DirectX 12 tested: An early win for AMD and disappointment for Nvidia

First DX12 gaming benchmark shows R9 290X going toe-to-toe with a GTX 980 Ti.

[Sir_Simba]

The only reason I don't buy AMD cards is because of power consumption. Unfortunatly thats one important part of my choice.

[antikbaka]

i don't buy them because 3 previous ones were glitchy and i had to exchange them to Nvidia

[ABizzel1]

It is what it is.

AMD simply have the better drivers and support for DX12 already, which is kind of surprising considering NVIDIA claims every chance they get that they've developed DX12 alongside MS.

My guess is DX12 won't be a big push for NVIDIA until Pascal drops sometime next year. But in the meantime AMD has been working with low level API since their own Mantle dropped, which gives their cards an early boost, and could very well give them some much needed sells.

This article doesn't inform everything, but not only do their high end GPUs gain a fairly large boost, so do their APUs and more importantly their CPUs.

Their APUs gain CPU performance rivaling Intel's i3 (something that was only a dream before DX12), and their GPU performance has gains of around 40%, making APU based systems an all around viable option.

But it doesn't end there with CPUs. Their higher brand of CPUs the FX 6300 and FX 8300 series have JUMPED in performance thanks to DX12 finally running multi-core configs, low level API, and Core Clock having greater results, all of which AMD CPUs benefit from greatly. It's such an improvement that AMD's $100 - $200 CPUs, now rival Intel's $200 - $350 i7 4000 series CPUs. The FX 6350 competes with the i5 4670k with a $100 savings, and the FX 8300 cards are literally half the price of the $350 i7 4690k and give it a run for it's money. AMD can FINALLY send a jab Intel's way with CPUs that dominate the low and mid range, with an insane price advantage.

The problem as @Sir_SImba said is AMD TDP thus heating is much higher than Intel's and NVIDIA's. The good news for CPUs and APUs is that AMD is dropping their new architecture 14nm Zen in 2016 which aims to fix their two biggest problems Single Core Performance and TDP. Single core performance is expected to have gains up to 40% (which still isn't touching Intel's single cores, but is a much needed gain) while TDP is expected to take a nose dive to a 10w TDP for dual core and 25w for quad core in mobile processors (again still not the best in the business, but a MUCH needed improvement).

Finally with the new architecture more cores can be added on to chips, which brings us to the most important changes. We may finally see a 6-core APU with 12 GPU cores if not 8-cores with 16 GPU cores (basically XBO's and PS4's with MUCH better CPU performance). And on the FX side we may very well see FX 10 and FX 12 series CPUs with 10 and 12 CPU core setups.

This is a good time for AMD, and while their competitors won't just sit by and take a loss, it's the first big break they had in a LONG time. Don't overlook them, DX12 removes a lot of the issue they had with drivers once again making things a level playing field.

I'm usually Intel / NVIDIA as well, but I'm not counting AMD out on this one, and might build an AMD build pretty soon just to have it, and before they think of raising prices due to performance gains.

[pumpactionpimp]

I remember AMD making a big deal out of what they called graphics core next tech in the 7000 and newer series. Touting with mantle their gpus would surpass nvidia, due to the actual architecture they used. Of course we all laughed then (myself included, and I own AMD cards currently), and dismissed it as usual AMD big talk. I can't help but wonder if it is drivers, which AMD is not known for. Or the architecture they spoke so highly of in the past.

Either way I hope this at least evens the playing field, so there's actual competition again in the gpu market.

[DevilOgreFish]

I have both a sapphire R9 290 and recently a 970 from Evga. (Can provide pictures)

Tips for Nvidia users using Windows 10. custom resoluons is all messed up, To avoid this go to the control panel and go to manage 3D settings. Next enable DSR factors and check in the boxes. you can adjust DSR smoothness but i'd just leave it at default. Then go to change resolution, click apply first before finding your resolution. And you're pretty much done from there.

-------------------

For performance comparison, my R9 290 out performs my 970 by some frames. In 4k gaming the R9 290 is quite a bit better than my 970. At 1080p they're pretty much identical. at 1440p they're pretty close, R9 290 still has the lead by a couple frames though.

In tdp my 970 wins, in temperature my sapphire Radeon cooling does a better job over Evga, though it's also much longer because of the extra fan.

In overclocking nvidia's drivers takes control of the settings. The R9 290 can be manually overclocked, though only to a 10 percent increase. Water cooled it can go a little higher.

For DX12 my R9 290 is a beast, which is only because of how inefficient AMD's drivers were before. Nvidia's drivers are indeed normally efficient. The 970 is also a beast with dx12 with a few frames extra in performance.

Besides that The 970 is a quality graphics card and with Dx12 it meets a high level of satisfaction. You won't have any issues doing 1080p, 1440p and in some modern games even 4k. with Dx12 AMD has met and exceeded expectations in their graphics cards. The performance boost makes their budget high-end GPUs very tempting own. The competition is strong with this one.

I also can't wait to test cross matching GPUs! Main reason why i got both GPUs in the first place.

[assdan]

You mean performing almost exactly the same per watt used? Seriously, keep up to date on tech before looking like an idiot.

[DevilOgreFish]

@ assdan

you talking to me? Type the "@" key and the user's name, it helps.

[HeavenFall]

I bet for the amount of money you save from getting an AMD card instead of nVidia, you can afford the electricity bill, and then some.

