• 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.

Ashes of the Singularity Coming, with DX12 Benchmark in thread.

D.P. said:
So you are agreeing that a 960 and 770 are faster than a FuryX if there is nothing wrong with the benchmark.
Click to expand...

In directx 11, yes. but as soon as the driver overhead is gone the Furyx is one of the fastest cards.

This is an RTS benchmark that is draw call heavy even in directx 11, so ofcourse with lower driver overhead the majority of nvidia cards will be faster. even midrange cards.

you also have to remember that it is not just units that need draw calls, all of the weapons and weapon effects need them as well. The shells of some weapons are also physical objects that are calculated in real time so have their own models.

Have you looked at the benchmark running? there are far more units on screen than the majority of RTS games. Games like starcraft would have tanked to single digits long before it got to the unit levels in Ashes.
 
But wait this can not be right lol

We are being told that AMD cards perform better with DX12 but lets check out the GTX 980 Ti when we increase the drawcalls

Average - A win for the Fury X
5rX7g2j.jpg


High - A win for the GTX 980 Ti
DVsk806.jpg


Surely the GTX 980 Ti should fall further behind as the drawcalls go up, or could this bench be fatally flawed ?
 
Kaapstad said:
But wait this can not be right lol

We are being told that AMD cards perform better with DX12 but lets check out the GTX 980 Ti when we increase the drawcalls

Average - A win for the Fury X
5rX7g2j.jpg

High - A win for the GTX 980 Ti
DVsk806.jpg

Surely the GTX 980 Ti should fall further behind as the drawcalls go up, or could this bench be fatally flawed ?
Click to expand...

They are within 1fps of each other? they are within each others error boundaries to be honest. so either could switch to being at the top between different runs, but they are essentially tied. more statistical errors than anything when they are that close. it then depends on how they compiled their results. its not like they are 3+ fps different and swap over.

other places show either ahead under different circumstances.

1080p vs 4k under medium batches
DX12-High.png

1080p Normal,medium,heavy batches.
DX12-Batches-1080p.png
 
Mauller said:
They are within 1fps of each other? they are within each others error boundaries to be honest. so either could switch to being at the top between different runs, but they are essentially tied. more statistical errors than anything when they are that close. it then depends on how they compiled their results. its not like they are 3+ fps different and swap over.

other places show either ahead under different circumstances.

1080p vs 4k under medium batches
DX12-High.png

1080p Normal,medium,heavy batches.
DX12-Batches-1080p.png
Click to expand...

It is not the margin that is important, it is the fact that they changed positions in circumstances that should have favoured the AMD card.

The bench is flawed.
 
Kaapstad said:
It is not the margin that is important, it is the fact that they changed positions in circumstances that should have favoured the AMD card.

The bench is flawed.
Click to expand...

I think it is more a CPU thing, The Computerbase.de results were produced using a 4770k, while the Extremetech ones used a 5960X.

It could be some weird CPU bottleneck situation causing the funny swap.

would help if more sites showed benchmark screencaps.

But i have not seen any other sites using a 4770k to compare to, only a 6700k.
 
Last edited:
setter said:
Cant see there being an awful lot of difference between a 4770k and a 6700k tbh.
Click to expand...

DDR4, Higher default and turbo clocks, higher IPC as well. And i am assuming they run thier processors at stock since they have not stated otherwise.

I think the most awkward thing about all of these benchmarks is that they were all performed on different systems. With a lot of sites using different processors to each other.

Considering this is a CPU heavy RTS to begin with.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
So you are agreeing that a 960 and 770 are faster than a FuryX if there is nothing wrong with the benchmark.
Click to expand...

I know that was ment for Humbug, but gotta step in and open my own mouth aswell.

They are faster in games that require a lot of drawcalls under DX11. Always has been. I don't get it why it's so hard for some people to admit that AMD is seriously suffering from cpu bound cases due of overhead. In this test under DX11 it's even more clear, yet people are calling for badly optimised game, even there ain't many games that get even close to cpu requirements ashes need.

Improved AMD driver profile wouldn't make any difference. What they would need to do is get big leap in their general overhead. And that has nothing to do with game profile optimisation, but evetything to do with general driver.

Examples of games where AMD really suffers from bad drawcalls?

Project Cars (especially under rain)
Grid Autosport.

Seriously, there is no shame in admitting that AMD gets cpu capped easily compared to Nvidia. Afterall, there's always some limiting factor out there which limits our performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom