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

[JediFragger]

Nobody should be buying a DX12 card yet, so you kinda played yourself tbh.

I think most of us recognise that Arctic Islands and Pascal is where it'll be at in terms of full DX12 support (esp AMD's solution if they're the only ones with/boosted Async Compute support)

 

[triss]

Nobody should be buying a DX12 card yet, so you kinda played yourself tbh.

If you go by what's written on the box you'll be disappointed frequently.

Have to agree with this in a lot of ways, I'd imagine the next gens from both sides will be whats best for full DX12 features/functions

 

[Joe!]

You should be buying what's best for your needs at the current time... Which is why I am happily gaming on my 980Ti.

The industry changes far too often to try and future proof anything... There's always something around the corner and the majority of the time you will be very disappointed with anything you buy if you're looking at what's going to be the norm in 12-24 months.

 

[Ferrari100]

You should be buying what's best for your needs at the current time... Which is why I am happily gaming on my 980Ti.

The industry changes far too often to try and future proof anything... There's always something around the corner and the majority of the time you will be very disappointed with anything you buy if you're looking at what's going to be the norm in 12-24 months.

You say that but Hawaii is two years old and still giving great performance and has Async compute so you are technically not correct

 

[LegendaryDread]

It was expected that using DirectX 12 would boost performance for both AMD and NVidia cards.

Which it does, but more-so for AMD GPUs as their driver's CPU overhead is huge, by comparison, in DX11.

Asynchronous Compute is one of the bigger features of DX12 and the 980 Ti should have been pulling ahead of the Fury X if it bloody worked!

Async Compute isn't even part of the official DX12 spec AFAIK, let alone a "bigger feature".

 

[Harlequin]

Async Compute isn't even part of the official DX12 spec AFAIK, let alone a "bigger feature".

not a bigger feature?

orly?

then what are all the angry posts in this tread about??

 

[Kaapstad]

I would keep an eye out for Kaap's benchmark thread!

Will be looking to get it started tomorrow.

 

[Joe!]

You say that but Hawaii is two years old and still giving great performance and has Async compute so you are technically not correct

Fair point, but were those cards designed for this in mind?

I don't really follow the ins and outs of GPUs so I am probably not the best person to debate with, but I swayed away from FX because it wouldn't give me the performance I wanted, now - I didn't think about the future because I don't necessarily think it's possible to do anything about it. I could always sell off my 980Ti if I need a FX for next gen games, but I think by the time those become mainstream I will be wanting an upgrade regardless. With smaller nodes coming soon I cannot see the FX being a very futureproof option either.

 

[andybird123]

not a bigger feature?

orly?

then what are all the angry posts in this tread about??

I don't know what all your angry posts are about, my 980ti is beasting all the FuryX scores I can find online and no one seems to want to post any in this thread

 

[PowerPie5000]

I don't know what all your angry posts are about, my 980ti is beasting all the FuryX scores I can find online and no one seems to want to post any in this thread

Until you run a DX12 game with Async Compute enabled, then you'll see an older and cheaper R9 290X matching it.... And thats with Async Compute disabled on the NVidia card! If Oxide are correct then it means NVidia cards will be seriously crippled with Async Compute enabled, which probably means that old 290X will pull ahead.

All we can do is wait and see what happens with other DX12 titles and see how NVidia responds with the whole Ashes fudge up.

 

[PowerPie5000]

Nobody should be buying a DX12 card yet, so you kinda played yourself tbh.

If you go by what's written on the box you'll be disappointed frequently.

Rubbish! Both Nvidia and AMD have been banging on about hardware DX12 support for some time now when it comes to the GTX 9x0 and & Fury cards (even the Async Compute part)... How is the consumer supposed to know if they're lying or not? If it's on the box and not true then its false advertising which is enough for a full refund... Not that anyone reads the packaging details these days.

You would have thought spending £500+ on a GPU advertised as fully fledged DX12 card would mean your rig is DX12 ready and at least a bit future proof when it comes to upcoming DX12 titles.

 

[andybird123]

Until you run a DX12 game with Async Compute enabled, then you'll see an older and cheaper R9 290X matching it.... And thats with Async Compute disabled on the NVidia card! If Oxide are correct then it means NVidia cards will be seriously crippled with Async Compute enabled, which probably means that old 290X will pull ahead.

All we can do is wait and see what happens with other DX12 titles and see how NVidia responds with the whole Ashes fudge up.

I really don't understand where you are coming from. My card runs Ashes DX12 and does so faster than any of the top cards from AMD... I don't see how that is a "fudge up". Then you have to consider that Ashes is an AMD marketing deal game and that they are making use of AMD only bits of DX12 (async) without using any of the nvidia only parts of DX12.

So what happens in games where fortunes are reversed? And we get raytraced shadows for no performance hit and AMD cards are stuck with traditional shadow maps and big performance hits to increasing shadow detail?

It doesn't really make much difference to end users whether hardware supports a feature natively, or whether it takes a performance hit trying to run it. Under DX11 both sets of hardware suffer different performance hits for enabling different features. DX11 games are already optimised to a greater or lesser extent for AMD/Nvidia and DX12 is shaping up to be no different really.

