Notebookcheck

GRID Autosport Benchmarked

Florian Glaser (translated by Bernie Pechlaner), 07/06/2014

Pedal to the metal. In line with the current trend, racing-game expert Codemasters follows up successful games with sequels and releases at least one flagship product every year. The latest addition to the simulator series, GRID Autosport, is intended to be a very comprehensive package which offers a lot of variety. Our review is predominantly aimed at notebook users who would like to know how much horsepower is actually needed to guarantee a smooth gaming experience.

Technology

For the original German article, see here.

GRID Autosport is based on Codemasters' own EGO engine (now in version 3), which has seen many improvements and optimizations over the years.  Although there aren't really any obvious differences between the new game and the previous generation at first glance (GRID 2 had very similar hardware requirements as well), the overall visual appearance doesn't have to hide from the competition.

In addition to various textures as well as light and shadow effects, most of the different race cars compare well to those offered by the competing racing game Need for Speed Rivals from 2013. There's no question that there is still room for improvement in some areas, however.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The standout feature and a major plus of GRID Autosport is the highly adjustable graphics menu. While Need for Speed Rivals only offers a handful of options, Codemasters' product has more than 20 of them, which allow the user to tailor the game to his or her liking. In addition, there are 5 presets (Ultra Low to Ultra) and several anti-aliasing options. Aside from CMAA and MSAA, GRID Autosport also supports (Q)CSAA and EQAA, although the latter two options are reserved for  Nvidia and AMD, respectively.

Great: since all graphics options can be adjusted on the fly, the user doesn't have to stop and restart the game after each and every adjustment. We don't really like the fact that the menus are nested within each other, however. Although we've seen this practice in the past, it makes operation a bit convoluted and not as smooth as it could be.

Aside from a few software crashes and freezes in some scenes, which we weren't able to reproduce, the technology seems up to par. AMD notebooks therefore shouldn't have start-up issues like we experienced with F1 2013.

Considering the game was released this year, the hardware requirements are actually pretty modest. Although the visual appearance of the game has undergone subtle improvements, Autosport runs smoother than GRID 2 with the settings on low. High settings do require a certain amount of power, but overall the graphics engine certainly isn't a resource hog.

A dual-core CPU and a middle-class GPU are enough for a decent race track experience. On the Intel side, a quad-core CPU only has advantages as long as the settings are on low (see the results for the GT 750M and the GTX 850M). Only with very potent GPUs the CPU performance can become a limiting factor.

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

Benchmark

Just like previous Codemasters products, GRID Autosports contains an integrated benchmark, which is accessible directly via the graphics menu. The AI then completes a lap at the Grand Prix in San Francisco in about 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

Since the benchmark sequence is not always identical, but varies during each run (placement, duration, etc.), the results are also not consistent. Multiple repeats of the benchmark test resulted in variations of up to 15 %. In some cases, a weaker GPU might thus place ahead of a more powerful one.

Results

Thanks to support from both AMD and Nvidia we were able to extend our inventory of graphics cards with a few current desktop models. The GeForce GTX 780 Ti managed a frame rate of 123 fps and easily outperforms all single-GPU notebooks with the settings on ultra. The most powerful mobile GPU provides similar performance to a middle-class desktop card: the GeForce GTX 880M, for example, reaches 77 fps on ultra and is thus quite comparable to the GeForce GTX 760 (73 fps), which sells for 200-300 Euro ($275-$410). All things considered, even a GeForce GTX 860M (doesn't matter if Kepler or Maxwell) can guarantee a smooth gaming experience.

A typical allrounder-notebook is powerful enough to support a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels, provided that 4x MSAA is not checked. Even with the DDR3 version of the GeForce GT 750M, we still measured frame rates of just above 40 fps. With the normal preset and a resolution of 1366 x 768 pixels, low-end GPUs from the Intel HD Graphics 4600 on up are sufficient. Only users stuck with very old or weak GPUs might have to resort to the lowest settings.

