Notebookcheck

F1 2017 Notebook and Desktop Benchmarks

Florian Glaser (translated by Martina Osztovits), 08/28/2017

World tour. F1 2017 starts into the current Formula One season with extremely wide rear tires and very flat-looking bodies. Our benchmark article will reveal whether motorsport fans will get their money's worth in terms of driving experience as well as technology.

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: 
German-English-Translator - Details here
Review Editor - 
Details here
News Editor - Details here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F1 2017

For the original German review, see here.

Technology

As the engine of the F1 series had remained almost unchanged (F1 2014 vs. F1 2013 vs. F1 2012), we completely skipped the 2015 and 2016 edition. The first impression of the brand new edition is surprisingly positive. While we complained about texture quality, lighting and lack of details in the previous article, F1 2017 convinces with quite sharp object surfaces and a nice light-shadow system for a race game. Moreover, "3D grass", which we painfully missed in the past and is known from other sport games (e.g. FIFA), has been added now.

F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017

The biggest highlight is the representation of the weather. Rain in particular, looks great. Apart from many drops dripping from the sky, reflecting puddles and water effects on the camera are delighting. As a result, you felt as if you were in the thick of the things. In short: The race simulation provides a great atmosphere.

F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017

Further pros are the familiar detailed graphics menu, from which other developers can learn a thing or two. The video options consist of as many as 11 settings including resolution, image mode, image reproduction (frequency, aspect ratio, vertical synchronization, HDR, …), anisotropic filtering, and anti aliasing. Unlike the recently published Dirt 4, which also stems from Codemasters, high-end modes such as MSAA have been omitted. The integrated TAA significantly reduces flickering along slating edges, but the image sharpness falls slightly.

F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017

The advanced setup of the options menu is really detailed. It provides as many as 16 individual settings and 5 presets, which adjust the look in one go. It is rather annoying that several changes require a restart of the game. Thanks to skippable intro videos and a decent loading time, this will not take a long time however.

F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017

Talking of requirements: F1 2017 currently needs up to 32 GB of storage space. At least, the download size is only 21 GB. We hardly faced technical problems during the tests. Only changing the resolution required two tries on several systems. It is also rather annoying that the menu structure is unnecessarily nested.

Benchmark

The developers deserve praise for significantly enhancing the benchmark (in comparison to our last article). Previously, you had to do with one course and fixed weather conditions. Now, you can freely select the course and choose between bright sky and rain. Moreover, the camera mode can be changed and an fps counter and a loop function (comes in handy for evaluating performance over time and battery tests) can be enabled.

The analysis at the end of the benchmark has also been significantly improved. Instead of only reporting minimum, average and total frames, it also shows the maximum fps and the frame time, which are particularly interesting in dual GPU devices. Moreover, several basic CPU, GPU and RAM information are displayed.

F1 2017
F1 2017
F1 2017

Although the benchmark runs automatically and we selected a fixed perspective (cockpit) for the tests, the results are not as constant as of other games due to slightly varying runs (duration of the race, position). Fluctuations of +/- 5% are usual between runs. Since a decent frame rate is required due to the high speed of the high horsepower monsters, an average of at least 40 fps is required. Demanding gamer will certainly wish for at least 60 fps  or - if a compatible display is available - 120 fps.

According to our experiences, it hardly has an impact on the results whether rain is enabled or not. In a brief test with the GeForce GTX 980, the results were almost identical, with a slight advantage in favor of good weather. The video below shows our benchmark settings in detail.

Results

As with the Dirt and the Grid series, the system requirements of F1 2017 are quite low. This is not surprising, since once again, Codemaster's own EGO engine is used, which is quite undemanding in terms of hardware and referred to as Version 4.0.

While the Formula One simulation does not look too good with minimum details (spongy surfaces, imprecise shadows, no blades of grass, poor lighting, …), the game runs well enough with an entry-level GPU, although older and/or especially weak chips already reach their limits with 1280x720 pixels. A mid-range graphics card is recommended for medium settings and 1366x768 pixels (GeForce 940M or better).

Ultra Low Preset
Ultra Low Preset
Medium Preset & 4x AF
Medium Preset & 4x AF
High Preset, TAA & 8x AF
High Preset, TAA & 8x AF
Ultra High Preset, TAA & 16x AF
Ultra High Preset, TAA & 16x AF
Ultra Low Preset
Ultra Low Preset
Medium Preset & 4x AF
Medium Preset & 4x AF
High Preset, TAA & 8x AF
High Preset, TAA & 8x AF
Ultra High Preset, TAA & 16x AF
Ultra High Preset, TAA & 16x AF

Those who want to enjoy F1 2017 at 1920x1080 pixels, activated TA, and high preset, require a model in between mid-range and top-of-the-range (e.g. the GeForce GTX 960M). High-end GPUs such as the GeForce GTX 1060 are first required at maximum details. We recommend at least a GeForce GTX 1070 for owners of 4K displays who want to maximize all settings.

