Evolve Benchmarked

Exciting idea. After Left 4 Dead, Turtle Rock Studios published their next multimedia experiment. This time they use the CryEngine from the shooter expert Crytek instead of Valve's Source engine. Our benchmark test will reveal how this impacts hardware requirements.

Florian Glaser, ✓ Tanja Hinum (translated by Martina Osztovits), Published 02/25/2015 🇩🇪 🇵🇱 ...

For the original German article, see here.

Technology

Unlike Crysis 3, Evolve is based on the fourth generation instead of the third generation of the CryEngine, which, for example, shows its muscles in Ryse: Son of Rome. Compared to the previous big project of the developers, graphics improved tremendously.

While textures and polygon count are rather adequate in Left 4 Dead, Evolve is much more hardware-intensive. Apart from the sharpness of objects, the quality of the effects, including smoke, fire, light, or other particles (energy rays, etc.) is particularly convincing. The characters appear more detailed and more lovingly designed, too. The level of Battlefield 4 or Crysis 3 is not completely reached, but the performance is very good for a game designed for multi-player fights. Points of critique are only the level design and the color choice, which is slightly too monotonous or dull over time.

We appreciate that changing the graphics settings does not require restarting the game (not all settings can be changed when a game is running). Speaking about settings: The video menu has just three options. Apart from the display mode, you can only change resolution, gamma value and the overall quality (four presets). The advanced graphics menu offers more options, including five detail or quality controls, vertical synchronization, and various anti-aliasing modes. Those owning an Nvidia notebook can select the significantly better TXAA instead of SMAA, SMAA 1TX or FXAA.

We were not completely satisfied with Evolve in terms of technology. For example, the frame rate sometimes falls by above 50% during effect-intensive fights. Many systems generally suffered from stuttering, although their performance was sufficient on paper (especially with low and medium settings). In addition, loading and game starts should be bit faster. Hence, the developers should spend a little more time on optimization. So far, the title does not run completely smoothly.

Benchmark

We use the beginning of the monster tutorial as the benchmark sequence. After a short camera movement, "Goliath" runs, jumps and climbs through quite a linear jungle. As soon as the monster reaches a higher plateau, we stop recording with the Fraps tool and record minimum and average fps. The latter roughly corresponds to what you can expect from the game. The sequence is neither undemanding nor particularly computationally intensive. Comfortable gameplay should be possible with a benchmark result of 35+.

▶ load Youtube video

Results

Since the graphics quality can only be reduced to some extent (even the low preset still looks acceptable), the hardware requirements are steep. Entry-level or older mid-range GPUs like the HD Graphics 4600 or the GeForce GT 740M are generally too weak for the title. At least a GeForce GT 750M is required for low details and a resolution of 1024x768 pixels. If you want to enjoy medium settings and 1366x768 to 1600x900 pixels, you'll have to own a powerful all-round chip like the GeForce GTX 850M. 1920x1080 pixels and the (very) high preset won't run smoothly with weaker graphics cards than a GeForce GTX 780M or GTX 870M.

Unfortunately, we could not test the Radeon R9 M290X, since the driver installation was messed up and not even a system restore could resolve this problem. In the coming weeks, the results from other AMD chips will follow (most of them low-end and mid-range). All benchmarks considered, Evolve is very demanding and definitely calls for a real gaming notebook with higher settings.

