Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,182
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

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.
Nobody should be buying a DX12 card yet, so you kinda played yourself tbh.
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.
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.
It was expected that using DirectX 12 would boost performance for both AMD and NVidia cards.
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".
I would keep an eye out for Kaap's benchmark thread!
You say that but Hawaii is two years old and still giving great performance and has Async compute so you are technically not correct
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![]()
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.
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.
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.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.
but for those that want card to last, AMD in general tends to do better in this aspect.
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.
not a bigger feature?
orly?
then what are all the angry posts in this tread about??
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
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).