All New Gaming Test Suite

On the gaming side, the changes are rather more substantial. We’ve decided to wipe the slate clean and select all new titles for 2012. Actually, that’s not entirely true—I’ve been running tests with Civilization V and Total War: Shogun 2 for a while, but we’re now updating the settings for the benchmarks and all laptop editors will test with the following games and settings. Note that we tried to get a good selection of game genres in the list; depending on how you want to classify the games, we have four games representing first person/third person action games, two strategy games, one RPG, and one simulation/driving game. We also have representatives of several major engines—Unreal Engine 3, Frostbite 2, and Source being the most noteworthy. We’ve tried to overlap our desktop gaming suite, and while we won’t use identical test suites, we do overlap on six of the titles.

The other big change is that we’re ramping up the quality settings this year. Previously, we had both Low/Minimum and Medium settings at 1366x768. Unfortunately, we often ran into games where minimum quality looked, frankly, awful; in other games the difference between our Low and Medium settings ended up being negligible. For 2012, then, we’ve decided to skip the “minimum” detail testing and select settings that we feel most gamers will actually like using. [Update: we're changing the naming convention to avoid name space conflicts.]

Our Value setting for the test suite loosely corresponds to last year’s “Medium” settings, all run at 1366x768; our new Mainstream settings bump the resolution to 1600x900 and increase quality to roughly match last year’s “High” settings; finally, our Enthusiast settings enable 4x MSAA in all seven titles and increase the resolution to 1920x1080, basically matching the “Ultra” settings of 2011. We’ve tested each game on several setups with the goal of choosing settings that will result in reasonable quality and performance differences between the three settings. With that out of the way, here’s a rundown of the games.

Batman: Arkham City: The sequel to 2009’s Batman: Arkham Asylum, Arkham City continues the story of the Dark Knight with a free roaming playground to explore at your leisure. Graphically, the game is similar to the original title, only now the PC version has (properly working) DX11 support. The DX11 features come at a serious performance cost, however, so our Value test setting will leave them off. Note that even in the game settings, DX11 features are disabled unless you choose the maximum “Extreme” preset—and you’ll really need a beefy PC to handle the workload at that point!

We’re using the built-in benchmark so that readers can compare our results with their own hardware. Our Value settings use the Medium defaults; for Mainstream we switch to the High defaults and enable DX11 features; finally, for Enthusiast we use the Extreme preset and enable 4x MSAA. If you’re wondering, leaving DX11 disabled largely removes performance differences between the various settings, at least on moderate hardware. We tested at 1366x768 with Low, Medium, High, and Very High settings and found the average frame rates only dropped around 20%; enabling DX11 on any of the other modes results in a drop of around 40%.

Also worth noting is that Batman supports PhysX, but we won’t be testing with PhysX as that’s only available on NVIDIA hardware. That said, we do want to mention that PhysX definitely improves the gaming experience, with enhanced fog effects, more debris, cloth effects, and certain weapons (e.g. the freeze gun in one scene) fire polygons instead of sprites/textures. My own impression is that Batman with PhysX enabled and DX11 disabled generally looks better than Batman with DX11 enabled and PhysX disabled. If you want all of the goodies enabled, you’ll need very high-end hardware, beyond what most laptops can support—we’d suggest GTX 560M SLI as a bare minimum for the Extreme preset with PhysX enabled at 1080p.

Battlefield 3: We’re switching our Battlefield choice from Bad Company 2 to Battlefield 3, though in practice performance is frequently similar. For this title, we’re using FRAPS and using a two minute tank “on rails” sequence from the Thunder Run single player mission. Performance in the single player missions is highly variable depending on the level, and multi-player is even more so, but we need something that provides consistency between test runs. The Frostbite 2 engine puts quite a hefty load on your GPU, and if you want all the eye candy enabled you’ll need more than your typical mobile GPU. For BF3, our Value settings use the Medium preset; Mainstream uses the High preset; and Enthusiast uses the Ultra preset. BF3 also supports DX10 and DX11, and we leave the DirectX version support set to “Auto”; outside of Intel’s HD 2000/3000 hardware, that means all laptops will run in DX11 mode.