[ABizzel1]

@HeavenFall

According to your electric bill company, using a desktop computers 2 hours per day, for an entire month only adds $1 to your monthly bill for a 200w computer, so it's going to take you several years before that AMD cards hits that NVIDIA price, and by then it's about time for a replacement.

[assdan]

It was directed at the sir simba.

[spoonard]

Yeah, that extra few dollars a year power bill would really break the bank!

[Tzuno]

Do you know that in some countries the electricity costs like a mofo?

[babadivad]

I have an AMD GPU now but I'm looking hard at NVIDIA's Pascal GPU. If AMD's next gpu is still using the ancient GCN *with just a die shrink
* architecture then I'm definitely jumping ship.

[ABizzel1]

The die shrink would offer a good amount of performance increase....that being said I'm looking at Pascal as well, but then again Volta is suppose to drop in 2018 and be significantly better as well, and I try my best not to enter the annual / bi annual upgrade for GPUs

I might have to give in -_-

[Tzuno]

Glad to hear that are some people that care for power consumption, i am in the same boat even if i own a amd card but that amd card i have it only takes 55w, you cannot ignore the tdp when you see that nvidia is doing more performance with lower tdp while amd is lazy in that department, amd need to get his head out of his ass and recognize that this is their main problem. I plan to buy a gtx 750ti.

[traumadisaster]

I would consider going amd if their freesync gave me a big enough advantage vs the money, maybe 15 fps I'm not sure.

I don't have a Gsync monitor but I wonder if there is not value there. If I could gain 15 or so fps just by a monitor that would be nice.

I've had a titan for years and several 4k tvs, but would like to see an affordable vsync solution in a 4k tv. If all things being nearly equal a vsync option would push me in 1 direction for my next setup.

[TurboGamer]

Freesync and G-sync doesn't give you more fps. Both solutions simply refresh the screen when the gpu presents a new frame instead of refreshing at a preset Hz.

[traumadisaster]

I suppose I was thinking I'd you could turn vsync off in game or nv control panel that would free up resources that could now go to fps.

[JsonHenry]

I don't think you understand what Free-sync/G-sync do, Traumadisaster..

[traumadisaster]

See above and please explain what I'm missing. Thanks

[lemoncake]

I just recently got a 4k gsync monitor, it doesn't give you more fps but when your fps start to fluctuate you don't notice it at all. It's an amazing bit of tech and a must have tbh especially at high res gaming, much better than using vsync.

[JsonHenry]

There is no noticeable difference with it on or off in terms of FPS gain/loss. I don't think I could say it any more simply. - http://www.anandtech.com/sh...

[SteamPowered]

I like the extra features GeForce brings to the table. This benchmark is the first game made with dx12 and it's not even the final version. Team green has engineers working round the clock on some new drivers.

I'm willing to wait and see.

[BeefCurtains]

I hear you, if you read the whole article, there was a lot of data missing and incomplete testing done too. IM not knocking the huge boost AMD already showed (it was massive), but I wouldn't say the results for nvidia are any where near final.

[xTheMercenary_]

I'll put all my money on the fact that something is wrong with the drivers when working with DX12. Like you said NVIDIA definitely would have there engineers working to find and fix this issue. Here's to hoping it's a driver issue, it makes absolutely no sense to go from dx11 and dx12 and see a reduction in performance, something is not right here.

[Death]

Way too early to give a win to anyone or flame the NVidia AMD fanboy wars. Let's wait for optimization and games before declaring a winner. From the article the only thing DX12 accomplished was increasing AMD GPU's to NVidia levels. I hope DX12 does more than that.

[Angeljuice]

Well it actually accomplished much more.

AMD have a much older, weaker GPU suddenly competing on equal terms with a much more powerful (and more expensive) Nvidia card.

AMD have been producing strong hardware for years, but they have been hampered by a lack of support for their tech solutions. DX12 looks as if it is going to remedy this problem for AMD and draw out the best from their hardware (about time too).

[lemoncake]

Nvidia do great driver support so I expect them to be working overtime enhancing dx12 on their cards.

[Errefus]

ya its way to early, i think Nvidia just needs to update drivers. i cant wait thou cause im still deciding on my next GPU purchase that ill be making within the next week.

[Ulf]

DX12 is a "low-level" version of DX -- i.e. it strips away a lot of the driver cruft, and lets devs work in an environment closer to AMD's Mantle API. This is why the AMD cards shine in DX12 tests -- they are, and always have been, good cards. The drivers have just always sucked.

Take away 90% of the driver, via DX12, and AMD is lookin' pretty good.

[maybelovehate]

Something is very fishy though. Like they said, why would adding all those CPU cores actually make the card score lower. Doesn't make sense. Either the benchmark software is broken or NVIdia's drivers are broken.

[HeavenFall]

Damn, really? The 290x is on par with the 980 Ti? Gotta get me 2 of those then.

[ABizzel1]

Don't do it unless you can find one for a steal. While they're great cards you're better off waiting for HBM v2, or getting the 2x 390 with 8GB so you can game at 4k with no problems.

[maybelovehate]

Those AMD results are crazy! Really curious to see what it does for Integrated Graphics as well. But I have to take that benchmark with a heavy grain of salt. The opening paragraph basically says the benchmark software isn't ready.

[FlyingFoxy]

I'll expect my 980Ti will get a nice boost when Nvidia optimize their drivers. It's just that AMD have obviously worked on theirs for longer.

Also i'll wanna play both Vulkan games like Source 2 engine will use, and UE4 games.. and Unreal engine has always performed better with Nvidia.