Notebookcheck

F1 2014 Benchmarked

Florian Glaser (translated by Martina Osztovits), 10/24/2014

Technical stagnation. You snooze, you lose: This saying goes perfectly with the Formula 1 simulation from Codemasters. Even in 2014, users crazy for motor sports have to accept second-rate graphics. Learn here what this means for performance.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a loyal reader of notebookcheck? Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Especially wanted:
News Editor, Review Editor
(Smartphones) - Details here

F1 2014 Logo

For the original German article, see here.

Technology

Instead of raising technology to the level of Dirt or GRID, the developer uses the graphics of the predecessor. You'll look for optical changes and improved performance in vain. The latter is not necessary since F1 does not have high hardware requirements, anyway. A simple update of the database (current season) for just under 50 Euros (~$63) will displease some buyers. However, we already know this approach from other sport games (e.g. FIFA). 

Low Settings
Low Settings
Medium Settings
Medium Settings
High Settings
High Settings
Ultra Settings
Ultra Settings

While the cars still look nice, the environment of the route is highly disappointing in F1 2014. Despite spectators, it looks very dull and lifeless. Some parts look like a ghost town. Is there high-end "3D grass"? No. Is there busy bustle beside the pit lane? No. But, the sound is quite convincing and you can get kind of a Formula One feel. However, the atmosphere of the race simulation is not fantastic. While F1 2014 looks quite nice at a first glance, squishy textures, a low number of polygons and low detail level are striking at a closer look. Lighting and other effects are also no longer "up-to-date."

Alike previously, Codemasters scores points with a comprehensive graphics menu with five presets, several anti-aliasing modes and 10 details options. Warning: Although the settings are changed on-the-fly, a restart is required for these to take effect. This problem has already been known for several years.

Low Settings
Low Settings
Medium Settings
Medium Settings
High Settings
High Settings
Ultra Settings
Ultra Settings

Speaking about problems: The Radeon HD 8970M aka R9 M290X could not run the 2014 version. While the .exe file was executed according to the task manager, it did not bring a picture (we assume that this is caused by the Enduro graphics switch). In addition, it is incomprehensible for PC purists that the tutorials only display controller buttons, but no keyboard commands. At least, F1 2014 only requires just 5 GB of hard drive space. Other games from 2014 (The Evil Within, Shadow of Mordor, etc.) need above 30 GB or even 40 GB.

Low Settings
Low Settings
Medium Settings
Medium Settings
High Settings
High Settings
Ultra Settings
Ultra Settings

Benchmark

Users can run the integrated benchmark from the options menu. It is completely identical with the one from the 2013 version and so displays very similar results. Small performance differences of some percent between runs are caused by the varying sequence. Since it is a rather fast game, which requires fast reflexes, we recommend a frame rate of at least 40 fps.

Results

As already mentioned above, the results are very similar to the predecessor's. Even low-end GPUs with a performance like the HD Graphics 4600 do not have problems with 1366x768 pixels and normal details. A cheap multimedia notebook is sufficient for the high preset and 1920x1080 pixels. For example, the GeForce GT 740M achieved just under 50 fps in the benchmark. Ultra settings and 4x MSAA require slightly more performance, but the GeForce GT 750M is (almost) sufficient. Fortunately, only owners of very weak or extremely old notebooks have to live with low graphics settings. 

Speaking of low details: The processor is the main limiting factor (becomes apparent in the GPU comparison) with low settings. We can only hope that Codemasters will widely improve the technology with the next generation in 2015.

