DiRT 4 Performance Review

Benchmarks: FPS, Frame Time & Smoothness

Benchmark Sequence

DiRT 4 does not include an integrated benchmark, so we had to come up with our own reproducible sequence for graphics card testing. We settled on the Wales map, and used a rally course generated by the game's “Your Stage” custom creator. The level is relatively rich in vegetation and proved quite taxing, slowing down more noticeably than some of the game's most complex circuits. This was quite a surprise to us.

DiRT 4 Bench Sequence

Performance Versus Detail Level - 1080p

First, let’s take a look at the impact of various detail settings on the fastest and slowest cards in our line-up (that'd be the Radeon R9 390 and RX 460 2GB). Given what we said earlier about the Very Low preset forcing severe sacrifices in quality, we're excluding it altogether.

It is no surprise that higher detail presets negatively affect performance. You can drop to High using the Radeon R9 390 and have a completely playable experience. But if you want the same from a Radeon RX 460, you'll have to use the Medium or Low quality settings.

Ultra Quality - 1080p

Seeing as how the game is supposed to run well on fairly modest hardware configurations, we decided to test it at 1920x1080 using the Ultra preset, 8x MSAA, and 16x AF.

Surprise: the Radeon R9 390 pulls ahead of AMD's RX 480! Meanwhile, Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1060 6GB and GTX 970 do battle with the RX 470. Our GeForce GTX 1060 3GB is a step behind; it can’t seem to average 30 frames per second.

It's frankly impossible to play on the GTX 1050 2GB or RX 460 2GB with these settings. That's what we'd expect, though, given the mainstream status of both boards.

High Quality - 1080p

Drop to High quality if you want DiRT 4 to be playable on a GeForce GTX 1050 2GB or Radeon RX 460 2GB with 4x MSAA and 8x AF enabled.

The rest of the field consistently exceeds 60 frames per second, but only AMD's Radeon R9 390 averages at least 90 frames per second.

Ultra Quality + EQAA (Radeon) - 1080p

DiRT 4 offers Radeon users an anti-aliasing mode called EQAA (Enhanced Quality Anti Aliasing) that goes one step beyond MSAA. Naturally, applying EQAA imposes an even more taxing workload on our graphics cards. But we wanted to know how bad it'd get by comparing 8x MSAA with 8f16x EQAA.

Only the Radeon R9 390 exceeds an average of 40 frames per second with these settings.

Of course, it is still impossible to play with the RX 460 2GB. Our RX 470 is largely unplayable, and even the RX 480 shows sign of weakness.

MORE: Prey Performance Review

MORE: Mass Effect Andromeda Performance Review

MORE: Ghost Recon Wildlands Performance Review

This thread is closed for comments
21 comments
    Your comment
  • d_kuhn
    Can we get a link to full res images? How are we supposed to compare ultra/high quality images when they're squeezed down into tiny frames. These sort of reviews lose a lot when the accompanying visuals are unusable.
  • Sakkura
    The VRAM usage comparison doesn't take into account that the R9 390 lacks the more efficient compression algorithms that newer cards feature. The RX 480 would likely have compared better against the GTX 1060.

    Another thing: Why are the shadows so much sharper at High than at Ultra?
  • darth_adversor
    I wonder if the 4GB variant of the GTX 1050 would have posted higher framerates on the high preset. That's the model my laptop came equipped with. I paid a little extra, as I was concerned that it would be held back with only 2GB.

    Edit: seeing as how the Asus 6GB 1060 bests the 3GB Gigabyte version, in spite of having less aggressive clocks, I guess I have my answer. Glad I sprung for the 4GB model.
  • in_the_loop
    @Sakkura.
    Softer shadows are more natural looking. It is always like this when raising the settings. You get more softer shadows.
  • Timaphillips
    I'll stick to Dirt Rally.
  • 10tacle
    Quote:
    "The game’s graphics engine isn't extraordinary, and its visuals are merely acceptable. We would have liked to see higher-quality textures, more particles, and a greater effort put toward shadows/lighting."


    Yeah this is a disappointment compared to DiRT Rally which I was an early access adopter of. It is extremely easy on the GPU and at 1440p maxed out everything and 4xMSAA, the built-in bench with my SLI 970s overclocked to 980 reference performance showed ~120fps average. VRAM allocation according to Afterburner was around 2.2GB max. About the same for Grid Autosport as well. Single 970 results in the tests were in the 70s on average and never dipping below 60FPS in minimum.

