Benchmark Overview
We finally get a real world way to evaluate DX12 performance with the new Ashes of the Singularity benchmark.
I knew that the move to DirectX 12 was going to be a big shift for the industry. Since the introduction of the AMD Mantle API along with the Hawaii GPU architecture we have been inundated with game developers and hardware vendors talking about the potential benefits of lower level APIs, which give more direct access to GPU hardware and enable more flexible threading for CPUs to game developers and game engines. The results, we were told, would mean that your current hardware would be able to take you further and future games and applications would be able to fundamentally change how they are built to enhance gaming experiences tremendously.
I knew that the reader interest in DX12 was outstripping my expectations when I did a live blog of the official DX12 unveil by Microsoft at GDC. In a format that consisted simply of my text commentary and photos of the slides that were being shown (no video at all), we had more than 25,000 live readers that stayed engaged the whole time. Comments and questions flew into the event – more than me or my staff could possible handle in real time. It turned out that gamers were indeed very much interested in what DirectX 12 might offer them with the release of Windows 10.
Today we are taking a look at the first real world gaming benchmark that utilized DX12. Back in March I was able to do some early testing with an API-specific test that evaluates the overhead implications of DX12, DX11 and even AMD Mantle from Futuremark and 3DMark. This first look at DX12 was interesting and painted an amazing picture about the potential benefits of the new API from Microsoft, but it wasn’t built on a real game engine. In our Ashes of the Singularity benchmark testing today, we finally get an early look at what a real implementation of DX12 looks like.
And as you might expect, not only are the results interesting, but there is a significant amount of created controversy about what those results actually tell us. AMD has one story, NVIDIA another and Stardock and the Nitrous engine developers, yet another. It’s all incredibly intriguing.
Game and Engine Overview
I don’t claim to be a game review site, but the Ashes of the Singularity benchmark is important because it is based on a real game, coming out later this year, by the same name. Based on the Oxide Nitrous engine that has been featured by AMD during Mantle development and that has now been ported over to DX12, Ashes is a massive scale real-time strategy game for lovers of the genre.
From the developer’s site:
What is Ashes of the Singularity?
Ashes of the Singularity is a real-time strategy game set in the far future that redefines the possibilities of RTS with the unbelievable scale provided by Oxide Games’ groundbreaking Nitrous engine.
What makes Ashes of the Singularity different from other RTS games?
Until now, terrestrial strategy games have had to substantially limit the number of units on screen. As a result, these RTS's could be described as battles.
Thanks to recent technological improvements such as multi-core processors and 64-bit computing combined with the invention of a new type of 3D engine called Nitrous, Ashes of the Singularity games can be described as a war across an entire world without abstraction. Thousands or even tens of thousands of individual actors can engage in dozens of battles simultaneously.
This level of on-screen units is something that Oxide claims is made possible through new low level APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12. Though I will go into more detail on the following page, there are several scenes in this benchmark (about a third of them) that reach over 20,000 draw calls per second, an amount that DX11 just struggles to handle in a smooth fashion. An RTS game in particular, just with its inherent design, seems more apt to take advantage of this improved threading and scheduling in the new generation of graphics APIs.
What's a new benchmark without some controversy?
Just a couple of days before publication of this article, NVIDIA sent out an information email to the media detailing its “perspective” on the Ashes of the Singularity benchmark. First, NVIDIA claims that the MSAA implementation in the game engine currently has an application-side bug that the developer is working to address and thus any testing done with AA enabled was invalid. (I happened to get wind of this complaint early and did all testing without to AA avoid the complaints.) Oxide and Stardock dispute this claim as a “game bug” and instead chalk up to early drivers and a new API.
Secondly, and much more importantly, NVIDIA makes the claim that Ashes of the Singularity, in its current form, “is [not] a good indicator of overall DirectX 12 gaming performance.”
What’s odd about this claim is that NVIDIA is usually the one in the public forum talking about the benefits of real-world gaming testing and using actual applications and gaming scenarios for benchmarking and comparisons. Due to the results you’ll see in our story though, NVIDIA appears to be on the offensive, trying to dissuade media and gamers from viewing the Ashes test as indicative of future performance.