F1 2014
    1024x768 Ultra Low Preset     1366x768 Medium Preset     1920x1080 High Preset     1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:4x MS
GeForce GTX 780 Ti, 3770K
Desktop-PC
133 (min: 128) fps ∼99%
131 (min: 100) fps ∼98%
127 (min: 94) fps ∼95%
118 (min: 89) fps ∼98%
GeForce GTX 760, 3770K
Desktop-PC
132 (min: 127) fps ∼98%
131 (min: 101) fps ∼98%
128 (min: 95) fps ∼96%
111 (min: 85) fps ∼93%
Radeon R9 280X, 3770K
Desktop-PC
132 (min: 125) fps ∼98%
127 (min: 91) fps ∼95%
123 (min: 82) fps ∼92%
105 (min: 76) fps ∼88%
GeForce GTX 880M, 4700MQ
Schenker W504
132 (min: 128) fps ∼98%
127 (min: 93) fps ∼95%
120 (min: 84) fps ∼90%
102 (min: 74) fps ∼85%
GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 3770K
Desktop-PC
133 (min: 128) fps ∼99%
130 (min: 103) fps ∼98%
125 (min: 91) fps ∼94%
98 (min: 81) fps ∼82%
GeForce GTX 870M, 4700MQ
Schenker W504
132 (min: 129) fps ∼98%
124 (min: 88) fps ∼93%
121 (min: 85) fps ∼91%
98 (min: 75) fps ∼82%
GeForce GTX 780M, 4700MQ
Schenker W503
132 (min: 129) fps ∼98%
121 (min: 87) fps ∼91%
119 (min: 90) fps ∼89%
96 (min: 69) fps ∼80%
GeForce GTX 770M, 4700MQ
Schenker W503
132 (min: 127) fps ∼98%
122 (min: 88) fps ∼92%
119 (min: 84) fps ∼89%
86 (min: 71) fps ∼72%
GeForce GTX 860M, 4700MQ
Schenker W504
133 (min: 127) fps ∼99%
126 (min: 91) fps ∼95%
118 (min: 84) fps ∼89%
83 (min: 69) fps ∼69%
GeForce GTX 850M, 4340M
Schenker M504
132 (min: 121) fps ∼98%
114 (min: 82) fps ∼86%
96 (min: 71) fps ∼72%
71 (min: 58) fps ∼59%
GeForce GTX 765M, 4700MQ
Schenker W503
132 (min: 128) fps ∼98%
126 (min: 90) fps ∼95%
111 (min: 82) fps ∼83%
67 (min: 55) fps ∼56%
GeForce GT 750M, 4702MQ
Schenker M503
130 (min: 112) fps ∼96%
104 (min: 73) fps ∼78%
67 (min: 56) fps ∼50%
39 (min: 32) fps ∼33%
GeForce GT 740M, 4200M
HP Envy 15-j011sg
115 (min: 99) fps ∼85%
81 (min: 63) fps ∼61%
47 (min: 36) fps ∼35%
28 (min: 22) fps ∼23%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200, 4750HQ, Intel SSD 525 Series SSDMCEAC180B3
Schenker S413
80 (min: 54) fps ∼59%
55 (min: 35) fps ∼41%
43 (min: 27) fps ∼32%
23 (min: 20) fps ∼19%
GeForce GT 720M, 4200M, WDC Scorpio Blue WD10JPVX-22JC3T0
MSI CX61-i572M
55 fps ∼41%
66 fps ∼50%
38 fps ∼29%
20 fps ∼17%
GeForce GT 630M, 3720QM, Seagate Momentus 7200.5 ST9750420AS
Asus N56VM
83 (min: 71) fps ∼61%
54 (min: 40) fps ∼41%
30 (min: 24) fps ∼23%
15 (min: 13) fps ∼13%
HD Graphics 4600, 4700MQ
Schenker W503
81 (min: 56) fps ∼60%
54 (min: 36) fps ∼41%
28 (min: 24) fps ∼21%
13 (min: 12) fps ∼11%
Radeon HD 8650G, A10-5750M, Samsung SSD 470 Series MZ-5PA256/EU
Pumori Test Platform (A10-5750M)
62 (min: 42) fps ∼46%
40 (min: 28) fps ∼30%
29 (min: 21) fps ∼22%
18 (min: 14) fps ∼15%
HD Graphics 4000, 3720QM
Asus N56VM
55 (min: 26) fps ∼41%
33 (min: 16) fps ∼25%
18 (min: 12) fps ∼14%
12 (min: 12) fps ∼10%

Test Systems

Discussion

Four of our test devices stem from Schenker Technologies (mysn.de):

  • W504 (Core i7-4700MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 860M, GTX 870M, GTX 880M, Radeon R9 M290X)
  • W503 (Core i7-4700MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 765M, GTX 770M, GTX 780M)
  • M504 (Core i5-4340M, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 850M)
  • M503 (Core i7-4702MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 750M)

All these notebooks used Windows 7 64-bit. Many thanks to Micron for the 480 GB Crucial M500.

Another test device was provided by Nvidia:

  • HP Envy 15-j011sg (Core i5-4200M, 12 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 740M)

Used GPU drivers: Nvidia 344.11, AMD 14.9, Intel 10.18.10.3907

In addition, we used benchmarks from other notebooks possibly with different drivers.

