So they said "ASHES IS ONLY BETA, THERE WIL BE A DRIVER ONCE THE GAME IS OUT" THE GAME IS OUTT !!!!!!!

[ivan134]

1 hour ago, Michamus said:

I can't seem to find a reputable source for that image. Also, it's showing far more extreme differences in frame-rates than other reputable reports have shown. The fact that the 390x is extremely beating the 980ti in your graph has me extremely skeptical of the validity of it. I'd be deeply interested in knowing your source for this image.

 

To me, it looks like someone took the i3-4330 frame-rates with a GTX 980 and re-labeled them as GTX 980ti. Every AOTS DX12 bench I've seen has the 390x head to head with GTX 980, with a margin (in the 390x favor) of 5%-7%.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ashes_of_singularity_directx_12_benchmark_ii_review,7.html

If you want more to crosscheck with, scroll up(actually page 3) and read a response I made where I posted charts from AnandTech

[Michamus]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ashes_of_singularity_directx_12_benchmark_ii_review,7.html

If you want more to crosscheck with, scroll up(actually page 3) and read a response I made where I posted charts from AnandTech

Interesting. I wonder why it didn't come up on my google image search. Regardless, that's some serious heat the R9 is bringing to DX12. Guess my wife is going to be rubbing that in for a while.

[othertomperson]

7 hours ago, ivan134 said:

You seem to be jumping all over the place. You said:

I would like to know how they've been doing the impossible since you can't do that in dx 11. You said before that it was tied to raw compute capabilities, but ignored my question of why the 780 ti is not beating a 980 and a 390x is not beating a Fury X if that's the case. You said it's about diminishing returns from using too many SPs in the Fury X that makes a lot of them redundant, but also didn't answer why performance improvements are seen all the way down to the 380.

 

The architecture isn't inefficient, the API is. Raw compute capabilities are not going to help the architecture if it doesn't tailor itself to make use of asynchronous compute by having ACEs (asynchronous compute engines), which is why the 390x is not beating a Fury X. You are partially right that the Fury X is not at it's max potential, but that is because it's an inbalanced chip, having only 64 ROPs, which is the same number as the Fury X. Had it been 96 or 128, it would most likely have been beating the 980 ti even in dx 11. If you want evidence as to just how inefficient dx 11 is, with asynchronous compute turned on, an i3 performs like an i7 and even beats it in certain scenarios.

 

 

Jesus, do I really need to retype everything I told you yesterday? I didn't ignore anything, or jump around. The issue seems to be your reading comprehension -- willing or otherwise.

 

It hasn't been impossible for AMD to build a GPU that was capable of Async Compute for the last five years, that capability just hasn't been supported in software until now. This is why cards like the 290X which are much older than Dx 12 are currently benefiting from it. Like I said, hardware capability for a feature and software support for that feature are completely independent. Why you seem to be arguing that it is utterly impossible for hardware capability to exist before software is written for it is baffling.

 

I didn't ignore your question about the 780 Ti either. Maybe my use of the GTX 580 as an example (your example actually) confused the shit out of you, but that's not my fault. I clearly said that those are examples of cards which, like the 290X, would benefit from async compute as very powerful but underutilised cards. The optimisations in Maxwell have been to reduce this underutility to the point where Async wouldn't be of any particular benefit according to Nvidia.

 

As usual, AMD saw a problem in their approach and decided to implement hardware on a wing and a prayer that software would support it (they were lucky here, they weren't with their CPUs), whereas Nvidia looked at the Dx11 landscape as it was and optimised for that. Given Maxwell's lifetime is set to end while the number of Dx 12 games can still be counted on one hand, this will likely have paid off. There's also the issue of devs having claimed that Async Compute is very arduous and time consuming to support, which tells me that very few AAA devs are going to bother at all.

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

 

Jesus, do I really need to retype everything I told you yesterday? I didn't ignore anything, or jump around. The issue seems to be your reading comprehension -- willing or otherwise.

