DX12 GPU and CPU Performance Tested: Ashes of the Singularity Benchmark

Quick sum up: AMD hardware is great once you get the shitty driver team out of the picture.
 
What about using the cpu's onboard gpu? Wasn't this a feature of dx12, that it could make use of this aswell as your graphics card?
 
Rogue007 said:
What about using the cpu's onboard gpu? Wasn't this a feature of dx12, that it could make use of this aswell as your graphics card?
Click to expand...

Multiadapter requires the developer to specifically enable the feature.
 
I'm looking forward to seeing how that pans out. Might finally make use of that redundant silicon in my cpu.
 
The only thing I've taken from this safely, is that AMD DX11 development was inferior to nVidias'.
Now, as more comparisons come out, I'll look to see if this outcome repeats.

Maybe AMD will be back the game as the value vendor for DX12.
I thought they were fucked. Still prob getting a Titan next though, let's cross our fingers for some price warring!!
 
I see it somewhat different as to how some are bashing AMD's DX11 performance. Yes it sux compared to DX12. Yes I do believe AMD has improvement it could likely make in DX11.

But, what I wonder/think is that AMD being small, with very limited resources for R&D has to gamble more on architecture/tech development. Sometimes they hit a home run like with Athlon/Athlon XP etc... Sometimes they miss like bulldozer. GPU's we take for granted that just put more transistors on the dam thing and it will go faster. Architecture for each vendor ie AMD/Nvidia has evolved over several generations to where we are at. It is somewhat likely, that when these gpu lines started, and evolved, the maker had some sort of goal in mind for performance, given an "expected" ecosystem of OS/Driver/API etc...AMD I feel tries to take leaps ahead vs steps; which often hurts them. They cannot afford the baby steps like Intel and or Nvidia can. But yes, their drivers have sucked, and their commitment to driver development hasn't helped their case. Yet, I really do think that AMD built their architecture with a lower level API in mind.

IF these numbers are reflective or more DX12 titles and this isn't some optimized engine that AMD enjoys good numbers on, then I hope AMD can keep their $hit together long enough to get some sales back. I also wonder, just how much Nvidia has possibly hampered AMD performance on DX11 thought "gameworkz" type deals that allow nerfing of other brand gpus performance numbers. I'm not about to say all the blame should be on Nvidia, but I do believe they use their market dominance like Intel and bully their way to victory at times. Like any problem, there is likely many reasons.

I was hoping that AMD cpus showed better, but we see they still suck in games compared to even an I3 :(. If AMD can survive long enough it would be nice to see AMD come out with a cpu like how the Athlon competed positively with Intel back in the day; Zen maybe, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
JNavy89GT said:
I was hoping that AMD cpus showed better, but we see they still suck in games compared to even an I3 :(. If AMD can survive long enough it would be nice to see AMD come out with a cpu like how the Athlon competed positively with Intel back in the day; Zen maybe, but I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

I mentioned it before in the other thread, but look at the pricing of those CPUs.

Intel:
5960X - $1050
6700K - $350ish?
4430 - $185

AMD:
8370 - $199
6300 - $99

So AMD's top end chip is $199, and you can get the 8350 for $165 for almost same performance which is priced the same or cheaper than i3s from Intel.

High end motherboards are also cheaper from AMD than Intel ($20-30ish).

So remember to keep price in perspective when comparing a i3 vs 8 core AMD ;)
 
DracoNB said:
I mentioned it before in the other thread, but look at the pricing of those CPUs.

Intel:
5960X - $1050
6700K - $350ish?
4430 - $185

AMD:
8370 - $199
6300 - $99

So AMD's top end chip is $199, and you can get the 8350 for $165 for almost same performance which is priced the same or cheaper than i3s from Intel.

High end motherboards are also cheaper from AMD than Intel ($20-30ish).

So remember to keep price in perspective when comparing a i3 vs 8 core AMD ;)
Click to expand...

Rgr, I have an 8320 that I a using to game on. Buy my gaming is limited to CSGO so that's not too demanding. At 4.4ghz it's a nice machine. I have 3 i7 systems that I've gamed on, and as an AMD longtime fan I wanted to try this out. In my limited gaming, the difference is transparent, I cannot tell what is in the box, if I wasn't told, or in this case I built it myself.

