Doom (4?) performance on Radeon and GeForce

[alamox]

to be honest AMD's performance are better than what i expected, they are usualy bad at openGL compared to nvidia, Vulkan patch should balance things out, i just hope they dont go cheap on vulkan port and do it correctly, that API need to shine.

[KingKeith55]

I mean if you could get the game to actually run in the first place then this would be a realistic test.

[Humbug]

8 hours ago, alamox said:

i just hope they dont go cheap on vulkan port and do it correctly

Yep,  we have seen that proven so far with DX12, unless really done right you don't get a direct performance gain.

On rise of the Tomb Raider and Hitman there was no visible framerate benefit. There may have been better CPU utilization under the hood though.

[IGJoe2192]

I always get a giggle when I see the Fury X with "only 4Gb" of memory jumping ahead of the 980Ti with 6Gb because I have seen so many Nvidia fan boys bash AMD for only having 4Gb on their highest card. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 hours ago, IGJoe2192 said:

I always get a giggle when I see the Fury X with "only 4Gb" of memory jumping ahead of the 980Ti with 6Gb because I have seen so many Nvidia fan boys bash AMD for only having 4Gb on their highest card. 

lol...you must not get a giggle very often then don't you?

[Belgarathian]

Bought this game over the weekend... Great fast paced action FPS. You have to keep moving to stay alive, and use the terrain to your advantage. No more chest high wall, run for cover shooting. Brilliant. 

[Nineshadow]

On 5/12/2016 at 10:25 PM, Prysin said:

OpenGL are atrocious for gaming anyway.

So Nvidia is simply best of the worst.

OpenGL is ok.

Its main issue is all the legacy stuff and the lack of interest in it by major devs and manufacturers.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Nineshadow said:

OpenGL is ok.

Its main issue is all the legacy stuff and the lack of interest in it by major devs and manufacturers.

it is not. It lacks shitloads of features compared to even older DX versions

[Nineshadow]

7 minutes ago, Prysin said:

it is not. It lacks shitloads of features compared to even older DX versions

Uh....no?

The current openGL spec is actually slightly ahead of D3D 11 in terms of features. Not to mention the extensions.

Implementations vary depending on the platform though (mobile is pretty bad tbh).

[Bouzoo]

Even more benchmarks from Techspot.

 

Spoilers are broken for mw so I won't paste full pics.

 

 

[raphidy]

16.5.2 is making my 390 crash, no wonder why it's down there.

[RagnarokDel]

The Fury X, like always in those benchmarks is running at about 100-150 mhz too slow on the GPU clock and 100 mhz on the memory.

 

then they compare it to a 350 mhz overclock on the 980 ti

On 13/5/2016 at 3:39 PM, zMeul said:

what's strange, they didn't make the game to run in Linux 

I'm sure all 3 people playing on linux would have bought the game and justified the development cost.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 hours ago, Prysin said:

it is not. It lacks shitloads of features compared to even older DX versions

one thing for sure: it looks fucking amazing and it's butter smooth...like...liquid smooth...have you played the game or you're just complaining about something you have zero clue about?! (as usual)

[grayperview]

I haven't pick up the game yet, ill wait till its 6.99 on a steam sale, it looks fun, but i doubt it will hold my attention for more than an hour before i get bored of it.

[Demonking]

On 5/13/2016 at 4:34 PM, Dabombinable said:

Pst, the API is the cause...

Can he Hold an L please 

[Prysin]

7 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

one thing for sure: it looks fucking amazing and it's butter smooth...like...liquid smooth...have you played the game or you're just complaining about something you have zero clue about?! (as usual)

I dont need to play the game to understand that the performance at 1440p, for a 970 is FAAAAAR below par in terms of fast paced FPS. Hell 103FPS avg at 1080p?! YOU NEED WAY MORE THEN THAT FOR THAT FAST PACED GAME.

 

Try play UT2004 or Q3T at 60-100 FPS. Ghosting is a fucking nightmare.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 hours ago, Prysin said:

I dont need to play the game to understand that the performance at 1440p, for a 970 is FAAAAAR below par in terms of fast paced FPS. Hell 103FPS avg at 1080p?! YOU NEED WAY MORE THEN THAT FOR THAT FAST PACED GAME.

 

Try play UT2004 or Q3T at 60-100 FPS. Ghosting is a fucking nightmare.

humm...again i think you're clueless.

I play on a 2560x1440 IPS gaming monitor with Gsync and i can tell you that you absolutely DON'T need anything more than 80FPS for this game to feel liquid smooth on that kind of monitor with absolutely ZERO ghosting what so ever and absolute PERFET smoothness of animation and unperseptible response time.

And an overclocked to 1460mhz GTX 980ti like the asus strix that i have in there on ABSOLUTE max settings 1440P can sustain 120FPS+ consistently in multiplayer matchup.

Just drop anti-aliasing one notch and use HIGH preset instead of ULTRA on a GTX 970 and you're there at 120FPS...but even 100FPS is more than enough even for that kind of fast paced shooter..

 

Don't trust me? buy the game and see me on the field (ask via PM for add to steam.) i will destroy you.

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

humm...again i think you're clueless.

I play on a 2560x1440 IPS gaming monitor with Gsync and i can tell you that you absolutely DON'T need anything more than 80FPS for this game to feel liquid smooth on that kind of monitor with absolutely ZERO ghosting what so ever and absolute PERFET smoothness of animation and unperseptible response time.

