Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor

Our next benchmark is Monolith’s popular open-world action game, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. One of our current-gen console multiplatform titles, Shadow of Mordor is plenty punishing on its own, and at Ultra settings it absolutely devours VRAM, showcasing the knock-on effect that current-gen consoles have on VRAM requirements.

Shadow of Mordor - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Shadow of Mordor - 3840x2160 - Very High Quality

Shadow of Mordor - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Shadow of Mordor ends up being a big win for AMD, with the R9 Fury cards shooting well past the GTX 980. Based on our earlier R9 Fury X review this was not an unexpected result, but at the end of the day with a 20%+ performance advantage, it’s a great situation for AMD to be in.

Meanwhile the R9 Fury’s performance relative to its X-rated sibling is yet again in the 7% range. So far the performance difference between the two cards is surprisingly consistent.

Finally, since AMD’s last two $550 cards were the R9 290X and HD 7970, let’s take a look at those comparisons quickly. At 1440p the R9 Fury only has a 17% lead over the R9 290X “Uber”, which for a card almost 2 years old is more than a bit surprising. The R9 Fury has more efficient front-ends and back-ends and significant advantages in shader throughput and memory bandwidth, and yet the performance gains compared to 290X are fairly small. On the other hand 7970 owners looking to upgrade to another Radeon should like what they’re seeing, as the R9 Fury’s 79% performance advantage is approaching upgrade territory.

Shadow of Mordor - Min Frame Rate - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Shadow of Mordor - Min Frame Rate - 3840x2160 - Very High Quality

Shadow of Mordor - Min Frame Rate - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Shifting gears to minimum framerates, the situation is similarly in AMD’s favor at 4K. One of the outcomes of going up against the GTX 980 is that it’s just as VRAM-limited as R9 Fury is, so in a VRAM intensive game like Shadow of Mordor, neither card has an advantage. However it’s quite interesting that once we back off to 1440p, the GTX 980 surges forward.

Crysis 3 Civilization: Beyond Earth
Comments Locked

288 Comments

View All Comments

  • refin3d - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link

    This is exactly what I was thinking... A few months ago when the 980 was launched I recall the 290X not being able to compete with it, and now they are trading blows. Shows some good work by the driver's team.

    Maybe AMD's cards are like a fine wine; you have to give them time to age before they reach their maximum potential haha.
  • jann5s - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link

    Making driver improvements is nice, and shows commitment from AMD, but it could also mean the original state of the drivers was not so good, and there was indeed a lot to improve. I hope this is not the case, but I'm not sure.
  • Asomething - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link

    Amd drivers weren't as good, its one of the reasons they switched to GCN in the 1st place, their drivers got a lot better since those days apparently.
  • FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link

    Apparently not, as most games don't run even for the reviewers on GCN "release day".

    The endless fantasies in amd fanboy minds though, those run, run their course, are debunked, go into schizoid mode and necromance themselves, then of course we are treated to the lying again.
  • FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link

    SO FOR 2 FULL YEARS AMD 290 290X 290 UBER OWNERS GOT SCREWED " by the drivers that are just as good as Nvidia's as that problem amd had was 4 years ago or more" !!???

    I get it amd fanboy ... it's all you have left after the constant amd failures and whippings they've taken from nVidia - the fantasy about "amd drivers" TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER RELEASE.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link

    A conspiracy theory is that Nvidia has purposefully hampered performance for Kepler.
  • Cellar Door - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link


    Look at 780Ti - at launch 290X could not touch it. Where is the 780Ti now?!?!? - what a crappy investment was that for anyone that got one.
  • CiccioB - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    You may be over excited to have noted that in the review there's a GTX780, not a 780Ti. Seen the difference between the cards, if some improvements have been created, they are quite marginal.
    It's really funny to see these sort of myth raise from time to time without a real study on the thing. All impressions, not a single number reported as a proof of anything.
    Yet, continue to believe in what you want. Unfortunately for you the market doesn't really care.
  • Cellar Door - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    You should check out the techpowerup review - they have a 780TI in it. Then you will understand what you here are calling a myth. 780TI is positioned just before a 290X, hahah, pretty sad to be honest.
  • CiccioB - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link

    You can look at Anandtech reviews. The only game that was in benchmark suite as today is Crisis 3.
    Look what are the changes between the 290X and the 780 (not Ti).
    Here the two boards when on par at 290X presentation, and they still are on par today.
    You can see the difference are the same and we are speaking for 1FPS change for both GPUs. Yes, miraculous drivers. Come on, return on Earth with your fantasies.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now