I guess my point was to not come off like a fanboy, and I was wishing DX12 and Win10 would have "freed up" the AMD cpu some, but it appears the cpu is just not up to it, at least compared to Intel.
 
JNavy89GT said:
Rgr, I have an 8320 that I a using to game on. Buy my gaming is limited to CSGO so that's not too demanding. At 4.4ghz it's a nice machine. I have 3 i7 systems that I've gamed on, and as an AMD longtime fan I wanted to try this out. In my limited gaming, the difference is transparent, I cannot tell what is in the box, if I wasn't told, or in this case I built it myself.

I guess my point was to not come off like a fanboy, and I was wishing DX12 and Win10 would have "freed up" the AMD cpu some, but it appears the cpu is just not up to it, at least compared to Intel.
Click to expand...

Right :)

Also, that was a heavy CPU test, not a general gaming one. So it was supposed to tax the CPU as much as possible and for the CPU to be the limiting factor, not the GPU.

So in most cases you will get a big benefit in increased frames using DX12 on your system.
 
If NVidia tanks with DX12 then people will drop them quick because it takes Gameworks out of being needed .. Nvidia's DX 11 performance is based off Blurr tech.. you know the tech as lower IQ for more FPS.
 
fanboy said:
If NVidia tanks with DX12 then people will drop them quick because it takes Gameworks out of being needed .. Nvidia's DX 11 performance is based off Blurr tech.. you know the tech as lower IQ for more FPS.
Click to expand...

what
 
DracoNB said:
I mentioned it before in the other thread, but look at the pricing of those CPUs.

Intel:
5960X - $1050
6700K - $350ish?
4430 - $185

AMD:
8370 - $199
6300 - $99

So AMD's top end chip is $199, and you can get the 8350 for $165 for almost same performance which is priced the same or cheaper than i3s from Intel.

High end motherboards are also cheaper from AMD than Intel ($20-30ish).

So remember to keep price in perspective when comparing a i3 vs 8 core AMD ;)
Click to expand...

But you didn't include the price of any i3 CPU's in your list. You chose 2 i7 models and an i5.

The 4170 is $125 on Newegg and can be run on a $75 AsRock H97 board (I guess you forgot about H97, B85, and even H81 chipsets which cost a bit less than z97) with the stock cooler with little effort considering its low power requirements. The i5 you listed can be slapped on a board under $100 and have all the performance you would need.

Even if you go with a $110 board like the UD3 for AM3+ to prevent exploding VRMS, you will still need an adequate heatsink to combat the power of an "8 core" CPU. Then again, who needs anything over than the stock heatsink to overclock a CPU that is already 4 GHz+?

So remember, there are other chipsets besides z97 out there that offer more for less.
 
Shogon said:
But you didn't include the price of any i3 CPU's in your list. You chose 2 i7 models and an i5.

The 4170 is $125 on Newegg and can be run on a $75 AsRock H97 board (I guess you forgot about H97, B85, and even H81 chipsets which cost a bit less than z97) with the stock cooler with little effort considering its low power requirements. The i5 you listed can be slapped on a board under $100 and have all the performance you would need.

Even if you go with a $110 board like the UD3 for AM3+ to prevent exploding VRMS, you will still need an adequate heatsink to combat the power of an "8 core" CPU. Then again, who needs anything over than the stock heatsink to overclock a CPU that is already 4 GHz+?

So remember, there are other chipsets besides z97 out there that offer more for less.
Click to expand...

You are right, I mean to get the #s for the 4330 not the 4430 (typo on my part) that was mentioned in the review.

For Mobos I was pricing out ones that included USB 3 on newegg. Either way, the point of that test was to show CPU limitations not how the game would perform with those CPUs, but how the CPUs themselves perform.
 
DracoNB said:
You are right, I mean to get the #s for the 4330 not the 4430 (typo on my part) that was mentioned in the review.

For Mobos I was pricing out ones that included USB 3 on newegg. Either way, the point of that test was to show CPU limitations not how the game would perform with those CPUs, but how the CPUs themselves perform.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by: "For Mobos I was pricing out ones that included USB 3 on newegg."

The H series has had native USB3 support since H77.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top