• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Doom 4 Alpha Benchmarks

D

Dahaka

Member
http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/doom-alpha-test-gpu.html

disclaimer (auto translated):

2-gigabyte video card in the test we did not take, so as not to cause even more confusion. Thus, when the test elucidated the situation, for example, that was faster 760-770 ti 780 and 980, but in this case the picture is somewhat worse. And on the other younger models almost slideshow. Apparently the game will automatically adjust settings, not allowing the user to manipulate (not amenable to logic, but apparently setting is determined based on the volume of video adapter). It is possible for AMD cards also used several lower settings than the NVIDIA older, but that we learn to release games that will be available free access to the graphic settings of the game. So we advise not to use our test as a basis for making a decision on buying a video card for this game.
Click to expand...

DOOM_1920.jpg


DOOM_2560.jpg


DOOM_3840.jpg


BFG 9000 me if old
 
gat dang that radeon performance
 
When tuxfool psoted these the other day I died inside. Not because of the obvious alpha nature of the vendor spread... but because of the terrifying thought that Doom 4 will be capped @ 60fps for no fucking reason.
 
Looks pretty demanding, which isn't a bad thing necessarily.

Any reason why nothing goes above 60fps?
 
I wanted to complain that 280X isn't on the list, but then I saw it's actually higher than a 780, 970, 980 and even all the SLI variants (edit: apparently SLI doesn't work, because the FPS is exactly the same). Can't be right?
 
GHG said:
Looks pretty demanding, which isn't a bad thing necessarily.

Any reason why nothing goes above 60fps?
Click to expand...

Probably locked for the alpha for stability reasons, but with that said, have any recent id Tech games been able to go above 60fps?
 
Red Hood said:
I wanted to complain that 280X isn't on the list, but then I saw it's actually higher than a 780, 970, 980 and even all the SLI variants (edit: apparently SLI doesn't work, because the FPS is exactly the same). Can't be right?
Click to expand...

SLI not working. Values are the same for single vs. SLI configurations.
 
One of the biggest reasons I am not really hyped for Doom 4 is the fact that it is technical rubbish.



In the past, Doom games have heralded the future of gaming technology. Doom 3 looks great to to this day, over a decade later.


Yes yes, I know Carmack is gone.


But still, they could have made the game look good. Instead, it looks like Wolfenstien. While that was a great game, it was also a technical shitpile.
 
Nostalgic Windy said:
Probably locked for the alpha for stability reasons, but with that said, have any recent id Tech games been able to go above 60fps?
Click to expand...

Just doom 3 BFG edition. That is the last game since Quake 3 they made that goes above 60. It would be absolutely ridiculous that this game should be locked @ 60 though at release.
 
BigTnaples said:
One of the biggest reasons I am not really hyped for Doom 4 is the fact that it is technical rubbish.



In the past, Doom games have heralded the future of gaming technology. Doom 3 looks great to to this day, over a decade later.


Yes yes, I know Carmack is gone.


But still, they could have made the game look good. Instead, it looks like Wolfenstien. While that was a great game, it was also a technical shitpile.
Click to expand...
? Wolf TNO looked great
Doom 4 looks so fucking generic and bland
 
Dictator93 said:
When tuxfool psoted these the other day I died inside. Not because of the obvious alpha nature of the vendor spread... but because of the terrifying thought that Doom 4 will be capped @ 60fps for no fucking reason.
Click to expand...

I want to believe it's because they tied physics to framerate like in the Quake 3 engine. My bro bound a key to toggle cap FPS to 41 so he could reach higher boxes in RTCW MP. Good times.
 
Shuggananas said:
? Wolf TNO looked great
Doom 4 looks so fucking generic and bland
Click to expand...

Wolf TNO has great art, but its technology mars it at every step of the way.
No_Style said:
I want to believe it's because they tied physics to framerate like in the Quake 3 engine. My bro bound a key to toggle cap FPS to 41 so he could reach higher boxes in RTCW MP. Good times.
Click to expand...

I believe @ above 90 fps Quake has some wonkier physics, but that was the mid 90s. But this is 2016 for christ sakes, locked 60fps is just pathetic. Even when doom 3 came out the lock was really confusing.
 
