DOOM Eternal Tested on Low-end Graphics Cards

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,078   +1,719
Low settings with RS on this game is still very nice. That is one thing to say, 'low' doesn't mean sub console quality. There is a high watermark here.

7970GHz is super impressive. GTX680 is essentially the same generation albeit a few months older than the GHz revision, they were generally pretty close to equal on 2012 games. If anything the GTX680 was slightly faster. It's crazy how it even crushes the 780Ti.

That surely has to be drivers for this specific game.

I also noticed with some modern cards the impact memory has on this game, which appears quite significant. For example there the 4GB RX570 and the 8GB RX570 are miles apart. The 8GB card is leagues ahead. They are identical in core and clocks, the only thing that changes for those variants is memory.

I wonder how much of it is the mentioned bugs, there are a few odd things about how this game runs on certain cards.
 
Last edited:

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 2,635   +2,258
It is really nice to see that the game runs really well on lower-end graphics cards from 2 generations ago and can handle consoles including Switch.

Thing is: the graphics are cartoony to me. Brighter and more colorful than Doom 2016.

I really would like to see a DOOM that's more realistic looking like Crysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0dium and Aus spot

veLa

Posts: 952   +440
Fascinating how AMD cards age significantly better than NVIDIA cards do. Either it's NVIDIA failing to support older hardware with optimized drivers while AMD does, or perhaps AMD's architecture is simply more future proof.
 

ZackL04

Posts: 639   +395
Tough to see 780ti so low, used to faster than a 290 at release and later a GTX 970 Traded blows

Obviously Nvidia has totally forgotten about 700 series owners

Foil hat removed, I understand AMD’s more core architecture is the real difference maker here. Just means these old 290’s and 390’s are awesome value if you have a big enough power supply for them
 
Last edited:

SoloCamo

Posts: 15   +24
Exactly, these kinds of comparisons are essentially meaningless without a realistic matching cpu.
This train of thought is incorrect when you are simply trying to see how gpu's stack up. Why bother intentionally limiting performance?

Besides, for the sake of testing I even paired an oc'ed Vega 64 with a FX-9590 and at 1080p ultra nightmare the frames were ridiculously high.

You'd have to drop down to an unrealistically low end cpu to see any meaningful bottleneck in this title.
 

Nightfire

Posts: 253   +156
Probably the only game where a 6 GB 280x would make sense. You could run ultra Nightmare with a little help from DR perhaps. I agree that this game needs a tru low setting as they are all very close.
 

EClyde

Posts: 2,160   +837
I remember tweaking text files to get 30 fps in Quake. This was a nice post cause now I know what my R9 280 will get. I have a 6GB Asus GTX 1660 I may swap it out.
 

Lounds

Posts: 405   +300
Tough to see 780ti so low, used to faster than a 290 at release and later a GTX 970 Traded blows

Obviously Nvidia has totally forgotten about 700 series owners

Foil hat removed, I understand AMD’s more core architecture is the real difference maker here. Just means these old 290’s and 390’s are awesome value if you have a big enough power supply for them
That's mainly due to GNC being in current gen consoles, so the underlining code for a lot of modern games still suits old GNC Radeon cards. AMD fine wine indeed.
 

toooooot

Posts: 1,189   +536
Fascinating how AMD cards age significantly better than NVIDIA cards do. Either it's NVIDIA failing to support older hardware with optimized drivers while AMD does, or perhaps AMD's architecture is simply more future proof.
I made a mention of that in another bench article. It is well known that Nvidia stops optimizing the older products so they fall further and further down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

bluetooth fairy

Posts: 143   +90
It was stated in the above video "update your drivers, wash your hands", the problem now can also be restated to "hands unwashed".

Two GTX 1650 4G on both diagrams, is it normal? I guess one of the is GTX 1060 6G.

As of "a bit bloody odd performance in DE", I've seen a bit different results for RX 570 4G vs GTX 1060 3/6G in 1080p on low, with Radeon above both Geforces. On Tom's Hardware, for example.
 
Low-end PC? Surprised streaming service like stadia / gforce now weren't mentioned as a side note since they solve this issue.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 404   +395
It is amazing how much the 980 Ti holds up even today, especially at 1080P.

My lowly 780 Ti isn't doing so well. :-(
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZackL04

ZackL04

Posts: 639   +395
It is amazing how much the 980 Ti holds up even today, especially at 1080P.

My lowly 780 Ti isn't doing so well. :-(
And thats a near factory clocked 980ti, add another 40O hmz or so overclock and imagine what its putting down. They overclock like a mofo, too bad they dont support adaptive sync, I would have never moved to a 1070