RedEye9 wrote on Mar 9, 2020, 13:46:

El Pit wrote on Mar 9, 2020, 13:24:
And on Steam the hardware recommendations are... GONE. I knew something was off here.

The lazy devs must have pushed the big red easy button that makes the game engine moar multi-threaded.
Now even a 2-core duo can crush doom.

Or a Ti-83 Plus calculator.

El Pit wrote on Mar 9, 2020, 13:24:
And on Steam the hardware recommendations are... GONE. I knew something was off here.

The lazy devs must have pushed the big red easy button that makes the game engine moar multi-threaded.
Now even a 2-core duo can crush doom.

And on Steam the hardware recommendations are... GONE. I knew something was off here.

El Pit wrote on Mar 8, 2020, 13:28:

VaranDragon wrote on Mar 8, 2020, 13:17:

El Pit wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 14:44:

VaranDragon wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 13:50:

El Pit wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 10:42:
The Ryzen 7 1700x ain't good enough but an i7-6700K is? What the hell? Optimised for max. 4 cores/8 threads maybe? And the 1700x's other 4 cores can take a break and go shopping during Doom 2020?

Apart from the glory Athlon days, Intel has always and I mean always been better at single threaded performance, which includes 85-90% of all gaming.

Before you start calling developers lazy, an engine needs to be written from the ground up to support multi-threading on the level you want it to be and, news at 11, most game engines in common use today are not.

So they are not lazy but won't optimise their engines to use more than 4 cores/8 threads because those 8 core cpus are soooo new (the 4th Ryzen generation will be released this year)... Right? Truth is: with the next console generation also going for more than 4 cores, the developers will suddenly magically learn how to optimise their engines for more cores...
Whatever. Maybe we will see a patch in a year but by then I might have a Ryzen 4700x in my rig and then I can wait for this to hit the bargain bin including everything coming with the year passes.

Did you even read what I wrote? Optimising an older engine for more cores is usually simply NOT possible. No patch can solve this. This is NOT a new engine and while id have been engine pioneers while John Carmack worked there, those times are long past for id software.

E.g. World of Warcraft and Path of Exile did the impossible: they patched multithreading into their game engines...

WoW's engine went through so many changes over the expansions that its basically a new engine. Which is one of the reasons why the latest Vanilla WoW took so long to get released, they basically had to rebuild the whole game from scratch to take advantage of it. As for GGG's engine, this was the plan from the start. They were building the engine as they were developing the game, and still continue to do so.

This is not something that's usually done for single player FPS games as it is extremely cost prohibitive unless it is planned for from the very start, and it is obvious that this is not the case with the latest Doom.

VaranDragon wrote on Mar 8, 2020, 13:17:

El Pit wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 14:44:

VaranDragon wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 13:50:

El Pit wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 10:42:
The Ryzen 7 1700x ain't good enough but an i7-6700K is? What the hell? Optimised for max. 4 cores/8 threads maybe? And the 1700x's other 4 cores can take a break and go shopping during Doom 2020?

Apart from the glory Athlon days, Intel has always and I mean always been better at single threaded performance, which includes 85-90% of all gaming.

Before you start calling developers lazy, an engine needs to be written from the ground up to support multi-threading on the level you want it to be and, news at 11, most game engines in common use today are not.

So they are not lazy but won't optimise their engines to use more than 4 cores/8 threads because those 8 core cpus are soooo new (the 4th Ryzen generation will be released this year)... Right? Truth is: with the next console generation also going for more than 4 cores, the developers will suddenly magically learn how to optimise their engines for more cores...
Whatever. Maybe we will see a patch in a year but by then I might have a Ryzen 4700x in my rig and then I can wait for this to hit the bargain bin including everything coming with the year passes.

Did you even read what I wrote? Optimising an older engine for more cores is usually simply NOT possible. No patch can solve this. This is NOT a new engine and while id have been engine pioneers while John Carmack worked there, those times are long past for id software.

E.g. World of Warcraft and Path of Exile did the impossible: they patched multithreading into their game engines...

