[PCGAMESHARDWARE.DE] DOOM Benchmarks

[Silverforce11]

Great performance on fixed settings doesn't mean anything.

For all we know the game was running terrible during Beta but we didn't see it due to lowered settings.

EDIT: If AMD didn't request/given code, they might have assumed everything was fine and dandy.

Great performance at 1440 and 4K medium.

OpenGL 4.5, now with 4.3, you run medium at 4K, its a major regression.

For no explainable reason besides "oops guys, we didn't test Ultra on AMD GPUs..." yeah. Are they clowns (incompetent) or are they simply influenced by a marketing deal with Pascal/NV?

What's a more likely scenario, these devs who are supposed experts in their field, just forgot to optimize their game on AMD hardware (sif, it runs great on consoles)... or being on stage with Pascal and the sudden flip to an older OpenGl is more likely?

 

[railven]

Great performance at 1440 and 4K medium.

OpenGL 4.5, now with 4.3, you run medium at 4K, its a major regression.

For no explainable reason besides "oops guys, we didn't test Ultra on AMD GPUs..." yeah. Are they clowns (incompetent) or are they simply influenced by a marketing deal with Pascal/NV?

What's a more likely scenario, these devs who are supposed experts in their field, just forgot to optimize their game on AMD hardware (sif, it runs great on consoles)... or being on stage with Pascal and the sudden flip to an older OpenGl is more likely?

So it's not AMD's fault, at all? Yet 3 days after launch they drop a driver with improved performance? It's id's responsibility to make sure it works on par with NV's hardware?

These blame everyone but AMD rhetoric posts are getting tiresome. Game was already done before the NV event. This isn't even a Gameworks title.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So it's not AMD's fault, at all? Yet 3 days after launch they drop a driver with improved performance? It's id's responsibility to make sure it works on par with NV's hardware?

These blame everyone but AMD rhetoric posts are getting tiresome. Game was already done before the NV event. This isn't even a Gameworks title.

Thank you. It may be because I have a soft spot for id Software, but accusing them of intentionally gimping Doom on AMD HW because NV slipped a couple of bucks in their pocket is pretty low.

 

[Silverforce11]

Thank you. It may be because I have a soft spot for id Software, but accusing them of intentionally gimping Doom on AMD HW because NV slipped a couple of bucks in their pocket is pretty low.

So they are incompetent?

Who releases a great running beta and actually regress for release?

No testing done whatsoever before release "looks like Ultra gimping AMD... " Looks like?? Why was it not tested before?

Can you imagine the reverse scenario, a studio gets on stage with Polaris, shows off how awesome it is, then a game running in beta excellent on NV GPU, for a release two weeks later runs so crippled... what's your conclusion?

For the record, Ashes runs very well on all GPUs, with a small lead for AMD, despite the devs talking about being open source and focused on fairness, lots of you people accused Oxide of being bought by AMD. Here, a 970 is 100% or twice as fast a a 390. Normal or gimped?

 

[dogen1]

So they are incompetent?

Who releases a great running beta and actually regress for release?

No testing done whatsoever before release "looks like Ultra gimping AMD... " Looks like?? Why was it not tested before?

Can you imagine the reverse scenario, a studio gets on stage with Polaris, shows off how awesome it is, then a game running in beta excellent on NV GPU, for a release two weeks later runs so crippled... what's your conclusion?

Did performance actually change since the beta?

 

[renderstate]

The fact the game ran well in beta is irrelevant. Codebase is not frozen and changes are made.

Since AMD fixed the problem in their driver it's likely the bug or subpar implementation was there . Perhaps they told id it was going to be fixed before release but they couldn't do it on time.

Of course the malicious ones will always see a conspiracy around the corner and no amount or lack of evidence will change their minds.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So they are incompetent?

Who releases a great running beta and actually regress for release?

No testing done whatsoever before release "looks like Ultra gimping AMD... " Looks like?? Why was it not tested before?

Can you imagine the reverse scenario, a studio gets on stage with Polaris, shows off how awesome it is, then a game running in beta excellent on NV GPU, for a release two weeks later runs so crippled... what's your conclusion?

For the record, Ashes runs very well on all GPUs, with a small lead for AMD, despite the devs talking about being open source and focused on fairness, lots of you people accused Oxide of being bought by AMD. Here, a 970 is 100% or twice as fast a a 390. Normal or gimped?

Vote with your wallet, don't buy the game. It's your loss.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

So they are incompetent?

Who releases a great running beta and actually regress for release?

No testing done whatsoever before release "looks like Ultra gimping AMD... " Looks like?? Why was it not tested before?

Can you imagine the reverse scenario, a studio gets on stage with Polaris, shows off how awesome it is, then a game running in beta excellent on NV GPU, for a release two weeks later runs so crippled... what's your conclusion?

