Comprehensive GTX 1080 Benchmark Results

[Scipo0419]

Oh my god this took so long T_T
at ~6 minutes per benchmark, this took ~4 hours (also, seeing that Naan w/ cheese so many times has made me very hungry)

So, I wanted to get a full round of results from every possible "basic" setting change for my rig. For each test I would set the preset graphic setting and only change the Upscaling quality (or turn it off) to match that round of testing. For example, Ultra Setting defaults to Quality Upscaling, so I would lower that to Performance for the Performance Upscaling tests. No other settings were adjusted. Hopefully this is actually readable instead of a giant mess. All that said, here are my results for 21:9 and 16:9 aspect ratios.

---

Note: I didn't bother with Ultra Performance Upscaling because it looks so bad that it's not worth the FPS gains. I can do the Ultra Performance testing if someone is actually interested in my results.
Static Variables:
CPU: i9-9900k @ 3.60GHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
GPU Drivers: GeForce Game Ready Driver Version 566.36 - Released: Thu Dec 5, 2024
RAM: 32GB
Screen Mode: Borderless Windowed
Resolution: 2560x1080
Upscaling Mode (when applicable): AMD FSR
Frame Generation: Disable (It technically works on 10-series cards like mine, but not very well so I left it off)

---

21:9 Aspect Ratio

---

Upscaling?: No

Results:

• Ultra: Average FPS: 15.63 | Score: 5645 | Ultra Baseline
  
• High: Average FPS: 17.54 | Score: 6176 | High Baseline
  
• Medium: Average FPS: 18.56 | Score: 6438 | Medium Baseline
  
• Low: Average FPS: 21.18 | Score: 7260 | Low Baseline
  
• Lowest: Average FPS: 20.73 | Score: 7128 | Lowest Baseline

---

Upscaling?: Yes, Quality

Results:

• Ultra: Average FPS: 17.86 | Score: 6287 | ~14.25% FPS improvement over Ultra Baseline
  
• High: Average FPS: 20.10 | Score: 6920 | ~14.60% FPS improvement over High Baseline
  
• Medium: Average FPS: 21.64 | Score: 7452 | ~16.59% FPS improvement over Medium Baseline
  
• Low: Average FPS: 24.09 | Score: 8239 | ~13.74% FPS improvement over Low Baseline
  
• Lowest: Average FPS: 23.55 | Score 8090 | ~13.60% FPS improvement over Lowest Baseline

---

Upscaling?: Yes, Balanced

Results:

• Ultra: Average FPS: 18.69 | Score: 6511 | ~4.65% FPS improvement over Ultra - Quality
  
• High: Average FPS: 21.46 | Score: 7340 | ~6.77% FPS improvement over High - Quality
  
• Medium: Average FPS: 23.12 | Score: 7928 | ~6.84% FPS improvement over Medium - Quality
  
• Low: Average FPS: 25.89 | Score: 8879 | ~7.47% FPS improvement over Low - Quality
  
• Lowest: Average FPS: 25.57 | Score: 8748 | ~8.58 FPS improvement over Lowest - Quality

---

Upscaling?: Yes, Performance

Results:

• Ultra: Average FPS: 20.18 | Score: 6795 | ~7.97% FPS improvement over Ultra - Balanced
  
• High: Average FPS: 22.71 | Score: 7761 | ~5.82% FPS improvement over High - Balanced
  
• Medium: Average FPS: 24.55 | Score: 8412 | ~6.19% FPS improvement over Medium - Balanced
  
• Low: Average FPS: 27.13 | Score: 9283 | ~4.79% FPS improvement over Low - Balanced
  
• Lowest: Average FPS: 27.17 | Score: 9354 | ~6.26% FPS improvement over Lowest - Balanced

---

---

16:9 Aspect Ratio

---

Upscaling?: No

Results:

• Ultra: Average FPS: 18.22 | Score: 6181 | Ultra Baseline
  
• High: Average FPS: 19.83 | Score: 6806 | High Baseline
  
• Medium: Average FPS: 21.31 | Score: 7321 | Medium Baseline
  
• Low: Average FPS: 24.11 | Score: 8261 | Low Baseline
  
• Lowest: Average FPS: 23.84 | Score: 8172 | Lowest Baseline

---

Upscaling?: Yes, Quality

Results:

