Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

Introduction

Ashes of the Singularity PC Performance Review

Introduction

Ashes of the Singularity is one of the first wave of games that supports DirectX 12, using the new API to take the Real Time Strategy (RTS) genre into a whole new scale, allowing thousands of units to appear on-screen at once and deliver great game performance by making efficient use of your PC hardware. 

Ashes of the Singularity was the first game to release a benchmarking tool for DirectX 12 back in summer 2015, but now that the game has been officially released we will be looking at the games performance using actually gameplay rather than a pre-made testing scenario. 

Here we will see exactly what DirectX 12 will bring to the table. Will if offer the performance gains that we have all been hoping for, or will DirectX 12 turn out to be another meaningless API update? 

 

 

What is Ashes of the Singularity?

Ashes of the Singularity is an all new RTS (Real-Time Strategy) game that is based in a post-technological singularity universe in which humans have begun to colonize the stars.

In this game humanity now faces a new foe that threatens to completely annihilate them, this race is the Substrate, a race of machines that seeks to control the same fertile and habitable worlds that humanity are trying to claim for themselves.

 

Drivers 

For this game we will be using the newest drivers that were available when the game released, which is Nvidia's Game Ready Geforce 364.72 driver and AMD's 16.3.2 driver, both of which are the most recent GPU drivers for either company. 

Test Setup  

We will be testing this game on our dedicated GPU test rig using the current flagship GPUs from both AMD and Nvidia. Both GPUs will be the reference design and will be ran at stock settings. 

 

AMD R9 Fury X & Nvidia GTX 980Ti
Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.7GHz
ASUS Maximus VIII Hero
G.Skill Ripjaws 4x4GB DDR4 3200MHz
Corsair HX1200i
Corsair H110i GT
Windows 10 x64 

       Rise of the Tomb Raider - AMD VS Nvidia Performance Review  Rise of the Tomb Raider - AMD VS Nvidia Performance Review

Nvidia GTX 980Ti (Left), AMD R9 Fury X (Right)

 

To represent AMD and Nvidia's Mid range GPU offerings we have decided to use the AMD R9 380 and the Nvidia GTX 960. Both of these GPUs will be the ASUS Strix models

Both of these GPUs offer very similar performance in most scenarios and come in at very similar pricepoints, so it will be very interesting to see which GPU will come out on top. 

 

          Metal Gear Solid 5 Performance Review with ASUS  Metal Gear Solid 5 Performance Review with ASUS

Nvidia GTX 960(Left), AMD R9 380(Right)

«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next»

Most Recent Comments

04-04-2016, 16:34:06

Relayer
Do you have 390(X), 970, 980 cards on hand to test? It would be good to see how these perform since so many gamers own them. In some games lately Hawaii has been getting pretty close to Fury(X) performance.

Thanks,Quote

04-04-2016, 16:44:49

WYP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relayer View Post
Do you have 390(X), 970, 980 cards on hand to test? It would be good to see how these perform since so many gamers own them. In some games lately Hawaii has been getting pretty close to Fury(X) performance.

Thanks,
Sadly I do not have an R9 390 or GTX 970 for performance testing.

All of the GPUs that I use for testing have been bought and paid for by me the writer and were not samples from an external party or sponsor. Hopefully we can get hold of more GPUs for gaming content in the future, especially when the next generation of GPUs are released.Quote

04-04-2016, 21:33:03

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Right now only AMD GCN GPUs support Asynchronous Compute in their GPU drivers, though Nvidia is rumored to be adding support for this function to Maxwell in the future with a driver update, though this remains unconfirmed by Nvidia.
AMD supports it on a hardware level as well as driver level. Nvidia won't be releasing a driver for it, driver can't make up for hardware losses, it's not possible for Nvidia to implement such a feature.

I find it kind of funny that now AMD in DX11 are either slightly behind or just ahead. Nvidia really are struggling with this title, explains why they called Oxide out before. Hopefully as they push out more content it gets more optimized and less CPU limited in future updates/patches.Quote

05-04-2016, 08:32:58

SPS
I'd be more interested to see different CPUs used, from both Intel and AMD's offerings. Though I do appreciate that you don't have access to everything or necessarily the time either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
AMD supports it on a hardware level as well as driver level. Nvidia won't be releasing a driver for it, driver can't make up for hardware losses, it's not possible for Nvidia to implement such a feature.

I find it kind of funny that now AMD in DX11 are either slightly behind or just ahead. Nvidia really are struggling with this title, explains why they called Oxide out before. Hopefully as they push out more content it gets more optimized and less CPU limited in future updates/patches.
Oxide most likely focused on GCN optimization which kind of explains why Nvidia benefit on DX11. Not sure how you know Nvidia can't support async compute, they don't really share architecture notes.Quote

05-04-2016, 11:18:59

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS View Post
I'd be more interested to see different CPUs used, from both Intel and AMD's offerings. Though I do appreciate that you don't have access to everything or necessarily the time either.



Oxide most likely focused on GCN optimization which kind of explains why Nvidia benefit on DX11. Not sure how you know Nvidia can't support async compute, they don't really share architecture notes.
Even in dx11, they aren't much better as everything gets higher resolution or settings. I doubt it's mostly AMD focused, it uses asynchronous compute. Nvidia doesn't have it and therefore probably results to context switching to do both compute and graphic work so it adds latency and therefore decrease framerate. AMD called out Nvidia at GDC that you can't support it at a driver level. In addition, it's been what 6 months and we've had no comment or hints from Nvidia about this "rumored" magic driver. I think it's more likely that got started by people saying, "wait for them to release a driver for the game". I don't even think Nvidia has a proper driver for it yet.. or not for a while. Which makes sense since they called out Oxide saying its not represenitive of a real dx12 title and begging them not to use asynchronous compute. That's just them being sore losers tbh. Nothing wrong with admitting that they can't support it but will try to get the best performance possible anyway. They haven't done this for any other dx12 title, it's just because they lose by far in this oneQuote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.