For the record, Ashes runs very well on all GPUs, with a small lead for AMD, despite the devs talking about being open source and focused on fairness, lots of you people accused Oxide of being bought by AMD. Here, a 970 is 100% or twice as fast a a 390. Normal or gimped?

AMD's OpenGL drivers were usually sub-par so maybe you should go ask them to improve on it ? They still don't have OpenGL 4.5 conformance yet when listed by Khronos Group ...

The beta was running on medium settings so the initial benchmarks didn't mean much when the rendering code wasn't done ...

 

[Magee_MC]

The fact the game ran well in beta is irrelevant. Codebase is not frozen and changes are made.

That's true, but usually changes to the code are tested and if there are serious problems those are addressed before the change is released.

Since AMD fixed the problem in their driver it's likely the bug or subpar implementation was there . Perhaps they told id it was going to be fixed before release but they couldn't do it on time.

I don't think that you can make that assumption. Both AMD and NV have a long history of fixing things that were borked by the developers in their drivers. A fix in the drivers doesn't say where the problem originated.

Of course the malicious ones will always see a conspiracy around the corner and no amount or lack of evidence will change their minds.

That is true, but it's also true that for some people no amount of evidence or facts will change their minds that a conspiracy actually existed. In this case I think that we just don't have enough facts to determine what happened and everyone will tend to see what happened from their default positions.

 

[Bacon1]

So it's not AMD's fault, at all? Yet 3 days after launch they drop a driver with improved performance? It's id's responsibility to make sure it works on par with NV's hardware?

These blame everyone but AMD rhetoric posts are getting tiresome. Game was already done before the NV event. This isn't even a Gameworks title.

Game drivers constantly fix game engine bugs / issues. Thats why every damn game needs specific drivers!

Quantum Break is still crashing constantly for 970s according to Digital Foundry, are you going to say that is purely Nvidia's fault and they are too incompetent to fix an issue for a month, or that their could be issues with the game engine?

 

[renderstate]

If the game runs well on everything but a couple of GPUs and a magical driver suddenly appears and fixes the problem for those few GPUs.. the problem is the driver, not in the game. We are not talking about a game with a million issues here. This is not some last minute port to a new fancy API. OpenGL 4.3/5 has been around for ages. I'd expect the Vulkan version to be more immature.

 

[Bacon1]

If the game runs well on everything but a couple of GPUs and a magical driver suddenly appears and fixes the problem for those few GPUs.. the problem is the driver, not in the game. We are not talking about a game with a million issues here. This is not some last minute port to a new fancy API. OpenGL 4.3/5 has been around for ages. I'd expect the Vulkan version to be more immature.

I've yet to see a AAA DX11 game that hasn't needed game specific drivers as well. Or are you saying all of Nvidia's "Game Ready" drivers aren't doing anything?

http://www.gamedev.net/topic/666419-what-are-your-opinions-on-dx12vulkanmantle/#entry5215019

Straight from a Nvidia driver developer's mouth

 

[dark zero]

If a game runs well in all GPUs is that everything was according to the plan of both.


If the game runs well except on some GPU models, definitely is a driver issue.


If the game performs subpar in most GPUs, is a coding issue. It might get solved by a patch.

If the game only runs well on one brand of GPU, bad luck. Is GPU brand exclusive. Maybe that is the future. Deal with it.

But... If the game runs badly in ALL GPUs with no patch incomming... Is sure material for Angry Video Game Nerd on a future.

 

[3DVagabond]

The game seems finished to me, but I guess let's bash the game because it had a few issues running on a certain subset of AMD cards that have since been resolved

If they still have to patch in Vulkan, that's not finished. Don't create an issue where none exists.

 

[railven]

Game drivers constantly fix game engine bugs / issues. Thats why every damn game needs specific drivers!

Quantum Break is still crashing constantly for 970s according to Digital Foundry, are you going to say that is purely Nvidia's fault and they are too incompetent to fix an issue for a month, or that their could be issues with the game engine?

Are you reading the post I responded to? I'm not saying Doom is flawless (I just lost a good chuck of progress.)

Silver is flat out accusing id of taking a bribe from NV. Come on, at some point people are going to have to just accept it - AMD drops the ball.

I would give Silver the benefit of the doubt if this was a Gameworks title. It isn't.

EDIT:

Did performance actually change since the beta?

Reading NeoGaf and posters with lesser hardware, they seem don't seem to be complaining as much. I'm going to assume the performance was bad during the beta but it was masked by lower settings.

 

[renderstate]

Guys.. you are the kings of non sequiturs and strawman arguments. I am not going to reply anymore to messages that were written without even reading what I wrote and that make no sense. I am going to save my time so I suggest you either take the time to read and understand or save yours too by ignoring me.

 

[renderstate]

If a game runs well in all GPUs is that everything was according to the plan of both.





