F1 23 technical review: Laptop and desktop benchmarks – Notebookcheck.net

Place your AD here

Right now, our gaming benchmarks are performed using these laptops. Click on the images to visit the respective product page. All other test systems (tower PCs, mini-PCs, etc.) are listed at the end of this article.

F1 23 bears a lot of resemblance to its predecessor visually. The new entry in the F1 racing sim continues to boast highly detailed vehicles, snazzy environments and excellent effects (e.g. reflections) without pushing graphics to the next level. 
Top 10 Laptops
Multimedia, Budget Multimedia, Gaming, Budget Gaming, Lightweight Gaming, Business, Budget Office, Workstation, Subnotebooks, Ultrabooks, Chromebooks
under 300 USD/Euros, under 500 USD/Euros, 1,000 USD/Euros, for University StudentsBest Displays
Top 10 Smartphones
Smartphones, Phablets, ≤6-inchCamera Smartphones
The developers especially deserve kudos for the (almost too) extensive graphics menu. You’ll find all sorts of modern features, with ray tracing alone taking up six individual options. TAA, DLSS (Nvidia), FSR (AMD) and XeSS (Intel) are available for upscaling and antialiasing. On paper, F1 23 offers Frame Generation on GPUs that support the feature. However, this option was always greyed out during our testing despite us having met the requirements (RTX 40 Series card, HDR off).
One particularly convenient thing is that the game offers several presets for general graphics quality. You can also make changes to any of the settings without having to restart the game. Speaking of start: F1 23 can be launched in VR mode as well – those who own compatible headsets will certainly be happy to hear this.
The game is very well suited for performance testing because the developers have once again included a benchmark tool in the graphics menu. Besides selecting the track, you can specify the weather conditions and camera position. For our testing, we opted to use the Australia circuit with clear skies and variable camera angles. There is also an optional fps counter and a loop feature. However, you won’t find any detailed stats similar to those in Returnal.
We consider F1 23 to be fairly playable if the average frame rate is above 40 fps. But the game really only feels smooth at 60 fps and above.
The game isn’t very taxing on a graphics card as long as ray tracing is disabled. A Radeon 680M is powerful enough to run the game at 1080p and high settings. But for the Ultra preset (which automatically enables ray tracing), you’ll need at least a mid-range GPU such as a GeForce RTX 4050 or similar.
The game definitely calls for a true high-end GPU (e.g. GeForce RTX 3070 Ti) when you pair 1440p with the Ultra preset.
Once we get to 4K, almost all mobile GPUs seem to have difficulty handling F1 23 at max settings. Only the RTX 4090, the most powerful Nvidia GPU right now, managed to deliver acceptable frame rates here. We recommend using DLSS or the likes if you have a less powerful GPU. In Quality mode, an RTX 4070 is enough to get the game running close the 40 fps mark.
Because gaming tests are very time-consuming and are often constrained by installation or activation limits, we are only able to provide you with part of the benchmark results at the time of publishing this article. We will be adding more graphics cards over the coming days and weeks.

(Manufacturer, Model, Series, Codename), Connect search words with   .


all, none


 
# started gpulist at www.notebookcheck.net took 0s on source +0s … 0s
#1 initialized values +0s … 0s
#2 get uncached data as no gamecheck data found in cache for bench uid 970 +0s … 0s
#3 loaded uncached gpu/cpu infos +3.02s … 3.02s
#4 loaded uncached benchmarks +2.51s … 5.53s
#5 Interpolated values for background color of the gaming list. +0.03s … 5.56s
#6 got benchmark programm data, about to get FAL images +0s … 5.56s
#7 got benchmark FAL images +0s … 5.56s
#8 added benchmark program data +0s … 5.56s
#9 loaded GPU class names +0s … 5.56s
#10 sorted values +0s … 5.56s
#11 did output the form +0s … 5.56s
#12 before benchmark header cells +0s … 5.56s
#13 after performance rating header +0s … 5.56s
#14 between header composition +0s … 5.56s
#15 did compose the header +0s … 5.56s
#16 did output the list +0.01s … 5.57s

source

Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Email

More from this Author