Doom (2016) PC performance thread

Wait what is this "nightmare" setting that people are talking about? Is this the nightmare option on the stats display? Or is there an actual graphical setting above the Ultra preset that I didn't see? Edit: Nevermind I'm dumb, read the OP.. :P

Also why does Ultra set AF to 8x? Weird..
 
EatChildren said:
This game isn't using any adaptive resolution, yeah? Sometimes it doesn't even look native 1440p, though I put that down to the shader aliasing throwing me.
Click to expand...

I would honestly be surprised if the game had much if any shader AA at all given the different types of AA in use (3 diff types!). Perhaps you are mistaking the "chunkiness" of pixels from motion blur some times? That can happen.
 
ISee said:
Those Benchmarks were made on ultra settings. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to hit 1080p/60 if you turn down some settings (at worst to ps4 levels). And once the 'in'famous vulkan patch comes out you'll be probably able to hit 1080p/60 with higer than ps4 settings.
Click to expand...

Yeah plus an i7 3770k CPU should help performance even if the GPU isn't the hottest. Game is much cheaper on PC too so my decision is made.

You convinced me thanks!
 
Been thinking about grabbing this, I have an i5 3570K and a 670, with 8 GB of system RAM.

Is that enough for like medium settings at 60? How will this compare to the PS4?
 
Bronetta said:
Yeah plus an i7 3770k CPU should help performance even if the GPU isn't the hottest. Game is much cheaper on PC too so my decision is made.

You convinced me thanks!
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you'll have fun. :)

OMG?! What have I done. What if it runs like shit... *sweat*
 
I just tested with old drivers looking at an area stationary and I was getting 87 FPS.
I installed the new drivers and I'm now getting 107 FPS in that same area as above.
 
So, Nvidia card owners. Do we select Computer Shaders (under advanced) or no??
There's been so much debate over whether Nvidia cards can even do async compute.
Last I read, nvidia could do some software trickery to approximate it somewhat, but async compute right now is only on the AMD cards. But it there in the menu, selectable for me nonetheless.

I'm running a 980ti. I toggled compute shaders on and off, never saw much diff. Can anyone shed some light on compute shaders, for Nvidia owners?
 
Shadowhaxor said:
Recorded some of my gameplay. First couple were at 1080p and after the second video I've started playing at 1440p. Had to scale it down a bit since I was able to maintain 60+ at Ultra, not so much at 1440p. Though I had a ton of stuff running on my PC at the same time and I need a refresh as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVrF1oD-2Uo

Will likely reload the OS and get some more testing done but it does run better than Wolfenstein, that's for sure.



Works pretty damned well. They have multiple ratio settings; 16:9, 16:10, 21:9, 25:16. I'm playing on a 34UM95P as well.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what GPU overlay your using and how its setup (fonts, sections etc) please?
 
PaNaMa said:
So, Nvidia card owners. Do we select Computer Shaders (under advanced) or no??
There's been so much debate over whether Nvidia cards can even do async compute.
Last I read, nvidia could do some software trickery to approximate it somewhat, but async compute right now is only on the AMD cards. But it there in the menu, selectable for me nonetheless.

I'm running a 980ti. I toggled compute shaders on and off, never saw much diff. Can anyone shed some light on compute shaders, for Nvidia owners?
Click to expand...

Mine is set to on... no idea what it's doing or not doing for me. Would also like some insight!
 
PaNaMa said:
So, Nvidia card owners. Do we select Computer Shaders (under advanced) or no??
There's been so much debate over whether Nvidia cards can even do async compute.
Last I read, nvidia could do some software trickery to approximate it somewhat, but async compute right now is only on the AMD cards. But it there in the menu, selectable for me nonetheless.

I'm running a 980ti. I toggled compute shaders on and off, never saw much diff. Can anyone shed some light on compute shaders, for Nvidia owners?
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with async compute, this is opengl. If you have a recent card, turn them on. Kepler cards MIGHT not handle them as well as other cards, but I don't know.
 
So with the 960 outperforming the 280X am I to suppose the engine still doesn't really like AMD GPUs all that much? I remember The New Order had some bizarre slowdown on my 280X for example. I was also under the impression that AMD had improved their OGL drivers a *lot* recently, no? Or are they still not as good as Nvidias?

I'm guessing none of that'll matter once they patch in Vulkan :P

Edit: Definitely some AMD fuckery going on since a 280X is outperforming the 290 by a fair margin :lol
 
Easy_D said:
So with the 960 outperforming the 280X am I to suppose the engine still doesn't really like AMD GPUs all that much? I remember The New Order had some bizarre slowdown on my 280X for example. I was also under the impression that AMD had improved their OGL drivers a *lot* recently, no? Or are they still not as good as Nvidias?

I'm guessing none of that'll matter once they patch in Vulkan :P

Edit: Definitely some AMD fuckery going on since a 280X is outperforming the 290 by a fair margin :lol
Click to expand...

Well, it really depends on what you're doing with opengl. I do some testing for the pcsx2 devs and AMD's opengl driver is definitely a source of pain for them(once it took more than 6 months once for a single bug fix to make it in a driver release). And performance can be far lower than nvidia with certain options enabled.
 
GTX 680 and an i7 3770k.

Most settings at medium, a few on high. Drops of the framerate to mid 40s during combat scenarios.