Evolve
1920x1080 Very High Graphics Quality AA:1TX SM 1920x1080 High Graphics Quality AA:FX 1366x768 Medium Graphics Quality 1024x768 Low Graphics Quality
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, 3770K Desktop-PC	87.1 (67^min) fps ∼49% 97.6 (70^min) fps ∼49% 97.8 (60^min) fps ∼43% 104.3 (65^min) fps ∼38%
AMD Radeon R9 290X, 4790K Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X OC	103 (32^min) fps ∼58% 125 (0^min) fps ∼63%
AMD Radeon R9 280X, 3770K Desktop-PC	75.1 (65^min) fps ∼42% 85.9 (68^min) fps ∼43% 97.1 (69^min) fps ∼43% 106.1 (66^min) fps ∼39%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	61.9 (44^min) fps ∼35% 67.1 (51^min) fps ∼34% 87.7 (64^min) fps ∼39% 93.6 (65^min) fps ∼34%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	51.4 (41^min) fps ∼29% 57.5 (47^min) fps ∼29% 86.9 (60^min) fps ∼39% 94.9 (59^min) fps ∼35%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	48.6 (42^min) fps ∼27% 55.7 (48^min) fps ∼28% 83.2 (57^min) fps ∼37% 91.3 (59^min) fps ∼33%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, 4700MQ Schenker W503	45.2 (40^min) fps ∼25% 50.9 (44^min) fps ∼26% 81.8 (59^min) fps ∼36% 89.9 (62^min) fps ∼33%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	40 (35^min) fps ∼22% 46 (40^min) fps ∼23% 78 (57^min) fps ∼35% 88 (62^min) fps ∼32%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, 4700MQ Schenker W503	28.8 (25^min) fps ∼16% 32.8 (28^min) fps ∼16% 60.4 (55^min) fps ∼27% 74.7 (63^min) fps ∼27%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	27.6 (24^min) fps ∼16% 32.4 (28^min) fps ∼16% 61.1 (55^min) fps ∼27% 82.4 (72^min) fps ∼30%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M, 4340M Schenker M504	23 (20^min) fps ∼13% 26.9 (22^min) fps ∼14% 51.3 (46^min) fps ∼23% 69 (60^min) fps ∼25%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, 4700MQ Schenker W503	21.8 (19^min) fps ∼12% 24.9 (21^min) fps ∼13% 46.1 (41^min) fps ∼20% 62.1 (56^min) fps ∼23%
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M, 4702MQ Schenker M503	12.2 (9^min) fps ∼7% 14.3 (12^min) fps ∼7% 27.2 (22^min) fps ∼12% 35.9 (29^min) fps ∼13%
AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), A10-7850K A10-7850K Asus A88-XM-PLUS	13 (11^min) fps ∼7% 15.7 (14^min) fps ∼8% 27.5 (22^min) fps ∼12% 35.7 (29^min) fps ∼13%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, 4750HQ SCHENKER S413	12 (10^min) fps ∼6% 21 (11^min) fps ∼9% 28 (20^min) fps ∼10%
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M, 2637M Acer Aspire M3-581TG	9.2 (4^min) fps ∼5% 20.2 (18^min) fps ∼9% 26.3 (23^min) fps ∼10%
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, 4200M HP Envy 15-j011sg	8.4 (5^min) fps ∼5% 10.1 (7^min) fps ∼5% 19.8 (13^min) fps ∼9% 26.5 (17^min) fps ∼10%
NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M, 4200M MSI CX61-i572M	7.1 (0^min) fps ∼4% 13.7 (0^min) fps ∼6% 18.7 (0^min) fps ∼7%
AMD Radeon HD 8650G, A10-5750M Pumori Test Platform (A10-5750M)	18.5 (15^min) fps ∼7%
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M, 3720QM Asus N56VM	6.3 (3^min) fps ∼3% 12 (10^min) fps ∼5% 16.2 (14^min) fps ∼6%
Intel HD Graphics 4600, 4700MQ Schenker W503	11 (9^min) fps ∼5% 14.7 (12^min) fps ∼5%
Intel Iris Graphics 5100, 4258U Apple MacBook Pro Retina 13 inch 2013-10	14.4 (8^min) fps ∼6% 19.1 (15^min) fps ∼7%

Test Systems

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, GTX 970M, GTX 980M, 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)

Each of these notebooks has Windows 7 64-bit installed.

