Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation (DX12)

A veteran from both our 2016 and 2017 game lists, Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation remains the DirectX 12 trailblazer, with developer Oxide Games tailoring and designing the Nitrous Engine around such low-level APIs. The game makes the most of DX12's key features, from asynchronous compute to multi-threaded work submission and high batch counts. And with full Vulkan support, Ashes provides a good common ground between the forward-looking APIs of today. Its built-in benchmark tool is still one of the most versatile ways of measuring in-game workloads in terms of output data, automation, and analysis; by offering such a tool publicly and as part-and-parcel of the game, it's an example that other developers should take note of.

Settings and methodology remain identical from its usage in the 2016 GPU suite. To note, we are utilizing the original Ashes Extreme graphical preset, which compares to the current one with MSAA dialed down from x4 to x2, as well as adjusting Texture Rank (MipsToRemove in settings.ini).

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation - 2560x1440 - Extreme Quality

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation - 1920x1080 - Extreme Quality

With Ashes, the RX 590 performance uplift over the RX 580 pays off in terms of beating its main competition, the GTX 1060 6GB. The lead is slim enough, however, that custom GTX 1060 6GB cards could easily make up the difference. With the price premium the RX 590 has over the GTX 1060 6GB, the reference GeForce is a little too close for comfort.

 

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation - 99th Percentile - 2560x1440 - Extreme Quality

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation - 99th Percentile - 1920x1080 - Extreme Quality

While not particularly known as a VRAM-eater, Ashes at 1440p brings down the GTX 960 and its anemic 2GB framebuffer, though it wouldn't be managing playable framerates anyhow.

Far Cry 5 Wolfenstein II
Comments Locked

136 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kriswithak - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    I would love to see if the improved process offers better efficiency.
    With the RX480 4gb, I undervolted the card and saw a significant decrease in load power consumption.

    With the RX580 8gb, I dropped the boost clocks a bit and dropped the voltage as well, and only used 6 pin power connector.

    I would like to see the rx590/580/480 at similar reference/boost clocks, then undervolted to lowest possible stable and see what the frame per watt comparison is.
  • Nfarce - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    Just another example of AMD shooting their R&D wad at the APU/CPU segment and ignoring the GPU segment. There is ZERO reason to buy this fail over Nivdia unless you have already bought a Freesync monitor and a much older AMD GPU, which monitors, by the way, do work with Nvidia GPUs when locking down the v-sync tool. I have a Freesync 75Hz monitor ( 32" 1440p AOC) and love it with my GTX 1070 Ti locking in frames (bought it for $369 on NewEgg in a promo sale). Said 1070 Ti doesn't even need to breathe hard. Minimum FPS never comes close to hitting 75 FPS. Not only is it 30+% faster, but it also consumes nearly 20% less power under load than this card. Yeah, that's worth the extra $80 for my 1070 Ti in my book. You get what you pay for. I really hope AMD starts using some of their Ryzen revenue that they've been taking in for - nearly three years now mind you and not including their revenue stream from game console APUs - into upping their dedicated GPU game. Because they have a long way to go to match Nvidia in the upper tiers where the real price margin revenue is made. Nobody makes money on low and mid range GPUs where AMD has always targeted.
  • eva02langley - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    You are missing the point here, Lisa Su said that decision are took 3-5 years in advance for their roadmap.

    Polaris was already a thing and just making a 12 nm was an easy thing to do and was filling a gap.

    People tend to forget that the 8GB RX 580 MSRP is actually 240$, not 200$ which is for the 4GB version. 30$ more is not such a step and still the cost per FPS is one of the lowest.

    With a 100$+ of game bundle to add to it, there is no question that the value is there.
  • Flunk - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    Slightly overclocked RX 480 from two years ago? Wake me when AMD actually releases a new GPU.
  • Cyborg997 - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link

    Can't believe this s*** with an AMD. 3 years with the same chips. What the f*** please give us something worth our money. Still have my Fury 9 running
  • Assimilator87 - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    While everyone upped their resolution to UHD, I went the opposite direction and am running a CRT at 720p. My 7970's still running strong lol. CPU market is fire right now, but GPUs so boring =\
  • piroroadkill - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    So it sits somewhere between the 1060 6GB and 1070, most of the time closer to the former, and yet consumes a lot more power than either card. No thanks. People don't want noisy, hot systems these days without actually getting some performance to back it up.
  • eva02langley - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    It is actually quieter... check higher... seriously... people.
  • Lolimaster - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    It's really sad that 2 years after, performance per dollar went down.

    2 years more and we will have an APU with similar power than the RX580 on a $150 chip...
  • ItsAlive - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Now undervolt and overclock that gtx 1060, Mine was able to drop over 100mv, lowered power limit to 75%, but still overclocked 200/400 core/mem clocks and uses 75w max at full load. Temps typically run mid 60s with stock fan settings and its near silent. Its a mini card that is probably 1/3 the size of the RX590 and I bought it over a year ago for $250.

    If a stock gtx1060 uses typcially 120 watts max (mine would before the undervolt), then total system power for an undervolted card according to the charts in the article would look like this:

    GTX1060/RX590/Fatboy
    --------------------------------
    BF1: 210w/363w/379w
    Furmark: 206w/330w/362w

    I would be interested to see an undervolted RX590 vs undervolted GTX1060 for a better comparison.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now