Please note: at this time, the integrated benchmark is not able to record frame rates below 12.5 fps.

GRID: Autosport
    1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:4x MS     1920x1080 High Preset     1366x768 Medium Preset     1024x768 Ultra Low Preset
GeForce GTX 780 Ti, 3770K
Desktop-PC
122.6 (min: 89) fps ∼82%
139.4 (min: 104) fps ∼69%
159.9 (min: 119) fps ∼69%
284.3 (min: 213) fps ∼66%
Radeon R9 290X, 2600K, Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV-0Z000
Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X Desktop
92 (min: 66) fps ∼61%
118 (min: 88) fps ∼59%
129 (min: 101) fps ∼56%
253 (min: 196) fps ∼59%
Radeon R9 280X, 3770K
Desktop-PC
90.8 (min: 73) fps ∼61%
117.5 (min: 92) fps ∼59%
143.6 (min: 109) fps ∼62%
288.4 (min: 212) fps ∼67%
GeForce GTX 880M, 4700MQ
Schenker W504
76.8 (min: 64) fps ∼51%
114.9 (min: 90) fps ∼57%
139.6 (min: 109) fps ∼61%
226 (min: 190) fps ∼53%
GeForce GTX 760, 3770K
Desktop-PC
73.2 (min: 60) fps ∼49%
128.7 (min: 107) fps ∼64%
154.8 (min: 124) fps ∼67%
290.2 (min: 222) fps ∼68%
GeForce GTX 780M, 4700MQ
Schenker W503
70.9 (min: 60) fps ∼47%
108.1 (min: 86) fps ∼54%
127 (min: 102) fps ∼55%
197.1 (min: 162) fps ∼46%
GeForce GTX 870M, 4700MQ
Schenker W504
62.3 (min: 53) fps ∼42%
120 (min: 91) fps ∼60%
129.1 (min: 103) fps ∼56%
227.3 (min: 189) fps ∼53%
Radeon R9 M290X, 4700MQ
Schenker W504
62 (min: 51) fps ∼41%
95.7 (min: 70) fps ∼48%
112.6 (min: 87) fps ∼49%
211.5 (min: 168) fps ∼49%
GeForce GTX 750 Ti, 3770K
Desktop-PC
52.6 (min: 42) fps ∼35%
100.1 (min: 78) fps ∼50%
153.6 (min: 117) fps ∼67%
262.4 (min: 200) fps ∼61%
GeForce GTX 770M, 4700MQ
Schenker W503
46.5 (min: 37) fps ∼31%
92.6 (min: 77) fps ∼46%
130.3 (min: 104) fps ∼56%
199.6 (min: 166) fps ∼46%
GeForce GTX 860M, 4700MQ
Schenker W504
42.6 (min: 35) fps ∼28%
95.6 (min: 77) fps ∼48%
123.1 (min: 98) fps ∼53%
232.4 (min: 183) fps ∼54%
GeForce GTX 850M, 4340M
Schenker M504
36.1 (min: 27) fps ∼24%
73.4 (min: 51) fps ∼37%
109.8 (min: 88) fps ∼48%
175.5 (min: 144) fps ∼41%
GeForce GTX 765M, 4700MQ
Schenker W503
34.8 (min: 29) fps ∼23%
74.1 (min: 59) fps ∼37%
130.7 (min: 99) fps ∼57%
191.9 (min: 156) fps ∼45%
GeForce GT 750M, 4702MQ
Schenker M503
20.1 (min: 16) fps ∼13%
43 (min: 31) fps ∼21%
88 (min: 73) fps ∼38%
186.2 (min: 149) fps ∼43%
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), A10-7850K, Samsung SSD 470 Series MZ-5PA256/EU
A10-7850K Asus A88-XM-PLUS
17.5 (min: 13) fps ∼12%
37 (min: 30) fps ∼18%
71 (min: 60) fps ∼31%
151 (min: 116) fps ∼35%
GeForce GT 640M, 2637M, Lite-On LMT-256M3M
Acer Aspire M3-581TG
16.2 (min: 13) fps ∼11%
32.8 (min: 25) fps ∼16%
68 (min: 51) fps ∼29%
120 (min: 93) fps ∼28%
GeForce GT 740M, 4200M
HP Envy 15-j011sg
14.4 (min: 13) fps ∼10%
30.7 (min: 22) fps ∼15%
64.4 (min: 52) fps ∼28%
141.4 (min: 120) fps ∼33%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200, 4750HQ, Intel SSD 525 Series SSDMCEAC180B3
Schenker S413
14.3 (min: 13) fps ∼10%
33.4 (min: 27) fps ∼17%
60 (min: 49) fps ∼26%
140 (min: 112) fps ∼33%
GeForce GT 720M, 4200M, WDC Scorpio Blue WD10JPVX-22JC3T0
MSI CX61-i572M
12.5 fps ∼8%
15.6 fps ∼8%
32.5 fps ∼14%
82.9 fps ∼19%
HD Graphics 4600, 4700MQ
Schenker W503
12.5 (min: 12.5) fps ∼8%
19.7 (min: 16) fps ∼10%
45.8 (min: 36) fps ∼20%
119.5 (min: 97) fps ∼28%

