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

Doom 4 Alpha Benchmarks

I was in the alpha using a 770 to play this game and my frame rate never dropped below 55. I don't know where these stats are coming from
 
misses bull said:
I was in the alpha using a 770 to play this game and my frame rate never dropped below 55. I don't know where these stats are coming from
Click to expand...

it's from a Russian website, so I'm not entirely sure if the hardware they CLAIM to be using is actually legit since I was playing using a GTX 780 and my framerate hovered between 45 and 55 FPS at 1920x1080.
 
Reactions to alpha builds performance are quite.. funny, why people are treating this as final code and version of the game? :D

RoboPlato said:
When were these benchmarks done? The last alpha was months ago.
Click to expand...

Could be quite recent even. Alpha files got leaked to torrents and it was quite easily cracked for offline play against bots, few guys over at DOOM World did it while datamining.

bathsalts said:
The 'options' menu is a sad looking thing.
DOOMx64_2016_02_16_21_49_17_680.jpg
Click to expand...

I wouldn't jump the gun and call options menu shit. Even to get access to those settings required alphas exe to be cracked so clearly WIP menus that users weren't supposed to use, afaik.

Edit:
UpDownLeftRight said:
If it can't be locked to 60 minimum at 1080p off a 970 then I won't be bothering. I dunno where these stats came from but I really hope they're bullshit.
Click to expand...

They came from ALPHA build of the game aka not even near final code and optimisation.
 
If it can't be locked to 60 minimum at 1080p off a 970 then I won't be bothering. I dunno where these stats came from but I really hope they're bullshit.
 
Finaika said:
"Optimize" is being thrown around frequently recently.
Click to expand...
It's killing me. While it's definitely possible for a game to poorly scale to hardware, making this determination takes a lot longer than running an alpha benchmark at max settings. Hell, "max settings" can mean very different things depending on the game.
 
UpDownLeftRight said:
If it can't be locked to 60 minimum at 1080p off a 970 then I won't be bothering. I dunno where these stats came from but I really hope they're bullshit.
Click to expand...

For whatever reason, Russian forum posters tend to report MUCH lower performance on "similar hardware" than in the West. Plus, this is still a very old Alpha build and performance has no doubt SIGNIFICANTLY improved.
 
CastleRybread said:
You stick to single GPU setups because alphas dont have sli or crossfire support already added to them?
Click to expand...

To be fair, this is IdTech. I can't think of a single IDTech game where SLI worked.

That said, this is an alpha and I would expect performance to increase with official drivers.
 
Definitely don't buy this at launch if the game seems to be having specific issues with Nvidia (if you have an Nvidia card that is).

This just screams RAGE all over again with launch driver issues.
 
I'm assuming that this game won't support SLI if the engine takes an roots from IdTech5. I hope I'm wrong though.

SLI has been the only thing keeping my 2GB GTX 670s relevant.
 
I was going to note how ridiculous you all sound, acting as if the press would get benchmark access to a true alpha, but they do have until May to get this going proper.

It does appear that as the AMD performance is so much higher & limited options & EVERYTHING we've heard that this may be a console game, period. Meaning, PC version on jank watch.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
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.
Click to expand...
We don't know about the single player yet but the multiplayer alpha thing was basically a locked 60fps on PS4. Again, small map and who knows about the settings. It looked good, though.
 
I find it hard to believe a GTX Titan @ 6G can not run this game at 30FPS @ 4k -- especially when pretty much every game out there can. Won't be buying this if these FPS holds at release time.
 
Angel_DvA said:
devs really need to optimize their games at this point,a 980 isn't even 2 years old and can't even run it at a locked 60FPS... a joke.
Click to expand...

Did everyone forget that 10-15 years ago high-end cards often struggled to hit decent framerates in new games? With decent I mean 30fps. Present games are very modest compared to that.

OT: Alpha benches. Will wait for final results.
 
UpDownLeftRight said:
If it can't be locked to 60 minimum at 1080p off a 970 then I won't be bothering. I dunno where these stats came from but I really hope they're bullshit.
Click to expand...

My experience with the Alpha was buttery smooth to be honest, XB1 and PC. Plus a number of articles / interviews mentioned the campaign running at 60fps. So I have no idea where these numbers came from. This reminds me of when the Doom 3 "Alpha" leaked and everyone started freaking out about its performance which was beyond poorly optimized.
 
