It's amazing that the 390 is beating the higher priced 980. This kind of proves that hardware Async compute is working it's magic. The FuryX probably needs some driver work to really show it's potential.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Fable Legends: AMD and Nvidia go head-to-head in latest DirectX 12 benchmark
- Thread starter shankly1985
- Start date
It's amazing that the 390 is beating the higher priced 980. This kind of proves that hardware Async compute is working it's magic. The FuryX probably needs some driver work to really show it's potential.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
"We tested an AMD-provided beta driver for the Fury X and with Nvidia’s latest WHQL-approved driver, 355.98. NVidia hasn’t released a beta Windows 10 driver since last April, and the company didn’t contact us to offer a specific driver for the Fable Legends debut"
Interesting wording - at face value it makes it look like nVidia were supposed to look in their crystal ball and be all like "oh extreme tech are going to run a benchmark tomorrow quick someone get them the latest driver!"
About the results I expected given the architecture differences but will be interesting to see how performance stacks up with an nVidia optimised driver as well as an AMD one.
Yeah, they also appear to be criticising for releasing certified drivers regularly instead of betas
A good thread although I have to agree with Stanners and you knew what you was doing Shankly and unsurprisingly, AMDMatt and Tommybhoy all singing off the same sheet.
Anyways, it is good to see AMD doing well in this one as they are not doing so well in AOTS but would be good to see what is what by users. Hopefully we can get hold of the benchmark soon and see if results stand fair on this one.
Anyways, it is good to see AMD doing well in this one as they are not doing so well in AOTS but would be good to see what is what by users. Hopefully we can get hold of the benchmark soon and see if results stand fair on this one.
I see nothing wrong with this post, our performance is good across the board. This game is using Async Shaders too, you can expect that a lot in future DX12 titles due to the consoles being able to use the feature.
We're still yet to see any evidence yet that asynchronous shaders will make Fury X any better than 980Ti? it's obviously become a main marketing point for AMD but that's about it so far.
Here AMD claimed 46% improvement, so why are NVidia matching and in most cases surpassing AMD without even having added support for it yet?
Without knowing what tessellation levels the game is requesting and which levels AMD are actually performing, it's very foolish to make that claim. Tessellated games are no longer apples to apples comparisons because AMD are just running the lowest factors they can get away with, opposed to what the application asks for.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 3,669
- Location
- Scotland
http://anandtech.com/show/9659/fable-legends-directx-12-benchmark-analysis
I am really shocked at CPU benchmarks, Core i3 2C/4T beaten Intel Core i7 4960X 6C/12T performance on either Nvidia and AMD GPU at 4K.
We really need more Skylake, Broadwell, Haswell, Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge CPU benchmarks to see how well CPU scaling on Fable Legends with DirectX 12.
I would be surprised if all DirectX 12 games 4K performance will be same. 6C/12T supposed to be much faster than 2C/4T at 4K when threads spreaded to all cores to increased performance.
I am really shocked at CPU benchmarks, Core i3 2C/4T beaten Intel Core i7 4960X 6C/12T performance on either Nvidia and AMD GPU at 4K.
We really need more Skylake, Broadwell, Haswell, Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge CPU benchmarks to see how well CPU scaling on Fable Legends with DirectX 12.
I would be surprised if all DirectX 12 games 4K performance will be same. 6C/12T supposed to be much faster than 2C/4T at 4K when threads spreaded to all cores to increased performance.
"We tested an AMD-provided beta driver for the Fury X and with Nvidia’s latest WHQL-approved driver, 355.98. NVidia hasn’t released a beta Windows 10 driver since last April, and the company didn’t contact us to offer a specific driver for the Fable Legends debut"
Interesting wording - at face value it makes it look like nVidia were supposed to look in their crystal ball and be all like "oh extreme tech are going to run a benchmark tomorrow quick someone get them the latest driver!"
About the results I expected given the architecture differences but will be interesting to see how performance stacks up with an nVidia optimised driver as well as an AMD one.
