Doom (2016) Alpha OpenGL Benchmarks Surface – AMD Radeon faster than Nvidia Geforce (for now)

[Mr_Troll]

Doom (2016) Alpha OpenGL Benchmarks Surface – AMD Radeon and Nvidia Geforce Graphics Cards Put To The Test
 

Quote

Doom (2016) is an upcoming game that is of significant interest to enthusiasts, one of the reasons being the fact that it is being made in the id Tech 6 game engine. This particular engine is based entirely on the OpenGL API, which means that the usual optimizations of DirectX achieved by both GPU vendors don’t apply. In the preliminary testing done byGameGPU – the benchmarks show Radeons having quite an edge over their green counterparts – something which is probably due to the underlying architectural differences.

 

AMD galore in preliminary Doom (2016) alpha benchmarks
 

Quote

 

Very few games use the OGL standard over DX and because of this, IHVs tend to focus primarily on DirectX optimizations in their drivers. With the advent of Vulkan however, this will change completely as both IHVs have been very enthusiastic about the onslaught of low level APIs. Doom 2016 does not support Vulkan API and is instead based on the good ol’ OpenGL variant. As always, the specifications of the test bench  matter a lot but in this case the configuration is perfectly engineered to eliminate any CPU-side bottlenecks. With a very high end processor and loads of  RAM, it leaves only one variable in place: the GPU:

• Quote

   

  • CPU: Intel Core i7-5960X
  • Motherboard: Gigabyte X99 UD7 WIFI
  • RAM: 32 GB DDR4 2666 Mhz
  • Storage: OCZ Vertez 120 GB SSD (x3)
  • Driver Nvidia: Nvidia Geforce/ION Driver 361.75
  • Driver AMD: Radeon Crimson Edition 16.11.1
  • OS: Windows 10 Pro

   

1080p:

 

 

1440p:

 

4k:

 

 

Memory usage:

 

Cpu usage Intel:

 

 

Cpu usage AMD :

 

Quote

 

To begin with the 1080p benchmarks, all AMD high end offerings perform better than Nvidia counterparts. In fact the R9 290, R9 290X, Fury X and the Nano all perform better than similarly priced Geforce graphics cards. The R9 Fury was not tested, but by all rights it should be just under the Fury X. Everything in the Geforce lineup from the GTX 980 Ti to below come in after the R9 290. Of course in a game such as this, and at the 1080p resolution, all AMD and Nvidia high end cards output a maximum fps of 60 – with the actual difference visible at the minimum fps side.

 

It is a somewhat similar story for the Doom (2106) 4k benchmarks as well, although the average maximum fps is no longer 60. AMD’s Fury X GPU manages to score 41 max fps with the 980 Ti clocking in at around 34 fps. GameGPU also tested SLI and Crossfire configurations as well as the R9 295X2 but keep in mind that multi-GPU is not supported in the current build so they will perform exactly the same as a single GPU configuration. On the 4K side of things, the Geforce GTX 980 Ti performs just above the 290X  and just under the R9 Nano. The GTX 980 comes in under the Radeon 280X. Funnily enough, the Radeon R9 380X actually under performs and is lower down the line – probably due to the fact that its bus width is lower than its predecessor.

 

The memory usage stats collected by GameGPU show that Doom 2016 consumes anywhere from 1.8 Gb to 2.7 GB of vRAM so memory is clearly not a bottleneck for high end offerings with 3GB or more vRAM. The showdown, it seems is happening between the raw performance of a card and the optimizations offered by the drivers to run this game. We will probably see game performance increase before the title actually hits the shelves so these numbers are far from set in stone. This title also helps emphasize the need of a low level API, and why low level APIs like DX12 and Vulkan have been a long time coming. 

Wow a game that runs on  a good old OpenGL. Thats rare. Eventually Nvidia will get better later on cause they are better at openGL.

 

Source:http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/doom-alpha-test-gpu.html

http://wccftech.com/doom-2016-alpha-benchmarks-geforce-amd-radeon/

 

[Nena Trinity]

But AMD cannot do OpenGL good at all on Linux...

[Loleo]

Nice!

[Misanthrope]

Uhm...ok

 

This honestly looks like 1st place on the special Olympics: still fucking retarded. Get this shit on Vulkan. 

[ImBleu]

Respectable numbers for high-end Nvidia cards still, but for the R9 380s to be pulling ahead of GTX980s and 980Tis. Dayum.

 

 

[Nacho Marco Segui]

A single nano beating the 980ti SLI?

 

[Tedol]

no support for  SLI or Crossfire ? 0_0

[daniellearmouth]

To be honest, I smell either bogus numbers, or bizarre optimisation on the end of idTech 6.

[Godlygamer23]

5 minutes ago, Nacho Marco Segui said:

A single nano beating the 980ti SLI?

Bear in mind that the SLI setup does not get anything at all.

[Nacho Marco Segui]

3 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Bear in mind that the SLI setup does not get anything at all.

Yeah, I thought of that after posting, thanks for pointing that out

[Nineshadow]

@Mr_Troll Modern OpenGL is actually on par with D3D (11) as far as features go. Why openGL didn't win the fight against d3d is another topic which involves quite a little bit of history , but let's just say that ~2005 things started shifting a lot in the directon of DirectX when Microsoft started pulling heavily in the marketing department for DirectX.

