Fable Legends DX12 benchmark

DPI said:
Shall we take bets now on which team will top the DeusEx:MD DX12 charts? Any takers? All in the spirit of friendly, heightened civility and basic, common respect and such in this new DX12 era to prove things are different.
Click to expand...
Let's start here...

Developer Eidos Montreal revealed the Dawn Engine, a new game engine, in December 2014. Its technology is based on IO Interactive's proprietary Glacier 2 game engine, which was used in Hitman: Absolution (2012).

http://i.imgur.com/MhKPgOc.jpg
http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-and-hbm-put-to-the-test?page=10
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...682-amd-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-arrives-18.html

I'm gonna pre-emptively give this one to AMD.
If Nvidia beats a single one of their AMD counterparts (barring the 980 Ti, possibly) I will eat a shoe. Let's go hard mode and say that's with TressFX disabled.

I won't actually eat a shoe.
 
Last edited:
Those 290x's popping up for around 250ish every now and then are looking like the best bang for your buck since the GeForce 4 ti 4200.
 
tybert7 said:
Nvidia has the high end crown, and nothing else in dx12. This is not to be contested, we've all seen the charts.

390 ~ 980 > 970
390x > 980
280 > 960

980ti >= Fury depending on the degree of async compute going on (not much in the fable benchmarks shown)


The response to this is essentially, yeah but so what, in dx11 nvidia still performs better, I care about games now.

Not a bad retort, and it would make a lot more sense if amd cards were in the gutter in dx11, but they are not
Click to expand...

Nvidia cards don't appear to be "in the gutter" when it comes to DX12 either though. Whether you buy an AMD card or an Nvidia card right now you will probably be happy with it. Fury X and Nano are a bit overpriced right now (especially if you are playing below 4K), but in every other price range you basically get what you pay for. There are marginal differences in performance depending on the game but that's about it.

It does look like DX12 may give AMD a slight edge in games that support it, although even that is a bit too early to make full conclusions about (a couple beta/alpha tests are all we've seen so far). I don't know why everyone gets so worked up about who is going to "win" though. As long as the competition between them is close it can only be good for us consumers.
 
travbrad said:
Nvidia cards don't appear to be "in the gutter" when it comes to DX12 either though. Whether you buy an AMD card or an Nvidia card right now you will probably be happy with it. Fury X and Nano are a bit overpriced right now (especially if you are playing below 4K), but in every other price range you basically get what you pay for. There are marginal differences in performance depending on the game but that's about it.

It does look like DX12 may give AMD a slight edge in games that support it, although even that is a bit too early to make full conclusions about (a couple beta/alpha tests are all we've seen so far). I don't know why everyone gets so worked up about who is going to "win" though. As long as the competition between them is close it can only be good for us consumers.
Click to expand...

Because who wins matters, especially when a company like AMD is on the ropes, they need their design wins to translate into actual sales or it's all for naught.

Competition means jack sh*t if releasing a better performing graphics card for similar money does not allow you to cut into your competitors sales. Once again, LOOK at this chart.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/284822/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_pc_1_3_last

number 1 and 3 at the time of this posting is a 970. The closest 390 is number 13. Incidentally that has climbed a bit since it was almost 20th, but it is still being vastly outsold by a couple 970s.

There won't BE competition if releasing a superior product nets vastly inferior sales, it says to the market and the bottom line, performance does not really matter. Mainly brand, mainly perception, perception that CLEARLY lags reality. This sort of who cares attitude about the actual MERIT of a card, more than anything else, will be the death of amd.

It makes sense a fury x has fewer sales than a 980 ti, based on what we've seen, but NOT a 970. It generally loses in dx11, and gets stomped in dx12, and aside from average fps, the minimum frames are higher, it's just a better experience, and still the 970 soars over all.

People who got the 970 earlier should be fine, but buying it NOW makes zero sense unless they are running a 300W power supply.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
tybert7 said:
Mainly brand, mainly perception, perception that CLEARLY lags reality. This sort of who cares attitude about the actual MERIT of a card, more than anything else, will be the death of amd.
Click to expand...

It's true. AMD has a seriously damaged brand name. Protecting its brand is one of the most important things a company must do. It's like politics. Once your negatives get high, it becomes a huge uphill battle to undo all of the bad perception.

AMD has to deliver really, really solid products and software for many, many consecutive years to win back the trust of consumers.

This is why you also see AMD constantly attacking nvidia. They know nvidia has a good reputation and they're trying to chip away at it.
 
jwcalla said:
It's true. AMD has a seriously damaged brand name. Protecting its brand is one of the most important things a company must do. It's like politics. Once your negatives get high, it becomes a huge uphill battle to undo all of the bad perception.