• Ultra: Average FPS: 19.71 | Score: 6579 | ~8.18% FPS improvement over Ultra Baseline
  
• High: Average FPS: 22.14 | Score: 7590 | ~11.65% FPS improvement over High Baseline
  
• Medium: Average FPS: 23.76 | Score: 8129 | ~11.50% FPS improvement over Medium Baseline
  
• Low: Average FPS: 26.74 | Score: 9123 | ~10.91% FPS improvement over Low Baseline
  
• Lowest: Average FPS: 26.60 | Score: 9097 | ~11.58% FPS improvement over Lowest Baseline

---

Upscaling?: Yes, Balanced

Results:

• Ultra: Average FPS: 20.38 | Score: 6824 | ~3.40% FPS improvement over Ultra - Quality
  
• High: Average FPS: 23.22 | Score: 7962 | ~4.88% FPS improvement over High - Quality
  
• Medium: Average FPS: 24.84 | Score: 8491 | ~4.55% FPS improvement over Medium - Quality
  
• Low: Average FPS: 27.45 | Score: 9419 | ~2.66% FPS improvement over Low - Quality
  
• Lowest: Average FPS: 27.83 | Score: 9548 | ~4.62% FPS improvement over Lowest - Quality

---

Upscaling?: Yes, Performance

Results:

• Ultra: Average FPS: 21.88 | Score: 7284 | ~7.36% FPS improvement over Ultra - Balanced
  
• High: Average FPS: 24.52 | Score: 8378 | ~5.60% FPS improvement over High - Balanced
  
• Medium: Average FPS: 26.40 | Score: 9032 | ~6.28% FPS improvement over Medium - Balanced
  
• Low: Average FPS: 29.03 | Score: 9920 | ~5.76% FPS improvement over Low - Balanced
  
• Lowest: Average FPS: 28.81 | Score: 9842 | ~3.52% FPS improvement over Low - Balanced

[RotGoblin]

Fair play, I credit you on your efforts!

But that looks like the death knell for the GTX 1080. I would have said the 9900K was the bottleneck, but the difference between 21:9 and 16:9 performance does suggest the 9900K isn't the limiting factor.

[Qwenil]

10400F/32gx/1080 here

1080p/Medium preset/25.35fps/8660 score

Got a question for you. Does your 1080 draw full power during beench?

Because my one's at 90-120W only briefly hitting 130-140W sometimes, when other games easily pull 180W+ for me.

[Scipo0419]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Fair play, I credit you on your efforts!

But that looks like the death knell for the GTX 1080. I would have said the 9900K was the bottleneck, but the difference between 21:9 and 16:9 performance does suggest the 9900K isn't the limiting factor.

That's kind of what I assumed as well. I'd heard about CPU bottlenecking but it really wasn't much of an issue, once I realized I couldn't lower the resolution in Borderless Windowed I decided to check and see if the aspect ratio would change anything and was shocked when it did. I'm about to post the % comparison between 21:9 and 16:9

[Scipo0419]

Originally posted by Qwenil:

10400F/32gx/1080 here

1080p/Medium preset/25.35fps/8660 score

Got a question for you. Does your 1080 draw full power during beench?

Because my one's at 90-120W only briefly hitting 130-140W sometimes, when other games easily pull 180W+ for me.

Honestly, I didn't really check anything but the average FPS shown in the benchmark and trying to notice where the biggest FPS drops were (cutscenes were actually above 30FPS even on High w/o upscaling, it was the gameplay portions that tanked to sub 20 FPS). I'll see what I can find out for you though.