I'm hoping this is just a default frame cap, not like id Tech 5 where the whole engine was designed to deliver 60, no lower or higher. I appreciate the framerate consistency, but the limit not so much. At least the texture nightmare will be over... hopefully.
 
No_Style said:
I want to believe it's because they tied physics to framerate like in the Quake 3 engine. My bro bound a key to toggle cap FPS to 41 so he could reach higher boxes in RTCW MP. Good times.
Click to expand...

That's the case. It was originally possible to uncap the framerate in Rage, but as this had an adverse effect on overall game speed, the command was patched out.

ThoseDeafMutes said:
I'm hoping this is just a default frame cap, not like id Tech 5 where the whole engine was designed to deliver 60, no lower or higher. I appreciate the frametime consistency, but the limit not so much. At least the texture nightmare will be over... hopefully.
Click to expand...

id Tech 6 is just a slightly modified id Tech 5 -- more or less the same aside from the addition of PBR, according to the GI preview earlier in the year. I'd expect the framerate limit to stick.
 
I'm guessing Doom still has a ton of PC optimization to do, but I thought the whole point of IdTech5 (or whatever proprietary Carmack engine this is) was performance? I recall a few articles saying it's even 1080p@60 on X1.
 
I don't think this game looks generic at all. It has a very distinctive visual aesthetic, much more interesting that the 2011 leaked material which qualifies as bland and derivative in my eyes.

At least I can easily tell "this is Doom" by looking at the screenshots.
 
Doom getting shitty performance in 75% of the existing gaming PCs. Well done!

Hope they fix it in the final version, for their own good.
 
BigTnaples said:
One of the biggest reasons I am not really hyped for Doom 4 is the fact that it is technical rubbish.



In the past, Doom games have heralded the future of gaming technology. Doom 3 looks great to to this day, over a decade later.


Yes yes, I know Carmack is gone.


But still, they could have made the game look good. Instead, it looks like Wolfenstien. While that was a great game, it was also a technical shitpile.
Click to expand...

?

they're shooting for 60fps on consoles and when you take that into account i'd say it looks pretty great
 
That...is interesting. Seems way way more demanding than expected considering the console versions (at least in multiplayer) are 60fps. I wonder just how much more detailed the PC version is?

But still, they could have made the game look good. Instead, it looks like Wolfenstien. While that was a great game, it was also a technical shitpile.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely insane if you're not seeing the massive jump from Wolfenstein to this. Doom looks dramatically better. It's a beautiful game.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
Absolutely disgusting.jpg
Click to expand...
I am vomitting in stanzas.
I don't even know what that means.
NippleViking said:
I'm guessing Doom still has a ton of PC optimization to do, but I thought the whole point of IdTech5 (or whatever proprietary Carmack engine this is) was performance? I recall a few articles saying it's even 1080p@60 on X1.
Click to expand...
Thankfully PCs are unchained from that limit. Having another game arbitrarily limited to 60, one that apparently emphasises movement and speed (according to their own advertisement), is just so sad.
 
Why people complain about locked framerate when you need at least a 780 Ti to hit that ceiling?

Either there's something wrong with these benchmarks or the engine is utter shit.
 
BigTnaples said:
One of the biggest reasons I am not really hyped for Doom 4 is the fact that it is technical rubbish.



In the past, Doom games have heralded the future of gaming technology. Doom 3 looks great to to this day, over a decade later.


Yes yes, I know Carmack is gone.


But still, they could have made the game look good. Instead, it looks like Wolfenstien. While that was a great game, it was also a technical shitpile.
Click to expand...

Go back and play TNO please. I've played that and the Alpha, and Doom straight up looks a generation ahead.
 
Red Hood said:
I wanted to complain that 280X isn't on the list, but then I saw it's actually higher than a 780, 970, 980 and even all the SLI variants (edit: apparently SLI doesn't work, because the FPS is exactly the same). Can't be right?
Click to expand...

Same here. I was shocked to see it THAT high in the charts... something's fishy.....
 
