Zählmarke

Rainbow Six Siege Notebook Benchmarks

Rough diamond. Ubisoft does not follow the casual trend of its own franchise over the last couple of years with Rainbow Six Siege. Instead of stupid non-stop action, the title turns out to be a clever tactical sandbox. We have a closer look at the technology.

Florian Glaser, ✓ Stefanie Voigt (translated by Andreas Osthoff), Published 12/19/2015 🇩🇪

For the original German article, see here.

Graphics & Benchmark

Rainbow Six Siege is the right title if you do not want to play rather simple action blockbuster titles like Call of Duty and Star Wars Battlefront. While other games are basically dominated by firefights, the new game from Ubisoft is rather old-school – in the best way. Running through the levels with the gun and only trusting your aim will soon end your game. Instead, you have to rely on map experience, team communication and tactical decisions, similar to Counter-Strike or the old SWAT series. You can already feel a part of the thrilling atmosphere in the tutorial missions, which only show you the basics of the game.

It is therefore hardly an issue that Ubisoft did not create a graphics masterpiece. Despite or rather because of the second-class graphics of Rainbow Six Siege, the technology appears pretty sophisticated. Some players do complain about typical multiplayer bugs (connection issues etc.), but we did not encounter any serious problems in respect of crashes or graphics bugs. And as a PC gamer, you also get the feeling to be taken seriously. This impression is particularly created by the options menu, which convinces with a lot of explanations.

In this article, we only want to have a look at the video options, which are split up into two menus. Basic display settings can be found – as expected – in the Display tab. Besides the resolution, the picture mode, the frequency and the screen ratio, you can also adjust the viewing distance. Vertical sync is available as well. The majority of options is available in the Graphics menu: Almost 10 settings can be adjusted in multiple steps.

Great: Ubisoft included five presets for lazy or less experienced users that we – except for the preset Very High – also use for our benchmarks, even though the presets are not perfectly adjusted. For example, Rainbow Six does not use the maximum settings all the time in the Ultra preset (only SSBC instead HBAO+). A Medium shading quality in the preset Very High and just 4x AF in the setting High are not perfect, either. Furthermore, the title uses the post-processing anti-aliasing T-AA for every preset (FXAA optional), and we had to activate better versions manually. Siege also supports MSAA and TXAA, but they are much more demanding for the hardware.

Speaking of the performance: Anti-aliasing requires a lot of video memory, and you can get a good feel for the requirements thanks to the integrated VRAM indicator. While 1920 x 1080 pixels and the Ultra preset require around 2.5 GB, it is 3.5 GB for a combination of FHD and 8x MSAA (the same applies for 3840 x 2160 pixels without AA). It gets really extreme when you combine 4K and 8x MSAA: Not many laptop or desktop GPUs can handle 7.5 GB.

It is great that setting changes do not require a restart. Ubisoft also deserves praise for the integrated benchmark, which shows a camera drive through a house with multiple figures and explosions. Based on the sequence that takes about 50 seconds, you can recognize the strengths and the weaknesses of the engine. While the physical effects and the characters are mainly convincing, the environment can sometimes be a bit dull due to the rather blurry textures. The general performance of the benchmark represents "real" gameplay very well, so the results are significant. Despite the rather slow gameplay, the FPS number should be above 35-40 on average based on our experiences, not least because the minimum FPS number varies quite a bit.

▶ load Youtube video

Results

Thanks to the slightly outdated graphics, the hardware requirements are not that high for Rainbow Six Siege. Almost every Intel GPU has a hard time even at low settings (HD Graphics 4600, 5000, 6000, 6100, ...), but dedicated chips from AMD and Nvidia that are not too old can handle smooth gameplay. This starts with inexpensive all-round GPUs like the GeForce GT 740M, which can at least manage the preset Low at 1024 x 768 pixels. Medium details require more performance; you should at least use a GeForce GT 750M for medium details at 1366 x 768 pixels.

As expected, the jump to Full-HD will cost a lot of performance. High details and 1920 x 1080 pixels require a fast mainstream chip (GTX 850M+, R9 M280X+) or an older high-end GPU (GTX 860M+), while we would recommend at least a GeForce GTX 960M or GTX 870M for Ultra settings. Owners of a 4K display that do not want to waive high details will even need a GeForce GTX 980M or GTX 980.

The title is not very demanding in terms of CPU performance and the graphics card is usually the limiting factor even at minimum details. Not even slower CPUs from AMD or Intel's ULV series have a problem with this game.