[Scipo0419]

Here are the comparisons between aspect ratios, hope this converts well:

| Preset & Upscaling Mode | 21:9 FPS | 16:9 FPS | Increase |
|-------------------------|----------|----------|----------|
| Ultra - Off             | 15.63    | 18.22    | 16.57%   |
| Ultra - Quality         | 17.86    | 19.71    | 10.36%   |
| Ultra - Balanced        | 18.69    | 20.38    | 9.04%    |
| Ultra - Performance     | 20.18    | 21.88    | 8.42%    |
|                         |          |          |          |
| High - Off              | 17.54    | 19.83    | 13.06%   |
| High - Quality          | 20.10    | 22.14    | 10.15%   |
| High - Balanced         | 21.46    | 23.22    | 8.20%    |
| High - Performance      | 22.71    | 24.52    | 7.97%    |
|                         |          |          |          |
| Medium - Off            | 18.56    | 21.31    | 14.82%   |
| Medium - Quality        | 21.64    | 24.11    | 11.41%   |
| Medium - Balanced       | 23.12    | 24.84    | 7.44%    |
| Medium - Performance    | 24.55    | 26.40    | 7.54%    |
|                         |          |          |          |
| Low - Off               | 21.18    | 24.11    | 13.83%   |
| Low - Quality           | 24.09    | 26.74    | 11.00%   |
| Low - Balanced          | 25.89    | 27.45    | 6.03%    |
| Low - Performance       | 27.13    | 29.03    | 7.00%    |
|                         |          |          |          |
| Lowest - Off            | 20.73    | 23.84    | 15.00%   |
| Lowest - Quality        | 23.55    | 26.60    | 12.95%   |
| Lowest - Balanced       | 25.57    | 27.83    | 8.84%    |
| Lowest - Performance    | 27.17    | 28.81    | 6.04%    |

[RotGoblin]

Originally posted by Scipo0419:

Here are the comparisons between aspect ratios, hope this converts well:

Excellently written out, fair play. Nice formatting.

So 2560x1080p is 33% more to render than 1920x1080p, but you're only getting a 15% performance increase, so I guess there must be some CPU bottlenecks involved, probably during the Grasslands scene when everything gets tanked.

Whats your GPU utilisation like? 95%+ I presume?

[Scipo0419]

Originally posted by Qwenil:

10400F/32gx/1080 here

1080p/Medium preset/25.35fps/8660 score

Got a question for you. Does your 1080 draw full power during beench?

Because my one's at 90-120W only briefly hitting 130-140W sometimes, when other games easily pull 180W+ for me.

This one gave me a headache due to how poorly it ran. I ran it on Ultra-Quality w/ Frame Generation just to push my rig to the limits. I peaked on 143.41W, Watching the monitor showed sitting between high 80Ws and low 100Ws for the cutscene before you jumped on the Seikret. By way of comparison, Dynasty Warriors Origins running at high settings was pulling 130Ws - 150Ws just sitting on the world map. Seems like the benchmark isn't pushing the GPU

[Scipo0419]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Originally posted by Scipo0419:

Here are the comparisons between aspect ratios, hope this converts well:

Excellently written out, fair play. Nice formatting.

So 2560x1080p is 33% more to render than 1920x1080p, but you're only getting a 15% performance increase, so I guess there must be some CPU bottlenecks involved, probably during the Grasslands scene when everything gets tanked.

Whats your GPU utilisation like? 95%+ I presume?

Definitely at the grasslands scene, FPS is typically 25-35 in the scenes before that, then after the blackscreen cutout to the base camp it tanks to 18-20 until you leave get past the Doshaguma scene where it climbs back up to 25-30.

Will have to check GPU utilization, hold please!

Edit: (Cleared Min/Max after each black screen, results from HWMonitor)
GPU Utilization was 89.0% Min | 100.00% Max
Seemed to hover in the mid to high 90s. Setting was Low-Performance (likely what I'll end up using in the full release as it's the highest FPS I could get without it looking like garbage.)

[Qwenil]

Originally posted by Scipo0419:

Originally posted by Qwenil:

10400F/32gx/1080 here

1080p/Medium preset/25.35fps/8660 score

Got a question for you. Does your 1080 draw full power during beench?

Because my one's at 90-120W only briefly hitting 130-140W sometimes, when other games easily pull 180W+ for me.