Gormenghast said:
Why people complain about locked framerate when you need at least a 780 Ti to hit that ceiling?

Either there's something wrong with these benchmarks or the engine is utter shit.
Click to expand...
'Tis alpha. The real performance is irrelevant as of yet, rather the idea of a constant and forced arbitrary limit in the age of 144hz monitors is super silly.

Even COD games, which represent the console mass-generalisation in its purest form, allow for greater than 60hz.
 
dark10x said:
That...is interesting. Seems way way more demanding than expected considering the console versions (at least in multiplayer) are 60fps. I wonder just how much more detailed the PC version is?
Click to expand...

Depends how consistent the console framerates end up being in comparison too. 60 isn't always 60, something I'm sure you're intimately familiar with.
 
There must be a bug or something with nvidia cards, a 7950 doing better than a 970 makes no sense. The 60fps cap is even worse though cause performance will eventually get fixed.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
Absolutely disgusting.jpg
Click to expand...

Dishonored 2 may even suffer the same fate as it's assumed Void isn't actually a new engine but rather an early fork of id Tech 6. I have to say, though, that a game such as Dishonored -- where so much thought and effort has been put into making a distinct, painterly visual style -- would greatly benefit from the driving idea behind virtualised textures (entire large levels becoming a blank canvas for artists).
 
Gormenghast said:
Why people complain about locked framerate when you need at least a 780 Ti to hit that ceiling?

Either there's something wrong with these benchmarks or the engine is utter shit.
Click to expand...

Because you can lower settings if you want better performance. It isn't rocket science to understand that.
 
roadrunn3r said:
There must be a bug or something with nvidia cards, a 7950 doing better than a 970 makes no sense. The 60fps cap is even worse though cause performance will eventually get fixed.
Click to expand...

Between groups discrepancies aside, the real take away message is it's currently very taxing in general. The 960 4gb getting ~30fps is brutal. Hopefully the reason is a combination of alpha level optimization and it having extra effects on PC. Because otherwise that's scary.
 
JaseC said:
Dishonored 2 may even suffer the same fate as it's assumed Void isn't actually a new engine but rather an early fork of id Tech 6. I have to say, though, that a game such as Dishonored -- where so much thought and effort has been put into making a distinct, painterly visual style -- would greatly benefit from the driving idea behind virtualised textures (entire large levels becoming a blank canvas for artists).
Click to expand...

I like the idea of mega textures, but the way they ended up actually implementing it (using "stamping" for randomisation and personilsation), just led in a lot of cases to the same patterns popping up, just in a different order. It wasn't as painterly as they describe it.
 
Who benches an Alpha anyway? Drivers will be ready on release date, graphics might be unfinished and optimizations surely isn't done also. So this tells us exactly nothing.
 
added disclaimer (auto translated):

2-gigabyte video card in the test we did not take, so as not to cause even more confusion. Thus, when the test elucidated the situation, for example, that was faster 760-770 ti 780 and 980, but in this case the picture is somewhat worse. And on the other younger models almost slideshow. Apparently the game will automatically adjust settings, not allowing the user to manipulate (not amenable to logic, but apparently setting is determined based on the volume of video adapter). It is possible for AMD cards also used several lower settings than the NVIDIA older, but that we learn to release games that will be available free access to the graphic settings of the game. So we advise not to use our test as a basis for making a decision on buying a video card for this game.
Click to expand...
 
Apparently the game will automatically adjust settings, not allowing the user to manipulate (not amenable to logic, but apparently setting is determined based on the volume of video adapter).
Click to expand...

That better not be the case for the release. WTF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DOOM 4 Assets and concept art
17
673
Walliwallipaloo replied
Hardware Unboxed - Forza Horizon 6 GPU benchmarks
Hardware 
1
136
realcool replied
Morrowind Is The New Doom, As Modder Gets It Running In Fallout 4
Retro Trailer Indie 
2
148
IAmRei replied
DOOM Eternal On GOG
20
635
Tobimacoss replied
Abyss of Doom - Official Teaser Trailer
Trailer 
1
148
JohnnyFootball replied
Top Bottom