DOOM (2016) first benchmark review

Ieldra

Ieldra

I Promise to RTFM
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,539
Doom (final) im Benchmark-Test: Schaurig-schöner Splatterspaß - Benchmark-Ticker läuft

KMPOzaa.png
http://i.imgur.com/KMPOzaa.png
 
Hmm... looks like maybe a 1080 could get 50-60 fps at 4K. I guess at 4K you can dial back AA a bit.
 
R9 390 performing worse than a R9 380x? Something is clearly wrong with that.
 
That is what it looks like its only at lower resolutions where GCN1.1 cards have issues, so pixel shader and compute shaders are becoming more of a bottleneck as the res increases.
 
Is there a Timedemo one can benchmark with in Doom?
 
not sure haven't bought it yet, only going to buy it after the single player reviews are out lol.
 
razor1 said:
That is what it looks like its only at lower resolutions where GCN1.1 cards have issues, so pixel shader and compute shaders are becoming more of a bottleneck as the res increases.
Click to expand...

it seems like a bug now, lots of people tested with tesselation off in drivers and it makes no difference, maybe raw polythroughput ? but difference shouldn't be as pronounced (between Fury and Hawaii for example) as it is in this benchmark

razor1 said:
not sure haven't bought it yet, only going to buy it after the single player reviews are out lol.
Click to expand...

same haha, but everyone i know is saying SP is great
 
razor1 said:
That is what it looks like its only at lower resolutions where GCN1.1 cards have issues, so pixel shader and compute shaders are becoming more of a bottleneck as the res increases.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the settings used TSSAA 8TX favored the nvidia cards? Cause my goodness I had hardly a problem playing the multiplayer around 75fps at 1440p...This chart is showing 33fps lol;) yea ok. No way this game will be any harder performance wise to run than the last few Wolf Games
 
razor1 said:
not sure haven't bought it yet, only going to buy it after the single player reviews are out lol.
Click to expand...

Me too
primetime said:
I was thinking the settings used TSSAA 8TX favored the nvidia cards? Cause my goodness I had hardly a problem playing the multiplayer around 75fps at 1440p...This chart is showing 33fps lol;) yea ok
Click to expand...

In the beta?
 
Ieldra said:
Me too


In the beta?
Click to expand...
yes....what else? lol I see now it had a frame cap at 60 so it was that instead.....I know i remembered it not having much issues running near max frame cap
DOOMx64_2016_04_16_14_38_56_652_zpseebnrsrb.jpg
 
Last edited:
primetime said:
yes....what else? lol I see now it had a frame cap at 60 so it was that instead.....I know i remembered it not having much issues running near max frame cap
DOOMx64_2016_04_16_14_38_56_652_zpseebnrsrb.jpg
Click to expand...

The beta was running at unknown settings, this is at max settings
 
So one real-world game performance result we have for 1080 albeit still just summary info goes back to the announcement last week.
They showed Doom obviously using beta drivers with Vulkan and the game on absolute top settings (nightmare) running between 130fps to a brief peak near 190fps.
pcgameshardware has done a recent review of Doom and the results are interesting even at 1920x1080 (which was the presentations setting as well); they used the setting below nightmare so less shadow detail.
In their test an AIB 980ti Palit Super Jetstream had a minimum 125 and average 158.7 - See OP chart, thanks Ieldra.

So that is a surprising result, OK the 1080 was using Vulkan but considering the optimisation benefits are yet to translate to healthy boost in DX12 for NVIDIA this still looks impressive (or at least Vulkan is working better than DX12 lol), especially as the 1080FE was on the very top setting and the 980ti was a notch below and also 1080FE on beta drivers.
Fingers crossed pcgameshardware will repeat their test once the Vulkan patch is rolled out for a better comparison.

But looks like it should raise some eyebrows regarding initial real-world result for Founders Edition 1080, anyway better information IMO than any supposed "leaked" results popping up on the internet.


Cheers
 
Last edited:
UnimatrixZero said:
R9 Fury X trading blows with the GTX 980. Whoa, this definitely seems off.
Click to expand...
Something probably with the AMD drivers, more of a concern with AMD is just how low the 390 is.....
It is below the much cheaper 380x and also around the 960.