Yeah I noticed the wording too... but I just shrugged and assumed they meant "never got back to us". Then again these sites do often try and pump up their own egos by trying to make it seem they have more clout than they really do... "AMD-provided" might just mean they downloaded the latest betas off AMD.com.
Yeah I pretty much assumed that but it was still curious wording.
I'll be very surprised if we see any real significance of that aspect on 28nm GPUs - sure it would probably be a run away for AMD on sub 28nm (vs Maxwell architecture) but from my understanding of the architectures they just can't provision enough for those features within the restrictions of 28nm to outpace nVidia's ability to brute force it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Actually I kinda wish that they have tested GTX780/GTX780Ti as well on the benchmark.
I mean we all know the 970/980 Maxwell were not full-fat high-end parts and were cheaper to produce cards than the 780 and 780Ti. With all the glorified effciency hype back then, it would be interesting to know how well the 780 and 780Ti cope with dx12 with the full Kepler architecture. With the 780/780Ti being the direct rival to the 290 series (now rebranded to 390 series with more vram) back then, it would be quite an irony of those older cards actually deliver better dx12 performance than the newer 970/980.
May be someone will be able to investigate this on the benchmark thread.
I mean we all know the 970/980 Maxwell were not full-fat high-end parts and were cheaper to produce cards than the 780 and 780Ti. With all the glorified effciency hype back then, it would be interesting to know how well the 780 and 780Ti cope with dx12 with the full Kepler architecture. With the 780/780Ti being the direct rival to the 290 series (now rebranded to 390 series with more vram) back then, it would be quite an irony of those older cards actually deliver better dx12 performance than the newer 970/980.
May be someone will be able to investigate this on the benchmark thread.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,414
- Location
- UK.
Shrout has been on Nvidia payroll for years though
PCper's results are among the least reliable / credible..User benchmarks is where it's at, is there a Fable benchmark for users?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,754
- Location
- Planet Earth
Looks like the old horse r9 290 and r9 290x are going to gave a decent lifespan!
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
*Hug my 290x*
290/290x is the new 5850/5870
Kinda feel sorry for people that caught with the efficiency hype and sidegraded (now downgrade) from a 290/290x to a 970.
Yeah would have been interesting.
lol
Wouldn't get too excited - GPUs designed with DX12 in mind will crush anything out now for DX12 performance (I mean utter annihilate) - and devs once upto speed on DX12 won't leave that untapped - either through laziness (using the extra performance potential as a buffer against sloppy coding) or actual feature usage.
There is a reason I've not bought into Maxwell (and holding out for next gen) and it certainly isn't due to the financial side (EDIT: Well I guess it is a bit in that I'm not just throwing the money around).
Last edited:
"We tested an AMD-provided beta driver for the Fury X and with Nvidia’s latest WHQL-approved driver, 355.98. NVidia hasn’t released a beta Windows 10 driver since last April, and the company didn’t contact us to offer a specific driver for the Fable Legends debut"
Interesting wording - at face value it makes it look like nVidia were supposed to look in their crystal ball and be all like "oh extreme tech are going to run a benchmark tomorrow quick someone get them the latest driver!"
About the results I expected given the architecture differences but will be interesting to see how performance stacks up with an nVidia optimised driver as well as an AMD one.
Yes, an AMD optimized driver makes the FuryX perform as well as a 980Ti with an old driver.
Oh look, the standard mmj copy and paste diatribe. zzzZZZZZzzzzz
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
I wouldn't go that far, but I would say Nvidia definitely knew what to expect for dx12, but as you know, to them business wise it has always been the case of the quicker their graphic cards become obsolete the better it is for them, as it would mean they would faster turnaround for repeat customs from their userbase buying new products from them.
I mean just look at the less than generous amount of vram offered for their cards (with the one rare except on the 980Ti)...it make SLI only a practical option if you do it early on, rather than a worthwhile option getting another card to SLI at much later down the line.
Last edited: