Ashes of the Singularity Bench

Kaapstad · 9 Sep 2015 at 09:28

Gregster said:
I know that DSR gives me slightly more frames than native for some reason but no idea why. I would trust AMDMatt on this as well, as he has done both.

I think it would be nice if someone started a DSR/VSR bench thread (not me) to compare various games where people use both the native resolution and DSR/VSR to compare.

Gregster · 9 Sep 2015 at 09:30

Kaapstad said:
I think it would be nice if someone started a DSR/VSR bench thread (not me) to compare various games where people use both the native resolution and DSR/VSR to compare.

Maybe Muzigaz will do it.

Kaapstad · 9 Sep 2015 at 16:00

If anyone has posted any DSR/VSR results by mistake if they can let me know and I will remove them.

muziqaz · 9 Sep 2015 at 16:15

Yes, Kaap, if you haven't done so, you can remove them

And any other threads you run and I posted anything

Thread with dsr/vsr vs native will not have much success, since people who have 4k panels, will not use dsr/vsr, and people who don't will not have 4k panel to compare it to

So it is kinda pointless exercise.
maybe in the future I will look for very cheap second hand small 4k monitor, and run some tests, and find out how much the difference is with VSR.

Sorry, to waste everyones time

muziqaz · 17 Sep 2015 at 22:12

https://flic.kr/p/ysUU7h

1080p, fury x at stock, cpu as in sig.
settings as in 1st post everything high, 4x MSAA.
changes in settings apply once the game is restarted, even though game does not ask to restart itself. like before

TheRealDeal · 17 Sep 2015 at 23:58

muziqaz said:
https://flic.kr/p/ysUU7h

1080p, fury x at stock, cpu as in sig.
settings as in 1st post everything high, 4x MSAA.
changes in settings apply once the game is restarted, even though game does not ask to restart itself. like before

I noticed the build has changed. Is this the reason for the boost in fps. Stock Fury X now matching overclocked Nvidia cards.

muziqaz · 18 Sep 2015 at 00:08

TheRealDeal said:
I noticed the build has changed. Is this the reason for the boost in fps. Stock Fury X now matching overclocked Nvidia cards.

Yes there was a patch today.

P.S. when do you guys on this forum learn that benchmarks are run with systems, not just with GPUs.
system with fury x is now matching system with overclocked 980ti.

but wait till others run new version to 'compare'.

TheRealDeal · 18 Sep 2015 at 00:17

muziqaz said:
Yes there was a patch today.

P.S. when do you guys on this forum learn that benchmarks are run with systems, not just with GPUs.
system with fury x is now matching system with overclocked 980ti.

but wait till others run new version to 'compare'.

Ofcourse as the NVidia cards may see similar boosts but the gain on your system is pretty nice all the same. Will be interesting to see if on this build Nvidia's dx12 performance over takes its DX11.

I think we all know it's systems and not just Graphics cards that run games. This is the Graphics forum not the system forum. I can also read your spec in your post and link and know what other systems to compare too. Most of us in here do have a brain lol.

muziqaz · 18 Sep 2015 at 06:39

TheRealDeal said:
Ofcourse as the NVidia cards may see similar boosts but the gain on your system is pretty nice all the same. Will be interesting to see if on this build Nvidia's dx12 performance over takes its DX11.

I think we all know it's systems and not just Graphics cards that run games. This is the Graphics forum not the system forum. I can also read your spec in your post and link and know what other systems to compare too. Most of us in here do have a brain lol.

Regarding last paragraph I wouldn't be so sure of quite a few loudmouths

who keep pitching cynical remarks that nvidia is faster in this benchmark when CPUs are clocked higher as well

whyscotty · 18 Sep 2015 at 07:18

muziqaz said:
P.S. when do you guys on this forum learn that benchmarks are run with systems, not just with GPUs.
.

muziqaz said:
Regarding last paragraph I wouldn't be so sure of quite a few loudmouths who keep pitching cynical remarks that nvidia is faster in this benchmark when CPUs are clocked higher as well

Priceless just priceless. :rolleyes:

Marine-RX179 · 18 Sep 2015 at 07:35

muziqaz said:
P.S. when do you guys on this forum learn that benchmarks are run with systems, not just with GPUs.
system with fury x is now matching system with overclocked 980ti.