Also to say regarding 1080/980ti.
Bear in mind the average is probably anywhere between 135-148fps for the 1080FE on nightmare setting against 158 for the AIB 980ti on ultra shadows.
BUT and this is important, the max nightmare settings do hit the GPUs hard; according to the review need over 6GB VRAM to use them.
In the review link provided by Ielda, they showed a quick and dirty comparison between nightmare and ultra; Ultra shadows was 76fps and nightmare was 56fps.
Full-HD Klickvergleich
 
Last edited:
CSI_PC said:
Something probably with the AMD drivers, more of a concern with AMD is just how low the 390 is.....
It is below the much cheaper 380x and also around the 960.

Also to say regarding 1080/980ti.
Bear in mind the average is probably anywhere between 135-148fps for the 1080FE on nightmare setting against 158 for the AIB 980ti on ultra.
BUT and this is important, the max nightmare settings do hit the GPUs hard; according to the review need over 6GB VRAM to set them.
In the review link provided by Ielda, they showed a quick and dirty comparison between nightmare and ultra; Ultra was 76fps and nightmare was 56fps.
Full-HD Klickvergleich
Click to expand...

This is actually nightmare settings with ultra shadows essentially, who knows when the vulkan version will launch, afaik its just a vulkan wrapper
 
Ieldra said:
This is actually nightmare settings with ultra shadows essentially, who knows when the vulkan version will launch, afaik its just a vulkan wrapper
Click to expand...
Yeah,
which is why it nearly is ok to compare with the 1080FE, and at least they showed how much of a hit they experience setting Nightmare shadows (link I provided opens that up shows it to be a fair chunk).
I assume they did not benchmark with Nightmare setting also for Shadows due to needing 6GB, which is only supported by a few cards on their list.
Cheers
 
CSI_PC said:
So that is a surprising result, OK the 1080 was using Vulkan but considering the optimisation benefits are yet to translate to healthy boost in DX12 for NVIDIA this still looks impressive (or at least Vulkan is working better than DX12 lol)
Click to expand...

Well I guess when you start getting into the 130 - 190 fps territory you're looking at CPU optimizations having a positive effect, which Vulkan could do especially if they're using a multi-threaded implementation. I don't know if the OpenGL version is using 4.5 and AZDO stuff, but id Tech folks tend to be OpenGL wizards, so who knows.
 
jwcalla said:
It's OpenGL. What do you expect from AMD?
Click to expand...
I see people blaming GameWorks already... in an OpenGL game.
They'll fix the driver within a few weeks and get praised for beating "GimpWorks". Classic AMD.

After trying to play Rage many years ago on my HD5870, these results do not surprise me. AMD has a history of sloppy OpenGL support.
 
jwcalla said:
Well I guess when you start getting into the 130 - 190 fps territory you're looking at CPU optimizations having a positive effect, which Vulkan could do especially if they're using a multi-threaded implementation. I don't know if the OpenGL version is using 4.5 and AZDO stuff, but id Tech folks tend to be OpenGL wizards, so who knows.
Click to expand...

Well to hit the floor running from both a new API and a beta driver for a new GPU would be some kind of wonder result.
But also bear in mind how disappointing DX12 has been to date in general for NVIDIA and that also includes CPU optimisations.
Maybe Vulkan will be everything DX12 should had been.
Cheers
 
970 user here. I play this game at 4K, and while the frame rates are as this benchmark states in the high 20s, it no kidding doesn't drop below 22-24. That's pretty impressive to me. A brand new game that looks absolutely stunning and it runs incredibly well all things considered.
 
Man, my 290X looks pretty bad up there. Worse than a 780 and 960?!?! That doesnt sound right at all.
 
Has there been a deep dive in the rendering tech behind Doom? Visuals don't look so hot in the vids posted so far. At least not anything that would explain why Kepler and Tahiti are doing so poorly.
 
Last edited:
Well I have played around an hour, am gonna call it a night. First thing I did was completely max out the settings ingame, i imagine people have already started messing with console settings as well.

So far at 1440p performance has been very impressive, very very impressive. The lowest framerate dip I noticed was in the low 70s, and despite gpu load being 99% throughout my whole session, gpu temps barely peaked over 60c... 61c max

Here are some screenshots including the settings menu

 
with a 290 im getting 27fps looking down the hall in the first room at 2560 ultra
changing most settings to high dropping af or aa doesnt seem to make much difference but droping shadows to high does fps went up to 37-38
overclocking the 290 to 1200mhz got it up to 44-45fps
most the game is 60+ it doesnt drop below that very often
graphics outside of the first room are very average
looking forward to the vulcan patch and new amd drivers to get it running silky smooth all settings ultra

amd 290 seems to be running with opengl 4.3
 
Ieldra said:
Well I have played around an hour, am gonna call it a night. First thing I did was completely max out the settings ingame, i imagine people have already started messing with console settings as well.

