• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

DOOM (2016) first benchmark review

Ieldra said:
I lold. It's pretty damning that my most vivid memory of Doom 3 was trying to figure out how to use flashlight without holstering gun, and my surprise when I discovered you couldn't. Lol.
Click to expand...

I bought my Radeon 9500 Pro (flashed to 9700 pro) just for HL2 and Doom 3, I enjoyed both games :|
 
RamonGTP said:
Low to mid 4GB range usually but that jumped up to 5GB on Kadingir Sanctum
Click to expand...

Just goes to show how unoptimized Dark Souls 3 is for PC. My VRAM usage goes up to about 5.6GB in some areas and the textures are laughable at some points.
 
i cant believe how well my 980 handles this at 4k. everything on ultra with no aa and im at 35-45fps
 
Brent_Justice said:
4K at SMAA and "Ultra" global setting, which is playable on both.

You cannot set Nightmare settings on Fury X, it gives a warning message that a video card with 5GB or greater dedicated VRAM is required.

Also, I do notice a few hiccups on the Fury X while playing, as if it is streaming in textures, which makes sense. This game probably does not use Fury X's dynamic VRAM capability at all.

At 1440p its a wash, and not very challenging, both GPUs are underutilized a great deal at 1440p. I have to use 4K simply for the reason that only at 4K does any performance advantage show itself.
Click to expand...
60 Hz :vomit:
 
Brent_Justice said:
4K at SMAA and "Ultra" global setting, which is playable on both.

You cannot set Nightmare settings on Fury X, it gives a warning message that a video card with 5GB or greater dedicated VRAM is required.

Also, I do notice a few hiccups on the Fury X while playing, as if it is streaming in textures, which makes sense. This game probably does not use Fury X's dynamic VRAM capability at all.

At 1440p its a wash, and not very challenging, both GPUs are underutilized a great deal at 1440p. I have to use 4K simply for the reason that only at 4K does any performance advantage show itself.
Click to expand...

Just to add those with 1440p and if a twitch fps type player and fan of doom will want to play the game unlocked on say a 120 or 144hz monitor (albeit probably Ultra even if it does lower performance down from 144fps).
I am interested in the next enthusiast cards myself, but will be looking to use it with a monitor that is at least 120hz refresh rate, and I think this also applies to quite a lot of other enthusiast.

So I thought the difference would be there at 1440p, if going with unlocked frame-rate and an enthusiast monitor (also helps input lag).
Edit:
NVM looking at PC Gamer I think they will have similar results to you (link them in a post below); looks like hardware is the reason for a moderate spread between AMD and NVIDIA with pcgameshardware; specifically AIBs used instead, and possibly the use of a Skylake 6700k @ 4.5GHz.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
Ieldra said:
I think it's just because ultra is the highest preset, either way it's all meaningless until we get the vulkan version to test
Click to expand...

Is it just the Nightmare Shadows that require over 5GB, or also the Nightmare Textures, and what about with both combined together?
I wonder if that is where pcgameshardware is coming from when they mention the 6GB (they mention 5GB for the Nightmare Shadows but also something about 6GB).

Also I am wondering how this works when going between resolutions..... is that reservation defined for 1440p/4k/*shrug*/ :)
Thanks
 
I think we are seeing the influence of areas-objects-etc giving divergent results:
Doom's 'Nightmare' graphics: image quality compared and benchmarked | PC Gamer

Although hardware difference is pcgameshardware used Skylake 6700k @4.5 GHz, and also AIB against AIB where PCGamer seems to be reference, which would also improve NVIDIA performance by 10-20% like seen with pcgameshardware.
One reason I think AIB-to-AIB benchmark is important in a different way-context to reference model comparisons.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna check VRAM usage today, the highest reported in rivatuner was 5.1GB but I also ran Rise of the Tomb Raider at some point yesterday so I suspect that maximum memory usage was because of it and not DOOM.
 
Nano, Ultra settings I am seeing around 3750mb being used with around 225 dynamic memory. 3440x1440p. This is using Aida64 monitor. CPU usage ranged from 20%-40%.
 
i don't think i've seen my VRAM go over 4.5 GB at 1440p at max with nightmare textures and high shadows. i looked at a shadowplay video of me playing in the first couple parts of hell and the usage was pretty much locked at 4.35 GB.
 
Kind of out of the loop on gpus. My 7950 has been underwhelming this year with current games like Hitman making it just chug along. Doom was the final straw. I'd like to play the game at a solid 60fps and at 1920x1080. Ultra settings preferred.

Anyone have any recommendations under the 200 dollar mark?
 
