Fury X at 4k is pushing 45FPS and 160FPS in 1080P. 4 times as many pixels > 4x45=180FPS if it were scaled down like that. That's almost perfect FPS scaling as pixels per frame increase. 88% actually for the aforementioned card.
For comparison's sake.
980 Ti - 80%
1070 - 77%
Sadly the other cards aren't included in the 4k benchmark.
This has always been the case, I'm not sure why anyone's surprised. AMD has been consistently developing their cards towards vulkan and dx12 since the r9 2xx series.
Man that fury x score just goes up so much on vulkan, this does kind of shows. How much the opengl implementation is hindering the card's performance.
All on about DX12 fireworks and async. The only downside is that it will not a native DX12 game but that's a given. DICE isn't going to cut off the nose to spite the face.
The usual suspects' jimmies have been rustled by the results, as always. I bet AMD has cut deals to include these enhancements in all forthcoming titles.
The usual suspects' jimmies have been rustled by the results, as always. I bet AMD has cut deals to include these enhancements in all forthcoming titles.
nice boost for amd cards and nvidia might not have the driver ready because if you guys compare other games under vulkan (linux) they perform much better on their cards
So i tried both my 290 and 7970. Even with my 7970 and the 2 ACEs when i enable TSSAA the performance is exactly the same as SMAA.
On my xeon there is almost zero cpu bottleneck
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!