DX12 support has just been added to 3DMark showing unbelievable results with DX12 delivering up to 20 times faster performance than DX11. AMD Radeon graphics cards are showing the most significant gains compared to their Nvidia GeForce GTX counterparts.

Testing has shown in fact that with AMD’s most recent driver update the R9 290X is not only on par with the $999 12GB GeForce GTX Titan X, but also maintains a minute edge against the Nvidia flagship. When compared against Nvidia’s $549 GTX 980 the R9 290X from AMD delivered a 33% performance lead.

AMD R9 290X As Fast As Titan X in DX12 Enabled 3DMark – 33% Faster Than GTX 980

Results from both  PCWorld

PC Per http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/3DMark-API-Overhead-Feature-Test-Early-DX12-Performance

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-290x-fast-titan-dx12-enabled-3dmark-33-faster-gtx-980/#ixzz3VWkMVdqG

Damn!!! Congrats AMD!!!!

Well there goes my need to update.

But... But... What is this nonsense!? AMD's drivers are said to be crap! 


On a more serious note, I can't wait to see the kind of performance the Rx 300 series will have!

I've always been an AMD GPU guy (I could never stand the practices of NVidia), and later this year, I'm getting a brand new computer. The new cards with HBM are intriguing, to say the least. And that's most likely what 'll be getting once the cards are out. 

Wonder what boost my r9 280x will get. Dang I'm kind of regretting not paying the extra $70 for an r9 290,

Hugely misleading title - this is API Overhead Feature Test, and "both Futuremark and Microsoft continue to push upon us that this feature test is not a reasonable test of GPU performance".

Lol. Way to bend the truth. This is about CPU performance, not GPU performance. The test used is only to measure overhead and not overall GPU power. The scenario described in which the 290X performs equal is completely fictional and not even close to any real life gaming scenario. Of course any GPU will perform equal when running into a CPU bottleneck.
Both Mantle and DX12 will do close to nothing for actual gaming PCs because usually those already feature strong CPUs. 99% of current games run into a GPU bottleneck before ever reaching the CPU bottleneck.

Whoever owns a 290X or Titan X and frequently runs into CPU bottlenecks is doing something wrong with their lives.

This is only for draw calls though. Not fps.

The biggest differnce though will be for people with AMD CPUs.

You ll see those 8core weak fx cpus equal or beating most of the older intel i5's,
that where kicking their butts before in DX11 games.

This is about draw call efficiency with DX12, not GPU performance. However, the big pull from the first article is this:

"Interestingly, AMD shows little to no scaling between the DX11 single threaded and DX11 multi-threaded scores with the API Overhead Feature Test, which gives credence to the idea that AMD's current driver stack is not as optimized for DX11 gaming as it should be."

Everyone pretty much knew this, but having evidence to support it is nice.

Nvidia has better DX11 drivers though, where cpu overhead was smaller than on AMD drivers.
So I think that alone, will make DX12 help AMD more than it does Nvidia.

Then there's the fact that FreeSync > G-Sync and cheaper, with more monitors supporting it than G-sync.

I hope AMD wins back some market share in the GPU discrete sales.
They need the cash, and no one wants to see a nvidia monopoly.

Plus we need a strong competitor against nvidia, or they ll pull tacky stuff like G-sync and increase gpu prices to silly amounts.

If it wasnt for amd, would we even know how silly G-sync was? that extra 150$ or so modual that theres really no need for?