Don't know if somethings off or time to invest in a new card.
 
Ocarina_117 said:
GTX 680 and an i7 3770k.

Most settings at medium, a few on high. Drops of the framerate to mid 40s during combat scenarios.

Don't know if somethings off or time to invest in a new card.
Click to expand...


this gives me hope. I'm gonna be trying it tonight on a 650 ti 2gb. I have a good processor and enough ram so my only real gate is the gfx card. We'll see haha. I don't mind running it on windowed with everything on low.
 
bounchfx said:
this gives me hope. I'm gonna be trying it tonight on a 650 ti 2gb. I have a good processor and enough ram so my only real gate is the gfx card. We'll see haha. I don't mind running it on windowed with everything on low.
Click to expand...

That's not going to be a great experience. The minimum requirement is a 670.
 
dogen said:
Well, it really depends on what you're doing with opengl. I do some testing for the pcsx2 devs and AMD's opengl driver is definitely a source of pain for them(once it took more than 6 months once for a single bug fix to make it in a driver release). And performance can be far lower than nvidia with certain options enabled.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, yeah that happened with Elite Dangerous as well where a driver issue made the game slow to a crawl when you used hyper-cruise (Gotta-go-fast mode), took them 5 months to fix. Hoping that was just "Legacy" shit from the old Driver division mucking things up and not a sign of there being trouble with their reformed driver division

Luckily, PCSX2 seems to run rather well on my 280X these days, OGL generally runs better than the DX plugins, can even enable the settings that render Okami "properly" at 1080p without issue, that emulator just keeps getting better.
 
Easy_D said:
So with the 960 outperforming the 280X am I to suppose the engine still doesn't really like AMD GPUs all that much? I remember The New Order had some bizarre slowdown on my 280X for example. I was also under the impression that AMD had improved their OGL drivers a *lot* recently, no? Or are they still not as good as Nvidias?

I'm guessing none of that'll matter once they patch in Vulkan :P

Edit: Definitely some AMD fuckery going on since a 280X is outperforming the 290 by a fair margin :lol
Click to expand...
open GL on AMD has been pretty bad for a long time iirc. Vulkan should be much better.
 
Ragona said:
Man I feel like the 390 was the worst investment I have ever made, even though on paper its a pretty great card.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's a good card. BUT for a very strange reason it performs worse than a 380x in this game and nobody really knows or understands why...
 
Running smooth between 30-50 fps on medium/low on my old i5 750 (overclocked) + GTX 660 and 8 GB ram.

Pretty impressed on how great it looks and how optimized it is.
 
Easy_D said:
Hahaha, yeah that happened with Elite Dangerous as well where a driver issue made the game slow to a crawl when you used hyper-cruise (Gotta-go-fast mode), took them 5 months to fix. Hoping that was just "Legacy" shit from the old Driver division mucking things up and not a sign of there being trouble with their reformed driver division

Luckily, PCSX2 seems to run rather well on my 280X these days, OGL generally runs better than the DX plugins, can even enable the settings that render Okami "properly" at 1080p without issue, that emulator just keeps getting better.
Click to expand...

It's fine until you turn blending unit accuracy up. But this is off topic anyway.
 
AndyMoogle said:
That's not going to be a great experience. The minimum requirement is a 670.
Click to expand...

yeah, I'm aware. It's either that or wait 2 months to play. It's worth a shot, and I am not a stickler for 60 fps nor max resolution :) been playing witcher 3 and SFV windowed aha

Bloody_Five said:
Running smooth between 30-50 fps on medium/low on my old i5 750 (overclocked) + GTX 660 and 8 GB ram.

Pretty impressed on how great it looks and how optimized it is.
Click to expand...

awesome
 
Kareha said:
Can you tell me what GPU overlay your using and how its setup (fonts, sections etc) please?
Click to expand...

The Overlay is built in. Goto advanced options and select metrics. You have access to low, med, high and ultra. Basically different levels of display output.

Also happy to report that I'm running it on my testing PC / kids pc and I'm getting a solid 60 FPS on med/high settings. Which surprises me since it's rocking an old ass AMD Phenom II X4 945 and a GTX 970.

Oh and gamepad support is also really solid as well.
 
tempted to pick this up just to see it running on my current monitor.

Specs:
i5 3570k @4.2 GHz
GTX 970
16GB RAM

Wonder how close I can get to 144 fps on my 1080p monitor without it looking bad.
 
Tried turning off AA/sharpening and downsampling 1440p instead. It's funny, it feels like the artists over exaggerated the speculars in the game to compensate for how much PPAA kills the IQ. Everything that's supposed to be shiny really sticks out.
 
Wow, this not only looks and performs really well, but it plays fantastically. The performance overlay (and various levels of it) is really fuckin' cool too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
DOOM 2016 OR DOOM ETERNAL
2 3 4 5
201
7K
DryvBy replied
Doom 2016 - how the feck is this game so good?
2
84
4K
lakitu1982 replied
Doom The Dark Ages | Preview Thread
News  2 3 4 5 6
290
11K
TintoConCasera replied
Final Fantasy XVI PC Performance Thread
2 3
138
14K
Rush2112 replied
Capcom responds to Monster Hunter wilds PC performance issues
2 3 4
158
11K
polybius80 replied
Top Bottom