Doom Eternal won't run at true 4K on Stadia

[midian182]

A hot potato: For many subscribers to Google's Stadia Pro, the thought of being able to play Doom Eternal at a true 4K resolution was enough to hand over $10 per month. But according to id Software, the game won't live up to its promise.

At the Game Developers Conference in 2019, id Software’s Marty Stratton said that Doom Eternal “will be capable of running at true 4K resolution, with HDR color at an unrelenting 60 frames per second” on Stadia. According to the game’s launch details, however, one of those claims isn't true.

While Doom Eternal on Stadia will run at 1080p@60fps on HD displays, and support HDR, it will up-sample to 2160p from 1800p@60fps on 4K displays. While that’s still better than 1440p or up-scaling from 1080p, it means playing the FPS on Stadia will offer the same level of performance as the Xbox One X. Google had said Stadia’s GPU performance was better than Microsoft’s console and the PS4 Pro combined.

Other Stadia games have similar resolution issues. Red Dead Redemption 2 won’t natively render higher than 1440p and is updscaled to 4K, while Destiny 2 renders natively at 1080p and is upscaled but doesn’t reach 4K.

It was only last week that Stadia finally started rolling out 4K streaming support on the web—it had previously only been available to Chromecast Ultra users with a television.

If you’re playing Doom Eternal on a PC, check out the minimum and recommended requirements here.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/84352-doom-eternal-wont-run-true-4k-stadia.html

 

[Lounds]

"Google had said Stadia’s GPU performance was better than Microsoft’s console and the PS4 Pro combined."

Yeah in terms of raw compute power it is, but that doesn't transfer to actual gaming performance. Vega chips were a bad investment by Google.

 

[ZackL04]

"Google had said Stadia’s GPU performance was better than Microsoft’s console and the PS4 Pro combined."

Yeah in terms of raw compute power it is, but that doesn't transfer to actual gaming performance. Vega chips were a bad investment by Google.

Exactly, Im sure it comes down to processing power, not hard to beat and 8 core jaguar chip thats found in a ps4 or xbox. Pretty sure those are pre Zen mobile chips, aka total garbage.

 

[Vulcanproject]

"Google had said Stadia’s GPU performance was better than Microsoft’s console and the PS4 Pro combined."

Yeah in terms of raw compute power it is, but that doesn't transfer to actual gaming performance. Vega chips were a bad investment by Google.

Yup. They probably picked Vega because all those GPUs sat about were cheap to buy. I imagine they figured they could undervolt them a bit to reduce the power consumption. However it's a poor trade off when Navi was just around the corner and far better all round. Vega 56 was never good for 4K performance even when it launched without lots of setting reductions. 1440p was the sweetspot.

I suspect if Google don't ditch the whole idea entirely they'll only end up having to upgrade everything massively next year. Just because games designed for the new consoles will demand a large uptick in GPU performance.

You'll pay a premium for 4K performance but you aren't getting it on all games now, let alone in 12 months.

 

[ShagnWagn]

$10/month? They are ripping people off at that much? $120 a year to rent a game, and only what they feel they should allow you to play? Plus all that DLC and the outfits you dress up your virtual doll you buy are gone at their whim? Ouch. A fool and their money are easily parted.

I'll do a one time purchase and get to play my game for decades. These newer generations just don't know how bad it is I guess? And devs are taking advantage of it, which ruins it for the rest of us. /shrug

 

[QuantumPhysics]

As if I expected it to?

 

[Burty117]

$10/month? They are ripping people off at that much? $120 a year to rent a game, and only what they feel they should allow you to play? Plus all that DLC and the outfits you dress up your virtual doll you buy are gone at their whim? Ouch. A fool and their money are easily parted.

I'll do a one time purchase and get to play my game for decades. These newer generations just don't know how bad it is I guess? And devs are taking advantage of it, which ruins it for the rest of us. /shrug

Worth adding you still have to buy the games, so $40-$50 for the game, then 10$ a month to be allowed to play what you purchased in a higher quality than stereo 1080p.

 

[neeyik]

Exactly, Im sure it comes down to processing power, not hard to beat and 8 core jaguar chip thats found in a ps4 or xbox. Pretty sure those are pre Zen mobile chips, aka total garbage.

They're pre-pre-Zen Plus they're not 8 core CPUs in the same sense that the latest AMD/Intel ones are, as the die contains two separate 4 core CPUs. Performance hit when one group of 4 cores needs data from the other group is pretty sizeable.

At least Stadia is using something newer - exactly what, though, isn't overly clear: "2.7 GHz, AVX2, 9.5MB of L2+L3 cache" doesn't give much away. This very much points to it being an Intel CPU and the fact that the cache amount for L2 and L3 combined is 9.5 MB is a reasonable clue: for example, a 4 core Skylake has 1 MB of L2 and 8 MB of L3. So for an Intel CPU, it will be a 6 core processor but with cut down L3, as even mobile 6 core chips have 9 or 12 MB of L3.

Yeah in terms of raw compute power it is, but that doesn't transfer to actual gaming performance. Vega chips were a bad investment by Google.

Well a Vega 56 specs pretty well against the GPUs in the XBox One X and PS4 Pro:

V56 vs XB1X vs PS4P
Shader units: 3584 vs 2560 vs 2304
TMUs: 224 vs 160 vs 144
ROPs: 64 vs 32 vs 64
FP32 rate: 10.5 vs 6.0 vs 4.2 TFLOPS
B/W: 410 vs 326 vs 218 GB/s

The architecture is much newer too, GCN 5.0 vs GCN 2.0 for the other two, so it's no slouch. But yeah, you can see where the "Stadia’s GPU performance was better than Microsoft’s console and the PS4 Pro combined" claim comes from, and it's entirely from the FP32 throughput.

 

[ShagnWagn]

Worth adding you still have to buy the games, so $40-$50 for the game, then 10$ a month to be allowed to play what you purchased in a higher quality than stereo 1080p.

Are you serious? You are only paying for the *service* to display a game?? So basically a RDP connection? lol... Thanks for the input. If this is the case, $120/year for 3 years - that's $360 and would buy some really nice hardware which you own.

 

[Burty117]

Are you serious? You are only paying for the *service* to display a game?? So basically a RDP connection? lol... Thanks for the input. If this is the case, $120/year for 3 years - that's $360 and would buy some really nice hardware which you own.

Yep, Games aren't cheap on there either and there is no store competition or third party websites you can buy games from for Stadia so lets say you buy 5 games a year @$40 (quite conservative) so three years would actually cost $960 and you wouldn't be able to play your games above 1080p or with surround sound after or if, you know, Google pulls the plug.

 

[lipe123]

Uhm stadia is a product that's aimed at someone that can't afford their own good gaming pc.

So why would they care about 4K?!