Civilization V: Civ5 is an interesting title in that the use of driver command lists allowed NVIDIA to optimize performance and get a healthy boost in frame rates not long after it launched. AMD has yet to implement command lists (AFAIK), but as we showed in our HD 7970 review, there may be other factors at play. We continue to use the built-in LateGameView benchmark, and it’s worth noting that the turn-based nature of Civ5 makes lower frame rates more palatable than in shooters. For our detail settings, Value has all of the video settings at Low; Mainstream uses High settings on everything (with the High detail strategic view enabled); Enthusiast is the same, only with 4x MSAA enabled. We use the DX10/11 executable and set the configuration file to allow the use of both SM41 and SM50 (Shader Model 4.1/DX10.1 and Shader Model 5.0/DX11).

DiRT 3: Our replacement to DiRT 2 is a simple update to the latest title in the series. As with BF3, this time we’re letting all systems use DX11 hardware—early indications are that DX11 improves performance at Low to High presets, but it creates a pretty massive performance drop at the Ultra preset. We run the in-game benchmark. Our Value setting will use the Medium preset; Mainstream will use the High preset, and Enthusiast will use the Ultra preset with 4x MSAA. (Note that just moving the detail slider from High to Ultra results in a ~40% drop in frame rate while adding 4xAA accounts for another 10-15%, so there’s a pretty sizeable gap between our Mainstream and Enthusiast results.)

Elder Scrolls: Skyrim: Skyrim is one of two titles in our updated list that doesn’t (currently) support DX11. There may be a patch at some point to improve the situation—there are some old conflicting statements from earlier this year where Skyrim was claimed to support DX11—but for now we’re using whatever the game has in the latest patch (e.g. as of early January, 2012). Texture quality is not one of the strong points of Skyrim, with frequently blurry textures (thanks to the console cross-platform nature of development), but at least dragons are now properly attacking with the latest updates.

As far as benchmarking goes, Skyrim appears to be far more taxing on the CPU side of things than on graphics, particularly for desktop gamers, but mobile graphics hardware is several rungs down the performance ladder so we’re going to use it. Our Value setting uses the Medium preset with antialiasing off, anisotropic filtering set to 4x, and texture quality set to medium with FXAA disabled—the latter basically uses a full screen blur filter to remove jaggies while increasing blurriness. For Mainstream, we use the High preset and turn antialiasing off. Last, for Enthusiast, we use the Ultra preset but drop antialiasing to 4xAA. Note that enabling antialiasing, at least on a GTX 560M, appears to have a minimal impact on performance; however, that may not always be the case so we’re sticking with our standard of no-AA at Value and Mainstream settings and 4xAA at the Enthusiast settings.

Update: The 1.4 patch of Skyrim dramatically improved performance, and Bethesda also released a high resolution texture pack for the PC. We will use the high resolution texture pack at the Mainstream and Enthusiast settings going forward.

Portal 2: Portal 2 is our representative of the Source engine, and like the other Source games released so far from Valve, that means no DX10 or DX11 support. That doesn’t mean the game isn’t graphically demanding, though it may have different bottlenecks than many of the other titles. We use an in-house demo file where the player combines speed gel with portals, switches, and an Excursion Funnel to advance through the map. Like most Source engine games, frame rates tend to be quite a bit higher than other titles. Our Value settings use trilinear filtering with multicore rendering enabled, and Shader/Effect/Model/Texture detail are all at Medium (with paged pool memory available set to High). Mainstream maxes out all of the settings with the exception of antialiasing, which remains off, and Enthusiast adds 4x MSAA to the mix.

Total War: Shogun 2: Wrapping up our gaming list is Total War: Shogun 2, a game which holds the dubious honor of being the slowest loading title in our test suite—by a large margin. Initially launched as a DX9 title, a patch later added DX10/11 support. Graphically, it’s difficult to tell what differences the various rendering modes have, but DX11/SM5.0 does appear to have substantially better SSAO. The patch that added DX11 features also added a built-in benchmark, the introduction to one of the scenarios, which we use for our testing. Our Value settings use the Medium preset, Mainstream will use the High preset, and Enthusiast uses the Very High preset with 4x MSAA enabled. In addition to enabling the DX11 engine, all of our settings files are set to use SM5.0 code where applicable.

2012: Meet Our New Mobile Benchmark Suite Benchmarks and Closing Thoughts


View All Comments

  • bennyg - Friday, January 6, 2012 - link

    When I read the headline... nice fancy name there for just a reshuffle of what you already do. And there's enough of that going around already isn't there...

    I skim through AT reviews despite superior production quality.
    I read notebookcheck reviews in full despite frequent editing and translation errors because (aside from much preferring monolithic-single-page-rendering...) they consider so many more aspects to the product in front of them.