Review Systems

Four of our review notebooks are from Schenker Technologies:

  • 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 systems run 64-bit Windows 7. A special thanks goes out to Micron for sending us a 480 GByte Crucial M500 SSD.

An additional review notebook was provided by Nvidia:

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

We used the following GPU drivers: Nvidia 340.43 Beta, AMD 14.6 RC2 Beta, Intel 10.18.10.3652 Beta.

We've also included benchmarks from other notebooks, which might make use of different drivers.

Results

Show Restrictions
Pos      Model                                     GRID: Autosport
 GRID: Autosport (2014)
low
1024x768
Ultra Low Preset
med.
1366x768
Medium Preset
high
1920x1080
High Preset
ultra
1920x1080
Ultra Preset
4x MSAA
 3NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 SLI (Laptop)
166
136
 7NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
161
131
 10NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 SLI (Laptop)
342
191.3
155.2
142.9
 13NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
324.8
159
117.552
100.752
 18NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M SLI
429.8
230.7
181.82
145.852
 21NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
297.4
154.3
100.34
80.14
 23NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (Laptop)
315.92
178.92
1562
129.42
 25*NVIDIA Quadro P4000
153.8
106.33
96.91
84.53
 28NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M SLI
374.1
207.4
165.7
118.8
 29NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop)
366
215
183
150
 34NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
141
120
 36NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti
284.3
159.9
139.4
122.6
 37NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
403.8
216.2
187.8
126.8
 45AMD Radeon R9 290X
253
129
118
92
 52NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
279.4
166.882
1425
1035
 53NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
368
190
155
106
 54AMD Radeon R9 280X
288.4
143.6
117.5
90.8
 56NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
327.5
173.4
149.1
85.5
 57NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook)
116.8
87
Pos      Model                                     GRID: Autosport
lowmed.highultra
 59NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M
229.035
129.346
110.458
80.658
 61NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M SLI
253.6
146.1
68
33.3
 62NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
233
143
125
86
 67AMD Radeon R9 M295X
164.8
88.3
63
52.7
 69NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
380
186
151
81
 71NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
181.22
1172
104.152
74.82
 72AMD FirePro W7170M
232
116
99
67
 74AMD Radeon R7 370
147.1
100.24
91.33
75.04
 76NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M
210.752
129.72
113.43
703
 77NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950
312.3
151.7
132.4
74.4
 80NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
290.2
154.8
128.7
73.2
 81NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M
197.1
127
108.1
70.9
 82NVIDIA Quadro K5100M
319.7
176.3
119.4
58.8
 88NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
202.73
120.43
99.93
59.23
 90NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M
227.3
129.1
120
62.3