AMD has to deliver really, really solid products and software for many, many consecutive years to win back the trust of consumers.

This is why you also see AMD constantly attacking nvidia. They know nvidia has a good reputation and they're trying to chip away at it.
Click to expand...

Just say NO to drugs!
 
I almost bought an MSI 390 when it came out, but I saw an EVGA SC 980 GTX at Microcenter for $360, open box. First Nvidia card in almost 6 years.

number 1 and 3 at the time of this posting is a 970. The closest 390 is number 13. Incidentally that has climbed a bit since it was almost 20th, but it is still being vastly outsold by a couple 970
Click to expand...

LOL. Even the 980 TI is out selling it.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Just say NO to drugs!
Click to expand...

You should take your own advice then. He's right, AMD's reputation has been hurt, first with the poor driver one which they were never able to shake off and it made things worse when they stopped delivering regular driver updates and especially multiGPU profiles. Then hyping up Fury X and having it fall flat on it's face at the same price as 980 Ti didn't help matters. Denying reputable reviewers samples because they want "fair reviews" sounds like something Donald Trump would say--maybe him and AMD Roy went to the same school of bs.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
5150Joker said:
You should take your own advice then. He's right, AMD's reputation has been hurt, first with the poor driver one which they were never able to shake off and it made things worse when they stopped delivering regular driver updates and especially multiGPU profiles. Then hyping up Fury X and having it fall flat on it's face at the same price as 980 Ti didn't help matters. Denying reputable reviewers samples because they want "fair reviews" sounds like something Donald Trump would say--maybe him and AMD Roy went to the same school of bs.
Click to expand...

Because they didn't have legions of fanboys to repair it. Driver issue has been non existent for a few years now. Nvidia even burned cards with their drivers, and in general they aren't much better than AMDs.
 
Remon said:
Because they didn't have legions of fanboys to repair it. Driver issue has been non existent for a few years now. Nvidia even burned cards with their drivers, and in general they aren't much better than AMDs.
Click to expand...
They should start releasing placebo drivers every 2 weeks like Nvidia. Everybody loves that apparently. :cool:
 
Remon said:
Because they didn't have legions of fanboys to repair it. Driver issue has been non existent for a few years now. Nvidia even burned cards with their drivers, and in general they aren't much better than AMDs.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure it all rests on fanboys..lol.
 
Remon said:
Driver issue has been non existent for a few years now.
Click to expand...

E86uzf2.gif
 
PRIME1 said:
E86uzf2.gif
Click to expand...
Is that the same gif you posted when many peoples's cards overheated because of that now infamous Nvidia driver? I dont care for AMD cards/drivers all that much but you really need to remove your head from your ass acting like Nvidia can do no wrong.
 
This crap is going to continue unto perpetuity since each and every developer is going to tweak their engines different ways with the latitude that D3D12 gives them.

Aside from the welcome overhead reduction, its nothing more than MS, AMD, and Nvidia's driver teams giving the big middle finger to the studios and saying, "Fuck you then, do it yourself."
 
tybert7 said:
There won't BE competition if releasing a superior product nets vastly inferior sales, it says to the market and the bottom line, performance does not really matter. Mainly brand, mainly perception, perception that CLEARLY lags reality. This sort of who cares attitude about the actual MERIT of a card, more than anything else, will be the death of amd.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat true. AMD has had pretty bad marketing for as long as I can remember, and the "halo" products really do matter in terms of perception too. People see the 980ti is faster than the Fury X and just conclude that Nvidia is better in general, even if they may not actually be better at lower price ranges that most people are actually buying cards.

Those amazon numbers tell me 2 things. 1) The perception is that Nvidia cards are better than AMD and 2) a lot of people are buying low power cards probably to use in a pre-built systems with weak PSUs, and if there is one area where Nvidia has had an advantage recently it's in low power GPUs. The 750ti uses something like 50 watts less power than the competition from AMD.

As far as AMD surviving as a company goes, a lot of their problems are also on the CPU side. As much as we hardware geeks like to talk about discrete graphics cards and building our own systems, the reality is most people are buying laptops or pre-built desktops, and AMD has very few design wins in those systems, because their CPUs aren't great and their GPU architectures are generally more power hungry than Nvidia.
 
Michaelius said:
How is he right ? If we are talking about solutions with equal price why would you want to settle for less ?
Click to expand...