So far at 1440p performance has been very impressive, very very impressive. The lowest framerate dip I noticed was in the low 70s, and despite gpu load being 99% throughout my whole session, gpu temps barely peaked over 60c... 61c max

Here are some screenshots including the settings menu

Click to expand...

ok first question. What are you using for an osd? havent seen that one before
 
dasa said:
with a 290 im getting 27fps looking down the hall in the first room at 2560 ultra
changing most settings to high dropping af or aa doesnt seem to make much difference but droping shadows to high does fps went up to 37-38
overclocking the 290 to 1200mhz got it up to 44-45fps
most the game is 60+ it doesnt drop below that very often
graphics outside of the first room are very average
looking forward to the vulcan patch and new amd drivers to get it running silky smooth all settings ultra

amd 290 seems to be running with opengl 4.3
Click to expand...
you using the 16.5.2 drivers?
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
I see people blaming GameWorks already... in an OpenGL game.
They'll fix the driver within a few weeks and get praised for beating "GimpWorks". Classic AMD.

After trying to play Rage many years ago on my HD5870, these results do not surprise me. AMD has a history of sloppy OpenGL support.
Click to expand...


Who said Gameworks here?
 
Rvenger said:
Who said Gameworks here?
Click to expand...
I bet a few other sites, trend on a few is for GameWorks to be blamed for everything or NVIDIA deliberately caused it, quite depressing when they then do not apply same logic to other games that work well using both AMD/NVIDIA tech, or the fact PureHair also lowered NVIDIA performance by about 5-10% in RotTR while also not giving any benefits (looks nice for AMD though especially snow).
Cheers
 
CSI_PC said:
I bet a few other sites, trend on a few is for GameWorks to be blamed for everything or NVIDIA deliberately caused it, quite depressing when they then do not apply same logic to other games that work well using both AMD/NVIDIA tech, or the fact PureHair also lowered NVIDIA performance by about 5-10% in RotTR while also not giving any benefits (looks nice for AMD though especially snow).
Cheers
Click to expand...

So nothing new basically :p
I remember a time when amd and Intel were considered the big players, and nvidia the underdog...
 
Ieldra said:
Well I have played around an hour, am gonna call it a night. First thing I did was completely max out the settings ingame, i imagine people have already started messing with console settings as well.

So far at 1440p performance has been very impressive, very very impressive. The lowest framerate dip I noticed was in the low 70s, and despite gpu load being 99% throughout my whole session, gpu temps barely peaked over 60c... 61c max

Here are some screenshots including the settings menu
Click to expand...
How much difference did you note on your system going between Nightmare and Ultra shadows?
Being a pain, also curious how that setting also scales when comparing between 1440p and 1080p :)
Thanks as always
 
dasa said:
with a 290 im getting 27fps looking down the hall in the first room at 2560 ultra
changing most settings to high dropping af or aa doesnt seem to make much difference but droping shadows to high does fps went up to 37-38
overclocking the 290 to 1200mhz got it up to 44-45fps
most the game is 60+ it doesnt drop below that very often
graphics outside of the first room are very average
looking forward to the vulcan patch and new amd drivers to get it running silky smooth all settings ultra

amd 290 seems to be running with opengl 4.3
Click to expand...

What the hell? Hopefully Ill get to play some tonight when I get home. Ill be at 1080 with a 290X and still on 16.3.2 but Im curious to see how my rig handles it. Doesn't look like I'll be getting the performance I had hoped judging by everybody else's experiences.
 
CSI_PC said:
How much difference did you note on your system going between Nightmare and Ultra shadows?
Being a pain, also curious how that setting also scales when comparing between 1440p and 1080p :)
Thanks as always
Click to expand...


pcgameshardware.de posted a video of their benchmark run, I was thinking I'd test that exact same run at the same settings they use @ 1080, 1440p and also I wanna test Ultra vs Nightmare shadows. Should be easy, they just run around the first hall you fight in after getting the suit. I have to say though, every game should run like this... Leaving GCN issues aside, the high minimums make it a joy to play, really
 
I agree that it runs fantastic. I'm running it at Ultra 1080 on my 970 and it never drops below 60 FPS. I could probably bump it up to 1440 and still gets 40 FPS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top