Fable Legends Early Preview: DirectX 12 Benchmark Analysis
by Ryan Smith, Ian Cutress & Daniel Williams on September 24, 2015 9:00 AM ESTComparing Percentile Numbers Between the GTX 980 Ti and Fury X
As the two top end cards from both graphics silicon manufacturers were released this year, there was all a big buzz about which is best for what. Ryan’s extensive review of the Fury X put the two cards head to head on a variety of contests. For DirectX 12, the situation is a little less clear cut for a number of reasons – games are yet to mature, drivers are also still in the development stage, and both sides competing here are having to rethink their strategies when it comes to game engine integration and the benefits that might provide. Up until this point DX12 contests have either been synthetic or having some controversial issues. So for Fable Legends, we did some extra percentile based analysis for NVIDIA vs. AMD at the top end.
For this set of benchmarks we ran our 1080p Ultra test with any adaptive frame rate technology enabled and recorded the result:
For these tests, usual rules apply – GTX 980 and Fury X, in our Core i7/i5/i3 configurations at all three resolution/setting combinations (3840x2160 Ultra, 1920x1080 Ultra and 1280x720 Low). Data is given in the form of frame rate profile graphs, similar to those on the last page.
As always, Fable Legends is still in early access preview mode and these results may not be indicative of the final version, but at this point they still provide an interesting comparison.
At 3840x2160, both frame rate profiles from each card looks the same no matter the processor used (one could argue that the Fury X is mildly ahead on the i3 at low frame rates), but the 980 Ti has a consistent gap across most of the profile range.
At 1920x1080, the Core i7 model gives a healthy boost to the GTX 980 Ti in high frame rate scenarios, though this seems to be accompanied by an extended drop off region in high frame rate areas. It is also interesting that in the Core i3 mode, the Fury X results jump up and match the GTX 980 Ti almost across the entire range. This again points to some of the data we saw on the previous page – at 1080p somehow having fewer cores gave the results a boost due to lighting scenarios.
At 1280x720, as we saw in the initial GPU comparison page on average frame rates, the Fury X has the upper hand here in all system configurations. Two other obvious points are noticeable here – moving from the Core i5 to the Core i7, especially on the GTX 980 Ti, makes the easy frames go quicker and the harder frames take longer, but also when we move to the Core i3, performance across the board drops like a stone, indicating a CPU limited environment. This is despite the fact that with these cards, 1280x720 at low settings is unlikely to be used anyway.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
141 Comments
View All Comments
anubis44 - Friday, October 30, 2015 - link
The point is not whether you use DP, the point is that the circuitry is now missing, and that's why Maxwell uses less power. If I leave stuff out of a car, it'll be lighter, too. Hey look! No back seats anymore, and now it's LIGHTER! I'm a genius. It's not because nVidia whipped up a can of whoop-ass, or because they have magic powers, it's because they threw everything out of the airplane to make it lighter.anubis44 - Friday, October 30, 2015 - link
And left out the hardware based scheduler, which will bite them in the ass for a lot of DX12 games that will need this. No WAIT! nVidia isn't screwed! They'll just sell ANOTHER card to the nVidiots who JUST bought one that was obsolete, 'cause nVidia is ALWAYS better!Alexvrb - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Not every game uses every DX12 feature, and knowing that their game is going to run on a lot of Nvidia hardware makes developers conservative in their use of new features that hurt performance on Nvidia cards. For example, as long as developers are careful with async compute and you've got plenty of CPU cycles, I think everything will be fine.Now, look at the 720p results. Why the change in the pecking order? Why do AMD cards increase their lead as CPU power falls? Is it a driver overhead issue - possibly related to async shader concerns? We don't know. Either way it might not matter, an early benchmark isn't even necessarily representative of the final thing, let alone a real-world experience.
In the end it will depend on the individual game. I don't think most developers are going to push features really hard that kill performance on a large portion of cards... well not unless they get free middleware tools and marketing cash or something. ;)
cityuser - Sunday, September 27, 2015 - link
quite sure it's nvidia again do some nasty work with the game company that descale the performance of AMD card !!!Look at where the nvidia cannot corrupt, futuremark's benchmark tells another story!!!
Drumsticks - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
As always, it's only one data point. It was too early to declare AMD a winner then, but it's still too early to say they aren't actually going to benefit more from DX12 than Nvidia. We need more data to say for sure either way.geniekid - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
That's crazy talk.Beararam - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Maybe not ''vastly superior'', but the gains in the 390x seem to be greater than those realized in the 980. Time will tell.https://youtu.be/_AH6pU36RUg?t=6m29s
justniz - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Such a large gain only on AMD just from DX12 (i.e. accessing the GPU at a lower level and bypassing AMD driver's DX11 implementation) is yet more evidence that AMD's DX11 drivers are much more of a bottleneck than nVidia's.Gigaplex - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
That part was pretty obvious. The current question is, how much of a bottleneck. Will DX12 be enough to put AMD in the lead (once final code starts shipping), or just catch up?lefty2 - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
I wonder if they were pressurized not to release any benchmark that would make Nvidia look bad, similiar to the way they did in ashes of the singularity