It would be commercial suicide for a game developer to try to force async compute to always on if that devs implementation of it runs much worse on nvidia hardware... can you imagine if Ashes forced async on and it caused a 10fps drop on nvidia hardware vs. DX11... by refusing to optimise for nvidia hardware they would be cutting off somewhere between 60% and 80% of the market.

If you really think that a FuryX is the way to go, you can probably sell your 980ti for 90% of what you paid for it and downgrade to the FuryX.

 

[Marine-RX179]

You should be buying what's best for your needs at the current time... Which is why I am happily gaming on my 980Ti.

The industry changes far too often to try and future proof anything... There's always something around the corner and the majority of the time you will be very disappointed with anything you buy if you're looking at what's going to be the norm in 12-24 months.

May be, but for those that don't upgrade frequently, I got a feeling that the current offering of Nvidia vs AMD might turns out to be what E8400 vs Q6600 was from back in the days to even today...with the E8400 being initially faster in most games, but over time the Q6600 withstand the test of time and age better.

I guess the key consideration is probably how long the users are planning on holding onto the card. For those that don't mind upgrading on more frequent basis, Nvidia tends to be the better choice and quicker during the 1st year or so; but for those that want card to last, AMD in general tends to do better in this aspect.

 

[Joe!]

but for those that want card to last, AMD in general tends to do better in this aspect.

Good point. My 7969.5 (long story short; it was a bit broke out of the box) lasted fine up until 980Ti release, Project Cars was the game that made me want to upgrade though.

I don't mind upgrading frequently and I am not too much of a fan of trying every game that comes out, I stick to the few I know I enjoy... So the 980Ti was the better choice for me

I do believe there needs to be a balance between both what's needed now and what will be needed in the future, and I suppose DX12 is quite a unique aspect in terms of the usual futureproofing.

 

[BS Dave]

Nvidia cards do tend to hold their value better too for whatever reason

 

[Lokken86]

I really don't understand where you are coming from. My card runs Ashes DX12 and does so faster than any of the top cards from AMD... I don't see how that is a "fudge up". Then you have to consider that Ashes is an AMD marketing deal game and that they are making use of AMD only bits of DX12 (async) without using any of the nvidia only parts of DX12.

So what happens in games where fortunes are reversed? And we get raytraced shadows for no performance hit and AMD cards are stuck with traditional shadow maps and big performance hits to increasing shadow detail?

It doesn't really make much difference to end users whether hardware supports a feature natively, or whether it takes a performance hit trying to run it. Under DX11 both sets of hardware suffer different performance hits for enabling different features. DX11 games are already optimised to a greater or lesser extent for AMD/Nvidia and DX12 is shaping up to be no different really.

It would be commercial suicide for a game developer to try to force async compute to always on if that devs implementation of it runs much worse on nvidia hardware... can you imagine if Ashes forced async on and it caused a 10fps drop on nvidia hardware vs. DX11... by refusing to optimise for nvidia hardware they would be cutting off somewhere between 60% and 80% of the market.

If you really think that a FuryX is the way to go, you can probably sell your 980ti for 90% of what you paid for it and downgrade to the FuryX.

We get it your stocked your getting 60fps with your 980ti @1500mhz. Fury gets 45fps.
Stop repeating yourself and go play some games with the card.

 

[ubersonic]

not a bigger feature?

orly?

then what are all the angry posts in this tread about??

Basically, the are multiple ways/paths to do things in DX, Oxide have chosen to use a way/path that favours one vendor over the other, which isn't uncommon. It just so happens that they have chosen to favour the vendor with only an 18% market share, who also have their name on the box next to Oxides. This has made supporters of the vendor with 82% market share quite angry (though they didn't seem to care when it was going the other way).

 

[andybird123]

We get it your stocked your getting 60fps with your 980ti @1500mhz. Fury gets 45fps.
Stop repeating yourself and go play some games with the card.

thanks for reposting the frame rates, that pie guy seems to have missed them
he seems to think that a 290X is matching a 980ti in Ashes, which as you've just reminded us, isn't true

That run was at 1480 btw, ashes is pretty unstable in its current state

 

[Lokken86]

thanks for reposting the frame rates, that pie guy seems to have missed them
he seems to think that a 290X is matching a 980ti in Ashes, which as you've just reminded us, isn't true

That run was at 1480 btw, ashes is pretty unstable in its current state

Who cares bud. lets just wait and see for the real game. All I know is my card will run this game easily I'm not in the slightest bothered if a 980 with oc gets a few fps more or not.

Tbh I don't know which results are correct. One site showed a 290x a frame or 2 behind a 980ti and another showed the fury x and 980ti neck and neck. Take our pick or set up this bench thread.

 

[Stanners]

Basically, the are multiple ways/paths to do things in DX, Oxide have chosen to use a way/path that favours one vendor over the other, which isn't uncommon. It just so happens that they have chosen to favour the vendor with only an 18% market share, who also have their name on the box next to Oxides. This has made supporters of the vendor with 82% market share quite angry (though they didn't seem to care when it was going the other way).

Why is it when people disagree with findings and try to demonstrate this it is deemed to be angry?

If you look through the thread the angry people seem to be the ones accusing others of been angry or offended