Comparing Percentile Numbers Between the GTX 980 Ti and Fury X

As the two top end cards from both graphics silicon manufacturers were released this year, there was all a big buzz about which is best for what. Ryan’s extensive review of the Fury X put the two cards head to head on a variety of contests. For DirectX 12, the situation is a little less clear cut for a number of reasons – games are yet to mature, drivers are also still in the development stage, and both sides competing here are having to rethink their strategies when it comes to game engine integration and the benefits that might provide. Up until this point DX12 contests have either been synthetic or having some controversial issues. So for Fable Legends, we did some extra percentile based analysis for NVIDIA vs. AMD at the top end.

For this set of benchmarks we ran our 1080p Ultra test with any adaptive frame rate technology enabled and recorded the result:

For these tests, usual rules apply – GTX 980 and Fury X, in our Core i7/i5/i3 configurations at all three resolution/setting combinations (3840x2160 Ultra, 1920x1080 Ultra and 1280x720 Low). Data is given in the form of frame rate profile graphs, similar to those on the last page.

As always, Fable Legends is still in early access preview mode and these results may not be indicative of the final version, but at this point they still provide an interesting comparison.


At 3840x2160, both frame rate profiles from each card looks the same no matter the processor used (one could argue that the Fury X is mildly ahead on the i3 at low frame rates), but the 980 Ti has a consistent gap across most of the profile range.


At 1920x1080, the Core i7 model gives a healthy boost to the GTX 980 Ti in high frame rate scenarios, though this seems to be accompanied by an extended drop off region in high frame rate areas. It is also interesting that in the Core i3 mode, the Fury X results jump up and match the GTX 980 Ti almost across the entire range. This again points to some of the data we saw on the previous page – at 1080p somehow having fewer cores gave the results a boost due to lighting scenarios.


At 1280x720, as we saw in the initial GPU comparison page on average frame rates, the Fury X has the upper hand here in all system configurations. Two other obvious points are noticeable here – moving from the Core i5 to the Core i7, especially on the GTX 980 Ti, makes the easy frames go quicker and the harder frames take longer, but also when we move to the Core i3, performance across the board drops like a stone, indicating a CPU limited environment. This is despite the fact that with these cards, 1280x720 at low settings is unlikely to be used anyway.

Discussing Percentiles and Minimum Frame Rates - AMD Fury X Final Words
Comments Locked

141 Comments

View All Comments

  • Oxford Guy - Monday, September 28, 2015 - link

    "If this trend continues it actually looks like the best processor for gaming might be the Pentium g3580."

    That's funny since I once suggested that Nintendo use a fast dual core for its upcoming gaming system along with an Nvidia GPU — basically the opposite of the other consoles' many-core slow APU setup. I wonder if a triple core design would really be the optimal chip design for gaming, balancing power consumption with clock speed.
  • Kerome - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link

    Gameplay code is notoriously hard to parallelise, so it's likely to be advantageous to have just a couple of big cores than a bunch of smaller ones. It's interesting to see that Apple has taken exactly this approach with their latest A9 SoC for the iPhone 6S. Although of course the included PowerVR 7XT series GPU doesn't compare to an NVidia desktop solution.

    Very few applications on mobile come close to maxing out the A8, let alone the A9. It will be interesting to see where they take it.
  • tec-goblin - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link

    I am still waiting for the integrated cards benchmarks!
  • Enterprise24 - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link

    What about 780 Ti ?
  • remosito - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link

    Are you planning on doing benchmarks with the new 15.9.1 AMD drivers?
  • Powerrush - Saturday, October 3, 2015 - link

    http://wccftech.com/asynchronous-compute-investiga...
  • Slash3 - Monday, October 5, 2015 - link

    Any download link? I didn't see one in the article, although I'm quite tired and may have missed it.
  • lprates - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link

    Great graphics
  • lprates - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link

    Great graphics
  • lprates - Sunday, October 18, 2015 - link

    Great graphics

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now