Fable Legends Early Preview: DirectX 12 Benchmark Analysis
by Ryan Smith, Ian Cutress & Daniel Williams on September 24, 2015 9:00 AM ESTGraphics Performance Comparison
With the background and context of the benchmark covered, we now dig into the data and see what we have to look forward to with DirectX 12 game performance. This benchmark has preconfigured batch files that will launch the utility at either 3840x2160 (4K) with settings at ultra, 1920x1080 (1080p) also on ultra, or 1280x720 (720p) with low settings more suited for integrated graphics environments.
When dealing with 3840x2160 resolution, the GTX 980 Ti has a single digit percentage lead over the AMD Fury X, but both are above the bare minimum of 30 FPS no matter what the CPU.
When dealing with the i5 and i7 at 1920x1080 ultra settings, the GTX 980 Ti still has that single digit percentage lead, but at Core i3 levels of CPU power the difference is next to zero, suggesting we are CPU limited even though the frame difference from i3 to i5 is minimal. If we look at the range of cards under the Core i7 at this point, the interesting thing here is that the GTX 970 just about hits that 60 FPS mark, while some of the older generation cards (7970/GTX 680) would require compromises in the settings to push it over the 60 FPS barrier at this resolution. The GTX 750 Ti doesn’t come anywhere close, suggesting that this game (under these settings) is targeting upper mainstream to lower high end cards. It would be interesting to see if there is an overriding game setting that ends up crippling this level of GPU.
At the 720p low settings, the Core i7 pushes everything above 60 FPS, but you need at least an AMD 7970/GTX 960 to start going for 120 FPS if only for high refresh rate panels. We are likely being held back by CPU performance as illustrated by the GTX 970 and GTX 980 Ti being practically tied and the R9 290X stepping ahead of the pack. This makes it interesting when we consider integrated graphics, which we might test for a later article. It is worth noting that at the low resolution, the R9 290X and Fury X pull out a minor lead over the NVIDIA cards. The Fury X expands this lead with the i5 and i3 configurations, just rolling over to the double digit percentage gains.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
141 Comments
View All Comments
Nenad - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
I suggest using 2560x1440 as one of tested resolution for articles where important part are top cards, since that is currently sweet spot for top end cards like GTX 980Ti or AMD Fury.I know that, on steam survey, that resolution is not nearly represented as 1920x1080, but neither are cards like 980ti and FuryX.
Jtaylor1986 - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
The benchmark doesn't support this.Peichen - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Buy a Fury X if you want to play Fable at 720p. Buy a 980Ti if you want to play 4K. And remember, get a fast Intel CPU if you are playing at 720p otherwise your Fury X won't be able to do 120+fps.DrKlahn - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
The Fury is 2fps less at 4k (though a heavily overclocked 980ti may increase this lead), so I'd say both are pretty comparable at 4K. Fury also scales better at lower resolutions with lower end CPU's so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Although to be fair none of the cards tested struggle to maintain playable frame rates at lower resolutions.Asomething - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Man what a strange world where amd has less driver overhead than the competition.extide - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Also, remember there are those newer AMD drivers that were not able to be used for this test. I could easily see a new driver gaining 2+ fps to match/beat the 980 ti in this game.Gigaplex - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
If you're buying a card specifically for one game at 720p, you wouldn't be spending top dollar for a Fury X.Jtaylor1986 - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
Kind of suprising you chose to publish this at all. Given how limited the testing options are in the benchmark this release seems a little to much like a pure marketing stunt for my tastes from Lionhead and Microsoft rather than a DX12 showcase. The fact that it doesn't include a DX11 option is a dead giveaway.piiman - Saturday, September 26, 2015 - link
"The fact that it doesn't include a DX11 option is a dead giveaway."My thought also. What the point of this Benchmark if there are no Dx11 to compare them to?
Gotpaidmuch - Thursday, September 24, 2015 - link
How come GTX 980 was not included in the tests? Did it score that bad?