I'll go into some more detail on why these comparisons are largely academic and why most people don't care nor should they. Also keep in mind that enthusiasts by nature are more picky about minor details (to varying degrees). Most graphics buyers are not enthusiasts, to them a graphics card is just something of utility they need to play games.

First off how do we define which graphics card is faster? When this is said it typically is based upon the averaging of a large aggregate set of data, for example TPUs performance chart. If you look at this a bit more the problem is even with as large of a data set TPU uses it still is limited in terms of representation.

But let us assume the above is representative and shows Card A is 10% faster than Card B (of a different architecture). This only means that Card A is 10% faster on average. The reality is (regardless of the reason, that isn't important, whatever you want to believe is fine) game performance is going to vary. With that low of a performance difference on average this means that Card B is going to be faster in a significant amount of scenarios.

Then let's look at what 10% (or so) performance really gets you. Sure if you line up things in bar graphics that bar is 10% larger but how much more enjoyable does it make your gaming experience? Probably a couple of sub graphics settings at most with some minor visual differences once you blow up comparison screenshots side by side. Yes enthusiasts (well some) are maybe arguably a little even on the OCD side regarding "max settings" or bust but most games look very good slightly below that (not to mention the issue that in a lot of cases both end up being the same settings anyways). Non-enthusiasts, well considering some people didn't even care about the graphics difference of the last gen consoles near their end of life compared to the PC, they probably are not going to notice slightly softer shadows or rounder corners on some ammo pack.
 
tybert7 said:
Because who wins matters, especially when a company like AMD is on the ropes, they need their design wins to translate into actual sales or it's all for naught.

Competition means jack sh*t if releasing a better performing graphics card for similar money does not allow you to cut into your competitors sales. Once again, LOOK at this chart.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/284822/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_pc_1_3_last

number 1 and 3 at the time of this posting is a 970. The closest 390 is number 13. Incidentally that has climbed a bit since it was almost 20th, but it is still being vastly outsold by a couple 970s.

There won't BE competition if releasing a superior product nets vastly inferior sales, it says to the market and the bottom line, performance does not really matter. Mainly brand, mainly perception, perception that CLEARLY lags reality. This sort of who cares attitude about the actual MERIT of a card, more than anything else, will be the death of amd.

It makes sense a fury x has fewer sales than a 980 ti, based on what we've seen, but NOT a 970. It generally loses in dx11, and gets stomped in dx12, and aside from average fps, the minimum frames are higher, it's just a better experience, and still the 970 soars over all.

People who got the 970 earlier should be fine, but buying it NOW makes zero sense unless they are running a 300W power supply.
Click to expand...

Surprised that Titan X at 21, Gigabyte 980 TI as 23 and Classified 980 TI is at 25.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
AMD fans love to say that it's marketing because they have nothing else to go on. The reality is that NVIDIA gets a lot of repeat customers due to quality and features, while AMD loses customers left and right. This is why NVIDIA is now at 82% of the market. Marketing may help to get first time customers, but repeat business is all in the product itself. AMD may bring in a lot of first time customers due to having a lower cost, but the lack of quality in both hardware and software hurts their repeat business significantly.

AMD doesn't have the performance crown and have struggled to reach the goal for nearly a decade. They should just give up and focus on putting out a quality mid-range card that doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on and gets a driver update more often than a blood moon eclipse. They were pretty close to that goal with the 4850/4870, but immediately dropped the ball with the 5870. Now with Fury the ball has fallen off the planet for them.
 
PRIME1 said:
AMD fans love to say that it's marketing because they have nothing else to go on. The reality is that NVIDIA gets a lot of repeat customers due to quality and features, while AMD loses customers left and right. This is why NVIDIA is now at 82% of the market. Marketing may help to get first time customers, but repeat business is all in the product itself. AMD may bring in a lot of first time customers due to having a lower cost, but the lack of quality in both hardware and software hurts their repeat business significantly.

AMD doesn't have the performance crown and have struggled to reach the goal for nearly a decade. They should just give up and focus on putting out a quality mid-range card that doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on and gets a driver update more often than a blood moon eclipse. They were pretty close to that goal with the 4850/4870, but immediately dropped the ball with the 5870. Now with Fury the ball has fallen off the planet for them.
Click to expand...

The local nvidia shill chimes in.

You are forgetting the smackdowns that HD 5870, 7970 and R9 290x laid down on NVIDIA cards when they were first released.
 
DeadSkull said:
The local nvidia shill chimes in.

You are forgetting the smackdowns that HD 5870, 7970 and R9 290x laid down on NVIDIA cards when they were first released.
Click to expand...

Why does Nvidia have 82% of the market share?