Overview

Show Restrictions
Pos      Model                                     F1 2014
 F1 2014 (2014)
low
1024x768
Ultra Low Preset
med.
1366x768
Medium Preset
high
1920x1080
High Preset
ultra
1920x1080
Ultra Preset
4x MSAA
 5NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M SLI
118
118
117.52
1102
 6AMD Radeon R9 Fury
113
 7NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
133
130
127
116
 8NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (Notebook)
117
104
 11NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M SLI
118
118
1182
111.52
 12NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
133
131
127
118
 13NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
118
118
118
118
 16AMD Radeon R9 290X
117
117
118
113
 18NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M SLI
115
90
 23NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
118.52
1182
1185
1105
 24NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
121
121
122
120
 25AMD Radeon R9 280X
132
127
123
105
 27NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
117
118
118
114
 28NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M
1142
1163
111.58
95.58
 37AMD Radeon R9 M295X
119
100
86
70
 39*AMD FirePro W7170M
132
111
95
74
 43NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M
132
127
120
102
 47NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
132
131
128
111
 48NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M
132
121
119
96
Pos      Model                                     F1 2014
lowmed.highultra
 49NVIDIA Quadro K5100M
120
119
119
108
 52NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
1182
116.52
1092
932
 53*NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
122
122
122
120
 54NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M
132
124
121
98
 66NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti
133
130
125
98
 70NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
118.52
1104
1087
877
 73NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
133
133
133
92
 74NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M
132
122
119
86
 75NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
133
1202
1113
833
 83NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
118.52
108.54
965
735
 84NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M
1323
1133
963
673
 85NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
133
128
123
84
 86AMD Radeon R9 M280X
58
47
43
34
 92NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M
132
126
111
67
 114NVIDIA Quadro K3100M
120
119
108
60
 116AMD Radeon R9 M370X
119
113
84
50
 123NVIDIA Maxwell GPU Surface Book (940M, GDDR5)
117
94
76
49
 141NVIDIA GeForce 845M
62
48
 144AMD Radeon R9 M265X
64
37
 155NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M
130
104
67
39
Pos      Model                                     F1 2014
lowmed.highultra
 157NVIDIA Quadro K1100M
119
101
55
35
 158NVIDIA GeForce 940M
1012
772
512
292
 166NVIDIA GeForce 840M
102.52
78.52
58.52
33.52
 167AMD Radeon R7 M275DX
64
48
37
30
 172Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
80
55
43
23
 175NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M
115
81
47
28
 176NVIDIA GeForce 930M
90
73.52
522
322
 178NVIDIA GeForce 830M
1072
802
53.52
332
 195AMD Radeon R7 M260X
70
49
31
23
 205AMD Radeon R7 M270
932
622
362
232
 206AMD Radeon R7 M265
33
27
23
17
 211AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
422
33.52
29.52
172
 212AMD Radeon R8 M365DX
39
31
26
20
 216AMD Radeon R7 M360
49
36
27
19
 225AMD Radeon R7 M340
105
72
41
24
 226NVIDIA GeForce 920M
862
692
402
23.52
 227AMD Radeon R6 M340DX
55
37
33
18
 231AMD Radeon R7 M260
642
283
26.52
16.52
 232AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo)
43
33
25
15
 263Intel HD Graphics 5600
74
49
25
15
Pos      Model                                     F1 2014
lowmed.highultra
 269AMD Radeon HD 8670M
56
37
31
19
 270AMD Radeon R6 M255DX
37
29
22
15
 289AMD Radeon HD 8650G
62
40
29
18
 294NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
83
54
30
15
 297AMD Radeon R5 M335
83
56
31
12.5
 299AMD Radeon R5 M330
72
40
20
16
 300AMD Radeon R5 M255
64
42
30
20
 302NVIDIA GeForce 820M
92.52
64.52
38
21
 303Intel HD Graphics 520
54.52
412
242
14.252
 304Intel Iris Graphics 6100
592
37.52
252
162
 305NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M
55
66
38
20
 307AMD Radeon R5 M240
482
342
25
 309AMD Radeon R5 M230
77
52
29
16
 315Intel HD Graphics 6000
55
37
21
13
 318Intel Iris Graphics 5100
44.52
29.52
182
14
 320*AMD Radeon HD 8610G
33
23
16
 323Intel HD Graphics 4600
61.52
422
23.52
12.52
 325Intel HD Graphics 5500
477
327
227
137
 327AMD Radeon R5 (Kaveri)
34
25
 334Intel HD Graphics 5000
51
35
20
13
Pos      Model                                     F1 2014
lowmed.highultra
 366Intel HD Graphics 515
412
27.52
162
12.5
 367Intel HD Graphics 4400
44.52
28.52
18
 397Intel HD Graphics 5300
343
203
133
12
 406Intel HD Graphics 4000
46.52
282
172
12.252
 410*Intel HD Graphics (Broadwell)
34
24
 412AMD Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
34
25
19
 413AMD Radeon R4 (Beema)
35.52
262
19
12
 414Intel HD Graphics 4200
16
12
12
 439AMD Radeon HD 8350G
31
22
17
12
 440AMD Radeon HD 8330
28
20
 443AMD Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema)
33
24
17
 460Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell)
132
12.252
 469Intel HD Graphics (Haswell)
31
20
 489Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail)
16
12
 505*AMD Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema)
37
26
 569Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)
132
12
* Smaller values are better. / * Approximate position

 

Legend
5Stutters – This game is very likely to stutter and have poor frame rates. Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, average frame rates are expected to fall below 25fps
May Stutter – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, stutters and poor frame rates are expected.
30Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 25fps
40Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 35fps
May Run Fluently – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, fluent frame rates are expected.
123Uncertain – This graphics card experienced unexpected performance issues during testing for this game. A slower card may be able to achieve better and more consistent frame rates than this particular GPU running the same benchmark scene.
Uncertain – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game and no reliable interpolation can be made based on the performances of surrounding cards of the same class or family.
The value in the fields displays the average frame rate of all values in the database. Move your cursor over the value to see individual results.
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article:
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > F1 2014 Benchmarked
Florian Glaser, 2014-10-24 (Update: 2014-10-24)