While the processor hardly affects performance in most games, it might become a limiting factor in F1 2017 – depending on graphics performance, pixel count, and settings (see table). We will add further benchmarks, especially of AMD and Intel GPUs, in the coming days and weeks.

F1 2017
    3840x2160 Ultra High Preset AA:T AF:16x     1920x1080 Ultra High Preset AA:T AF:16x     1920x1080 High Preset AA:T AF:8x     1920x1080 Medium Preset AF:4x     1366x768 Medium Preset AF:4x     1280x720 Ultra Low Preset
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop), 6700K
Desktop PC
61 (min: 55) fps ∼87%
120 (min: 99) fps ∼100%
148 (min: 120) fps ∼88%
177 (min: 146) fps ∼93%
181 (min: 142) fps ∼100%
234 (min: 180) fps ∼100%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Desktop), 6700K
Desktop PC
50 (min: 45) fps ∼71%
104 (min: 89) fps ∼87%
146 (min: 123) fps ∼87%
173 (min: 138) fps ∼91%
180 (min: 141) fps ∼99%
231 (min: 180) fps ∼99%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6820HK
Asus G752VS
45 (min: 41) fps ∼64%
93 (min: 81) fps ∼78%
132 (min: 110) fps ∼79%
157 (min: 124) fps ∼83%
161 (min: 126) fps ∼89%
200 (min: 157) fps ∼85%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, 6700K
Desktop PC
34 (min: 32) fps ∼49%
75 (min: 68) fps ∼63%
117 (min: 105) fps ∼70%
143 (min: 127) fps ∼75%
175 (min: 144) fps ∼97%
230 (min: 180) fps ∼98%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop), 6700K
Desktop PC
33 (min: 30) fps ∼47%
74 (min: 64) fps ∼62%
115 (min: 104) fps ∼68%
145 (min: 128) fps ∼76%
178 (min: 142) fps ∼98%
229 (min: 179) fps ∼98%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 6820HK
MSI GT62VR
30 (min: 26) fps ∼43%
66 (min: 57) fps ∼55%
103 (min: 88) fps ∼61%
125 (min: 110) fps ∼66%
137 (min: 112) fps ∼76%
178 (min: 141) fps ∼76%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), 7700HQ
MSI GE72 7RE-046
16 (min: 14) fps ∼23%
40 (min: 36) fps ∼33%
66 (min: 53) fps ∼39%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ
Asus Strix GL753VD-GC045T
33 (min: 28) fps ∼28%
52 (min: 46) fps ∼31%
67 (min: 58) fps ∼35%
133 (min: 105) fps ∼57%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
MSI GE72 965M Ti
36 (min: 33) fps ∼30%
60 (min: 54) fps ∼36%
NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (Laptop GT 1030), 7700HQ
MSI PL62 MX150 7700HQ
13 (min: 6) fps ∼19%
20 (min: 17) fps ∼17%
32 (min: 29) fps ∼19%
41 (min: 36) fps ∼22%
82 (min: 55) fps ∼35%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 6700HQ
MSI PE60 2QD
20 (min: 18) fps ∼17%
34 (min: 31) fps ∼20%
43 (min: 37) fps ∼23%
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 6700HQ
MSI CX72 6QD
18 (min: 16) fps ∼11%
32 (min: 26) fps ∼17%
50 (min: 43) fps ∼21%
NVIDIA GeForce 920M, 2970M
MSI CX61 2QC 2970M MS-16GD
15 (min: 13) fps ∼8%
34 (min: 19) fps ∼15%