Nvidia provided us with further test devices:

HP Envy 15-j011sg (Core i5-4200M, 12 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 740M)
MSI CX61-i572M281BW7 (Core i5-4200M, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 720M)
Acer Aspire Timeline Ultra M3-581TG (Core i7-2637M, 4GB DDR3, GeForce GT 640M)

In addition, Intel provided us with the:

Schenker S413 (Core i7-4750HQ, 8 GB DDR3, Iris Pro Graphics 5200)

The desktop computers house CPUs/APUs from Intel and AMD, SSDs from Micron, Intel, and Samsung, motherboards from Intel and Asus and graphics cards from Nvidia and AMD.

Used GPU driver: Nvidia 347.52, AMD 14.12, Intel 15.36.14.64.4080

Overview

Read all 1 comments / answer

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Florian Glaser - Managing Editor Gaming Laptops - 624 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2009

I discovered my interest in computers in my childhood, growing up with MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 in the early 1990s. I was especially fascinated with computer games, even from an early age. From Monkey Island through Lands of Lore to Doom, I tried every game I could get my hands on. I have been working for Notebookcheck since 2009 with my focus mostly being on high-performance gaming laptops.

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Archive of our own reviews > Evolve Benchmarked

Florian Glaser, 2015-02-25 (Update: 2024-08-15)

