DOOM: The Dark Ages Path Tracing Update Coming June 18th

Framegen is most effective when you don't actually need framegen!

It's utterly stupid.
It's not stupid at all because it's the exact opposite: framegen is most effective when you don't need more fps input-wise but you do need more fps visual-wise.
Most times you won't feel the difference in input lag above ~90 fps while you will notice the added motion fluidity well into several 100s of these.
 
lol at them scanning the maps like forensic experts trying to find any meaningful difference at the cost of half the framerate.

what a wet fart of an update, 2 months late at that too.
 
d3dde580d149d4035af24809ce4cb4b8c41e802ec9b7b9a9986b0b6e6aab35f4.png
 
That's a stupid graph. Running at 4k with framegen and no upsampling is clearly memory constrained on alll 16 GB cards. Completely useless scenario to test.

Edit:
Pathtracing is meant to be played with upscaling. Why not show the results using DLSS performance and no frame gen at 4k and DLSS balanced at 1440p. That way people could get a sense for what 'real' fps they'd actually get. Maybe it doesn't fit the narrative some people are trying to create.
 
Last edited:
The game's visuals, PT aside, are underwhelming and the raytracing requirements are bs. Doom Eternal looks just as good, even better in terms of architecture and runs 10 times better. Microsoft really killed id like with all other gaming divisions.
 
The game's visuals, PT aside, are underwhelming and the raytracing requirements are bs. Doom Eternal looks just as good, even better in terms of architecture and runs 10 times better. Microsoft really killed id like with all other gaming divisions.
Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016


DOOM Eternal does not look as good, let alone better.
 
nice to hear there are no VRAM limitations this time. downloading the game again, cannot be worse than cyberpunk's path tracing performance on my 3070. i will share results later on
 
Last edited:
nice to hear there are no VRAM limitations this time. downloading the game again, cannot be worse than cyberpunk's path tracing performance on my 3070. i will share results later on
It's actually similar. RT Overdrive at 4K native in Cyberpunk nets you 30-35fps on a 5090. Same performance in DOOM The Dark Ages at the same resolution.
 
Just tried it. On my 5070ti, with no frame gen and DLSS Balanced, I get just over 60fps @ 1440p with everything at max.

I would say that 4k with DLSS performance isn't playable, as I get around 45 fps. If I want to play at 4k, I need to set DLSS to ultra performance, which gets me a little over 70fps.
 
It's actually similar. RT Overdrive at 4K native in Cyberpunk nets you 30-35fps on a 5090. Same performance in DOOM The Dark Ages at the same resolution.
hmm interesting. then i should be able to get around 45 fps at 1080p dlss quality which is more than playable enough for me with nvidia reflex
i may do a reduced difficulty to replay if that's the case



i already did a anticipation gameplay at 36-45 fps to see if it was viable. it is viable, at least for me
 
Last edited:
No, right.

M7LW5BZ.png


Vastly improved character models, lighting, particle effects, and geometry. Eternal does not look better. Stop this nonsense.
Edit: fuck it, I concede but you missed my entire point, which was that The Dark Ages does not look like a game that would require a raytraced card or be super demanding. Its visuals are subpar and could've been achieved and improved just as Eternal did over 2016 one. I know you're a raytraced obssed freak, but keep living in your bubble if you truly think The Dark Ages looks "vastly" superior. Thats just fucking retarded.

A vastly visual differnce is between Far Cry 1 and Crysis. This is just a 10 year old vs a 12 year old kid with extra pubes. I'll just leave it at that and get out of here. Enjoy 20 fps fake frames on your "next-gen games" and 80 euros. I played and finished it and it was not that good compared to Eternal in terms of everything.
 
Last edited:
Has extra hair
"Vastly"
It's not just extra hair. The model has better textures and geometry.


Different artstyle does not mean better lmao.

Good thing it's not just art style but is also straight-up better on a technical level, huh?
No. Better destruction? Sure. Better lighting? Where? There's no visual difference outside of you knowing that one is raytraced and the other is baked since the latter is faked extremely well.
This must be a joke. This is Doom Eternal with the player standing directly in the shadows. The weapon is still glowing like you were in broad daylight.

CgvnAWP.png


Now contrast that with The Dark Ages.

btyqeEd.png


Oh, shit, the shadows and light actually interact with the weapon! Crazy stuff.
Architecture is better in Eternal. Stop this nonsense.
Don't care about your subjective opinion. You like the architecture style better, cool.
Also, you missed my entire point, which was that The Dark Ages does not look like a game that would require a raytraced card or be super demanding. Its visuals are subpar and could've been achieved and improved just as Eternal did over 2016 one. I know you're a raytraced obssed freak, but keep living in your bubble if you truly think The Dark Ages looks "vastly" superior. Thats just fucking retarded.
Your point was hyperbolic nonsense. Say what you will about the game being too demanding, but going "Hur hur, Eternal looks as good or better" is bullshit.

