Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

1440p Testing with AMD R9 Fury X and Nvidia GTX 980Ti

Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

1440p Testing with AMD R9 Fury X and Nvidia GTX 980Ti

 

Moving to 1440p settings we see a very similar trend to 1080p, with Nvidia outperforming AMD at low settings, but AMD winning out in almost all cases at the higher presets in Ashes of the Singularity.  

Again, AMD performs best with DirectX 12 in all cases and Nvidia has the best performance in DirectX 11, but when it comes to average framerate performance AMD wins the day.   

When comparing our performance when running ashes of the singularity at 1080p Loe setting ad 1440p low settings we see that the games performance barely changes, showing that the game is likely CPU limited at these setting. This really shows just how demanding this game is, as we are running this game on an overclocked i7 6700K Skylake CPU. 

 

Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

 

Moving above Low settings we see AMD gain a significant performance advantage when looking at average framerate, but Nvidia manages to score a higher minimum framerate in DirectX 11. 

Modern AMD GPUs always perform best with the DirectX 12 API in ashes of the Singularity, with the new API giving AMD's R9 Fury X a slightly higher minimum framerate than Nvidia's GTX 980Ti.  

 

  Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

 

At high settings, we see that AMD's R9 Fury X and Nvidia's GTX 980Ti offer almost identical minimum framerate performance when comparing their DirectX 12 results.   

When comparing the same settings at 1080p we see that the minimum framerates of this game we can see that the minimum framerate of this game barely decreases when moving from 1080p to 1440p, leaving us to suspect that the game may be CPU limited, which is pretty strange as we are using an overclocked i7 6700K CPU. 

  Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

 

At extreme settings, we start to see AMD pull ahead of Nvidia when looking at both minimum and average framerates, regardless of whether we are using the DirectX 11 or DirectX 12 API. 

  Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

 

At Crazy settings we see that AMD offers the best performance, with the R9 Fury X giving us higher framerates than the GTX 980Ti with both DirectX 12 and DirectX 11.

AMD's R9 Fury X does on average perform slightly worse with DirectX 12 in this test on average, but the minimum framerate has over 10% improvement, meaning that the DirectX 12 version of Ashes of the Singularity provided a much more stable framerate when using the R9 Fury X.   

 

  Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review  

«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next»

Most Recent Comments

04-04-2016, 16:34:06

Relayer
Do you have 390(X), 970, 980 cards on hand to test? It would be good to see how these perform since so many gamers own them. In some games lately Hawaii has been getting pretty close to Fury(X) performance.

Thanks,Quote

04-04-2016, 16:44:49

WYP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relayer View Post
Do you have 390(X), 970, 980 cards on hand to test? It would be good to see how these perform since so many gamers own them. In some games lately Hawaii has been getting pretty close to Fury(X) performance.

Thanks,
Sadly I do not have an R9 390 or GTX 970 for performance testing.

All of the GPUs that I use for testing have been bought and paid for by me the writer and were not samples from an external party or sponsor. Hopefully we can get hold of more GPUs for gaming content in the future, especially when the next generation of GPUs are released.Quote

04-04-2016, 21:33:03

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Right now only AMD GCN GPUs support Asynchronous Compute in their GPU drivers, though Nvidia is rumored to be adding support for this function to Maxwell in the future with a driver update, though this remains unconfirmed by Nvidia.
AMD supports it on a hardware level as well as driver level. Nvidia won't be releasing a driver for it, driver can't make up for hardware losses, it's not possible for Nvidia to implement such a feature.

I find it kind of funny that now AMD in DX11 are either slightly behind or just ahead. Nvidia really are struggling with this title, explains why they called Oxide out before. Hopefully as they push out more content it gets more optimized and less CPU limited in future updates/patches.Quote

05-04-2016, 08:32:58

SPS
I'd be more interested to see different CPUs used, from both Intel and AMD's offerings. Though I do appreciate that you don't have access to everything or necessarily the time either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
AMD supports it on a hardware level as well as driver level. Nvidia won't be releasing a driver for it, driver can't make up for hardware losses, it's not possible for Nvidia to implement such a feature.

I find it kind of funny that now AMD in DX11 are either slightly behind or just ahead. Nvidia really are struggling with this title, explains why they called Oxide out before. Hopefully as they push out more content it gets more optimized and less CPU limited in future updates/patches.
Oxide most likely focused on GCN optimization which kind of explains why Nvidia benefit on DX11. Not sure how you know Nvidia can't support async compute, they don't really share architecture notes.Quote

05-04-2016, 11:18:59

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS View Post
I'd be more interested to see different CPUs used, from both Intel and AMD's offerings. Though I do appreciate that you don't have access to everything or necessarily the time either.



Oxide most likely focused on GCN optimization which kind of explains why Nvidia benefit on DX11. Not sure how you know Nvidia can't support async compute, they don't really share architecture notes.
Even in dx11, they aren't much better as everything gets higher resolution or settings. I doubt it's mostly AMD focused, it uses asynchronous compute. Nvidia doesn't have it and therefore probably results to context switching to do both compute and graphic work so it adds latency and therefore decrease framerate. AMD called out Nvidia at GDC that you can't support it at a driver level. In addition, it's been what 6 months and we've had no comment or hints from Nvidia about this "rumored" magic driver. I think it's more likely that got started by people saying, "wait for them to release a driver for the game". I don't even think Nvidia has a proper driver for it yet.. or not for a while. Which makes sense since they called out Oxide saying its not represenitive of a real dx12 title and begging them not to use asynchronous compute. That's just them being sore losers tbh. Nothing wrong with admitting that they can't support it but will try to get the best performance possible anyway. They haven't done this for any other dx12 title, it's just because they lose by far in this oneQuote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.