Fable Legends Early Preview: DirectX 12 Benchmark Analysis
by Ryan Smith, Ian Cutress & Daniel Williams on September 24, 2015 9:00 AM ESTGraphics Performance Comparison
With the background and context of the benchmark covered, we now dig into the data and see what we have to look forward to with DirectX 12 game performance. This benchmark has preconfigured batch files that will launch the utility at either 3840x2160 (4K) with settings at ultra, 1920x1080 (1080p) also on ultra, or 1280x720 (720p) with low settings more suited for integrated graphics environments.
When dealing with 3840x2160 resolution, the GTX 980 Ti has a single digit percentage lead over the AMD Fury X, but both are above the bare minimum of 30 FPS no matter what the CPU.
When dealing with the i5 and i7 at 1920x1080 ultra settings, the GTX 980 Ti still has that single digit percentage lead, but at Core i3 levels of CPU power the difference is next to zero, suggesting we are CPU limited even though the frame difference from i3 to i5 is minimal. If we look at the range of cards under the Core i7 at this point, the interesting thing here is that the GTX 970 just about hits that 60 FPS mark, while some of the older generation cards (7970/GTX 680) would require compromises in the settings to push it over the 60 FPS barrier at this resolution. The GTX 750 Ti doesn’t come anywhere close, suggesting that this game (under these settings) is targeting upper mainstream to lower high end cards. It would be interesting to see if there is an overriding game setting that ends up crippling this level of GPU.
At the 720p low settings, the Core i7 pushes everything above 60 FPS, but you need at least an AMD 7970/GTX 960 to start going for 120 FPS if only for high refresh rate panels. We are likely being held back by CPU performance as illustrated by the GTX 970 and GTX 980 Ti being practically tied and the R9 290X stepping ahead of the pack. This makes it interesting when we consider integrated graphics, which we might test for a later article. It is worth noting that at the low resolution, the R9 290X and Fury X pull out a minor lead over the NVIDIA cards. The Fury X expands this lead with the i5 and i3 configurations, just rolling over to the double digit percentage gains.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
141 Comments
View All Comments
lprates - Sunday, October 18, 2015 - link
I totally Agreeanubis44 - Friday, October 30, 2015 - link
It's not nonsense. AMD Radeon cards have a hardware based scheduler. These tests don't make any use of asynchronous shaders, but it IS a DX12 feature, and one which will hit the Maxwells hard, since they don't have a hardware based scheduler. nVidia left it out to get the power consumption down. Too bad it'll be needed in many upcoming DX12 titles.Bleakwise - Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - link
You think?They didn't even benchmark the 300 series cards and look at this, at 1080p a 290x is about 11% faster a 970, a 285 is 20% faster than 960.
I mean holy shit.
Also, why didn't Anandtech use the last gen AMD cards instead of the 300 series cards (no, they aren't just rebrands)? Why didn't they do 1440p benchmarks? What the hell?
Bleakwise - Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - link
Also, "the driver got here late" my ass.What a bullshit excuse. It takes a couple hours to benchmark a card. The review couldn't wait one more day? Really? A review that's obsolete before it's even posted is better than posting a relevant review a day later?
Uxi - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Picture/Graph nr. 2 on the CPU scaling page seems to be the wrong. Should be 980 Ti not Fury X.Brett Howse - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Fixed tyvm!Drumsticks - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Any chance of having some AMD cpus tacked onto this? DX 12 is supposed to help them out after all, so it would be interesting to see if they've made any gains here.Ian Cutress - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
It's something we've thought of. A main issue is that the reviewer with all the GPUs, Ryan, is on the West Coast and the one with all the CPUs, me, is in Europe. So if Ryan does a piece it'll have lots of GPUs (and take time out of other things as he is Editor in Chief) and light on CPU. If I do it, it'll be limited to the GPU stack (R9 290X, R9 285, GTX 980, GTX 770, some of these non-reference) I have. We did this with Star Swarm and got a select group of angry emails claiming we were biased some way or another for not doing a full matrix intersection and claimed we were being paid off.That aside, when we get closer to launch of this game and others with DX12, I'll update the tests on our CPU test bed for 2016, and maybe get a new GPU or two with whatever is available at the time.
britjh22 - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Sounds like we need to get Ryan an FX-8320 and 990FX board, can you partially disable the FX processors in the same way to replicate the 6 and 4 series like you can with the i7?R0H1T - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
A better idea would be to ship Ian to the states, also since import duties are lower than that in Europe (:j/k