Ok wait a second

Last time i criticized the game looks in an older thread (because i thought it looked OK-ish) some people replied to me and said it's targeting 60fps on consoles.

So now you are telling me it runs at 60fps on consoles but can't run at 60fps on a super desktop CPU coupled with a GTX970?

Yeah i know, alpha. In other words, i expect 3x more fps in the final version, or bust.
 
nkarafo said:
Ok wait a second

Last time i criticized the game looks in an older thread (because i thought it looked OK-ish) some people replied to me and said it's targeting 60fps on consoles.

So now you are telling me it runs at 60fps on consoles but can't run at 60fps on a super desktop CPU coupled with a GTX970?

Yeah i know, alpha. In other words, i expect 3x more fps in the final version, or bust.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no way this is final. The game is already running really well on consoles (and in the older PC alpha).
 
There's no fucking way this game comes out and won't allow a PC with moderately better-than-console spec, outrun the console version at similar settings.



No fucking way.


Ignore the benchmarks until we have the final game in-hand
 
Kezen said:
Of course it can't "max out" AAA games at 60fps. Why would developpers stop at 980 level ?
Click to expand...

It's done a pretty good job so far. Of course we don't want developers "stopping" at any level of card. It's just that if these scores sustain, and assuming the game is not just poorly optimized, then this would be that tipping point, which seems early going by how long that level of card used to "last" in the "maxxing out" sense. :-)
 
nkarafo said:
We can ignore them, yes, but i'm curious, if they don't count then why do they exist? Is it information for developers or something? Honest question.
Click to expand...
These are not official and came from a leaked alpha that auto adjusts your settings, so these don't mean much really. Going by a friend who said his performance in this leak is way worse than the actual alpha, I am willing to bet besides enabling menu options they enabled some graphical options on Nvidia GPS that were not ready yet.

Also having played the real alpha myself, my 980 + 2500k ran it at a locked 60 just fine.
 
Am I hearing this right? People have been saying that the alpha sets the settings automatically based on the hardware?

So could the settings for the 980TI be set higher than the 290? Which could possibly explain the benchmark results?

If that's the case, I'd just ignore everything you see here...
 
Xdrive05 said:
It's done a pretty good job so far. Of course we don't want developers "stopping" at any level of card. It's just that if these scores sustain, and assuming the game is not just poorly optimized, then this would be that tipping point, which seems early going by how long that level of card used to "last" in the "maxxing out" sense. :-)
Click to expand...

Maxing out games, especially at 60fps was always quickly out of reach of high end cards and I can't complain that devs push boundaries. The game will very likely run much better come release.

But you can forget about maxing out AAA games at 60fps with this card. Just like pretty much everyone you will have to lower a few settings to get there, even at 1080p.
 
BigTnaples said:
Maybe it's a leap from Wolfenstien, but it still looks lackluster.


Doesn't come close to games like Battlefront, Froza, Driveclub, The Order, Unity, Witcher, MGSV, or even Halo, which disappointed graphically as well, but still looked much better than what I have seen from Doom 4.


Doom 4 looks like a "standard" current gen game. And "standard graphics" and "Doom" shouldn't be in the same sentence.


I'll just leave this here too. The good ole days.

http://youtu.be/Qj3dPyk7hPI
Click to expand...

While I don't entirely disagree with you about being disappointed in Doom's visuals versus previous Id games, comparing it to Doom 3 isn't exactly fair. At that point there was a huge shift to shaders just starting to happen which allowed games that took advantage of them to basically look a couple generations ahead. Doom 3 was using the new resources available to a greater extent than anything else.

That kind of hardware paradigm shift has simply not happened again since then. It's also important to keep in mind that Doom 3 wasn't trying to aim for 60FPS as a standard framerate either. According to an Id presentation I listened to, they weren't even running at 60FPS internally at the time of release.

It's legitimately upsetting to me to see an Id Tech game without Carmack at the helm but let's be fair with our comparisons.
 
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
149
IAmRei replied
DOOM Eternal On GOG
20
635
Tobimacoss replied
Abyss of Doom - Official Teaser Trailer
Trailer 
1
148
JohnnyFootball replied
Top Bottom