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
medi03 - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
"AMD had driver with better results, but we didn't use it", "oh, Bryan tested it, but he's away" adds some sauce to it.Oxford Guy - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
"we are waiting for a better time to test the Ashes of the Singularity benchmark"L-O-L
Frenetic Pony - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
This is as usual a trolley, click bait response. The truth is far more complex than whether one side "wins". Here we can see Amds older card once again benefiting greatly from Dx12, to the point where it clearly pulls ahead of Nvidias similarly priced options. Yet on the high end it seems Nvidia has scaled it's gpu architecture better than Amd has, with the 980ti having the advantage. So, technology, like life, is complicated and not prone to simple quips that accurately reflect reality.jospoortvliet - Friday, September 25, 2015 - link
True. One thing has not changed and becomes more pronounced with DirectX12: AMD offers better performance at every price point.Th-z - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Are you referring to AotS results? That benchmark stresses different things than this classic flyby benchmark, both are useful in their own right. AotS's more akin to real gameplay and stresses draw call capability of DX12, which is *the* highlights of DX12.My question for Ryan, Anandtech didn't test AotS because you said it's still in the early developmental stage, however this one isn't? I say test them all, make interesting before-and-after study cases regardless. Also have you considered improving your comment section?
DoomGuy64 - Friday, September 25, 2015 - link
Incorrect. The $650 Ti is the only Nvidia card better in dx12, and it has 96 ROPs, compared to the Fury's 64, not that Fury is actually doing that bad. AMD on the other hand, is cleaning up with the mid-range cards, which is what most people are buying.masaville888 - Saturday, October 10, 2015 - link
I left AMD for good after too many years of technical issues such as artifacting, poorly optimized drivers and so forth. I always had a good experience with nVidia and after going back I have no regrets. AMD seems more interested in tech announcements than user experience. If they figure out the customer side of things they have the potential to be great, but not until then.lprates - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link
I totally Agreelprates - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link
I totally Agreelprates - Sunday, October 18, 2015 - link
I totally Agree