I did suggest this saying shouldn't we considering the different in CPU speed as well, as this is still a CPU intensive bench, but a few (Nvidia users) insisted that any 980Ti being faster than the Fury X is purely because graphic card performance alone, because the results looks to be GPU bottlenecked...

But hey, I don't really care if Fury X is was slower than the 980Ti, as it is already doing better than what we thought its performance was comparing to the initial low expectation from launch

I mean the Fury series was not exactly designed from ground-up, as Fuji was just AMD's lack of choice attempt, with HBM shoehorned onto the existing Hawaii base architecture. Considering the design the ROPs count is seriously bottlenecking the HBM from its full potential, and still being almost up there with the 980Ti, next gen cards would be something that's worth looking forward (or at least that's what I think anyway), when the architecture was built from ground-up based around HBM.

muziqaz · 18 Sep 2015 at 07:44

This benchmark is perfect thing for real enthusiast who are into all the nitty gritty details of performance aspects. It is fantastic in giving us quite a lot of info what is being taxed and how. Have we got any other benchmark which does that? This benchmark is not just e-pen*s measuring competition between GPUs, it is benchmark for fastest overall system

Which is why I suggested early in the thread to include multiple user submissions with different configs, but got blasted as some assumed I was telling Kaap how to run his thread

andybird123 · 18 Sep 2015 at 08:07

yep, big performance boost in latest build it would appear, they've also added an "ultra" settings for TAA which we are only using "high"

980ti 1484 / 3947
5820k @ 4.625

I'll re-do a run at 4GHZ later so we can see what is what with this whole GPU vs. CPU affecting the results claims, but I somehow doubt I'm going to lose 25% performance from a 15% CPU overclock when most of my cores are running at 60% for this bench

edit: with a re-run at 4ghz I get 46.3fps so that's a less than 2% variance from a 15% change in clock speed, or in other words, if Muziqaz could improve his OC to the same level as me he would get perhaps 1% increase in final result... can we put this CPU nonsense to bed now?

Streetlight · 18 Sep 2015 at 08:33

After update...

R9 290 1285/1500
AMD 9590 @5GHz
1080p
15.8 drivers

1440p - Titan X @ 1400/1866 - 5930K @ 4.4 - 355.82

TheRealDeal · 18 Sep 2015 at 08:41

It might be worth taking a look at the ultra setting for TA. Is that not what the Async Shaders are mainly handling in this game or at least Amd had some slides out showing the benefits of using Async compute and TA.

Kaapstad · 18 Sep 2015 at 09:11

Scoreboard updated.

Streetlight · 18 Sep 2015 at 09:11

After update...ultra settings

R9 290 1285/1500
AMD 9590 @5GHz
1080p
15.8 drivers

1440p - Titan X @ 1400/1866 - 5930K @ 4.4 - 355.82

andybird123 · 18 Sep 2015 at 09:19

for comparison, 1080p Ultra, I get 39.2 so the 290P loses 19% and the 980ti loses 20%

TheRealDeal · 18 Sep 2015 at 09:42

andybird123 said:
for comparison, 1080p Ultra, I get 39.2 so the 290P loses 19% and the 980ti loses 20%

So not much difference here between the brands on hit taken. Is Nvidia's DX11 performance still better compared to DX12.

Gregster · 18 Sep 2015 at 10:05

Just had a quick run and seems my settings differ to Muzigaz (who has TAA set to high)

Anyways, here is Crazy settings with 4xMSAA

And here is the same settings as Muzigaz.

1080P both runs - 3930K @ 4.4 - TX at 1418/4001 - 355.82 drivers. You will have to let us know what is what Kaap please with the newer settings.