• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

DigitalFoundry analysis of DOOM for Nintendo Switch

G

Graphics Horse

Member
OmegaDL50 said:
Hell the equivalent Nvidia Shield tablet powered by the same Tegra X1 manages to run Crysis 3 natively, just to put things into perspective that the Tegra X1 is fairly capable for a SoC.
Click to expand...

'Natively'.
Did that port even come out? I thought it was cancelled.

Edit: and was an empty MP level all they showed?
 
K

knerl

Member
sleepnaught said:
People expecting 60 fps were fooling themselves. This thing is a 6 inch tablet I can fit in my pocket. Regardless of how Nintendo chooses to market it, this thing is a portable first and foremost when you consider the power on tap. Anyone expecting 60 fps AAA titles need to check that at the door because it aint happening. Expect 30 fps ports and sub hd resolutions. That's the tradeoff if you want to play these titles in portable mode. I always expected that going in day 1 and am willing to sacrifice visuals and performance for that, if you're not, then stick to Nintendo first parties or find a new console to play on.
Click to expand...

Is it really? To me it's stationary first with the ability of going portable just like they market it.
With only 40% GPU power while portable I agree with you, but while docked it should be another story.
 
J

Jaded Alyx

Member
For months we had a back and forth agreement here on GAF with some people saying "Switch can't run AAA PS4/XBO games", with the other side saying "yes it can, the game just needs to be scaled back in some way".

Well we've had NBA2K and now DOOM, and soon Wolfenstein 2, so I think it's clear the latter group ended up being correct?

Or has the argument shifted to "Switch can't run these games at 60fps"? Because that's pretty telling.

Basically, yes, we can be disappointed it's not 60, but it's still a damn impressive achievement considering most people never thought it was possible in the first place.
 
I

Irminsul

Member
Piscus said:
So Digital Foundry, whose analysis is revered on this forum, makes a report of the Doom port for Switch, provides technical details, and emphasizes repeatedly how good of a port it is.... and a whole bunch of Gaf pros respond with exclamations of how terrible it's going to be and automatically dismiss it? Why not dismiss DF's analyses when the results are above expectation, too, then?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's how most of the DF threads go about. The video is generally much more positive than the GAF thread.
 
T

Thraktor

Member
30fps is a bit disappointing, but not entirely surprising. If it's a solid 30 I'll still pick it up (and it should be, given the variable resolution). Given that a variable resolution solution is already in there, ideally they'd give players the option to play at 60fps and take the extra resolution hit, but I guess they just don't want to put out a game running at such low res, even as an option. Alternatively it could get CPU limited by that point.

The decision to use an outside studio to handle the port is interesting. Most likely motivated by the fact that id's engine team have been so busy on Wolfenstein for the last few months. I wonder if id will properly integrate Switch support into the engine for Wolfenstein, though, as if Bethesda plan on using the engine for more projects in the future, and they also plan on continuing support for Switch (both of which seem likely), then it makes more sense to have it as a main build platform than relying on ad-hoc ports.
 
Z

Zombegoast

Member
Dictator93 said:
Exactly.



Like has been stated, without really knowing how much CPU or GPU utilisation is going on here, saying it is a "bad port" is rather uncalled for. I would bet the problem is the Switch's CPU, not its GPU. Hence why they left on comparatively "expensive" GPU effects like bokeh depth of field and per object motion blur.

Doom in Vulkan has incrediblly good CPU utilisation on my PC, and to get 60 fps requires a CPU that is more powerful than that which is found in the switch. So to get the "port" to 60 fps on Switch, they would probably have to make cuts to level design, monster counts, and even simulation tasks - basically how older PC to console ports were. Would people want that game? Would a publisher pay to do that? That is a lot of work.
Click to expand...

I pointed out that 2008 cpu are able to handle Doom at 60fps with Phenom doing better than Intel's thank to more cores. And these processors did not have multithreading like the current systems.
 
L

Lonely1

Unconfirmed Member
knerl said:
Tegra X1 in Switch however isn't exactly like Tegra X1 found in Shield Tablets. It's downclocked and the CPU core setup isn't the same if I recall?
Click to expand...

Its downclocked to the chip stable clocks, and has active cooling to help maintain them. And again, there's no TX1 shield tablet.