Gilbert_pwns said:
Kind of out of the loop on gpus. My 7950 has been underwhelming this year with current games like Hitman making it just chug along. Doom was the final straw. I'd like to play the game at a solid 60fps and at 1920x1080. Ultra settings preferred.

Anyone have any recommendations under the 200 dollar mark?
Click to expand...
Smart thing for you would be to pick up a Polaris 10 first of june for 300...sell your 7950 for about 100 and you kill 2 birds with one stone and only out of pocket 200 bucks:)
 
Will have to see my options. Don't think I'll get it right away lol, but it seems like the way to go.
 
Odellus said:
i don't think i've seen my VRAM go over 4.5 GB at 1440p at max with nightmare textures and high shadows. i looked at a shadowplay video of me playing in the first couple parts of hell and the usage was pretty much locked at 4.35 GB.
Click to expand...
I guess I am blind as I dont even see texture quality in the options...
 
Odellus said:
i don't think i've seen my VRAM go over 4.5 GB at 1440p at max with nightmare textures and high shadows. i looked at a shadowplay video of me playing in the first couple parts of hell and the usage was pretty much locked at 4.35 GB.
Click to expand...

I have it seen it go above 5GB. 1440p and 980ti as well, "nightmare" settings (since ultra isn't the max for some of the settings, notably shadows). I only turned off motion blur, DOF and the shitty AA that blurs everything. Don't think I've ever seen my fps drop below 80 since I started the game.
Thanks to g-sync it's a wonderful experience.

I'm also not sure why my 980ti never goes above 62c when it reaches 74c easily in demanding games. Must be one of those games where the CPU matters a lot (I have a 4790k@stock).

I'm loving the game, I play on nightmare and I'm truly having a blast.
 
Last edited:


It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that self proclaimed champions of open standards can't even write proper OpenGl driver
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
One GPU at a time?

AMD Radeon Software Crimson Edition 16.5.2.1 Release Notes
Click to expand...
We have seen this a few times now where either the Fiji GPUs or the 8GB 390/390x have very unusual performance behaviour.
I tend to think part of this is the dynamic VRAM technology that is part of the driver; adding complexity and headaches.

Regarding the reason for Doom behaviour different to the Beta; in the Beta they did not have Ultra and Nightmare graphics-rendering, specifically could be shadows and should be resolved with a driver update to resolve AMD issues.
This was what one of the ID developers said in twitter.

Although I do feel the dynamic VRAM is also complicating matters.
Cheers
 
Michaelius said:


It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that self proclaimed champions of open standards can't even write proper OpenGl driver
Click to expand...


I dont understand that at all. Im running a 290x which is virtually the same thing as a 390 just with less VRAM and Im in the 70-120 fps range. Im playing with all settings at Ultra except Shadows which I set to High. With it at Ultra, Im still getting 60+ frame rates mostly. It did dip down into the upper 40's a time or two but 90% of the time its well over 60 totally maxed out.

I dont know whats going on with this. I know the 390/390x have more RAM than the 290/290x but are they a different type of VRAM and possibly thats what causing the problems? My 290x is tearing this game up pretty well for the most part and Im getting double the frame rates Im seeing in benchmarks. And Im running 16.3.2 drivers that arent even "optimized" for Doom.
 
MacLeod said:
I dont understand that at all. Im running a 290x which is virtually the same thing as a 390 just with less VRAM and Im in the 70-120 fps range. Im playing with all settings at Ultra except Shadows which I set to High. With it at Ultra, Im still getting 60+ frame rates mostly. It did dip down into the upper 40's a time or two but 90% of the time its well over 60 totally maxed out.

I dont know whats going on with this. I know the 390/390x have more RAM than the 290/290x but are they a different type of VRAM and possibly thats what causing the problems? My 290x is tearing this game up pretty well for the most part and Im getting double the frame rates Im seeing in benchmarks. And Im running 16.3.2 drivers that arent even "optimized" for Doom.
Click to expand...

I havn't tried on my 290x yet but the Nano tears Doom up on Ultra 3440x1440p. Sometimes I hate these videos because they get outdated so fast yet hang around like forever in which the data is totally fubar for the present. Plus Vulcan should also give some interesting results for both Nvidia and AMD with no doubt driver updates (plural) with probably more game updates each having dramatic affects on performance. Worst is when the video taunts one as an absolute winner which in a week gets tossed into the garbage bin with one driver update.
 
MacLeod said:
I dont understand that at all. Im running a 290x which is virtually the same thing as a 390 just with less VRAM and Im in the 70-120 fps range. Im playing with all settings at Ultra except Shadows which I set to High. With it at Ultra, Im still getting 60+ frame rates mostly. It did dip down into the upper 40's a time or two but 90% of the time its well over 60 totally maxed out.

I dont know whats going on with this. I know the 390/390x have more RAM than the 290/290x but are they a different type of VRAM and possibly thats what causing the problems? My 290x is tearing this game up pretty well for the most part and Im getting double the frame rates Im seeing in benchmarks. And Im running 16.3.2 drivers that arent even "optimized" for Doom.
Click to expand...

In the past we have seen the Dynamic memory technology do some strange stuff in how it allocates between the VRAM and the "pool".
This would be more of an issue for the 390/390x and Fury cards (the dynamic memory I thought was developed for these); there has been some instances where the 390/390x are faster than Fiji, and others where the 390/390x tank badly.
This usually happens briefly with either beta or at release.

Or it is something to do with supporting the multiple GCN versions, or combination of that and the dynamic memory *shrug*
This time I notice the 290 Hawaii cards are also doing poorly, so something about the rendering engine/post processing (shadow detail options increased with Ultra that did not exist in Beta) and GCN version.
Quite a few things going on in the driver side even if the cards all seem similar.

With the latest driver, would be great to compare improvement for both 390/390x and 290/290x to see if it relates more to GCN/dynamic memory/mix of both.
Cheers
 
CSI_PC said:
In the past we have seen the Dynamic memory technology do some strange stuff in how it allocates between the VRAM and the "pool".
This would be more of an issue for the 390/390x and Fury cards (the dynamic memory I thought was developed for these); there has been some instances where the 390/390x are faster than Fiji, and others where the 390/390x tank badly.
This usually happens briefly with either beta or at release.

Or it is something to do with supporting the multiple GCN versions, or combination of that and the dynamic memory *shrug*
This time I notice the 290 Hawaii cards are also doing poorly, so something about the rendering engine/post processing (shadow detail options increased with Ultra that did not exist in Beta) and GCN version.
Quite a few things going on in the driver side even if the cards all seem similar.

With the latest driver, would be great to compare improvement for both 390/390x and 290/290x to see if it relates more to GCN/dynamic memory/mix of both.
Cheers
Click to expand...

I know this is a long shot but could it be the Intel CPU that's the problem when paired with the AMD cards? No I'm not talking conspiracy but the only difference I can see between these test rigs that are getting 30 FPS and my rig that's getting 75+ is that I'm using an FX 8350 and they're using i7's. Is something like that even possible?
 
MacLeod said:
I know this is a long shot but could it be the Intel CPU that's the problem when paired with the AMD cards? No I'm not talking conspiracy but the only difference I can see between these test rigs that are getting 30 FPS and my rig that's getting 75+ is that I'm using an FX 8350 and they're using i7's. Is something like that even possible?
Click to expand...
Maybe something that should be investigated, but if the latest driver from AMD resolves the problem I doubt anyone will follow up.
I did not realise the issue did not replicate on AMD CPU; assuming using same Ultra settings across the board.
Cheers
 
CSI_PC said:
Maybe something that should be investigated, but if the latest driver from AMD resolves the problem I doubt anyone will follow up.
I did not realise the issue did not replicate on AMD CPU; assuming using same Ultra settings across the board.
Cheers
Click to expand...
Problems with Intel cpu are due to Windows power saving. Disable power saving ; set pc to high performance mode and it will solve the problem
 
Ieldra said:
Problems with Intel cpu are due to Windows power saving. Disable power saving ; set pc to high performance mode and it will solve the problem
Click to expand...
That is different to the 390/390x/290/290x issues in Doom though.
I assumed MacLeod had one of those.... hmm, could be a bad assumption :)
Cheers
 
CSI_PC said:
That is different to the 390/390x/290/290x issues in Doom though.
I assumed MacLeod had one of those.... hmm, could be a bad assumption :)
Cheers
Click to expand...

afaik they fixed it in drivers, much to my amusement, as I have been arguing with annoying people who went off on an angry tirade against iD for 'gimping' AMD cards
 
Yeah, Im running a stock clocked MSI Lightning 290x and the 16.3.2 drivers. I do tick the Shadows setting down 1 notch to High to get the 75-120 fps range but even at Ultra Im in the 60-90 range and nowhere near these 30 fps scenes I keep seeing reported.

I think Im going to install the new drivers today and see if that changes anything. Hopefully it doesnt screw anything up.
 