 91AMD Radeon R9 M290X
211.5
112.6
95.7
62
 100AMD FirePro M6100
283
135
94
48
 106NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
217.37
109.697
83.647
49.858
 107NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti
262.4
153.6
100.1
52.6
 121NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M
199.6
130.3
92.6
46.5
Pos      Model                                     GRID: Autosport
lowmed.highultra
 123NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
176.44
100.247
74.79
43.69
 132NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
165.536
104.77
68.17
347
 135NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M
175.53
99.35
68.35
34.75
 136NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
248
143
82
43
 138AMD Radeon R9 M280X
107
52
41
26.9
 143NVIDIA GeForce 945M
198.7
118.8
68.5
33.2
 144NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M
191.9
130.7
74.1
34.8
 167NVIDIA Quadro K3100M
326.4
145.2
69.7
35.1
 169AMD Radeon R9 M370X
207.7
90.6
48.6
26.8
 173AMD Radeon R9 M275
81.2
42.9
31.1
18.7
 185AMD FirePro M5100
213
101
44
26
 186NVIDIA Quadro K2100M
202.52
88.52
41.52
21.52
 197AMD Radeon R9 M265X
69.352
40.22
23.652
 202AMD FirePro W4100
261
71
34
19
 207NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M
186.2
88
43
20.1
 211NVIDIA GeForce 940MX
137
70.9
27.152
16.92
 212NVIDIA Quadro K1100M
209.52
75.52
35.52
172
 214NVIDIA GeForce 940M
164.2
62.23
30.43
16.62
 217AMD Radeon R9 M375
91
47.4
30.1
20.6
 223NVIDIA Quadro K620M
151
76
32
18
Pos      Model                                     GRID: Autosport
lowmed.highultra
 224NVIDIA GeForce 840M
117.74
59.54
29.754
15.73
 225AMD Radeon R7 M275DX
107.6
52.9
35
22.4
 229*AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)
91.3
40.6
21.6
 230AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
151
71
37
17.5
 231Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
140
60
33.4
14.3
 233NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M
141.4
64.4
30.7
14.4
 234*AMD Radeon 530
175.4
62.2
 235NVIDIA GeForce 930M
142.82
75.83
36.63
16.63
 238NVIDIA GeForce 830M
122.152
60.352
28.92
14.752
 240*NVIDIA GeForce 920MX
176.6
68.4
30.7
14.9
 260AMD Radeon R7 M260X
128.3
50.7
26.6
 263NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M
155.1
53.8
25.2
13
 269AMD Radeon R7 M270
135.82
53.22
25.052
14.252
 270AMD Radeon R7 M265
55.8
24.3
21.5
14
 274NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M
120
68
32.8
16.2
 275AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
71.2
32
18.8
 276AMD Radeon R8 M365DX
69.5
36
23
14.8
 277*AMD Radeon R7 M460
125.3
56.6
26
13.6
 280AMD Radeon R7 M360
104.952
48.052
26.72
13.752
 283NVIDIA GeForce 920M
122.544
53.894
25.964
12.53
Pos      Model                                     GRID: Autosport
lowmed.highultra
 293AMD Radeon R7 M340
138.5
56.3
27
13.8
 295AMD Radeon R6 M340DX
89.5
44.6
20.7
12.5
 299Intel HD Graphics 530
156.82
52.352
22.82
12.552
 302AMD Radeon R7 M260
99.712
37.62
22.98
 304AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)
65.1
29.7
 305*Intel UHD Graphics 620
108
42
23
12.5
 306*Intel HD Graphics 620
43.854
23.24
 307AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo)
81
32.2
17
12.5
 319AMD Radeon R6 (Kaveri)
70.08
30.66
16.99
 328AMD FirePro W2100
187
62
23
14
 338Intel HD Graphics 5600
101.1
44.9
22.9
12.5
 344AMD Radeon HD 8670M
106.1
43.4
20