Zombegoast said:
I pointed out that 2008 cpu are able to handle Doom at 60fps with Phenom doing better than Intel's thank to more cores. And these processors did not have multithreading like the current systems.
Click to expand...

Yep, those CPU's are than what you find in the and PS4/XB1 too.
 
M

Marmelade

Member
It's Doom on Switch, some of you just had unrealistic expectations
The fact that they ported it to Switch is impressive enough by itself and they seem to have done a good job
 
P

pa22word

Member
Anyways to get away from switch owner hardware fragility for a second, this looks like it would be a neat thing to pick up just for the sheer novelty and insanity of what they pulled off even getting it to run at all on the switch. It's seriously really fucking impressive, but I'm not going to buy a game I've already spent 60 hours or so on the pc for 60$ again. Maybe 6 months from now when it hits bargain bin levels. Personally I've always had a bit of a soft spot for id software console ports to weird platforms, especially because unlike most aaa games id typically builds for gameplay first, thus it will still be fun to play it again even if it is just for the novelty factor.
 
L

LordKano

Member
I don't understand why some people think that DF's impressions are how everyone should feel about the game. They provide numbers, facts, and footage to people to debate visuals and performances of video games. If they think that running at half the frame-rate is fine and that, since the visuals themselves looks good, it's a good port, that's great for them and the people agreeing. But you can also disagree and think that they should have prioritized framerate (or visuals, for that matter) above all and that running at half the framerate negate any other visual feat the port accomplish.

That's called interpretation and different opinions. DFs impressions are not the mighty god.
 
S

silva1991

Member
LordKano said:
oh my god

Okay, I'll clarify : a toaster can't run DOOM at 60fps. Because a toaster can't run video games. It makes toasts. That's why we call it a toaster. It was a figure of speech to talk about the optimization of idTech but for some reason people can't read it that way.
Click to expand...

lol.
 
J

JonnyDBrit

Member
Thraktor said:
30fps is a bit disappointing, but not entirely surprising. If it's a solid 30 I'll still pick it up (and it should be, given the variable resolution). Given that a variable resolution solution is already in there, ideally they'd give players the option to play at 60fps and take the extra resolution hit, but I guess they just don't want to put out a game running at such low res, even as an option. Alternatively it could get CPU limited by that point.

The decision to use an outside studio to handle the port is interesting. Most likely motivated by the fact that id's engine team have been so busy on Wolfenstein for the last few months. I wonder if id will properly integrate Switch support into the engine for Wolfenstein, though, as if Bethesda plan on using the engine for more projects in the future, and they also plan on continuing support for Switch (both of which seem likely), then it makes more sense to have it as a main build platform than relying on ad-hoc ports.
Click to expand...

...You know, this makes me wonder if the Switch port of Wolfenstein will be handled by Bethesda themselves, or by Panic Button again. Could make for an interesting comparison.
 
D

Dictator93

Member
Zombegoast said:
I pointed out that 2008 cpu are able to handle Doom at 60fps with Phenom doing better than Intel's thank to more cores. And these processors did not have multithreading like the current systems.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure those desktop phenoms, even with their poor IPC, are faster than the swtich CPU.
LordKano said:
I don't understand why some people think that DF's impressions are how everyone should feel about the game. They provide numbers, facts, and footage to people to debate visuals and performances of video games. If they think that running at half the frame-rate is fine and that, since the visuals themselves looks good, it's a good port, that's great for them and the people agreeing. But you can also disagree and think that they should have prioritized framerate (or visuals, for that matter) above all and that running at half the framerate negate any other visual feat the port accomplish.

That's called interpretation and different opinions. DFs impressions are not the mighty god.
Click to expand...

You are building up a fictitious alternative scenario, where the port dev "prioritised" visuals over a higher refresh rate in this port. The video, and as logic dictates, shows that they prioritised the game's existence in the first place, with 60 hz not at all being on the table in any form. The CPU in switch is just not fast enough at all for the base doom game at 60hz. It would have to be a diffrent game, and maybe running on a different engine which does not simulate nearly as much, to get to 60hz. At that point, it is not even Doom!
 
A

Aroll

Member
Doesn't matter until we get a docked mode perspective. Could be 60fps docked, locked 30, higher resolution, yada yada.