El Pit wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 14:44:

VaranDragon wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 13:50:

El Pit wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 10:42:
The Ryzen 7 1700x ain't good enough but an i7-6700K is? What the hell? Optimised for max. 4 cores/8 threads maybe? And the 1700x's other 4 cores can take a break and go shopping during Doom 2020?

Apart from the glory Athlon days, Intel has always and I mean always been better at single threaded performance, which includes 85-90% of all gaming.

Before you start calling developers lazy, an engine needs to be written from the ground up to support multi-threading on the level you want it to be and, news at 11, most game engines in common use today are not.

So they are not lazy but won't optimise their engines to use more than 4 cores/8 threads because those 8 core cpus are soooo new (the 4th Ryzen generation will be released this year)... Right? Truth is: with the next console generation also going for more than 4 cores, the developers will suddenly magically learn how to optimise their engines for more cores...
Whatever. Maybe we will see a patch in a year but by then I might have a Ryzen 4700x in my rig and then I can wait for this to hit the bargain bin including everything coming with the year passes.

Did you even read what I wrote? Optimising an older engine for more cores is usually simply NOT possible. No patch can solve this. This is NOT a new engine and while id have been engine pioneers while John Carmack worked there, those times are long past for id software.

Numinar wrote on Mar 8, 2020, 03:25:
Seems much steeper than the original recs... I ran 2016 on something not much better than the minimum here maxed out at 60-90 fps.

So it's either way better looking, or worse optimised, or the test matrix was limited by budgetary/time/space concerns? Which isn't bad. Maybe focusing on more modern stuff makes more people more happy. Might even work fine on the old shit after some patches. But no test lab is going to have 80 different configuratuons of a 2016 PC I guess.

The recommendation for 60 fps at WQHD is hilarious. I think for UHD you will need to buy a server farm to run it at 60 fps. Something is definitely strange here.

Seems much steeper than the original recs... I ran 2016 on something not much better than the minimum here maxed out at 60-90 fps.

So it's either way better looking, or worse optimised, or the test matrix was limited by budgetary/time/space concerns? Which isn't bad. Maybe focusing on more modern stuff makes more people more happy. Might even work fine on the old shit after some patches. But no test lab is going to have 80 different configuratuons of a 2016 PC I guess.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 14:38:

JM wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 12:39:

shiho wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 04:22:
These modern abominations...

Laying it on a little thick aren't we?

Did you get off of his lawn yet?

That was thick rich plush zoysia.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 14:38:

JM wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 12:39:

shiho wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 04:22:
These modern abominations...

Laying it on a little thick aren't we?

Did you get off of his lawn yet?

Oh geez, the millennials are circling the wagons.

VaranDragon wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 13:50:

El Pit wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 10:42:
The Ryzen 7 1700x ain't good enough but an i7-6700K is? What the hell? Optimised for max. 4 cores/8 threads maybe? And the 1700x's other 4 cores can take a break and go shopping during Doom 2020?

Apart from the glory Athlon days, Intel has always and I mean always been better at single threaded performance, which includes 85-90% of all gaming.

Before you start calling developers lazy, an engine needs to be written from the ground up to support multi-threading on the level you want it to be and, news at 11, most game engines in common use today are not.

So they are not lazy but won't optimise their engines to use more than 4 cores/8 threads because those 8 core cpus are soooo new (the 4th Ryzen generation will be released this year)... Right? Truth is: with the next console generation also going for more than 4 cores, the developers will suddenly magically learn how to optimise their engines for more cores...
Whatever. Maybe we will see a patch in a year but by then I might have a Ryzen 4700x in my rig and then I can wait for this to hit the bargain bin including everything coming with the year passes.

JM wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 12:39:

shiho wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 04:22:
These modern abominations...

Laying it on a little thick aren't we?

Did you get off of his lawn yet?

Gib007 wrote on Mar 6, 2020, 20:19:

Ozmodan wrote on Mar 6, 2020, 19:04:
Considering most people sit close to the screen and do not have huge monitors, 4k is just unnecessary. 2k is more than enough and you don't need a 1080 to run it.

I'm reading this on my Samsung QLED 55" 4K HDR TV that I use as a monitor 50cm from my face.

Problem, VR?

