4 Replies Latest reply on Apr 10, 2016 4:30 PM by mwnn

    Early DirectX 12 games show a distinct split between AMD, Nvidia performance

    kingfish

      Tweaktown recently put Hitman through its paces in both APIs. In 1080p DirectX 11, Nvidia wins top overall honors with the Titan X squeezing out the Fury X. Switch to DirectX 12, however, and AMD’s Fury X pulls ahead. The gap between the AMD and Nvidia cards continues to widen as the resolution rises; AMD wins 4K in both DX11 and DX12 and the gap in 4K DX12 is large enough that the R9 390X is able to surpass the GTX Titan X, as shown below:

      hitman4K.png

      ARTICLE > Early DirectX 12 games show a distinct split between AMD, Nvidia performance | ExtremeTech

        • Re: Early DirectX 12 games show a distinct split between AMD, Nvidia performance
          black_zion

          It will be interesting to see how this generation of cards from both AMD and nVidia handle content in excess of 2560x1600. Honestly you have to say that with UHD monitors quickly having inexpensive variants, such as the $350 FreeSync compatible AOC U2879VF 28" 4K Widescreen LCD gaming Monitor, which is about the same price I paid 4 years ago for my 1920x1200 HP ZR2440w, and decent 1920x1080 monitors going for $90 or less, such as the LG 22MC57HQ-P,  making an Eyefinity 3840x1080 arrangement well under $200 possible, we're going to need to see the $200 mid-range cards be able to push UHD at a minimum of 30fps with little need to reduce detail levels, such as AA.

           

          Capturing the high end is great, but what's the point of winning the top 10% if your competition wins the bottom 90%?

            • Re: Early DirectX 12 games show a distinct split between AMD, Nvidia performance
              kingfish

              These results are using 3840 x 2160 (2160p)

                • Re: Early DirectX 12 games show a distinct split between AMD, Nvidia performance
                  black_zion

                  I know, what I'm saying is that the average mid-range person will be using a $200-$300 graphics card and the same in a display. The Fury X for $629 is the only card to deliver minimum frame rates of at least 30, while the true mid-range card, the 380X, is completely unplayable. For Polaris we are going to need to see the mid-range cards able to handle content in excess of 2560x1600 (I say that to include all the variants of "4K") since we are seeing inexpensive "4K" displays on the market.

                   

                  Even if you halved that resolution to 1920x1080 and doubled the FPS, you'd still have to add a few more frames before the mid-range 380X could produce a 30fps minimum. It's great that AMD cards beat nVidia at DirectX 12, but if you can't hit 30FPS minimum with a mid-range card then to me it's still a loss, especially when you consider you must use Windows 10 as well, which already severely limits the market.

                  1 of 1 people found this helpful
              • Re: Early DirectX 12 games show a distinct split between AMD, Nvidia performance
                mwnn

                Having our hardware (both GPU & CPU) get better utilised through DX12 is very welcome.

                 

                It makes me wonder if we've been deliberately gimped for many years. It's quite amusing that the usual NVIDIA gameworks bag-of-tricks isn't helping with the DX12 benchmarks!

                 

                I don't know if it'll happen but I'm hoping to see lots of DX9 & DX11 titles get DX12 treatment - whether directly or through a third party wrapper, etc.

                And it'll be nice to finally see multi GPU systems work properly - I've always gone single card personally.

                 

                If Zen can reasonably please then I can finally retire my Phenom X4 955 & AM3 board after almost seven years of solid service.

                 

                I think we're still some way off for mass acceptance of 4K:

                Steam Hardware & Software Survey