Doom Eternal performance on older GPUs: Hardware Unboxed

N

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,279
Hardware unboxed showed how older hardware compares on the DE at 1080p low:

A few takeaways:

- Older AMD hardware like the HD 7970 does FAR better than Nvidia hardware like the GTX 680, even when it has 4 GB vram.

- Although the game is well optimized, the 6 presets are just way too close and there is really no truth 'low' setting. Just compare how it scales to BFV:
Screenshot_20200327-141517_YouTube.jpg
Screenshot_20200327-141526_YouTube.jpg


Full chart:
20200328_164128.jpg

20200327_141822.jpg
20200327_141937.jpg
 
Last edited:
FlawleZ said:
7970 whomping 780 TI. I think these are the examples people think of when the idea of Fine Wine is suggested. I'd like to see how a 6GB 7970 would fare.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is one of the rare games where 6 GB would help the 7970. You could run Ultra or maybe higher with DR at 60 fps at still get close to 1080p since the higher settings are only a little tougher to run.
 
Nightfire said:
Older AMD hardware like the HD 7970 does FAR better than Nvidia hardware like the GTX 680, even when it has 4 GB vram.
Click to expand...
As well it should; it was also far superior on paper at release. That it was only fractionally better at best back then...

FlawleZ said:
7970 whomping 780 TI. I think these are the examples people think of when the idea of Fine Wine is suggested. I'd like to see how a 6GB 7970 would fare.
Click to expand...
The biggest problem with 'fine wine' is that it at most is an exception rather than the rule.

Previously it's been a product of AMDs exceptionally poor drivers, firmware, and AIB coordination that has made it extremely difficult to get the expected or even potential gaming performance out of AMDs compute monsters.

As AMD has shored up their operation, the latent benefit of fine wine has dwindled. A bit of a catch 22, if you will.
 
I really wish Fury and Fury X would have been tested. Would be interesting to see how close to 980 TI they would have been.
 
FlawleZ said:
I really wish Fury and Fury X would have been tested. Would be interesting to see how close to 980 TI they would have been.
Click to expand...
Fury Nano is on there so you can add like 10% or whatever it is. I added the 1080p ultra setting in which the newer cards were tested so you can sort of compare from there.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
As well it should; it was also far superior on paper at release. That it was only fractionally better at best back then...


The biggest problem with 'fine wine' is that it at most is an exception rather than the rule.

Previously it's been a product of AMDs exceptionally poor drivers, firmware, and AIB coordination that has made it extremely difficult to get the expected or even potential gaming performance out of AMDs compute monsters.

As AMD has shored up their operation, the latent benefit of fine wine has dwindled. A bit of a catch 22, if you will.
Click to expand...

Not many really care about how much performance per teraflops but rather performance per dollar. The fact that the 7970 easily beats a 780ti is rather impressive. Maxwell seems to be aging much better but even the the RX290 still beats the GTX 970 by a good margin.
 
Nightfire said:
Not many really care about how much performance per teraflops but rather performance per dollar. The fact that the 7970 easily beats a 780ti is rather impressive. Maxwell seems to be aging much better but even the the RX290 still beats the GTX 970 by a good margin.
Click to expand...
could be hitting vram limitations.
 
Nightfire said:
The 780ti? It has the same amount as the 7970. The 4GB 680 does even worse.
No way the 3.5 GB 970 is hitting vram limits on low as it does better than the 1050ti but worse than the 3 GB 1060.
Click to expand...
I tried lining up expected performance to see if there were apparent VRAM limits, and it doesn't look like 3GB+ is really a problem from a frametime perspective. I even have a 970 and a 4GB 1050Ti and a 4GB RX460 here. I'd expect all of them to run the game well at 1080p with the settings buried. Doubt I'd get around to doing the test, just interesting to see them all up there and doing well.

With respect to the AMD GPU performance: vs. the 780Ti is really the only surprising thing. That's Big Kepler. The 680 (and 770) were mid-chips, just being competitive at all versus larger GPUs with significantly higher TDPs was pretty amazing at the time.

But also, we shouldn't forget that id games do tend to run better than average on AMD GPUs. I can't say that I know why, just that it's something that has been observed year after year. Makes me wish Bethesda would use id's engines in more of their properties, given how well they both look and run on a wide variety of hardware...
 
IdiotInCharge said:
...But also, we shouldn't forget that id games do tend to run better than average on AMD GPUs. I can't say that I know why, just that it's something that has been observed year after year. Makes me wish Bethesda would use id's engines in more of their properties, given how well they both look and run on a wide variety of hardware...
Click to expand...

I don't know of any other game engines that had Vulkan in the development process as much as idtech 6/7. And isn't Vulkan the grandchild of Mantle, which was developed by AMD with GCN in mind?
 
Nightfire said:
I don't know of any other game engines that had Vulkan in the development process as much as idtech 6/7. And isn't Vulkan the grandchild of Mantle, which was developed by AMD with GCN in mind?
Click to expand...

Mantle's core API was largely vendor agnostic. Anything vendor or platform specific was intended to go into an extension, like OpenGL.
 
socK said:
Mantle's core API was largely vendor agnostic. Anything vendor or platform specific was intended to go into an extension, like OpenGL.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, I was still was trying to look for some newer Vulkan titles comparing the 7970 to the 680 other than idtech games. Couldn't really find anything though.
 
Nightfire said:
I don't know of any other game engines that had Vulkan in the development process as much as idtech 6/7. And isn't Vulkan the grandchild of Mantle, which was developed by AMD with GCN in mind?
Click to expand...
Me either. That's an id trait -- before Vulkan, it was OpenGL. 3Dfx had to write a wrapper for them, otherwise they'd have never gotten Quake I running on Voodoo accelerators.

As for the roots of Vulkan, yeah, AMD had a hand in that, but it's also not that different from DX12, the way that DX and OpenGL always have been and remain today.

I'd honestly still like to know how / why, but I also honestly don't expect that I'd understand the answer ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top