• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[PCGAMESHARDWARE.DE] DOOM Benchmarks

D

DownTheSky

Senior member
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Doom-2016-Spiel-56369/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1195242/
Game/Version
Doom (Final; Steam), PCGH-Benchmark 'Devil's Dance'
Details
Max. details except shadows (Ultra instead of Nightmare) Vsync off
Software/Drivers
Windows 10 x64, Geforce 365.19 WHQL, Radeon Software 16.5.2 Beta; (HQ-AF)
lY5iURu.png


The game is running AMD in OpenGL 4.3 while on nVidia in OpenGL 4.5.
Looks like there's a serious problem in AMD drivers with GCN 1.0/1.1 cards. 290x is getting spanked by a 380x.
Disabling V-Sync and Shadows on Low seem to give >60 fps @ 1080 on 290/390 cards. Still, miles away from nVidia.
 
Last edited:
complex OpenGL game... I certainly didn't expect AMD to perform well on this one.

also OGL 4.3 being used? that means the game works with pre GCN AMD cards? when I tried the beta with a 5850 it refused to work, I assumed the game required 4.5, but the 5850 had 4.4 drivers and it didn't work.

380x ahead of 290X, that's some seriously broken software (maybe drivers, maybe game, probably both!?)
 
SPBHM said:
complex OpenGL game... I certainly didn't expect AMD to perform well on this one.

also OGL 4.3 being used? that means the game works with pre GCN AMD cards? when I tried the beta with a 5850 it refused to work, I assumed the game required 4.5, but the 5850 had 4.4 drivers and it didn't work.

380x ahead of 290X, that's some seriously broken software (maybe drivers, maybe game, probably both!?)
Click to expand...

As shintai pointed out a 280X gets obliterated by a 380X too and fury isn't quite as disastrous - there's something here that really likes GCN 1.2 over previous versions.

But yeah, doesn't look like everything is working as intended here.
 
Fury is a DISSASTER. Its performance is subpar
Also... nVIDIA game oriented to new extremes... that a 960 is OUTPERFORMING a 290 levels... that is really insane.

The only chip that went well from AMD is Fury Nano... GTX 970 levels...

Definately something is screwed up BIG time... even the GTX 780Ti is on 960 levels, which is nuts....
 
Game runs great, and so far, it's pretty damn good. Traffic screwed me so I don't have much time to play today 🙁

I know what I'm doing tomorrow!!!!
 
Amazing how AMD's newer architecture performs better than its older one. It's almost as if the micro-architects learned a thing or two in crafting a new GPU arch with each generation!
 
DownTheSky said:
The game is running AMD in OpenGL 4.3 while on nVidia in OpenGL 4.5.
Looks like there's a serious problem in AMD drivers with GCN 1.0/1.1 cards. 290x is getting spanked by a 380x.
Click to expand...

My Pitcairn card does terrible in OpenGL (at least on the few applications I've tried). Apparently GCN 1.2 does better, which is encouraging, as it means Polaris probably will too.
 
OpenGL is an issue ...

Sacrificing performance to be pseudo cross-platform just isn't worth it. Apple doesn't intend to support newer versions of OpenGL anymore and I don't want to mention about the horrors of other mobile GPU vendor's OpenGL drivers ...

The situation on Linux is hardly improving when the two other IHVs don't want to put up either performant (AMD) or rich feature sets (Intel) in their OpenGL drivers ...

Hopefully Khronos and the ARB decides to withdraw updating the OpenGL spec altogether and forget about the nightmarish days. May as well just make it a legacy API and leave it to the Mesa team so no point in boggling them down with more work ...
 
Anybody remembers what were the 1080's performance numbers in that showcase NVIDIA&id did? How much better were those numbers compared to 980ti & titanx performances in these benchmarks?
 
Last edited:
sam_816 said:
Anybody remembers what were the 1080's performance numbers in that showcase NVIDIA&id did? How much better were those numbers compared to 980ti & titanx performances in these benchmarks?
Click to expand...

Don't recall the resolution, probably 1080p, but they were hitting 200 FPS if I remember right.

EDIT"
http://bgr.com/2016/05/12/nvidia-gtx-1080-doom-demo/

Using the GTX 1080, Nvidia was able to run the game smoothly at an astounding 200 frames per second on Ultra graphics settings.
Click to expand...

EDIT #2:
Pretty sure this was the event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y3LaLJoo0s

Dunno where they got 200 from, in that clip it definitely doesn't hit 200 and I'd say the average was probably 140-150, but that was gameplay not a benchmark.
 
Last edited:
ThatBuzzkiller said:
OpenGL is an issue ...

Sacrificing performance to be pseudo cross-platform just isn't worth it. Apple doesn't intend to support newer versions of OpenGL anymore and I don't want to mention about the horrors of other mobile GPU vendor's OpenGL drivers ...

The situation on Linux is hardly improving when the two other IHVs don't want to put up either performant (AMD) or rich feature sets (Intel) in their OpenGL drivers ...

Hopefully Khronos and the ARB decides to withdraw updating the OpenGL spec altogether and forget about the nightmarish days. May as well just make it a legacy API and leave it to the Mesa team so no point in boggling them down with more work ...
Click to expand...

Some form of cross-platform API is necessary. For desktops (and perhaps game consoles in the future), Vulkan will probably fill that need, supplanting traditional OpenGL. For tablets and smartphones, OpenGL ES isn't going anywhere any time soon.
 
Wouldn't be surprised if this is all fixed after a driver update, or game update.

Unless you think it's normal for Hawaii to underperform a 380x, then which case your bias is showing....
 
Could it be MSI Afterburner not playing well with id tech and AMD GPUs? Like we saw in Wolfenstein the New Order?

These results are weird. I'm waiting for Digital Foundry tests.
 
JDG1980 said:
Some form of cross-platform API is necessary. For desktops (and perhaps game consoles in the future), Vulkan will probably fill that need, supplanting traditional OpenGL. For tablets and smartphones, OpenGL ES isn't going anywhere any time soon.
Click to expand...

What we don't want are cross-platform APIs, what we want are cross-platform ENGINES and GAMES!

Vulkan is hardly cross-platform when you can write valid code that won't run on other platforms!

A Vulkan app that is designed to take every advantage of desktop GPU probably won't run on ultra mobile devices!
 
Hi-Fi Man said:
Wow, the game performs radically different then what was shown here:


Why are the results so different?
Click to expand...

tential said:
Wouldn't be surprised if this is all fixed after a driver update, or game update.

Unless you think it's normal for Hawaii to underperform a 380x, then which case your bias is showing....
Click to expand...

Beta was a mix of medium settings you couldn't change.
The full version allows for ultra settings.
And yes it seems AMD is working on it according to a tweet by @idSoftware Tiago
DOofy87 ... What happened between the beta and release that caused the 390 to lose to a 960?
Click to expand...
idSoftware Tiago ... looks like ultra settings ( beta was a mix of medium ), particularly shadows ( and couple other things ) - AMD working on it
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MTDEW said:
Beta was a mix of medium settings you couldn't change.
The full version allows for ultra settings.
And yes it seems AMD is working on it according to a tweet by @idSoftware Tiago
Click to expand...
Yup because things working under the beta are no longer working under the full version. This is what happens when studios focus on one gpu and why this whole thing of Nvidia and amd courting devs just leads to this launch day idiocy.

But hey people like to pay to beta test my games I'm fine.
 
tential said:
Yup because things working under the beta are no longer working under the full version. This is what happens when studios focus on one gpu and why this whole thing of Nvidia and amd courting devs just leads to this launch day idiocy.

But hey people like to pay to beta test my games I'm fine.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that NVIDIA put more resources into optimizing its drivers for launch day, while AMD is taking a bit longer to get them sorted out. Hopefully for Hawaii users, AMD will get the drivers fixed up soon.
 
Arachnotronic said:
Seems to me that NVIDIA put more resources into optimizing its drivers for launch day, while AMD is taking a bit longer to get them sorted out. Hopefully for Hawaii users, AMD will get the drivers fixed up soon.
Click to expand...

That's just speculation on your part that it's AMD drivers. You don't know what's causing the issue.
 
I already beat the campaign, pretty cool 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top