 

It hasn't been impossible for AMD to build a GPU that was capable of Async Compute for the last five years, that capability just hasn't been supported in software since. This is why cards like the 290X which are much older than Dx 12 are currently benefiting from it. Like I said, hardware capability for a feature and software support for that feature are completely independent. Why you seem to be arguing that it is utterly impossible for hardware capability to exist before software is written for it is baffling.

 

I didn't ignore your question about the 780 Ti either. Maybe my use of the GTX 580 as an example (your example actually) confused the shit out of you, but that's not my fault. I clearly said that those are examples of cards which, like the 290X, would benefit from async compute as very powerful but underutilised cards. The jump going forward has been to reduce this underutility to the point where Async wouldn't be of any particular benefit according to Nvidia.

 

As usual, AMD saw a problem in their approach and decided to implement hardware on a wing and a prayer that software would support it (they were lucky here, they weren't with their CPUs), whereas Nvidia looked at the Dx11 landscape as it was and optimised for that. Given Maxwell's lifetime is set to end while the number of Dx 12 games can still be counted on one hand, this will likely have paid off. There's also the issue of devs having claimed that Async Compute is very arduous and time consuming to support, which tells me that very few AAA devs are going to bother at all.

What? No, what's happening here is the fastest case of selective amnesia I've ever seen:

8 hours ago, othertomperson said:

 

You seem to be a bit confused. AMD have been utilising asynchronous shaders, for some reason, for the last five years. Nvidia have not. Since the 600 series Nvidia have focused on using the GPU as efficiently as possible in a serial pipeline since that is all that Directx 11 has utilised. This is why the Maxwell is seemingly paradoxically their least powerful and best performing generation of recent years, and the GTX 580 still holds up in terms of sheer power. The 580 is a good example of a card that, had it supported Async Compute, could have been a very good Directx 12 card (assuming game devs were going to support async comp, which is still a big if).

 

What this means is that under Directx 11 Maxwell GPUs are already very highly utilised and wouldn't gain much from async shaders as the GTX 580 would.

I never said the 290x doesn't have async shaders, what I asked you to do is explain your claim that AMD has been using something that was not possible in dx 11. How has AMD been utilising asynchronous shaders for the last 5 years?

[othertomperson]

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

What? No, what's happening here is the fastest case of selective amnesia I've ever seen:

I never said the 290x doesn't have async shaders, what I asked you to do is explain your claim that AMD has been using something that was not possible in dx 11. How has AMD been utilising asynchronous shaders for the last 5 years?

BECAUSE HARDWARE THAT IS FIVE YEARS OLD SUPPORTS ASYNCHRONOUS COMPUTE. THAT IS LIKE SAYING YOU CANNOT HAVE 32GB WORTH OF RAM STICKS PLUGGED INTO A PC RUNNING WINDOWS 7 HOME EDITION. JUST BECAUSE THE OS ONLY SEES 16GB AND CAN ONLY USE 16GB DOES NOT MEAN THE HARDWARE IS NOT THERE.

 

Fucking hell. I'm going now. I've explained this four fucking times to you now.

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

BECAUSE HARDWARE THAT IS FIVE YEARS OLD SUPPORTS ASYNCHRONOUS COMPUTE. THAT IS LIKE SAYING YOU CANNOT HAVE 32GB WORTH OF RAM STICKS PLUGGED INTO A PC RUNNING WINDOWS 7 HOME EDITION. JUST BECAUSE THE OS ONLY SEES 16GB AND CAN ONLY USE 16GB DOES NOT MEAN THE HARDWARE IS NOT THERE.

 

Fucking hell. I'm going now. I've explained this four fucking times to you now.

Oh, I get it now. You don't know how to speak English. Should have let me know man.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/utilize?s=t

[El Diablo]

Ok so nVidia have also performed very very very bad in quantum break on pc

 

about 50% worse than amd

[MMKing]

Some more interesting data, though not strictly Graphics card related.