 

Anyway , openGL has faster draw calls than d3d , has access to newest GPU features via vendor extensions , etc. etc. It's actually pretty damn good. The only thing is that , since most games run on DirectX , the GPU manufacturers ended up optimizing mainly for that API , and not for openGL as well. ;_;

 

Let's see how Vulkan is going to turn out. It's basically OpenGL 5.0 (it was originally called "glNext") , but they wanted to break free of the existing openGL paradigms, legacy code and whatever since it's going to be a much lower-level API than openGL.

[Citadelen]

This is interesting, a 290X beating a 980Ti.

[daniellearmouth]

2 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Bear in mind that the SLI setup does not get anything at all.

That's basically telling me "avoid for now", if only one of my 7770s is gonna work right now.

 

Here's hoping they can implement proper multi-GPU support somewhere down the line.

[BuckGup]

22 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Uhm...ok

 

This honestly looks like 1st place on the special Olympics: still fucking retarded. Get this shit on Vulkan. 

I little late I am guessing since they built the game one didn't like it restarted everything and has been in development for a couple years now. I am guessing new game now like in a year or two will have Vulkan an DX12

[Misanthrope]

17 minutes ago, daniellearmouth said:

To be honest, I smell either bogus numbers, or bizarre optimisation on the end of idTech 6.

Or as I said: Ancient and by modern standards shit API

[Valentyn]

22 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Bear in mind that the SLI setup does not get anything at all.

 

23 minutes ago, Tedol said:

no support for  SLI or Crossfire ? 0_0

 

28 minutes ago, Nacho Marco Segui said:

A single nano beating the 980ti SLI?

 

 

The idTech engines have never once supported Multi GPU solutions. Seems the latest game does not either.

[Notional]

This shouldn't be a surprise. AMD and NVidia has two very different approaches to graphics:

 

• AMD has very beastly hardware, but are not focused/good at optimizing games well for the hardware.
• NVidia has weaker hardware, but focuses on driver optimization to bring out the performance.

So far NVidia's approach seems to be the better, but now that we are getting higher performance in DX12 and Vulkan. I think we will see AMD shoot past NVidia in performance on older GCN cards vs 700 and 900 series in DX12 and Vulkan games. There is only so much optimization you can do on the driver level. Something that will be less relevant as devs program directly for the hardware in these new low level API's.

 

Interesting to see that AMD cards are vsync? limited in these benches. So they could be quite a lot faster!

[Sakkura]

40 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Uhm...ok

 

This honestly looks like 1st place on the special Olympics: still fucking retarded. Get this shit on Vulkan. 

It's retarded to expect a game coming out in Q2 2016 to support an API whose final release happened in Q1 2016. It hasn't even been two freaking weeks yet. You think development on Doom started within the last two weeks?

30 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

This is interesting, a 290X beating a 980Ti.

Plain 290 as well.

[Thiback]

Seeing the r9 380 beating the 980ti, I would take this benchmark with a pinch of salt and wait for another benchmark round by other sources before accepting this. These graphs seems to shuffle too much the normal average position of those GPU to be considered accurate now.  Also, this is just an Alpha.

[Humbug]

err guys are we sure this is openGL?

I'm pretty sure they switched to DX11 when Carmack left.

 

Also while it's commonplace to see AMD being faster than Nvidia in directX... I have never seen AMD win in openGL.

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Uhm...ok

 

This honestly looks like 1st place on the special Olympics: still fucking retarded. Get this shit on Vulkan. 

sorry, Bethesda game. Expect a halfwarsed polished turd

[SuperShires]

When 1 R9 280X beats a 780 TI SLI @ 1440p

[Humbug]

1 hour ago, Nena360 said:

But AMD cannot do OpenGL good at all on Linux...

same on windows. It's their openGL driver which is slow. Not about Linux or windows. Just that AAA games actually still use openGL on windows and there is no option of directX on Linux, so openGL performance comes into focus.

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, Prysin said:

sorry, Bethesda game. Expect a halfwarsed polished turd

Actually I'd expect better from iD normally, but you're right.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Nineshadow said:

@Mr_Troll Modern OpenGL is actually on par with D3D (11) as far as features go. Why openGL didn't win the fight against d3d is another topic which involves quite a little bit of history , but let's just say that ~2005 things started shifting a lot in the directon of DirectX when Microsoft started pulling heavily in the marketing department for DirectX.

 

Anyway , openGL has faster draw calls than d3d , has access to newest GPU features via vendor extensions , etc. etc. It's actually pretty damn good. The only thing is that , since most games run on DirectX , the GPU manufacturers ended up optimizing mainly for that API , and not for openGL as well. ;_;

 

Let's see how Vulkan is going to turn out. It's basically OpenGL 5.0 (it was originally called "glNext") , but they wanted to break free of the existing openGL paradigms, legacy code and whatever since it's going to be a much lower-level API than openGL.

Yes and Linux actually has less overhead than windows (for some distros before MS supporters lose their shit) and so on but much like Linux the problem is exactly the same here: OpenGL driver support's a fucking joke in 2016.