Rainbow Six Siege
3840x2160 High Preset AA:T AF:4x 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:T AF:16x 1920x1080 High Preset AA:T AF:4x 1366x768 Medium Preset AA:T AF:2x 1024x768 Low Preset AA:T AF:Linear
AMD Radeon R9 Fury, 4790K XFX Radeon R9 Fury Pro	62 (47^min) fps ∼18% 117 (77^min) fps ∼24% 160 (94^min) fps ∼27% 303 (133^min) fps ∼44% 319 (112^min) fps ∼36%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, 6700K Desktop PC	50.1 (35^min) fps ∼15% 107.6 (67^min) fps ∼22% 149.6 (69^min) fps ∼25% 256.4 (100^min) fps ∼37% 347.2 (116^min) fps ∼40%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	35.9 (28^min) fps ∼10% 80.3 (26^min) fps ∼16% 108.1 (48^min) fps ∼18% 180.8 (98^min) fps ∼26% 232.4 (91^min) fps ∼27%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	27.5 (12^min) fps ∼8% 63.5 (22^min) fps ∼13% 86.8 (60^min) fps ∼15% 152.1 (77^min) fps ∼22% 212.8 (81^min) fps ∼24%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	24.9 (7^min) fps ∼7% 56.5 (16^min) fps ∼12% 78.8 (56^min) fps ∼13% 137 (70^min) fps ∼20% 203.6 (89^min) fps ∼23%
AMD Radeon R7 370, 4790K MSI Gaming R7 370 2GB	23.7 (18^min) fps ∼7% 49 (34^min) fps ∼10% 70 (44^min) fps ∼12% 134 (75^min) fps ∼19% 206 (103^min) fps ∼24%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	20.3 (16^min) fps ∼6% 44.5 (27^min) fps ∼9% 65 (46^min) fps ∼11% 114.5 (69^min) fps ∼17% 172.8 (89^min) fps ∼20%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, 6700K Desktop PC	18.8 (14^min) fps ∼5% 46.6 (28^min) fps ∼10% 74.2 (52^min) fps ∼13% 137.6 (88^min) fps ∼20% 212.1 (116^min) fps ∼24%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 4720HQ Schenker XMG A505	15 (7^min) fps ∼4% 39.6 (17^min) fps ∼8% 54.5 (39^min) fps ∼9% 101.1 (62^min) fps ∼15% 155.5 (92^min) fps ∼18%
AMD Radeon R9 M280X, FX-7600P Asus N551ZU-CN007H	32.4 (14^min) fps ∼7% 38.5 (12^min) fps ∼7% 58.8 (30^min) fps ∼7%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	13.8 (9^min) fps ∼4% 28.7 (14^min) fps ∼6% 47.5 (21^min) fps ∼8% 86.2 (55^min) fps ∼13% 134.4 (74^min) fps ∼15%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M, 4340M Schenker M504	11.4 (4^min) fps ∼3% 29.7 (13^min) fps ∼6% 38.8 (19^min) fps ∼7% 73.1 (41^min) fps ∼11% 112.9 (49^min) fps ∼13%
AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), A10-7850K A10-7850K Asus A88-XM-PLUS	17.4 (6^min) fps ∼4% 23.7 (10^min) fps ∼4% 43.9 (13^min) fps ∼6% 68 (26^min) fps ∼8%
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M, 4702MQ Schenker M503	16.3 fps ∼3% 22.1 (16^min) fps ∼4% 42.3 (29^min) fps ∼6% 66.5 (44^min) fps ∼8%
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, 4200M HP Envy 15-j011sg	11 (4^min) fps ∼2% 15.1 (3^min) fps ∼3% 29.4 (21^min) fps ∼4% 46.8 (31^min) fps ∼5%
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, 4750HQ SCHENKER S413	0 (0^min) fps ∼0% 21.9 (9.3^min) fps ∼3% 35.3 (14^min) fps ∼4%
NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M, 4200M MSI CX61-i572M	10.4 (0^min) fps ∼2% 20.4 (0^min) fps ∼3% 32.4 (0^min) fps ∼4%
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M, 3720QM Asus N56VM	6.9 (2^min) fps ∼1% 9.9 (7^min) fps ∼2% 18.8 (9^min) fps ∼3% 30 (16^min) fps ∼3%
Intel HD Graphics 4600, 4700MQ Schenker W504	7.8 (4^min) fps ∼1% 14.6 (6^min) fps ∼2% 25.7 (10^min) fps ∼3%

Test Systems

Four of our test models are provided by Schenker Technologies (mysn.de):

W504 (Core i7-4700MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 860M, GTX 870M, GTX 880M, GTX 970M, GTX 980M)
A505 (Core i7-4720HQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 960M)
M504 (Core i5-4340M, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 850M)
M503 (Core i7-4702MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 750M)

Three notebooks are provided by Nvidia:

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, 4 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 640M)

In addition, Intel provided one notebook:

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

The desktop PCs are equipped with CPUs/APUs from Intel and AMD, SSDs from Micron, OCZ, Intel and Samsung, motherboards from Intel and Asus as well as graphics cards from Nvidia, PNY and AMD. We use the monitor Asus PB287Q for our 4K tests.

We used the following GPU drivers: Nvidia 359.06, AMD 15.11.1 Beta, Intel 20.19.15.4300 (Win 10) and Intel 10.18.14.4294 (Win 7), respectively.

Overview

Read all 2 comments / answer

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Florian Glaser - Managing Editor Gaming Laptops - 638 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.

Translator: Andreas Osthoff - Managing Editor Business Laptops - 1719 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2013

I grew up with modern consumer electronics and my first computer was a Commodore C64, which encouraged my interest in building my own systems. I started working as a review editor for Notebookcheck during my dual studies at Siemens. Currently, I am mainly responsible for dealing with business laptops and mobile workstations. It’s a great experience to be able to review the latest devices and technologies and then compare them with each other.

contact me via: LinkedIn

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Rainbow Six Siege Notebook Benchmarks

Florian Glaser, 2015-12-19 (Update: 2024-08-15)

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.