Last year AMD had 32% now they have 18%.

Surely those numbers show something.
 
thedocta45 said:
Why does Nvidia have 82% of the market share?

Last year AMD had 32% now they have 18%.

Surely those numbers show something.
Click to expand...

People buy video cards based on packing and name brands. They could care less about performance. At least that was my experience working retail in the mid 2000's.
 
thedocta45 said:
Why does Nvidia have 82% of the market share?

Last year AMD had 32% now they have 18%.

Surely those numbers show something.
Click to expand...

Because AMD had no new product to move. That market share is the trimester's amount of cards each company moves, not what each user has on his machine.
 
cageymaru said:
People buy video cards based on packing and name brands. They could care less about performance. At least that was my experience working retail in the mid 2000's.
Click to expand...

Just going to throw this out there but in the mid 2000's AMD and Nvidia had close to 50-50 market share.

The gap opened up when Nvidia released the 8000 series in 2007, and with the exception of some contraction in 2010 has only continued to grow.

I don't know the advertising costs difference between Nvidia and AMD, but its doubtful that that's the only issue.

Is Nvidia spending 30% more on marketing than AMD, if its simply a marketing issue that's something that should have been resolved quickly years ago.
 
thedocta45 said:
Why does Nvidia have 82% of the market share?

Last year AMD had 32% now they have 18%.

Surely those numbers show something.
Click to expand...

R9 2xx- Hawaii chips were very late to the market, so nvidia had free reign for over 6 months with GTX Titan, GTX 780 and 770.

GTX 980 was released last september and only this summer did AMD have a come back with R9 390 and Fury series. That's over a year where Nvidia was selling high performing products without any real competition and AMD lost a lot of potential sales due to not having any competitive products on the shelves.

GTX 970 did a lot of AMD killing even though it was an overpriced bullshit lie when it was first released. PR mistake my ass, the 3.5GB = 4.0 GB was intentionally done in order to boost sales.
 
DeadSkull said:
R9 2xx- Hawaii chips were very late to the market, so nvidia had free reign for over 6 months with GTX Titan, GTX 780 and 770.

GTX 980 was released last september and only this summer did AMD have a come back with R9 390 and Fury series. That's over a year where Nvidia was selling high performing products without any real competition and AMD lost a lot of potential sales due to not having any competitive products on the shelves.

GTX 970 did a lot of AMD killing even though it was an overpriced bullshit lie when it was first released. PR mistake my ass, the 3.5GB = 4.0 GB was intentionally done in order to boost sales.
Click to expand...

The market share gap has been about 60% to AMD 40% as far back as Q1 2007. With a slight contraction in 2010 Q2 2012 and Q2 2014.

Its not like the market share as a whole hasn't been in favor of Nvidia for quite a while.

As to the 3.5 GB thing it really isn't an issue for anyone, so it hasn't negatively effected sales. Just in synthetic benchmarks which has no impact on gaming.

The biggest issue is that most recently AMD has lost 22% of the market in 2014-2015, that's translates into a 50% decrease in market share for them.
 
Last edited:
The most amusing part about this entire argument is how irrelevant it is. DX version adoption has always been painfully slow. By the time we actually see a meaningful amount of titles shipping with meaningful DX12 optimizations both Nvida and AMD will have released new chips with new architectures. The cards on which the DX12 fight will play out haven't even been released yet.
 
DeadSkull said:
GTX 970 did a lot of AMD killing even though it was an overpriced bullshit lie when it was first released. PR mistake my ass, the 3.5GB = 4.0 GB was intentionally done in order to boost sales.
Click to expand...

970 made every gpu on the market above 300$ pointless in single day.
780/780ti were made obsolete instantly
290 went from great value into overpriced power hungry junk territory that needed to be discounted from 400 into 240-250$ range to sell.
 
Remon said:
]Because AMD had no new product to move.
Click to expand...
Yes this is what has happened the past two launches (gtx 780, r9 290 and the gtx 980 and r9 390/Fiji)

Release schedules might not have been delayed but market perception the delay was real. This is something AMD has to address. If Pascal comes out earlier that AMD's next gen (more that one quarter difference), AMD will be in a situation where they don't won't to be, because now that 18% will drop more, OEM, system builders will not wait on what AMD can offer, they just won't, they have to make money too.

That market share is the trimester's amount of cards each company moves, not what each user has on his machine.
Click to expand...
How does that matter if its a set amount of time when cards are moving? This directly translates to profits being made on a per quarter basis, and shows the health of a company. If AMD can't sell their products that they are producing, inventory goes up, and that will become a write off (essentially a loss) when new generation cards come out, or sell those cards at a heavily discounted price, which might also be a potential loss. When there is a delay more than one quarter when the market is concerned, there is a double loss, one from the inability to sell previous generations cards (write offs) and of course sales lost due to lack of competition.
 