12.5
 345AMD Radeon R6 M255DX
66.2
26.9
19.2
 364AMD Radeon HD 8650G
100
43
20.5
12.7
 369NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
141
47
19.4
12.5
 372AMD Radeon R5 M335
132
46.1
21.6
12.6
 373AMD Radeon R5 M330
104.5
38.9
 375AMD Radeon R5 M255
106.12
47.5
22.04
 378NVIDIA GeForce 820M
111.8
43.4
20
12.5
 379Intel HD Graphics 520
105.111
4111
21.110
12.54
Pos      Model                                     GRID: Autosport
lowmed.highultra
 380Intel Iris Graphics 6100
93.52
35.252
21.32
13.452
 381NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M
82.9
32.5
15.6
12.5
 383AMD Radeon R5 M240
85.452
38.352
21.8
 385AMD Radeon R5 M230
106.952
40.52
19.1
7.3
 392Intel HD Graphics 6000
94
32
22
13
 395Intel Iris Graphics 5100
94
34.6
21
12.5
 397*AMD Radeon HD 8610G
62.8
21.4
12.6
 400Intel HD Graphics 4600
89.654
32.34
17.23
12.53
 402Intel HD Graphics 5500
68.9518
25.3518
14.616
12.513
 407*Intel HD Graphics 615
74.9
24.6
 409AMD Radeon R5 (Kaveri)
60.1
24.4
 413AMD Radeon HD 7660G
82
39
20
12.5
 416Intel HD Graphics 5000
85.7
30.2
14.9
12.5
 432AMD Radeon HD 8550G
93
39
17.1
 448Intel HD Graphics 515
86.5
26.3
14.9
12.5
 449Intel HD Graphics 4400
65.716
23.266
13.54
12.53
 450*Intel HD Graphics 610
106
32.7
 451*Intel HD Graphics 510
135.5
32.8
 480Intel HD Graphics 5300
48.63
16.23
12.52
12.5
 481*Intel HD Graphics 505
51.5
19
Pos      Model                                     GRID: Autosport
lowmed.highultra
 490Intel HD Graphics 4000
83
25
14
 493AMD Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge)
57
24.5
 495*Intel HD Graphics (Broadwell)
57.6
22.6
 496*Intel HD Graphics 500
43.8
19.1
 498AMD Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
58.6
19.8
9.6
4.8
 499AMD Radeon R4 (Beema)
54.652
20.92
 500AMD Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge)
46
16.9
 501Intel HD Graphics 4200
57.5
18.9
 510AMD Radeon HD 8450G
58
28
16.3
12.5
 514AMD Radeon HD 8400
68
22
12.6
 526AMD Radeon HD 8350G
57
23
13.3
12.5
 527AMD Radeon HD 8330
58
20.5
12.5
 530AMD Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema)
55.5
22.6
12.5
 548Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell)
50.5
15
 549Intel HD Graphics (Braswell)
23
12.5
 559Intel HD Graphics (Haswell)
58.2
19.6
 579Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail)
24.652
132
 595*AMD Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L)
34.22
23.5
 598Intel HD Graphics 3000
66.252
22.52
12.852
12.5
 616AMD Radeon HD 8210
12.852
Pos      Model                                     GRID: Autosport
lowmed.highultra
 660Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)
36.72
12.52
* 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.
Read all 2 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Archive of our own reviews > GRID Autosport Benchmarked
Florian Glaser, 2014-07- 6 (Update: 2014-07- 6)
Bernhard Pechlaner
Bernhard Pechlaner - Review Editor
Ended up in the IT sector in the 90s more or less accidentally and have remained in the industry (as a sysadmin) ever since. Always been interested in laptops - first purchase was - if memory serves correctly - a Toshiba Satellite T2115CS with DX4-75 processor, 4 MB of RAM and 350 MB hard disk drive (and Windows 3.1). To this day, laptops appeal to me - much to the chagrin of my wife, who doesn’t seem understand why we need 5-10 of them at any given time ;-).