    Compare ^that^ to the 970 results at only 1080p of this game. Codemasters got sloppy with DiRT 4 it appears. Great gameplay, but from my viewpoint, the increased consumption of GPU resources is disappointing for the results. And what's up with CM ditching the built-in game benchmark they've had in Autosport, Rally, and earlier F1 versions? I'll relinquish this one to PS4 duty. Slack console port attempt. Disappointing, CM.
  • Openupitsdave
    Game looks and runs like garbage on my GTX1080 @ 1440p... Dirt 3 has similar picture quality but way more fps.... Very disappointed with Dirt 4...
  • Sakkura
    157464 said:
    @Sakkura. Softer shadows are more natural looking. It is always like this when raising the settings. You get more softer shadows.


    The shadows are also softer at lower settings though. And they seem to be lower res, such that features are lost (beyond what a bit of softness would warrant).
  • jdwii
    I've never been impressed with the graphics or gameplay from the Dirt series
  • turkey3_scratch
    These slider bars on the images are pretty nifty!
  • MCMunroe
    Ultra Preset GTX 1080, i7-6700k @ 2160p.
    It runs average about ~45FPS.

    I agree with the other posters for how the visuals look, I'd expect more FPS, or better images.
  • photonboy
    SAKKURA,
    Newer compression algorithms means less space used? Memory compression is simply to reduce the VRAM/GPU bandwidth requirement so there's no savings on VRAM size. It's on-the-fly, done per frame.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/8

    Unless there's some other texture compression you mean.
  • Yep_____
    The environment and particle effects look like absolute garbage. I would've thought that in recent years the environment and particles wouldn't look so flat and egregious. At this point it seems like we're years away from something that looks comparable to real life. It just looks like shit.
  • Yep_____
    The environment and particle effects look like absolute garbage. I would've thought that in recent years the environment and particles wouldn't look so flat and egregious. At this point it seems like we're decades away from something that looks comparable to real life. It just looks like shit.
  • alextheblue
    I don't understand why some multiplatform titles lack a DX12 or Vulkan rendering path on the PC. The console versions are absolutely written using low-level APIs.
  • Nintendork
    And this why you shouldn't lose your head over paying for a high end card to play everything Ultra, after Crysis and the console port era, Ultra setting differences are so minimal (sometimes you need to stare at the images for 20sec to notice something) it simply doesn't justifies losing half the fps.

    High in all the games and a RX580/1060 will last a long time with the 1070 being future proof.
  • Sakkura
    67821 said:
    SAKKURA, Newer compression algorithms means less space used? Memory compression is simply to reduce the VRAM/GPU bandwidth requirement so there's no savings on VRAM size. It's on-the-fly, done per frame. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/8 Unless there's some other texture compression you mean.


    The compression helps both reduce the amount of memory capacity used, and the amount of memory bandwidth used. A given amount of data has to be in VRAM for it to be transferred. If you cut down one you're also cutting down the other.

    Anandtech was just focusing on the bandwidth impact because that's much more relevant to performance than the impact on capacity. The impact on bandwidth is also greater than the impact on capacity because this data gets sampled repeatedly. But it does also take up less actual VRAM capacity, otherwise there would be no effect on bandwidth either.
  • mubin
    Whatever it is, no Cat n Mouse in Dirt 4 and no fun, i will stay with Dirt 3, the best of all time with impressive graphic
  • 10tacle
    205977 said:
    And this why you shouldn't lose your head over paying for a high end card to play everything Ultra, after Crysis and the console port era, Ultra setting differences are so minimal (sometimes you need to stare at the images for 20sec to notice something) it simply doesn't justifies losing half the fps. High in all the games and a RX580/1060 will last a long time with the 1070 being future proof.


    Depends on the game. In a shooter like BF1 or RPG like Fallout 4 that may be the case. But in driving games like Project Cars and DiRT Rally and Assetto Corsa, there are differences in quality of track detail, draw distance, exterior and interior car texture quality, scenery, etc.

    Also, you do realize people game with resolutions like 1440p and 4K as well as ultra wide monitors that push many times more pixels than 1080p right? Even a GTX 1080Ti can't hit 60FPS in games like Dues Ex and Watchdogs 2 in 4K at high settings. Same with a 1070 at 1440p and high setting in those games.
  • chaosmassive
    "Everything is simplified to the max: the gardener mowed the lawn, trees lose some of their branches, and the spectators are apparently at home."

    you just make me choke on water
  • spdragoo
    Interesting...

    Kind of new coming into the DiRT franchise, so I can't really say how it compares to the others. And I'm only really getting in because of the free DiRT 4 code I received (thank you, Tom's Hardware!!).

    That being said, seeing how my system's R9 380 compared against the 390 on Ultra/4x MSAA settings (https://www.techspot.com/review/1425-dirt-4-performance/) at 1080p, & that my monitor limits me to 900p resolution anyway, even with my system using an FX-8320 it looks like I can reasonably expect to get at least 50FPS average/40-45FPS minimum in the game on High settings...& to me, that's not too shabby at all.