    They also take the effort to disassemble and put up a lot more pictures of the unit and thorough screen (incl viewing angle) assessment. If I google a model for reviews, I want to read new stuff (not most of the same stuff as every other review) and NBC gets my browser time most of the time for that reason.

    And please please please incorporate some of the methodology from rather than just simplistic FPS measures, especially for the SLI/Xfire setups...
  • JarredWalton - Friday, January 6, 2012 - link

    Fancy headline for a "reshuffle"? How about, I thought it would be useful to open up discussion to see if there's anything we missed that people would like to see us include, along with a detailed list of the benchmark settings we're using for games (so that I don't have to try and put this all into each laptop review)? And you do realize that this is an article specific to laptop testing, so we're not going to go into more detail on gaming performance and we rarely test SLI/CF setups, right? As for the pictures, I'm not sure what more you'd want from us. We do everything you mention -- screen angle shots, pictures from lots of angles, etc.

    Anyway, as I note in the article, we're open for suggestions on what you'd like to see added that isn't already there. Notebookcheck has a rundown of each laptop that's pretty much just regurgitating the spec sheet, so I think we're covered there. We run a standardized set of benchmarks that includes more detailed graphs, though perhaps some would prefer the NBC approach (e.g. just show the scores from the laptop being tested with a "heat map" below showing the spread and frequency of other scores)?

    Consider the scope of the review and by all means let us know which aspects of laptop reviews you'd like us to cover more. About the only major test that NBC runs that we don't have is CrystalDisk, but I'm not sure how useful that really is. SSDs are much faster than HDDs, and the differences between HDDs are largely meaningless by comparison. I generally figure anyone after fast storage for a laptop will be looking to upgrade to an SSD regardless, and if that's the case they'll be reading our SSD reviews after determing which laptop they want. But let me throw this out there:

    Are there others that would like us to run one of these "quick and dirty" storage benchmarks on the laptops we test? Is the PCMark 7 Storage score insufficient in what it reports? I'm not going to add a test because of one request for it, but if a lot of you would like some additional tests let me know.
  • kedesh83 - Saturday, January 7, 2012 - link

    You would think most laptop gamers would be either playing World of warcraft, or Starcraft 2. I'm not being a fanboy or anything but why would they not include those in the games list? Most of the kids i see playing games on my campus are playing Blizzard titles. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, January 7, 2012 - link

    They're older games and DX9 titles as well. If the gaming suite we test runs sufficiently fast on a laptop, I can pretty much guarantee SC2 and WoW will run. Reply
  • ananduser - Saturday, January 7, 2012 - link

    When testing the battery please include a moderate amount of FLASH only sites the likes of Tag Heuer or famous car brands flash minisites. Flash is an important part of the web and would make your tests more realistic. Reply
  • signorRosso - Saturday, January 7, 2012 - link

    In hardware or software?
    10-bit is mentioned at the bottom of this AT article page...
  • signorRosso - Saturday, January 7, 2012 - link

    Disregard the previous comment entirely! Reply
  • Paedric - Saturday, January 7, 2012 - link

    I don't know if it is possible to do it, or if it is useful, but what about testing the performance of virtual machines?

    Also, you said you now use IE9 instead of IE8, is there a significant difference in battery life between Chrome/Firefox/IE9/Opera?
  • gero9mo - Saturday, January 7, 2012 - link

    " I’m not sure most users would notice the difference between a 2GHz Core 2 Duo or Athlon X2 laptop and a quad-core i7-2760QM. This is why battery life is such an important element, as where many wouldn’t notice the difference between a web page loading in two seconds and a web page loading in one second, they’re far more likely to notice two hours of battery life versus four or eight hours. "

    I can honestly tell you that one second feels for me like a lifetime in computing. If i where to load 100 pages during a surfing-session, if i can call it that (my English ain't the best), I would most certainly prefer those pages to load in 1 second instead of two. And, in the werry moment you get to a bit more complex page, you are without a doubt gona notice a difference between lets say a Intel Sandy Bridge based CPU versus any AMD CPU. Most users also do other stuff than just surf a web-page. They also extract zip,rar and other files, and even here youre gona notice a difference between Athlon X2 and a i7-2760QM. And if youre seeling computers, be shure to look two to three years forward in time. I would prefer to sit with a i5-2310M versus any Athlon X2 laptop.

    So even if most people won't notice a huge difference, a second here and a secongd there still counts.
  • PreacherEddie - Saturday, January 7, 2012 - link

    On the third page, third paragraph from the bottom: "We are still early enough in 2011...", I think should be "2012", unless you also have developed that time travel machine. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now