If the game runs well except on some GPU models, definitely is a driver issue.





If the game performs subpar in most GPUs, is a coding issue. It might get solved by a patch.



If the game only runs well on one brand of GPU, bad luck. Is GPU brand exclusive. Maybe that is the future. Deal with it.



But... If the game runs badly in ALL GPUs with no patch incomming... Is sure material for Angry Video Game Nerd on a future.

Good old common sense. Thank you sir!

 

[Silverforce11]

Are you reading the post I responded to? I'm not saying Doom is flawless (I just lost a good chuck of progress.)

Silver is flat out accusing id of taking a bribe from NV. Come on, at some point people are going to have to just accept it - AMD drops the ball.

I would give Silver the benefit of the doubt if this was a Gameworks title. It isn't.

I'm not accusing id of taking a bribe, I am open to the possibilities that several things could have happened, one of which is the Pascal marketing deal. Are you saying it's an impossibility?

Sure, AMD can and does drop the ball. But here?

How does AMD decide to regress back to an OpenGL version released from 2012 when it was running the newer version just fine in Beta 2 weeks prior? AMD does not control Bethesda/ID Software's final build. -_-

We're talking an out-date OpenGL that's missing a lot of newer extensions that enhance performance here.

I am not the first to notice this, many folks have asked ID Software this question on social media, they aren't saying anything as to why it happened.

Even some reviewers noticed it, because they played the beta as well as some of us here.

https://youtu.be/oYLVcZCjXSI?t=4m06s

And oh, when the game finally gets updated to fix it, by putting back OpenGL 4.5 for AMD, make sure you guys are here to say stuff like "oh, it must have been an honest mistake, surely!!"

Another review: http://www.techspot.com/review/1173-doom-benchmarks/page6.html

Actually, on that note there is one issue with Doom and it could go a long way in explaining why the game runs poorly on AMD hardware at launch. Some keen enthusiasts noticed that the game uses the latest OpenGL 4.5 version when running a GeForce graphics card, but it reverts back to the much older 4.3 version with a Radeon graphics card.

Apparently this wasn’t the case in the open Beta, so the plot thickens. A few days ago id Software's lead renderer programmer Tiago Sousa was quizzed regarding the issue and he said "looks like ultra settings ( beta was a mix of medium ), particularly shadows ( and couple other things ) - AMD working on it." We assume by this he meant there's an issue with Radeons when using the Ultra quality settings, though we found it reverting when using high, medium and low settings as well.

Can you even think for a moment if this happened to NV? Imagine a DX game, which had a beta 2 weeks before launch, running DX11 great for NV/AMD... then it releases, it reverts to DX10 for NV and performance is crippled. Even a non-biased person would have to raise a real concern as to why it happened, no? Now let's say that studio went on stage with AMD hyping up AMD GPUs... what's a logical person to think of such a thing? Come on, be honest.

 

[dogen1]

We're talking an out-date OpenGL that's missing a lot of newer extensions that enhance performance here.

According to id they're using the same extensions on all hardware. The context makes no difference.

 

[RussianSensation]

16.5.2.1 made a world of difference, from 35-40fps minimums to 70fps minimums in the thick of it, Ultra settings.

It's beyond 35%. AMD probably staying on the conservative side, it's as if a switch was flipped.

26 fps to 46 fps minimums at 1440p, or a 77% boost.

Clearly, Id Tech 6 Doom is an outlier and it will probably remain this way as I have not heard of any games using Id Tech 6 engine coming out. The developers have also come out and openly slated that they are working on bringing SLI support to the game, but nothing was stated about CF support. Why would the developer try to get multi-GPU working on one brand but not the other? Makes no sense if the developer is objective.

FX8350 also spanked i5-6400 in Doom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ6VAbHxzxM

 

[sontin]

I'm not accusing id of taking a bribe, I am open to the possibilities that several things could have happened, one of which is the Pascal marketing deal. Are you saying it's an impossibility?

And that comes from someone who is defending Oxide and AMD. :sneaky:

 

[Pottuvoi]

Great that AMD got their drivers working and people can enjoy the game.

Vulkan should help even more, when the patch finally hits.

 

[guskline]

I had fun running it on both rigs below even though the game doesn't have a CF profile.

 

[Tohtori]

And that comes from someone who is defending Oxide and AMD. :sneaky:

And another quality trolling from this most valuable writer. Please stop.

 

[omek]

26 fps to 46 fps minimums at 1440p, or a 77% boost.

It's beyond that at times.

Updated DigitalFoundry comparison using 16.5.2.1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvWaE-3Aseg
More than twice over in certain areas. 8 seconds in it's 28fps vs. 77fps. I find it a little odd that ID would not inform AMD about such a disparity.
\
averages
60.1fps 16.5.2 R390
90.9fps 16.5.2.1 R390
93.9fps GTX970