Eternal at times look like shit with awful lighting and texture work.

iq09Eu7.png
 
Last edited:
No, right.

M7LW5BZ.png


Vastly improved character models, lighting, particle effects, and geometry. Eternal does not look better. Stop this nonsense.

Doom Eternal's art direction is just awful. The cartoony demons was a mistake - the Cacodemon is some of the goofiest shit they've ever come up and the Cyber Mancubus straight up looked like a McDonald's toy.

The Dark Ages on the other hand looks like a playable heavy metal album. Technologically but also artistically shits on Eternal.
 
It's not just extra hair. The model has better textures and geometry.

Good thing it's not just art style but is also straight-up better on a technical level, huh?

This must be a joke. This is Doom Eternal with the player standing directly in the shadows. The weapon is still glowing like you were in broad daylight.

CgvnAWP.png


Now contrast that with The Dark Ages.

btyqeEd.png


Oh, shit, the shadows and light actually interact with the weapon! Crazy stuff.

Don't care about your subjective opinion. You like the architecture style better, cool.

Your point was hyperbolic nonsense. Say what you will about the game being too demanding, but going "Hur hur, Eternal looks as good or better" is bullshit.

Eternal at times look like shit with awful lighting and texture work.

iq09Eu7.png
let me help you

main boss doom eternal
valciM2.png


your pet dragon in doom dark ages
mqUqrbC.png


important cutscene from ancient gods part 2 dlc
nO70BL6.png


random cutscene from doom dark ages (in engine btw)
clQ4C4j.jpeg


look how flat this looks

uHGdS52.png


and how beautifully lit this is
y4dgJA5.png
 
Edit: fuck it, I concede but you missed my entire point, which was that The Dark Ages does not look like a game that would require a raytraced card or be super demanding. Its visuals are subpar and could've been achieved and improved just as Eternal did over 2016 one. I know you're a raytraced obssed freak, but keep living in your bubble if you truly think The Dark Ages looks "vastly" superior. Thats just fucking retarded.
I said myself repeatedly that the game is too demanding for what it has on display, but I also understand the environments are much, much larger and the enemy count has been dramatically improved. if they had used traditional baked lighting, the game would still be in development, or we'd have a much uglier game.
A vastly visual differnce is between Far Cry 1 and Crysis. This is just a 10 year old vs a 12 year old kid with extra pubes. I'll just leave it at that and get out of here. Enjoy 20 fps fake frames on your "next-gen games" and 80 euros. I played and finished it and it was not that good compared to Eternal in terms of everything.
Yeah, the visual leaps were bigger when the games looked worse, no shit. My point was that if you want to have a discussion over the visuals, don't start with ridiculous statements like Eternal looking better. It doesn't. We can discuss the visual improvements vs performance differentials, there's a debate to be had, but claiming Eternal looks as good or better is just no.
 
Last edited:
Just tried it. On my 5070ti, with no frame gen and DLSS Balanced, I get just over 60fps @ 1440p with everything at max.

I would say that 4k with DLSS performance isn't playable, as I get around 45 fps. If I want to play at 4k, I need to set DLSS to ultra performance, which gets me a little over 70fps.
I tried MFG when my base was around 40 and it was weird feeling, but visually not terrible. Not good, but not godawful bad.
 
let me help you

main boss doom eternal
valciM2.png


your pet dragon in doom dark ages
mqUqrbC.png


important cutscene from ancient gods part 2 dlc
nO70BL6.png


random cutscene from doom dark ages (in engine btw)
clQ4C4j.jpeg


look how flat this looks

uHGdS52.png


and how beautifully lit this is
y4dgJA5.png
lol what kind of a cherry picked doctored bs is this, all the eternal shots are with washed out blacks, while dark ages is the game with objectively broken washed out hdr.
work more on your photoshop skills
 
Last edited:
yeah I'm a time traveler thanks

dlc story spoilers
Ek9rl0N.png
i played none of these games with hdr so no idea what you're talking about
 
Last edited:
I just read the Gamegpu benchmark, and damn! This is easily the most demanding PT game right now. To get 80 fps on the RTX 4080, I would need to run 1440p with DLSS Q and FGx2 on top of that. For comparison, Cyberpunk with similar settings runs at 120 fps. I might experiment with PT just to see how significant the difference is, but I will most likely turn it off.
 
This is probably the worst looking game that uses raytracing and pathtracing.
yeah considering the perf penalty its honestly quite a case against the whole tech, despite all the shilling df tries to do for them..
you could tell when the devs had to resort to "it saves us time", as they barely had anything to show for it visually.

not even sure what "time" they saved honestly, made a dumbed down 15hours sequel in 5 years , which doesnt look anywhere close to a generational leap.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom