• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

DOOM benchmark Result Thread.

shankly1985

shankly1985

shankly1985

Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2011
Posts
20,679
Location
The KOP
Doom what a game :D

PCGamer released a Performance benchmark, @1440p my 290 handles High setting best, Ultra kills performance too much I honestly don't see any difference anyway.

Nvidia kills it @1080p but AMD takes the lead at higher resolutions. Am very interested in trying Vulkan API in this, I could do with extra performance, its a pain though I know its coming but I also want to keep playing. Hope this patch comes fast.
http://www.pcgamer.com/dooms-nightm...tm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer-pcgamer
 
Interesting the fury x takes the lead in 4k, doesn't seem to be any real difference between high, ultra and nightmare in terms of anything really noticeable graphically. Not enough vram to run nightmare but as the settings look so similar i doubt it makes much difference.
 
Hurray for competing (and far more comprehensive) benchmarks!

KbnzKLI.png

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Doom-2016-Spiel-56369/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1195242/
 
980ti still by far the fastest at 4K

980 does well. Faster or as fast as furyX until 4k, then just a few fps behind. Similarly strong showing from 970
 
Presumably they define max details by cranking up film grain etc, was it running on gritty or one of the other settings?
 
Rroff said:
^^ Wow a benchmark result where they've indicated approximate boost clock.
Click to expand...

What are you basing that being approximate boost clock on? Those clocks are both beyond the stock boost clocks for the card so it's overclocked and that could be the overclocked core clock with boost being even higher.

Sites that are entirely willing to take a non reference Nvidia card that has higher stock clocks then overclock it further and benchmark it against a stock AMD card hold exactly zero credibility with me. Stock vs stock, overclock vs overclocked, stock vs overclocked is a complete joke.
 
D.P. said:
It's very clear from each I HAV's website who cares about Vulkan more., just like OpenGL
Click to expand...

How? Amd has been full support for Vulkan API even releasing driver support with timely fashion.
Just because nvidia has showcased a game running on Vulkan that makes then care more? Lol you make me laugh.

Amd is full support for low level API, not just directx 12 or mantle but all.
Only thing I can agree with you is OpenGL but they seem well recently.
 
drunkenmaster said:
What are you basing that being approximate boost clock on? Those clocks are both beyond the stock boost clocks for the card so it's overclocked and that could be the overclocked core clock with boost being even higher.

Sites that are entirely willing to take a non reference Nvidia card that has higher stock clocks then overclock it further and benchmark it against a stock AMD card hold exactly zero credibility with me. Stock vs stock, overclock vs overclocked, stock vs overclocked is a complete joke.
Click to expand...

My comment was based on way too many sites not even giving a ballpark for what actual clock rates many cards are running.

Those look like actual boost clocks to me from the cards I can compare to - 1032MHz for the 780 is on the reasonable side of an actual out the box boost for an A1 card with its on paper 954MHz - if it was overclocked it would normally be in the low 11xxMHz region or a little below if it wasn't a great clocker for an A1. Most 970s I've experience of come running low to mid 1300MHz out the box actual boost clock and hit 1400-1500MHz when overclocked - versus an on paper boost of 12xxMHz depending on mode for the MSI.
 
shankly1985 said:
How? Amd has been full support for Vulkan API even releasing driver support with timely fashion.
Just because nvidia has showcased a game running on Vulkan that makes then care more? Lol you make me laugh.

Amd is full support for low level API, not just directx 12 or mantle but all.
Only thing I can agree with you is OpenGL but they seem well recently.
Click to expand...


Nvidia beat AMD to a compliant driver.

Nvidia website has a lot of developer support, example code, resources and advice.

Nvidia is actively working with developers to support Vulkan.


Nvidia supports linux much more than AMD, and vulkan is most important as a Linux DX12 replacement.

IMO, AMD is just plain behind at this point. And IMO, vulkan will follow openGL very closely. I live to be shown wrong but I doubt it
 
The first game to have a Vulkan path patched in and also the first game engine with Vulkan implemented from the ground up also both supported by nVidia. I fear AMD is going to get screwed over with nVidia implementing the old if you can beat em join em policy and making sure the scales tilt in their favour.
 
D.P. said:
Nvidia beat AMD to a compliant driver.

Nvidia website has a lot of developer support, example code, resources and advice.

Nvidia is actively working with developers to support Vulkan.


Nvidia supports linux much more than AMD, and vulkan is most important as a Linux DX12 replacement.

IMO, AMD is just plain behind at this point. And IMO, vulkan will follow openGL very closely. I live to be shown wrong but I doubt it
Click to expand...

But it is only one Vulkan game so we cant just go on that result, can we. We must wait for more games to make a more informed decision, surely.
 
D.P. said:
Nvidia beat AMD to a compliant driver.

And? What really matter is that AMD released the driver before a game is ready.

Nvidia website has a lot of developer support, example code, resources and advice.

And?? AMD also doing there Bit
http://gpuopen.com/gaming-product/vulkan/


Nvidia is actively working with developers to support Vulkan.

And am Sure AMD is also working With them getting solid drivers and game support.
Or do you have solid Proof AMD isn't working with anyone? After All AMD started Vulkan With Mantle API And dont start with it was already coming because OpenGL Next!! That was just a place holder naming.
Khronos has openly Thanked AMD for kicking Vulkan off, so why would something AMD started off be now doing nothing?


Nvidia supports linux much more than AMD, and vulkan is most important as a Linux DX12 replacement.

True, But we not talking about Linux here are we? With Vulkan out and running well I have no doubt AMDs Linus support will be much better.

IMO, AMD is just plain behind at this point. And IMO, vulkan will follow openGL very closely. I live to be shown wrong but I doubt it

Fair enough this your view on the matter, its also my view.. unless you have proof just becasue Nvidia showcased the first game released doesn't mean jack

AMD has shown and talked a lot about Vulkan
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
We will see but IMO I think AMD view Vulkan the same as OpenGL, or even less important. Vulkan really is not going to be important on windows, as much as I would like it to be. Vulkan will be important on Linux, and it will be a very similar API to openGL for Linux based gaming. AMD have shown little interest in Linux and opengl In the just 20 years, not Ignored entirely, just not the same level of support as nvidia.

I say this as someone who almost never touches windows and actively develop opengl projects for personal and professional use. for years Nvidia has been useful in developing opengl applications, and AMD/ATI has just been lacking or driver issues prevalent. Windows is very different but I just don't see Vulkan being useful on windows. Developers will use DX12 for the same reasons they used DX11 and 10 over openGL.
 
Either of those reviews says to me I can run it at 1440p at the highest settings smoothly. Strange that a 380x is thrashing a 290x though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom