DOOM Graphics & CPU Benchmarks

Steven: Once again a nice balanced review showing the performance of all of the cards now available. I'm sure Pascal and Polaris will assume the top when they are brought out.

I like playing COD BO III so this is a nice change. BTW, graphics are incredible.
 
Thanks for including the 2500k! (albeit at stock speeds, does anyone run the i5 Under 4GHz @ stock cooling?)

cain't Wait to bust a NUC with this game, lol
 
My results 55-65 fps according to FRAPS
Intel Core i5-4690K
ASRock Z97 Extreme6
16 GBytes ADATA 1200.0 MHz (DDR3-2400 / PC3-19200)
MSI ATI/AMD Radeon HD 7950/R9 280 3072 MBytes of GDDR5 SDRAM

55-65 fps


1920x1080 16:9

TSSA [8TX]
Colorblind Mode OFF
Mothion Blur High
Chromatic Abberation checked
FOV 90
Resolution Scale 100%
Lights Quality Medium
Shadows Quality Medium
PLayer self-shadow check
Decal Quality Medium
Decal FIltering Aniso 4X
Virtual Texturing Page Siae ULtra
Reflections Quality High
Paricles Quality Medium
Compute Shaders Check


Merely the report
 
I just joined to leave a comment about the commentary in this review but then I read the comments and everything about this page is wrong. Are you deleting comments or are your readers that stupid? No discussion about how Maxwell heavily outperforms GCN in this title when that is clearly the biggest thing happening in this review.

This game is the most biased release for Nvidia I've seen in quite a while. Just like Gears of War DX12 this game doesn't run correctly on GCN GPUs which does not make sense since this game is intended to run on the AMD powered game consoles. This clearly points to the PC version itself being to blame. I feel I must criticize Id on their use of OpenGL 4.5 features that forced AMD to back track to 4.3 when OpenGL 4.5 was working correctly on AMD GPUs during the beta. This game is clearly the culmination of everything that could go wrong for AMD and I feel that may have been intended
 
Frankly Nvidia have always offered better OpenGL support, hell AMD made hardwork of the RAGE launch too, even bundling old OpenGL files with their first "Rage Optimised Driver" that made things even worse.

A DOOM driver in the form of 16.5.2 followed quickly by 16.5.2.1 hotfix (that actually improves performance) just follows the same pattern.

Point being, it not always Nvidia's fault, stop playing the victim card and focus on what AMD do instead.
 
At the Price/Performance point, the 1070 would be the obvious choice,
but the 1080... how can you not want the 1080?
 
This game is only 30 some dollars on other sites besides steam so you guys who dont like the pricetag need to search around. I would tell you the site names but the rules here wont allow me to advertise. for those of you not liking this game I just dont understand. its doom. people say it looks like an upgraded doom 3. so what? was doom 3 not a good game? yes it was. its like all the people ripping on the newest duke nukem game. yes it was vastly different from the previous duke nukems but hey....be a true fan and play the game through because thats what true fans do.
 
This game is only 30 some dollars on other sites besides steam so you guys who dont like the pricetag need to search around. I would tell you the site names but the rules here wont allow me to advertise. for those of you not liking this game I just dont understand. its doom. people say it looks like an upgraded doom 3. so what? was doom 3 not a good game? yes it was. its like all the people ripping on the newest duke nukem game. yes it was vastly different from the previous duke nukems but hey....be a true fan and play the game through because thats what true fans do.
by the way these benchmarks are actually very nice and the game is well optimized and hopefully the vulkan version will be on par with the open gl version performance wise. this game was very well optimized for pc. 100+ frames @ 1080p during release? when do you see that? practically never in the pc world due to horribly optimized games
 
Why did the CPU review using the FX-9590 use such low clocks? My 8350 has higher clocks than what was used here. The FX-9590 has base of 4.7GHz and a turbo of 5GHz! It's silly to run that chip at a mere 4.5GHz...

Was an adequate cooler not available to test the full power of this chip or something?
 
Back