F1 2017 Notebook and Desktop Benchmarks
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 techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!
News Editor - Details here
For the original German review, see here.
» Top 10 Multimedia Laptops
» Top 10 Budget Multimedia Laptops
» Top 10 Gaming Laptops
» Top 10 Budget Gaming Notebooks
» Top 10 Lightweight Gaming Laptops
» Top 10 Business Laptops
» Top 10 Budget Office Laptops
» Top 10 Workstation Laptops
» Top 10 Subnotebooks
» Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Top 10 Chromebooks
» Best Laptop Displays
» Best Laptops for University Students
» Top alternatives to the Apple MacBook Pro 13
» Top alternatives to the Apple MacBook Pro 15
» Top alternatives to the MacBook 12/Air
» Top 10 Laptops for Picture and Video Editing
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quality journalism is paid by advertising. We show the least amount of ads possible. Adblock users see more ads. Please, switch off ad blockers.
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).
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.
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop), 6700K|
61 (min: 55) fps ∼54%
120 (min: 99) fps ∼66%
148 (min: 120) fps ∼67%
177 (min: 146) fps ∼70%
181 (min: 142) fps ∼95%
234 (min: 180) fps ∼88%
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Desktop), 6700K|
50 (min: 45) fps ∼45%
104 (min: 89) fps ∼57%
146 (min: 123) fps ∼66%
173 (min: 138) fps ∼68%
180 (min: 141) fps ∼94%
231 (min: 180) fps ∼87%
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6820HK|
45 (min: 41) fps ∼40%
93 (min: 81) fps ∼51%
132 (min: 110) fps ∼60%
157 (min: 124) fps ∼62%
161 (min: 126) fps ∼84%
200 (min: 157) fps ∼75%
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, 6700K|
34 (min: 32) fps ∼30%
75 (min: 68) fps ∼41%
117 (min: 105) fps ∼53%
143 (min: 127) fps ∼57%
175 (min: 144) fps ∼92%
230 (min: 180) fps ∼86%
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop), 6700K|
33 (min: 30) fps ∼29%
74 (min: 64) fps ∼41%
115 (min: 104) fps ∼52%
145 (min: 128) fps ∼57%
178 (min: 142) fps ∼93%
229 (min: 179) fps ∼86%
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 6820HK|
30 (min: 26) fps ∼27%
66 (min: 57) fps ∼36%
103 (min: 88) fps ∼47%
125 (min: 110) fps ∼49%
137 (min: 112) fps ∼72%
178 (min: 141) fps ∼67%
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), 7700HQ|
MSI GE72 7RE-046
16 (min: 14) fps ∼14%
40 (min: 36) fps ∼22%
66 (min: 53) fps ∼30%
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ|
Asus Strix GL753VD-GC045T
33 (min: 28) fps ∼18%
52 (min: 46) fps ∼24%
67 (min: 58) fps ∼26%
133 (min: 105) fps ∼50%
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ|
MSI GE72 965M Ti
36 (min: 33) fps ∼20%
60 (min: 54) fps ∼27%
|NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 7700HQ|
MSI PL62 MX150 7700HQ
13 (min: 6) fps ∼12%
20 (min: 17) fps ∼11%
32 (min: 29) fps ∼14%
41 (min: 36) fps ∼16%
82 (min: 55) fps ∼31%
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 6700HQ|
MSI PE60 2QD
20 (min: 18) fps ∼11%
34 (min: 31) fps ∼15%
43 (min: 37) fps ∼17%
|NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 6700HQ|
MSI CX72 6QD
18 (min: 16) fps ∼8%
32 (min: 26) fps ∼13%
50 (min: 43) fps ∼19%
|NVIDIA GeForce 920M, 2970M|
MSI CX61 2QC 2970M MS-16GD
15 (min: 13) fps ∼6%
34 (min: 19) fps ∼13%
|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|