Pos	Model	< Prev Next > Evolve (2015)
Pos	Model	low 1024x768 Low Graphics Quality	med. 1366x768 Medium Graphics Quality	high 1920x1080 High Graphics Quality FXAA	ultra 1920x1080 Very High Graphics Quality 1TX SMAA
127	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 SLI (Laptop)	274.8	225.7	199	177.8
167	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980	104.3	97.8	97.6	87.1
179	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (Laptop)	222.8ⁿ²	190.55ⁿ²	114.65ⁿ²	101.3ⁿ²
182	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M SLI	189.3	178.3	130.7	117.2
212	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970	211.4	176.4	94.6	85.7
236	AMD Radeon R9 290X			125	103
243	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M	123.65ⁿ⁴	114.05ⁿ⁴	76.8ⁿ⁴	68.25ⁿ⁴
251	AMD Radeon R9 280X	106.1	97.1	85.9	75.1
253	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960	159.4	117.9	65.6	57.1
261	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M	126.35ⁿ²	102.65ⁿ²	62.9ⁿ³	55.6ⁿ³
274	AMD Radeon R9 M295X	132.7	89.4	61	53.3
281	AMD Radeon R7 370	132.4	99.6	56.5	49.07
283	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M	91.3	83.2	55.7	48.6
287	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950	133.8	98.7	53	46.7
296	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M	89.9	81.8	50.9	45.2
297	NVIDIA Quadro K5100M	103.2	79.1	43.4	38.1
302	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M	115.3ⁿ²	84.05ⁿ²	46.1ⁿ³	40.5ⁿ³
306	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M	88	78	46	40
327	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M	86.2ⁿ⁴	65.6ⁿ⁵	35.5ⁿ⁷	31.2ⁿ⁷
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Evolve
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
352	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M	74.7	60.4	32.8	28.8
357	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M	82.4	61.35ⁿ²	32.6ⁿ²	28.5ⁿ²
365	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M	67.45ⁿ²	48.7ⁿ³	26ⁿ³	23.05ⁿ²
373	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M	67.95ⁿ²	50.3ⁿ²	26.25ⁿ²	22.5ⁿ²
377	AMD Radeon R9 M280X	59	44.5	23.9	20.8
380	AMD Radeon HD 6870	60	52	29.2	25.7
382	NVIDIA GeForce 945M	59.9	36.8	20.9	18
383	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M	62.1	46.1	24.9	21.8
407	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 768MB	51	39.3	19.3	16
410	NVIDIA Quadro K3100M	54.9	42.1	23.2	20.5
412	AMD Radeon R9 M370X	62.5	40.4	21.6	18.5
452	NVIDIA GeForce 845M	27.2	20	10.3	10.1
455	AMD Radeon R9 M265X	32.3	25.6	15.5	12.8
465	NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M	35.9	27.2	14.3	12.2
468	NVIDIA GeForce 940MX	36.1	25.6
470	NVIDIA Quadro K1100M	27.2	21.3	11.4	10.4
472	NVIDIA GeForce 940M	34.8ⁿ⁴	25.2ⁿ⁴	13.7ⁿ³	11.9ⁿ³
481	AMD Radeon R9 M375	41.1	31.1	16.7
503	NVIDIA GeForce 840M	35.7ⁿ²	25.4ⁿ²	13.35ⁿ²	11.05ⁿ²
508	AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)	35.7	27.5	15.7	13
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Evolve
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
509	Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200	28	21	12
510	AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)	31.8	24.7	13.6
518	NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M	26.5	19.8	10.1	8.4
520	NVIDIA GeForce 930M	32.8ⁿ²	23.6ⁿ²
527	NVIDIA GeForce 830M	29.5	21.5	11.2	8.1
553	AMD Radeon R7 M260X	19.6	14.3	7.8	6.9
562	AMD Radeon R7 M270	30.7ⁿ²	23.1ⁿ²	12.8ⁿ²	10.95ⁿ²
563	AMD Radeon R7 M265	34.8	26.2	14.8	13
568	NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M	26.3	20.2	9.2
570	AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)	26.7	20.4	10.6	8.8
571	AMD Radeon R8 M365DX	27.4	20.1	11.1
575	AMD Radeon R7 M360	27.9	20.5	11.2	9.6
577	NVIDIA GeForce 920M	25.4ⁿ³	18.8ⁿ³	9.8ⁿ³	7.2ⁿ³
588	AMD Radeon R7 M260	25.4	19.3	10.3
589	AMD Radeon R7 M340	26	16.2	9.8	6.1
604	Intel HD Graphics 530	15.5ⁿ²	11.25ⁿ²	6.3	5.7
610	AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo)	19.3	14.1	7.8
644	Intel HD Graphics 5600	19	13.5	7.7	6.7
670	AMD Radeon HD 8650G	18.5
675	NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M	16.2	12	6.3
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Evolve
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
678	AMD Radeon R5 M335	22.2	14.5	8.5	5.2
679	AMD Radeon R5 M330	20.1	15	8.3
681	AMD Radeon R5 M255	26.2	19.5	10.4	8.7
686	Intel HD Graphics 520	11.1	8
687	Intel Iris Graphics 6100	19.9ⁿ²	14.7ⁿ²	8.2ⁿ²	6.3ⁿ²
689	NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M	18.7	13.7	7.1
691	AMD Radeon R5 M240	23	17.5
703	Intel HD Graphics 6000	18.7	13.5
706	Intel Iris Graphics 5100	19.1	14.4
710	Intel HD Graphics 4600	13.3ⁿ²	9.8ⁿ²
712	Intel HD Graphics 5500	13.8ⁿ³	10.2ⁿ³	6.45ⁿ²	6.1
753	Intel HD Graphics 5000	12.7	9.6	5.5	2.9
790	Intel HD Graphics 4400	13.8	10.1
825	Intel HD Graphics 5300	7	5.1	2.8	1.1
833	AMD Radeon HD 7480D	10.7
834	Intel HD Graphics 4000	12.2
840	AMD Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)	12.7	9.2
841	AMD Radeon R4 (Beema)	11.1	7.5
879	AMD Radeon HD 8330	8.7	6.4
902	Intel HD Graphics (Braswell)	5.4	3.9
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Evolve
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
916	Intel HD Graphics (Haswell)	7.7	5.7
1028	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	3.2	1.7

Legend
5	Stutters – 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.
30	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 25fps
40	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 35fps
60	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 58fps
	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.
?	Uncertain – 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.