta-v-pc-graphics-performance-review,1.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Rockstar/GTA_V_Performance/

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/04/27/grand_theft_auto_v_single_gpu_performance_review_part_1

 

For easier benchmarking, set a default setting that everyone runs at (that's the true reason to benchmark, to determine the difference with the same workload).

 

Also Benchmark scores are saved, and many people don't know that.

 

Documents\Rockstar Games\GTA V\Benchmarks

 

Open with WordPad (Notepad formatting screws it up).

 

Again, this isn't supposed to be an official objective benchmark. It's for people to get an estimation of what kind of frame rates people get in actual gameplay, and what kinf of graphic settings they manage to use. We know that Guru3D, Techpowerup, etc. do official benchmarks, but this thread isn't for that.

[YiffyAki]

Welp, I'll be the low end noob.

 

Acer Aspire V5 573p

Intel Core i5 4200u

8GB 1600MHz DDR3L G.Skill Ripjaws

Windows 8.1

 

Undervolted and overclocked, GPU @1250MHz

 

Resolution: 1280x720
FXAA: 0
MSAA: 0
NVIDIA TXAA: 0 
VSync: Enabled

Population Density: Lowest
Population Variety: Lowest
Distance Scaling: Lowest

Texture Quality: Normal
Shader Quality: Low
Shadow Quality: Low
Reflection Quality:  Low
Reflection MSAA: 0
Water Quality: Ultra
Particles Quality: Ultra
Grass Quality: Normal
Soft Shadows:  Yes
Post FX: Low

Anisotropic Filtering: None
Ambient Occlusion: Low
Tesselation: Off

 

FPS on average: 20+

[No Nrg]

Welp, I'll be the low end noob.

 

Intel Core i5 4200u

8GB 1600MHz DDR3L G.Skill Ripjaws

Windows 8.1

 

Undervolted and overclocked, GPU @1250MHz

 

Resolution: 1280x720

FXAA: 0

MSAA: 0

NVIDIA TXAA: 0 

VSync: Enabled

Population Density: Lowest

Population Variety: Lowest

Distance Scaling: Lowest

Texture Quality: Normal

Shader Quality: Low

Shadow Quality: Low

Reflection Quality:  Low

Reflection MSAA: 0

Water Quality: Ultra

Particles Quality: Ultra

Grass Quality: Normal

Soft Shadows:  Yes

Post FX: Low

Anisotropic Filtering: None

Ambient Occlusion: Low

Tesselation: Off

 

FPS on average: 20+

Ouch, I'm sorry..... :huh:

[YiffyAki]

Ouch, I'm sorry..... :huh:

Eh... It's not that bad.. It's playable... I wish I could ramp it up higher but...

Hey, for a 400$ laptop with a 1080p IPS panel and a touch screen, I think it's alright. x3