Remon said:
Because AMD had no new product to move. That market share is the trimester's amount of cards each company moves, not what each user has on his machine.
Click to expand...

Its completely irrelevant if they have new products or not. Its not a new trend of AMD losing market share, if it varied from quarter to quarter by a large margin you might be able to point to that being an issue, but its not.

If you want to point to what end users have in their machines we can point to the Feb 2015 results of the AMD vs Nvidia Steam comparison. I can't see the August results but I'm sure there about the same if not worse.

As of February 2015 only 28.6 percent of Steam gamers have an AMD video card, compared to 51.8 percent for Nvidia, and the red team’s share has decreased from just over 32 percent two years ago.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/comput...-graphics-war-coming-to-an-end/#ixzz3n4HCGl53
Click to expand...

Sorry 52.21% Nvidia 26.98% AMD so not much change for August. Intel owns 20% of the market and another 1% is misc.
 
Last edited:
thedocta45 said:
Just going to throw this out there but in the mid 2000's AMD and Nvidia had close to 50-50 market share.

The gap opened up when Nvidia released the 8000 series in 2007, and with the exception of some contraction in 2010 has only continued to grow.

I don't know the advertising costs difference between Nvidia and AMD, but its doubtful that that's the only issue.

Is Nvidia spending 30% more on marketing than AMD, if its simply a marketing issue that's something that should have been resolved quickly years ago.
Click to expand...

During the 3 years or so I worked retail, I sold a total of zero ATi cards. I could sell water to a well and got all kinds of accolades from my bosses. Everyone knew who Nvidia was. Not one person had heard of ATi. As soon as I mentioned Canada to them, they were only interested in Nvidia. AMD at the time was known as the cheap thing if you couldn't afford Intel. The couple of years when they had the faster chips? Still known as sloths.

Now maybe you knew more tech savvy people. But the customers I had already had their minds made up on the brand before they entered the store. It was just a matter of what their budget was.
 
thedocta45 said:
Why does Nvidia have 82% of the market share?

Last year AMD had 32% now they have 18%.

Surely those numbers show something.
Click to expand...


I know the reason the 970 still sells so much better than the 390 is that people still don't know any better. This is why when I see someone recommending a 970 I chime in to get them to consider a better card. Most people just don't know and come seeking advice, god knows the state of the population that does not visit forums and just goes off the recommendation of their friends.

ignorant gamer: dude, get a 970, best card for the money, can play all your games with no problems

informed gamer: (never gets to talk to that friend)


One of the perks with having so much more marketshare is that the ignorant nexuses of gpu recommendations are more numerous. This is why I try to counteract it in amds favor where appropriate. In the end it may be like a lone centurion trying to hold back the Visigoths hordes, but I am not going to sit idle and let the primes of the world sack rome without a fight.
 
Do you realize up till the r3xx series was released the top 3 OEM's (Lenovo, Dell, HP) were selling gtx 7xx and 9xx series with their PC only? As an add in card the gtx 970 doesn't make up much of the actual volume sales from either IHV. gotta look at the $150 to $200 dollar range for volume sales. And the 750 ti did its job very well.
 
tybert7 said:
I know the reason the 970 still sells so much better than the 390 .
Click to expand...

Because it's an overall better card. Not some power sucking rebadged dinosaur.

See it's simple logic.

Honestly though AMD fans insulting people for not buying their crap, is just one more reason why people steer clear of them. Maybe that 82% is just people not buying AMD out of spite.
 
PRIME1 said:
Because it's an overall better card. Not some power sucking rebadged dinosaur.

See it's simple logic.
Click to expand...
Aside from power and proprietary stuff, is there any reason to buy a 970?

Honestly though AMD fans insulting people for not buying their crap, is just one more reason why people steer clear of them. Maybe that 82% is just people not buying AMD out of spite
Click to expand...
It's no worse than Nvidia fans over the last 10 years.
The AMD mantra used to be "I bought AMD because it was a better value", but has transformed into "I bought AMD because fuck Nvidia" over the last year or so. The debate has become incredibly vitriolic from their side, it's very disappointing... I guess that's Nvidia's fault, actually.

I find it hard to identify with a fanbase who prefers products because they are bitter with the competition. I guess that makes AMD fans just as bad as Nvidia fans today. In some sense the 'new' AMD mentality drove me away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top