This one gave me a headache due to how poorly it ran. I ran it on Ultra-Quality w/ Frame Generation just to push my rig to the limits. I peaked on 143.41W, Watching the monitor showed sitting between high 80Ws and low 100Ws for the cutscene before you jumped on the Seikret. By way of comparison, Dynasty Warriors Origins running at high settings was pulling 130Ws - 150Ws just sitting on the world map. Seems like the benchmark isn't pushing the GPU

Yep, same issue, Unigine Heaven pulls 170-180W, with Furmark hitting 220W. Black Desert Online happily pulls 170-180W with near 100% utilization, Wuthering Waves with 60fps cap pulls 80-130W at around 40-50% utilisation in comparison.

Edit: Yea, utilisation is also somehow at 100% for me, but the Power Draw is nowhere near where it should be for that.

[RotGoblin]

Originally posted by Scipo0419:

Will have to check GPU utilization, hold please!

Edit: (Cleared Min/Max after each black screen, results from HWMonitor)
GPU Utilization was 89.0% Min | 100.00% Max
Seemed to hover in the mid to high 90s. Setting was Low-Performance (likely what I'll end up using in the full release as it's the highest FPS I could get without it looking like garbage.)

So yeah, a mild CPU bottleneck during the worst scenes, but the rest of the time it's a GPU bottleneck.

Doesn't bode well for the old workhorse.

[Scipo0419]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Originally posted by Scipo0419:

Will have to check GPU utilization, hold please!

Edit: (Cleared Min/Max after each black screen, results from HWMonitor)
GPU Utilization was 89.0% Min | 100.00% Max
Seemed to hover in the mid to high 90s. Setting was Low-Performance (likely what I'll end up using in the full release as it's the highest FPS I could get without it looking like garbage.)

So yeah, a mild CPU bottleneck during the worst scenes, but the rest of the time it's a GPU bottleneck.

Doesn't bode well for the old workhorse.

Yeah, it's workable if you're fine with just below 30 FPS. I did one final test with 720p in windowed mode and got 30.04 FPS average on Medium - Performance which is ~13.79% improvement over 16:9.

So based exclusively off these benchmark results, with a GTX 1080, you have two options without replacing the GPU:

A) Play in 16:9 aspect ratio with Low - Performance as playing on Lowest is equal to or worse than Low - Performance. Alternatively, Medium - Performance is ~3 FPS worse than Low - Performance if the appearance of Low - Performance is too bad for you.

B) Play in Windowed Mode (or exclusive Fullscreen iirc) and set your resolution to 720p and play at Medium - Performance or Medium - Balanced.

I guess a third option, is hope performance patches improve the full release further as iirc World was also really bad for my PC on release and now I get 60 FPS easily.

[Mango698]

Dang ty for your efforts man. I have the i7-9700K and just recently got myself a 7800 XT (upgrade from 1070ti) and the results are just enough to play this game @ 60-70 FPS with UW monitor. I lowered enough settings to make it run decently while also preserving the image qual not to look like ass. (No Frame Gen). But my god the dips are insane when you get to the later stuff in the benchmark like wow. My utilisation for CPU and GPU are very much in the high 80%-90%. Hope theres a bigger optimisation patch at release but who knows.

[Scipo0419]

Originally posted by Mango698:

Dang ty for your efforts man. I have the i7-9700K and just recently got myself a 7800 XT (upgrade from 1070ti) and the results are just enough to play this game @ 60-70 FPS with UW monitor. I lowered enough settings to make it run decently while also preserving the image qual not to look like ass. (No Frame Gen). But my god the dips are insane when you get to the later stuff in the benchmark like wow. My utilisation for CPU and GPU are very much in the high 80%-90%. Hope theres a bigger optimisation patch at release but who knows.

I'm expecting there to be one. World definitely ran just as bad (or worse) on launch and I remember just accepting that I was going to deal with 20-30 FPS on low settings with that game. Lo and behold, I'm running it at over 60 now on high graphics if I didn't cap it at 60 for consistency's sake. I'm expecting the same thing with Wilds. We'll be in the rough for a good few months to a year but they'll do optimizations and stop the CPU bottle necking and improve GPU usage and we'll be able to at least get 30 fps on lower settings.

[Demon Potato]

What the hell is this??!!!! Its soo well info and god thank you for your time

[Pisaro]

So thats means on a GTX 1080 Wilds is totally unplayable.