Overview

Show Restrictions
Pos      Model                                     F1 2017
 F1 2017 (2017)
low
1280x720
Ultra Low Preset
med.
1920x1080
Medium Preset
4xAF
high
1920x1080
High Preset
8xAF TAA
ultra
1920x1080
Ultra High Preset
16xAF TAA
4k
3840x2160
Ultra High Preset
16xAF TAA
 2NVIDIA Titan X Pascal
217
149
127
104
70
 4NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Desktop)
221
190
168
109
68
 5NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 SLI (Laptop)
132
89
42
 6NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop)
234
177
148
120
61
 7NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
1432
1062
54.52
 8NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (Desktop)
106
52
 9*NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q
119.52
96.52
48
 12NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Desktop)
231
173
146
104
50
 13NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
200
157
132
93
45
 16NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
125
80.52
36
 21NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
230
143
117
75
34
 22AMD Radeon RX 580 (Desktop)
204
184
160
77
46
 26*NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Max-Q
193
140
105
72
34
 29NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop)
229
145
115
74
33
 33*AMD Radeon RX 580 (Laptop)
137
104
87
63
27
 34NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
178
125
993
63.54
30
 35*NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q
94
77
56
 57NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook)
1812
90.52
703
443
16
 71NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
128.52
662
55.52
34.52
Pos      Model                                     F1 2017
lowmed.highultra4k
 88NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
60
36
 97*AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop)
37
27
24
20
 113NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 (Desktop)
112
50
39
38
13
 114NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (Laptop GT 1030)
82.52
412
322
202
13
 119*AMD Radeon Pro 555
110
47
38
 131*AMD Radeon Pro 450
95
41
33
 132NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
43
34
20
 210NVIDIA GeForce 940MX
503
253
183
132
 216AMD FirePro W4190M
40
18
14
13
 235NVIDIA GeForce 930M
39
 243Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640
35.52
152
 283NVIDIA GeForce 920M
34
15
 294AMD Radeon 520
34
15
13
 296Intel UHD Graphics 630
38.52
 297Intel HD Graphics 630
32.52
13
13
 299Intel HD Graphics 530
30
17
 304AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)
18
13
10
 305*Intel UHD Graphics 620
312
13.52
10
6
 306*Intel HD Graphics 620
31
13
13
 375AMD Radeon R5 M255
34
14
Pos      Model                                     F1 2017
lowmed.highultra4k
 379Intel HD Graphics 520
23
 381NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M
23
13
 400Intel HD Graphics 4600
19
13
 402Intel HD Graphics 5500
23
 449Intel HD Graphics 4400
18
13
 559Intel HD Graphics (Haswell)
13
* 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.

Test Systems

Device Graphics Card Processor RAM Operating System
Desktop-PC I MSI GeForce GTX 1080 (8 GB GDDR5X)
MSI GeForce GTX 1070 (8 GB GDDR5)
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 (6 GB GDDR5)
Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 (4 GB GDDR5)
Intel Core i7-6700K 2 x 8 GB DDR4 Windows 10 64 Bit
Desktop-PC II Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (11 GB GDDR5X)
Asus GeForce GTX 980 Ti (6 GB GDDR5)
XFX Radeon R9 Fury (4 GB HBM)
Sapphire Radeon R9 290X (4 GB GDDR5)
Sapphire Radeon R9 280X (3 GB GDDR5)
MSI Radeon R7 370 (2 GB GDDR5)
Intel Core i7-4790K 2 x 4 GB DDR3 Windows 10 64 Bit
Asus G752VS Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (8 GB GDDR5) Intel Core i7-6820HK 4 x 16 GB DDR4 Windows 10 64 Bit
MSI GT62VR Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 (6 GB GDDR5) Intel Core i7-6820HK 4 x 8 GB DDR4 Windows 10 64 Bit
MSI GE72 Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4 GB GDDR5) Intel Core i7-7700HQ 2 x 4 GB DDR4 Windows 10 64 Bit
Asus GL753VD Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (4 GB GDDR5) Intel Core i7-7700HQ 2 x 8 GB DDR4 Windows 10 64 Bit
MSI GL62 Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (2 GB GDDR5) Intel Core i7-7700HQ 2 x 4 GB DDR4 Windows 10 64 Bit
MSI GE72 Nvidia GeForce GTX 965M (2 GB GDDR5) Intel Core i7-6700HQ 1 x 8 GB DDR4 Windows 10 64 Bit
MSI PE60 Nvidia GeForce GTX 950M (2 GB GDDR5) Intel Core i7-6700HQ 2 x 4 GB DDR4 Windows 10 64 Bit
MSI GP62 Nvidia GeForce 940M (2 GB DDR3) Intel Core i7-5700HQ 1 x 8 GB DDR3 Windows 10 64 Bit
MSI CX61 Nvidia GeForce 920M (2 GB DDR3) Intel Celeron 2970M 1 x 8 GB DDR3 Windows 10 64 Bit
Asus N551ZU AMD Radeon R9 M280X (4 GB GDDR5) AMD FX-7600P 2 x 4 GB DDR3 Windows 10 64 Bit
4K display Nvidia driver AMD driver
2 x Asus PB287Q, Philips 328P6VJEB ForceWare 385.41 Crimson 17.8.2
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > F1 2017 Notebook and Desktop Benchmarks
Florian Glaser, 2017-08-28 (Update: 2017-08-29)