El Pit wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 10:42:
The Ryzen 7 1700x ain't good enough but an i7-6700K is? What the hell? Optimised for max. 4 cores/8 threads maybe? And the 1700x's other 4 cores can take a break and go shopping during Doom 2020?

Apart from the glory Athlon days, Intel has always and I mean always been better at single threaded performance, which includes 85-90% of all gaming.

Before you start calling developers lazy, an engine needs to be written from the ground up to support multi-threading on the level you want it to be and, news at 11, most game engines in common use today are not.

IgWannA wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 09:19:

MattyC wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 08:01:

IgWannA wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 06:21:
"i5 @ 3.3 GHz or better" is pretty damn vague, since the old i5 2500k 3.3 GHz is much slower than a newer i5 8400 running at 2.8 GHz

My processor is from 2010! Seriously, i7 930.

Anyway, mine ran it just fine on much higher than low quality, so surely the old i5s can handle minimum. If that was for recommended, then yeah it would be pretty unclear.

Yeah I'm sure a 2500k i5 would run it fine and that's probably what they meant. But damn, feels like I only just got a GTX 1060 and now it's only "minimum" spec for a game with a fairly optimised engine :/

I have a 2060 RTX now, but like I said, I played it with my old i7 and a 1060, so you should be fine. I don't remember what all my settings were, but while it wasn't maxed out it also wasn't anywhere near low on anything.

shiho wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 04:22:
These modern abominations...

Laying it on a little thick aren't we?

This looks like an expansion pack for Doom 2016, not a whole new game.

I remember when the community universally shit on Battlefield 2142 as just "being a mod" of Battlefield 2. Same shit happened with Battlefield Hardline being merely a "mod" of Battlefield 3.

Bullshit.

2142 and hardline each used %100 original assets, models, textures, weapons, maps, game modes (some classic modes). Not to mention a completely different theme and setting.

Compared to this new doom that obviously reuses textures, models, animations, weapons, settings, and textures... This isn't even a mod, it's a fucking expansion pack. Shit should be free DLC lol.

Flo wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 08:34:

007Bistromath wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 06:49:

shiho wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 04:22:
Isn't it ironic how Doom 1 used to require a mere 4MB of RAM and remains a shining example of a much better designed, enduring gameplay, created by much smarter and more passionate people.

These modern abominations have nothing to do with Doom except the name. They play like an even more retarded version of Serious Sam 3.

You're talking about Doom 3.

Doom 2016's singleplayer campaign was a masterpiece. The multiplayer was kind of redundant, but it was only disappointing in comparison to what I expected of it.

+1
My body (and PC) is ready.

Wait on the first trustworthy reviews on this one, I'd say. I was an avid fan of Doom 2016, but I don't trust what I'm seeing of this one so far. Those clean yellow circus poles sticking out of twisted ruins make my eyes bleed. Same for those "shoot this red mark and something goes boom/splat" things, like you're playing some country fair shooting range.

Pr()ZaC wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 10:48:

El Pit wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 10:42:
The Ryzen 7 1700x ain't good enough but an i7-6700K is? What the hell? Optimised for max. 4 cores/8 threads maybe? And the 1700x's other 4 cores can take a break and go shopping during Doom 2020?

More power to your multitasking needs...
Anyway, the 1800x is listed as the recommended CPU, so it'll all good.

Yes, but recommending the 4c/8t i7-6700K and the 8c/16t 1800x but not the also 8c/16t 1700x is weird. I am looking forward to the benchmarks and engine tests - I got a feeling this is optimised for consoles with 4c/8t. I mean - a 1700x not recommended for WQHD? We are not even talking UHD/4k here!

Whatever. I got a wait and see approach with this game. I absolutely enjoyed playing Doom 2016 and still got hope that this is just as good as that was and the recommendations were not written by Bethesda but by intel.

El Pit wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 10:42:
The Ryzen 7 1700x ain't good enough but an i7-6700K is? What the hell? Optimised for max. 4 cores/8 threads maybe? And the 1700x's other 4 cores can take a break and go shopping during Doom 2020?

More power to your multitasking needs...
Anyway, the 1800x is listed as the recommended CPU, so it'll all good.