But the fact is, they came away impressed for on the go.

LOL at folks complaining about dynamic res down to 540. On that little 720p screen, I bet you won't even notice.

Csnt do much about 30 fps compared to 60. Most 3rd party games are going to make that choice on Switch, especially in portable mode.
 
S

Shaanyboi

Banned
LordKano said:
I don't understand why some people think that DF's impressions are how everyone should feel about the game. They provide numbers, facts, and footage to people to debate visuals and performances of video games. If they think that running at half the frame-rate is fine and that, since the visuals themselves looks good, it's a good port, that's great for them and the people agreeing. But you can also disagree and think that they should have prioritized framerate (or visuals, for that matter) above all and that running at half the framerate negate any other visual feat the port accomplish.

That's called interpretation and different opinions. DFs impressions are not the mighty god.
Click to expand...

Okay, well right now they're the only people with any impressions of this incomplete port. So their impressions and those of people who actually played this demo are kinda the only ones that really matter without any meaningful footage etc. for everyone else to see.
 
G

Gotdatmoney

Member
Well games are $80 in Canada so not buying until it drops in price given the news. But it seems like a decent port. I expected 30fps. If devs domt talk about the framerate in a switch game it's 30fps.
 
Polygonal_Sprite

Polygonal_Sprite

Gold Member
knerl said:
Is it really? To me it's stationary first with the ability of going portable just like they market it.
With only 40% GPU power while portable I agree with you, but while docked it should be another story.
Click to expand...

A lot of Switch games including first party titles just mirror the handheld mode on TV's at trade shows. Super Mario Odyssey is still displaying at 720p native in both modes despite the Switch's GPU getting a 100% boost in clock speeds when docked. I'm hoping for 900p on that title when it's docked.

So while a resolution boost to 720p native is maybe possible for the final version of DOOM when docked, I wouldn't expect a jump to 60fps when docked as the CPU stays the same speed in both modes.

VGdrumCovers said:
First line of the OP says that they've taken the video down. Hard to miss....
Click to expand...

I'm sure it wasn't there when I first clicked into the thread but if so my bad.

JoeInky said:
They jumped the gun a bit, the embargo for the game hasn't lifted yet.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
P

pa22word

Member
Zombegoast said:
I pointed out that 2008 cpu are able to handle Doom at 60fps with Phenom doing better than Intel's thank to more cores. And these processors did not have multithreading like the current systems.
Click to expand...

1. Cpus from 2008 are mostly still trashing modern consoles

2. Lol what? The i7 920 released in 2008 and completely annihilates anything in the console space and does 4 core multithreading and has hyperthreading support.
 
K

knerl

Member
Wish Nintendo could release more of a powerhouse again for a console. Their rather poor image quality shows early on in a lot of games. Sure. Sometimes they nail it even at lower resolutions, but I'm getting a bit sick of paying more for less in this department. Say what you want, but their shit is expensive (and not really that impressive feature wise all the time) in terms of the power you get. Just got a used New 3DS XL and boy am I glad I got it used saving a lot of cash. Just to point out the power - cost ratio.
 
R

Rayis

Member
Knew it was going to be 30!!!!!!

I kept my expectations in check because the Switch can only do so much.


Regardless, stoked about the game.
 
T

Trunx28

Member
the video is great, as always. Especially that he's playing on a pc with docked performance of the Switch and Nintendos handheld manages to keep up the good work in handheld mode. I'm pretty hyped for Doom. And we are still in the first year of the console!
 
MisterR

MisterR

Member
LordKano said:
I don't understand why some people think that DF's impressions are how everyone should feel about the game. They provide numbers, facts, and footage to people to debate visuals and performances of video games. If they think that running at half the frame-rate is fine and that, since the visuals themselves looks good, it's a good port, that's great for them and the people agreeing. But you can also disagree and think that they should have prioritized framerate (or visuals, for that matter) above all and that running at half the framerate negate any other visual feat the port accomplish.

That's called interpretation and different opinions. DFs impressions are not the mighty god.
Click to expand...

Yep, DF's facts are great, doesn't mean you have to come to the same conclusion as them.
 
OmegaDL50

OmegaDL50

Member
Why do people keep referencing the the Low Spec Gamer video which has a AMD AM1 Athlon 5350, with 4 GB DDR3, and a NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 running DOOM then?

