@rs I don't see how a driver update will do much for supposedly thin driver.
It's right there in the AT article that AMD has a newer driver with even higher performance. It wasn't used for testing purposes. Even another 3-5% increase in performance will only extend the lead of 285/7970/390 over 960/680/970 cards. The lack of a larger performance increase from Fury/Fury X over 290X/390X is also odd unless there is some bottleneck in the Fiji architecture or possibly a driver issue.
PCgameshardware has Fury X beating 390X by only 7% at 4K.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/DirectX-12-Software-255525/Specials/Spiele-Benchmark-1172196/
Also, the HD7970 AT used is the 925mhz version and it still managed to beat the GTX680 by almost 13%. I wish they included R9 280X or HD7970Ghz edition.
If AT ends up using this game for testing in 2016, I hope they upgrade their CPU platform too.
Intel Core i7-4960X in 3 modes:
'Core i7' - 6 Cores, 12 Threads at 4.2 GHz
'Core i5' - 4 Cores, 4 Threads at 3.8 GHz
'Core i3' - 2 Cores, 4 Threads at 3.8 GHz
I'd like to see these tests with DDR4 3000mhz on an i7 6700K @ 4.7-4.8Ghz, or perhaps they could consider upgrading to the 6-core BW-E (i7 6820K?) in Q1 2016.
TR lol, they sure do love a lopsided test. Shakes head...
They mysteriously did not test Ashes of Singularity, sighting that the game was still in beta/not ready for actual release and not indicative of DX12 performance, but then they go ahead and use a nearly 1.4Ghz boosting 980Ti in Fable Legends BETA.
Overclock3D's on Extremetech results:
"If one were to just look at these two GPUs (Fury X and 980Ti), you could easily say that both perform very similarly in DirectX 12, but if you look at the more detailed set of benchmarks below
you can see that AMD clearly comes out on top in the lower end of the market.
AMD's R9 380 beats Nvidia's GTX 960 by significant margin, giving AMD a massive advantage in the Sub £200 GPU pricepoint.
"
Most surprisingly at both 1080p and 4K AMD's R9 390 beats Nvidia's GTX 980, which is a GPU that is over £150 more expensive. The AMD R9 390 is a price competitor to Nvidia's GTX 980,
so a R9 390 beating a GTX 980 here is a massive shock."
PCGamesHardware
1080P
280X is 19% faster than GTX770
R9 290 is 13% faster than a GTX970
390X is 9% faster than GTX980 **
Shockingly Asus Strix GTX980 is only 3% faster than the Sapphire Tri-X 290. We are talking about a $450 card barely beating a $230-$250 R9 290 **
980Ti SSC beats Fury X by 10%
The main reason the 980Ti beat the Fury X is because they used an EVGA Superclocked version. Not surprising since that's free 15-18% more performance for the 980Ti. If Fury X could overclock as well as the 980Ti, this would have been a clean sweep for AMD in Fable Legends. Great engineering from NV to manufacture a GM200 chip that overclocks this well.
The theme many of us have been repeating for months continues -- unless one is buying the flagship GTX980Ti, AMD currently has NV beaten in the key $180-500 pricing segments, specifically R9 380 2/4GB > 960 2/4GB, R9 290 >>>> GTX960 4GB, R9 390 > 970, and R9 390X is also a better buy for the price than the 980. Fable Legends benchmarks and Ashes of Singularity only help to underscore this fact, albeit both are in beta form.
Looking forward to more DX12 benchmarks but clearly DX12 is starting to pay off for AMD. It's going to be extremely hard now to objectively recommend GTX960/970/980 over R9 380/290/390/390X AMD cards that have already been winning in price/performance to start with and now in Fable Legends a $280 390 is trading blows with a $450 980.