Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

1080p Testing with AMD R9 Fury X and Nvidia GTX 980Ti

Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

1080p Testing with AMD R9 Fury X and Nvidia GTX 980Ti

 

At 1080p Low settings, we can see that AMD's R9 Fury X and Nvidia's GTX 980Ti start with very similar performance though AMD does lag behind when using the DirectX 12 API.  

AMD gains and 11FPS performance boost in its average framerate and 16FPS in its minimum framerate, clearly showing that DirectX 12 is the API of choice for those using AMD's GPUs. Nvidia, on the other hand, loses some performance when using the Direct X 12 API, meaning that Nvidia users should make use of the older DirectX 11 API.  

 

Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

 

Moving up to standard settings we see performance move from being pretty even to become much more AMD-friendly, with AMD gaining a significant lead in terms of average FPS. 

One thing to note though is that in both DirectX 12 and DirectX 11 Nvidia have a higher minimum framerate, meaning that while AMD does have better performance on average it can still perform a little worse than Nvidia in the toughest scenes. 

 

  Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

 

Moving to High settings we see that AMD gains the performance advantage in both minimum and average performance in DirectX 12, though Nvidia does still deliver similar minimum performance. 

 

Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

 

At Extreme settings, we see similar performance trends as before, with AMD gaining a significant performance advantage when running with DirectX 12 and Nvidia still similar minimum framerates.   

AMD's R9 Fury X does deliver the best game performance at 1080p, but Nvidia's does not have as large of a gap between its minimum and average framerate performance.    

  Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

 

Moving onto the game's highest preset we see that AMD gains the advantage in all tests, outperforming the GTX 980Ti in both DirectX 11 and DirextX 12.  

So far this game has been very AMD-friendly, which makes sense given the fact that AMD is bundling Ashes of the Singularity with their lower end GPUs and has been marketing their DirectX 12 performance heavily over the past few months. 

  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.