Fable Legends Early Preview: DirectX 12 Benchmark Analysis
by Ryan Smith, Ian Cutress & Daniel Williams on September 24, 2015 9:00 AM ESTDiscussing Percentiles and Minimum Frame Rates
Continuing from the previous page, we performed a similar analysis on AMD's Fury X graphics card. Same rules apply - all three resolution/setting combinations using all three system configurations. Results are given as frame rate profiles showing percentiles as well as choosing the 90th, 95th and 99th percentile values to get an indication of minimum frame rates.
Moving on to the Fury X at 4K and we see all three processor lineups performing similarly, giving us an indication that we are more GPU limited here. There is a slight underline on the Core i7 though, giving slightly lower frame rates in easier scenes but a better frame rate when the going gets tough beyond the 95th percentile.
For 1080p, the results take a twist. It almost seems as if we have some form of reverse scaling, whereby more cores is doing more damage to the results. If we have a look at the breakdown provided by the in-game benchmark (given in milliseconds, so lower is better):
Three areas stand out as benefitting from fewer cores: Transparency and Effects, GBuffer Rendering and Dynamic Lighting. All three are related to illumination and how the illumination interacts with its surroundings. One reason springs to mind on this – with large core counts, too many threads are issuing work to the graphics card causing thread contention in the cache or giving the thread scheduler a hard time depending on what comes in as high priority.
Nevertheless, the situation changes when we move down again to 720p:
Here the Core i3 takes a nose dive as we become CPU limited to pushing out the frames.
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