 

What does this mean? I don't know. There may be allot of reasons why AMD is seemingly better at distributing the workload for this one title. In the end however, what matters is performance, cost, power draw and heat output. What this shows us is that DX12 is perfectly capable of distributing workload as advertised. It would be interesting to see how a CPU with more cores behave in the same test.

 

Also note that the Dual core i3 with Hyper Threading. Is distributing workload just fine, and also achieves very competitive frame rates for the price and the fact that it's a sandy bridge CPU. The i5-2500k is also still keeping up.

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

As for the graphics. I don't know where those other benchmarks were from, i would like a source. GameGPU however reports that the 380x battles with the 970, while the 290/390 is battling with the 980. The Fury x is slightly ahead of the 980Ti. Presumably, the 390x, the fury and the fury Nano sits somewhere between the 290/980 and the 980Ti.

 

Spoiler

 

[El Diablo]

Nvidia cards seem to be performing real bad in all dx12 titles

 

i predicted this

 

thats why i got the fury x back in sepetember, insted of the 980ti

[El Diablo]

On 07/04/2016 at 9:16 AM, othertomperson said:

BECAUSE HARDWARE THAT IS FIVE YEARS OLD SUPPORTS ASYNCHRONOUS COMPUTE. THAT IS LIKE SAYING YOU CANNOT HAVE 32GB WORTH OF RAM STICKS PLUGGED INTO A PC RUNNING WINDOWS 7 HOME EDITION. JUST BECAUSE THE OS ONLY SEES 16GB AND CAN ONLY USE 16GB DOES NOT MEAN THE HARDWARE IS NOT THERE.

 

Fucking hell. I'm going now. I've explained this four fucking times to you now.

ahhh dont worry

 

they jus mad they wasted their money and need to feel better

 

iits cool

 

whatever they say cant change facts

 

so let them say what they wanna

 

i havent even read anything here because i know the facts,, and know they prob makin up excuses

[Kryptyx]

2 hours ago, El Diablo said:

ahhh dont worry

 

they jus mad they wasted their money and need to feel better

 

iits cool

 

whatever they say cant change facts

 

so let them say what they wanna

 

i havent even read anything here because i know the facts,, and know they prob makin up excuses

Creating a thread about a single games performance in DX12 and gloating how you picked the card with better performance in said game just makes you look childish. The only one who is making themselves feel better about spending their money is you by creating this. And at the end of the day, who really cares? No one is going to switch their graphics card based on a single game. Not only that, the 980TI still greatly out performs AMD cards in most other games. DX12 is still too early. DX11 had a ton of issues at launch. We'll see what happens as time goes on. Either way, this thread is pointless.

[Praesi]

I dont care about this Game. Im sure AMD´s better Performance is just Promotion. The 980Ti is the faster Card, DX12 or not.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

4 hours ago, MMKing said:

Some more interesting data, though not strictly Graphics card related.

 

What does this mean? I don't know. There may be allot of reasons why AMD is seemingly better at distributing the workload for this one title. In the end however, what matters is performance, cost, power draw and heat output. What this shows us is that DX12 is perfectly capable of distributing workload as advertised. It would be interesting to see how a CPU with more cores behave in the same test.

 

Also note that the Dual core i3 with Hyper Threading. Is distributing workload just fine, and also achieves very competitive frame rates for the price and the fact that it's a sandy bridge CPU. The i5-2500k is also still keeping up.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

 

As for the graphics. I don't know where those other benchmarks were from, i would like a source. GameGPU however reports that the 380x battles with the 970, while the 290/390 is battling with the 980. The Fury x is slightly ahead of the 980Ti. Presumably, the 390x, the fury and the fury Nano sits somewhere between the 290/980 and the 980Ti.

 

  Hide contents

 

 

280x faster than 780? Man.....