MacLeod said:
Yeah, Im running a stock clocked MSI Lightning 290x and the 16.3.2 drivers. I do tick the Shadows setting down 1 notch to High to get the 75-120 fps range but even at Ultra Im in the 60-90 range and nowhere near these 30 fps scenes I keep seeing reported.

I think Im going to install the new drivers today and see if that changes anything. Hopefully it doesnt screw anything up.
Click to expand...

If you get a big speed boost let us know. :)

Top secret; FedEx Claus is delivering a new mobo today. NewEgg had it for $109. Mem OK red light of death ate the Sabertooth. :( Scared of Asus support. Might send it in later for a backup.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
OK so I just installed 16.5.2.1 and restarted and it did make a difference. Nothing super dramatic but now Shadows doesnt make such a hit on performance, actually none at all. Switching between High and Ultra made virtually no difference in frame rates. Ive been playing with everything on Ultra now for the last 10 minutes or so and mostly stay in the 90-120 range. Lowest Ive seen so far was 62 and that was in a pretty detailed outdoor scene.

So yeah, its worth it to upgrade to 16.5.2.1. They really did fix whatever the problem was and this game is running smooth as butter with frame rates mostly over 100 and all settings maxed.

Only downside is that I was getting a little excited thinking that maybe my 290x was getting a little down in the knees and I was going to have to upgrade to one of those tasty new 1080's. Guess Im going to have to buy a 1440p monitor to make me "need" an upgrade. :D

cageymaru said:
If you get a big speed boost let us know. :)

Top secret; FedEx Claus is delivering a new mobo today. NewEgg had it for $109. Mem OK red light of death ate the Sabertooth. :( Scared of Asus support. Might send it in later for a backup.
Click to expand...

Can't believe that. My trusty 'Tooth is still plugging along. I didn't think those things ever died. Well on the bright side, you get a new toy.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Anyone playing Doom with a 2gb card? I am playing in custom settings (between Low and Medium basically) at 1080p and performance is abysmal at the times. When things get hectic it brings my GTX770 to its knees. Its not fun when there are a pair of Hell Knights tailing you and Imps + possessed throwing shit around and framerate plummets down, even below 20 at the times. Its a stuttering pain in the ass that makes me do mistakes. And since I play on Ultra Violence I cant afford too many mistakes: Imp fireball and hell knight slash and I'm pretty much dead. Performance issues are killing my enjoyment of the game. >_<
 
Should be able to get a used GTX 970, 980, 980ti for cheap soon due to the GTX 1080 release on the 27th and the 1070 on June 10th. AMD has some new cards they are showing off around the 28th of this month that might be closer to your price range.
 
MaZa said:
Anyone playing Doom with a 2gb card? I am playing in custom settings (between Low and Medium basically) at 1080p and performance is abysmal at the times. When things get hectic it brings my GTX770 to its knees. Its not fun when there are a pair of Hell Knights tailing you and Imps + possessed throwing shit around and framerate plummets down, even below 20 at the times. Its a stuttering pain in the ass that makes me do mistakes. And since I play on Ultra Violence I cant afford too many mistakes: Imp fireball and hell knight slash and I'm pretty much dead. Performance issues are killing my enjoyment of the game. >_<
Click to expand...

Quoting my own post, the problem might not be the 2gb VRAM. I just found out that it seems to be the same situation as it was with Witcher 3, Kepler cards are again neglected with lame-ass drivers, no optimization what so ever. For example GTX960 is faster than GTX780 in Doom.
Doom (final) im Benchmark-Test mit 16 Grafikkarten: Schaurig-schöner Splatterspaß
DOOM Benchmarked: Graphics & CPU Performance Tested

*sigh* I guess I just have to wait for new drivers before touching the game again.
 
If Kepler drivers have been neglected for that long, I doubt they'll suddenly start getting better, especially now since it's yet another generation old. I have a 2GB 680 in another box with an i5 2400 but I haven't tried the game on there yet. May give it a shot tonight when I get home and see how it performs.
 
3770k@4.1ghz
290
2560x1440 ultra detail motion blur off film grain off 8x tssaa

Crimson Edition 16.3.2 WHQL
doom27_zpsc4f5en9l.jpg


Crimson Edition 16.5.2.1 Beta
doom%2053_zps81asdtsy.jpg


Beta driver 290 overclocked to 1200mhz
doom%2061_zpspsvlrvn8.jpg

edited to change thumbs to images thanks to adblock i didnt even know photobucket had adds
 
Last edited:
Odellus said:
it's 2016 please stop using photobucket for christ's sakes.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Google Sites lets you upload uncompressed, linkable images with no ads. Why people still use Imgr and photobucket I'll never know....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top