I'm referencing this video by the way - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq8UUkWfshg

In the DOOM and Wolfenstein II for Switch announcement thread people made note that the PC in the video above is weaker than the Switch.

Doom is supposed to be coming out this Holiday so I'd say the port is probably fairly fair along, so console level optimizations for the Switch hardware had to be factored already, no?
 
L

LordKano

Member
Shaanyboi said:
Okay, well right now they're the only people with any impressions of this incomplete port. So their impressions and those of people who actually played this demo are kinda the only ones that really matter without any meaningful footage etc. for everyone else to see.
Click to expand...

The framerate it's running on is a fact (unless DF failed their analysis but they're pro so I doubt that), if someone was basing their eventual purchase just based on that element, then no impressions in the world could change his disappointment, even if everything else is perfect.

i.e. : even if it was the game running at PS4 Pro settings on the console, people could think it's not a good version based on the framerate alone. That doesn't mean people that are fine with that are wrong either. Bethesda made a divisive choice, and I'm on the side that it wasn't a good choice.
 
D

Diablohead

Member
brawly said:
And some people exptected 720p/60fps.

Welcome to hybrid reality.
Click to expand...

Well this is all undocked stuff right now, you never know what will happen when docked and I don't say that as hope, just that we still don't know whats up with docked mode.

OmegaDL50 said:
Why do people keep referencing the the Low Spec Gamer video which has a CPU: AMD AM1 Athlon 5350, with 4 GB DDR3, and a NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 running DOOM then?

I'm referencing this video by the way - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq8UUkWfshg

In the DOOM and Wolfenstein II for Switch announcement thread people made note that the PC in the video above is weaker than the Switch.

Doom is supposed to be coming out this Holiday so I'd say the port is probably fairly fair along, so console level optimizations for the Switch hardware had to be factored already, no?
Click to expand...

That footage is 960x540 and looks really chunky and very low quality, if the switch ran the game with that visual performance people would not buy it.
 
J

jett

D-Member
peanutbutterlatte said:
Just watched a video of Doom in 30fps... am I missing something? Do I need to play it to understand why it's apparently so awful?

I feel like I'm truly missing some sort of baffling decision.
Click to expand...

I think some people are trolling, others are throwing a shitfit at their apparently incredulity that the Switch is in fact not as powerful as a PS4 or Xbox One.

Doom at 30fps is going to be fine.
 
P

pa22word

Member
iswasdoes said:
This thread now has the stale smell of fanboys wanting to shit on the Switch. How unpleasant.
Click to expand...
In my experience thus far it's been mostly fragile switch owners upset Bethesda couldn't conjure magical hardware sprouting magic fairies to sprinkle pixie dust on every doom cart that would cause the systems cpu to grow a few extra cores and run 2GHz faster that are shitting the thread up.
 
T

Thraktor

Member
JonnyDBrit said:
...You know, this makes me wonder if the Switch port of Wolfenstein will be handled by Bethesda themselves, or by Panic Button again. Could make for an interesting comparison.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering about. Both id and MachineGames should be able to dedicate staff to it after the PC/PS4/XBO versions release, and there won't be as much time pressure as there is on Doom, which they have to get out be Christmas.
 
Rellik

Rellik

Member
sleepnaught said:
Its only unplayable if their precious box can play it at 60. Soon as their Potatostation runs something 30 fps, its totally fine and "I cant tell the difference".
Click to expand...

Most people in here are being sensible and having a discussion. We don't need this GameFAQ level fanboy crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[SwitchUp] Red Dead Redemption Nintendo Switch Technical Performance Review!
Analysis
23
3K
Mephisto40 replied
  • Poll
[The Verge] It’s time for Microsoft to build an Xbox Steam Deck
2 3 4
189
14K
Xion_Stellar replied
Digital Foundry: Nier Automata for Nintendo Switch - DF Tech Review - Another Impossible Port?
2
78
6K
bender replied
A handheld Xbox? Microsoft’s gaming chief can’t stop thinking about it
2 3
113
6K
Reallink replied
[IGN] Seriously, Nintendo, It’s Time to Release a Switch Pro
2 3 4 5 6
296
20K
Knightime_X replied
Top Bottom