NVIDIA is correct in that the Ashes of the Singularity benchmark is “primarily useful to understand how your system runs a series of scenes from the alpha version of Ashes of Singularity” – but that is literally every game benchmark. The Metro: Last Light benchmark is only useful to tell you how well hardware performs on that game. The same is true of Grand Theft Auto V, Crysis 3, etc. Our job in the media is to take that information in aggregate and combine with more data points to paint an overall picture of any new or existing product. It just happens this is the first DX12 game benchmark available and thus we have a data point of exactly one: and it’s potentially frightening for the company on the wrong side.
Do I believe that Ashes’ performance will tell you how the next DX12 game and the one after that will perform when comparing NVIDIA and AMD graphics hardware? I do not. But until we get Fable in our hands, and whatever comes after that, we are left with this single target for our testing.





AMD/Valve talkin literally
AMD/Valve talkin literally about us in “Vulkan Presentation” :=)
https://youtu.be/qKbtrVEhaw8?t=4656
What about this… Microsoft
What about this… Microsoft Duped us into thinking DirectX 12 was better than DirectX 11? I fell for it, i’ve spent 2 days trying to get win10 to act like win7 and try to disable all the privacy concerns.
What if this is all just a ploy to get us on win10?
We all know that nvidia spends more resources optimizing each game with the developers than amd and it’s not really that amd’s hardware sucks.
So now this benchmark shows AMD is on par with Nvidia… Amd has always been on par with Nvidia. What it really shows is DirectX 12 is the same as DirectX 11.
We are the suckers….
(lets hope this isn’t the case)
I am shocked? Why? Because
I am shocked? Why? Because this article tells us Ryan has a 390x yet there STILL isn’t a review of said 390x
and what about having both
and what about having both NVidia and AMD cards at the same time?
DirectX 12 is supposed to support this setup.
it will be interesting to see how this is working 🙂
I hope open world games like
I hope open world games like GTA V and the upcoming Tomb Raider start using dx12 in order to improve performance of complex scenes.
Ditto
Ditto
FWIW my lower mid-range GPU
FWIW my lower mid-range GPU combined with a C2Q 9550 8GB DDR2 runs my games faster/smoother with W10.
In fact everything on the web , etc. scales better and looks better with my lowly 25 in HP 1080P monitor.
BTW…I use the Edge browser and it should be full-featured by November’s Threshold 2 W10 according to Thurrott.
what I don’t see in any of
what I don’t see in any of the benchmarks posted here, or anywhere else for that matter, was VRAM usage comparing DX11 vs DX12 at the same quality settings
The i3 killing the fx 8370
The i3 killing the fx 8370 doesn’t make sense.
The i3 can’t cpu benchmark higher then the fx 8370.
It has a significantly lower passmark score and
only better single core performance.
I consider the fx 8370 benchmarks to be invalid.
Proper implementation of the asynchronous compute engines
in the radeon 290x cannot be being used here as dx12 scales to 6 cores and the i3 isn’t going to.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2900814/tested-directx-12s-potential-performance-leap-is-insane.html
Synthetic benchmarks show that an r9 290x with it’s asynchronous
compute engines takes advantage of extra cores of a cpu and
boosts performance greatly. The whole point of this is
to make more powerful cpu’s unnecessary.
The O.P.s benchmarks don’t make sense.
In the 3dmark api overhead test it’s obvious that more cores
help dramatically.
I assumed this myself, so to
I assumed this myself, so to prove either way, I purchased the beta and tested it on my FX-8370 @ 4.4Ghz + Gigabyte Windforce 3 R9 290X OC. With 16Gb of 2400Mhz CL10.
My benchmarks, did multiple, well my fps was damned near identical to the ones posted here.
I checked the core utilization and found all eight cores were running near 100% all the time during the benchmark.
All I can think of is that the new Oxide engine is not overly optimized and is wasting the processors potential, while running it at max load.
The next question is, how does this engine run in Crossfire if the game is CPU bound?
I assumed this myself, so to
I assumed this myself, so to prove either way, I purchased the beta and tested it on my FX-8370 @ 4.4Ghz + Gigabyte Windforce 3 R9 290X OC. With 16Gb of 2400Mhz CL10.
My benchmarks, did multiple, well my fps was damned near identical to the ones posted here.
I checked the core utilization and found all eight cores were running near 100% all the time during the benchmark.
All I can think of is that the new Oxide engine is not overly optimized and is wasting the processors potential, while running it at max load.
