The Talos Principle

Croteam’s first person puzzle and exploration game The Talos Principle may not involve much action, but the game’s lush environments still put even fast video cards to good use. Coupled with the use of 4x MSAA at Ultra quality, and even a tranquil puzzle game like Talos can make a good case for more powerful video cards.

The Talos Principle - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

The Talos Principle - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Coming off of AMD’s poor Dragon Age performance, The Talos Principle offers the R9 Fury X a much-needed win. At 4K with Ultra quality settings the card is able to hit 57.2fps, just shy of 60fps. More importantly it’s ahead of not only the GTX 980 Ti, but the GTX Titan X as well, taking down both of NVIDIA’s flagships at once. The 9% lead over the GTX 980 Ti is one of the best AMD will see all day, so this is a game that’s clearly in AMD’s favor.

Do note however that AMD’s performance once again regresses at 1440p. It’s enough to retain the lead, if just barely, and tie the GTX Titan X. Thankfully for AMD this is an example of a game where a single GPU card is plenty for 4K gaming.

As for the R9 290X comparison, the results end up being very interesting. The R9 Fury X sees some very impressive gains here, improving over the R9 290X by 47% at 1440p and an amazing 60% at 4K. Given that the latter is outright outside our theoretical performance window for a shader-bound scenario, I suspect there’s more at play here than just GPU improvements. And sure enough, running the modified Catalyst 15.15 drivers on the R9 290X finds that performance improves by 21% at 4K, to 43.6fps, so it looks like AMD has been doing some optimizing for this game.

Dragon Age: Inquisition Far Cry 4
Comments Locked

458 Comments

View All Comments

  • Navvie - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    "Which is not say I’m looking" (paragraph 5, first line).

    Missing a "to" I think.
  • watzupken - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    Brilliant review. Well worth the wait. Thanks Ryan.
  • Taracta - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    ROPs, ROPs, ROPs! Hows can they ~ double everything else and keep the same amount of ROPs and expect to win?
  • Thatguy97 - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    maybe something to do with cost or yield
  • tipoo - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    They literally hit the size limits interposers can scale up to with this chip - so they can't make it any bigger to pack more transistors for more ROPs, until a die shrink. So they decided on a tradeoff, favouring other things than ROPs.
  • Kevin G - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    They had a monster shader count and likely would be fine if they went to 3840 max to make room for more ROPs. 96 or 128 ROPs would have been impressive and really made this chip push lots of pixels. With HBM and the new delta color compression algorithm, there should be enough bandwidth to support these additional ROPs without bottle necking them.

    AMD also scaled the number of TMUs with the shaders but it likely wouldn't have hurt to have increased them by 50% too. Alternatively AMD could have redesigned the TMUs to have better 16 bit per channel texture support. Either of these changes would have put the texel throughput well beyond the GM200's theoretical throughput. I have a feeling that this is one of the bottlenecks that helps the GM200 pull ahead of Fiji.
  • tipoo - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link

    Not saying it was the best tradeoff - just explaining. They quite literally could not go bigger in this case.
  • testbug00 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link

    the performances scaling as resolution increase is better than Nvidia, implying the ROPs aren't the bottleneck...
  • chizow - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link

    No, that implies the shaders are the bottleneck at higher resolutions while ROP/fillrate/geometry remained constant. While Nvidia's bottleneck at lower resolutions isn't shader bound but their higher ROP/fillrate allows them to realize this benefit in actual FPS, AMD's ROPs are saturated and simply can't produce more frames.
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    Right now there's not a lot of evidence for R9 Fury X being ROP limited. The performance we're seeing does not have any tell-tale signs of being ROP-bound, only hints here and there that may be the ROPs, or could just as well be the front-end.

    While Hawaii was due for the update, I'm not so sure we need to jump up in ROPs again so soon.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now