And an overclocked to 1460mhz GTX 980ti like the asus strix that i have in there on ABSOLUTE max settings 1440P can sustain 120FPS+ consistently in multiplayer matchup.

Just drop anti-aliasing one notch and use HIGH preset instead of ULTRA on a GTX 970 and you're there at 120FPS...but even 100FPS is more than enough even for that kind of fast paced shooter..

 

Don't trust me? buy the game and see me on the field (ask via PM for add to steam.) i will destroy you.

The reason it is smooth, is G-Sync. Try a non G-sync monitor or just turn G-Sync off and it will not be nearly that smooth.

Then again, my point is. YOU HAVE A OVERCLOCKED 980TI.

 

Reread my post. GTX 970 -> 103 FPS 1080p. That aint enough. It just aint.

 

Then again, i will admitt. I never really liked the Doom franchise, so i wont be buying this one either. Yes ive played  Doom and Doom 2

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Reread my post. GTX 970 -> 103 FPS 1080p. That aint enough. It just aint.

i absolutely think it is...this is not even an overclocked GTX 970...and this is on maximum settings...drop setting one notch, overclock to 1450mhz, launch the game at 2560x1440 and i'm sure you have around 90FPS+ in multiplayer maps which is perfectly fine...VR is 90FPS...because 90FPS is LIQUID SMOOTH...all you need from there is a good internet connection and a server with a ping that is as low as possible.

 

The game run extremely well it's a very light game to run IMHO and a GTX 970 is MORE then enough to get a good gaming experience in that game at 1440p...absolutely no problem what so ever. Get me that system, and i will still destroy you.

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i absolutely think it is...this is not even an overclocked GTX 970...and this is on maximum settings...drop setting one notch, overclock to 1450mhz, launch the game at 2560x1440 and i'm sure you have around 90FPS+ in multiplayer maps which is perfectly fine...VR is 90FPS...because 90FPS is LIQUID SMOOTH...all you need from there is a good internet connection and a server with a ping that is as low as possible.

 

The game run extremely well it's a very light game to run IMHO and a GTX 970 is MORE then enough to get a good gaming experience in that game at 1440p...absolutely no problem what so ever. Get me that system, and i will still destroy you.

well, are you talking single player or multi player?

 

Cuz single player, i can believe to be smooth. Multi player, no. Its kinda like BF4, a G3258 + 750Ti is fine in single player, and thus it looks fucking great on benchmarks. But on multiplayer it shits itself, same with GPU, due to all the explosions and particle effects.

[i_build_nanosuits]

10 minutes ago, Prysin said:

well, are you talking single player or multi player?

 

Cuz single player, i can believe to be smooth. Multi player, no. Its kinda like BF4, a G3258 + 750Ti is fine in single player, and thus it looks fucking great on benchmarks. But on multiplayer it shits itself, same with GPU, due to all the explosions and particle effects.

ohh gosh...ok.

In fact, in doom...the single player compaign is often where you will find the biggest performance hits...in those big open areas where there is a lot of AI demons attacking you and fireing at you and shit...in multiplayer the game is not even as taxing since it's a very limited number of players and the levels are rather not soo complex with not too much visual bling like what you see for example in the foundry level of the single player compaign.

 

And for the love of god why are you talking about G3258?! get something better this is the worst crap ever for modern games...regardless of the GPU you use you're bound that have a stuttery system...just handling the network part of just about any game is almost too much stress for that little bug.

 

I play battlefield 3 and 4 a lot...and i'm quite good at it...and you know what? i used to play battlefield 4 with a GTX 780 on this 1440p monitor and the game was running at 100FPS on HIGH settings in that game..it was very easy to run and get good framerates, and DOOM run even better than battlefield 3 and 4...and a GTX 970 is quite a bit faster than a 780 these days...expecially in those benchmark results makes me question them a whole lot...but anyways, i have absolutely NO doubt in my mind that a GTX 970 is more than enough to play this game competitively and win at 2560x1440...no doubt. single player and multiplayer...no issues.

[Raytsou]

What did we learn from this:

 

1. Something is horribly wrong with OpenGL. Big suprise.

2. AMD cards perform like shit with OpenGL. Totally unexpected.

 

Seriously, this benchmark only provides further verification of what we already know: OpenGL is redundant and completely shit, requiring a lot of optimization to work well. I'd be perfectly fine with Vulkan, but OpenGL can go to hell.

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, Raytsou said:

What did we learn from this:

 

1. Something is horribly wrong with OpenGL. Big suprise.

2. AMD cards perform like shit with OpenGL. Totally unexpected.

 

Seriously, this benchmark only provides further verification of what we already know: OpenGL is redundant and completely shit, requiring a lot of optimization to work well. I'd be perfectly fine with Vulkan, but OpenGL can go to hell.

i think what you should have learned from this, is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about until you've actually played the game.

[Raytsou]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i think what you should have learned from this, is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about until you've actually played the game.

I could totally be wrong, but this is what I'm getting from the benchmarks.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Raytsou said:

I could totally be wrong, but this is what I'm getting from the benchmarks.

nahhh the game is running super well it's supidly well optimised and it looks really good...it's awesome actually. And those numbers on AMD cards even though they are a bit lower i'm sure it's still running very well..the game is relatively light despite some very nice graphical effects and what not...it's a good game and i don't think vulcan will improve anything at least for me personaly as it's already flawless IMHO. WOuld have wished for a slightly longer compaign though but you know, it is what it is!