The next question is, how does this engine run in Crossfire if the game is CPU bound?
It looks like what has
It looks like what has happened is that Nvidia designed their hardware and drivers for DX11’s serial thinking, while AMD designed their hardware more for low level API’s well before mantle and dx12 were ever released(all of those ACE units). Makes me think they had a crystal ball and could see the future of low level APIs.
Arstechnica wrote of a great article explaining this – http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/08/directx-12-tested-an-early-win-for-amd-and-disappointment-for-nvidia/
and I quote from the article:
“DX11 was largely serial in its thinking: it sends one command to the GPU at a time, usually from just one CPU core.
In contrast, DX12 introduces command lists. These bundle together commands needed to execute a particular workload on the GPU. Because each command list is self-contained, the driver can pre-compute all the necessary GPU commands up-front and in a free-threaded manner across any CPU core. The only serial process is the final submission of those command lists to the GPU, which is theoretically a highly efficient process. Once a command list hits the GPU, it can then process all the commands in a parallel manner rather than having to wait for the next command in the chain to come through. Thus, DX12 increases performance.”
Hi Ryan,
Quick question, did
Hi Ryan,
Quick question, did you overclock any of the CPUs? What clocks are they running at?
If it’s stock, then a 5960X at 3 GHz is keeping up with a 4 GHz 6700k, but if it’s overclocked, then it makes a huge difference.
That´s exactly what I was
That´s exactly what I was thinking.
And what about the less expensive 6 cores 5820k?
Would it beat the 6700k if both were OCed at 4.5GHz?
I would like to see that in some tests very soon.
There’s critical data missing
There’s critical data missing from this article: VRAM usage. The 980 has 4 GB VRAM; the 390X has 8 GB. If DX12 uses more VRAM than DX11 – and in particular if it uses more than 4 GB in these benchmarks – then that will significantly impact things and we need to know.
And I’d like to see Fury vs Titan X.
did you see the game im
did you see the game im pretty sure it dosnt go over 1gig of vram
Need an R9 390X vs Gtx 980
Need an R9 390X vs Gtx 980
R9 390 vs Gtx 970
R9 Fury VS Gtx 980Ti
R9 Fury X vs Titan X
This would be the most right thing to test in DX12 today
Thanks – Ryan Shrout, for a
Thanks – Ryan Shrout, for a good open-mind and objectively test.
I plan to upgrade my Radeon
I plan to upgrade my Radeon HD7870 to the latest top tier card so that I don’t have to for the next couple years. For me I need a card the runs great frame rates at 1080p while keeping full compatibility for DX12 (visual mainly). I was completely dumb founded when I learnt that AMD completely ditched DX12_1 which I believe is the key visual upgrade over DX11. So I decided I would buy GTX980 Ti. But now with nvidia crashing and burning! Spending $700 on a card that nvidia themselves would ditch is not a good idea. What do you guys suggest??
My lowly GT740 runs games
My lowly GT740 runs games noticeably smoother under Windows 10/DX12 😉
Pretty low score when using
Pretty low score when using FX-8370 / That doesn’t seem to be correct.
Are these CPUs
Are these CPUs overclocked?
If not, I believe that the kind of user with such level of CPU and GPU is a user who will definitely overclock the rig. And as the 5960x or even 5820k accepts a factor of overclocking (40-50%) way higher than the 6700K (10-15%), we could have results far more interesting with real world OCs.
Pcper, you said that this
Pcper, you said that this bench provides details on what is “bottlenecking” the performance: CPU or GPU. It would have been really nice to see those numbers as well to get a better look at what is causing this tie, because atm it seems (to me) that the near-tied performance may as well be due to the DX12 being so fast that it is CPUs that bottleneck the GPUs, so we dont get a fair result. Also, as I heard, DX12 utilises 6 cores max, so what about disableing HT on the 5960x for much improved single-threaded performance?
AMD’s crap chips run way too
AMD’s crap chips run way too hot and loud (cause the fan has to run at 100% to keep the crap chips from getting to hot and shutting off)… Intel and Nvidia all the way.
Could someone explain to me
Could someone explain to me the results WCCF Tech got on a GTX 770 where it shot up 180% in DX12 ? Why is it that top of the line GPUs form NV (980, 980Ti, even 780Ti) don’t see much improvement, but a GTX770 gets a 180% boost making it better than a Titan X ?