Doom Vulkan Patch Released

by Ryan Smith on 7/11/2016 10:30 AM EST
Comments Locked

73 Comments

Back to Article

  • ddriver - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    What I'd like to see is performance gains on full nextgen hardware, the demo saw massive performance boost on a 1080, which I suspect has gutted some hardware support for the sake of efficiency, optimizing the hardware for existing rather than upcoming games.
  • YazX_ - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    SPOILER ALERT: YOU WON'T

    because PC hardware is too much powerful especially CPUs, so when using high end CPU, it will compensate the lack of low level access unlike consoles with crappy CPUs, so when converting to low level access it will just relax your CPU but not improve performance unless if Async compute is used which run shaders async and improves performance on GPU level, other than this it is CPU related, only people who benefit from this are those who have low/mid end hardware.
  • Samus - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Yep. At the end of the day, consoles hold back PC gaming because they are where the profit base is. That isn't to say PC gaming isn't profitable (it is) but if anybody has wondered why the video game industry has grown as large as Hollywood in terms of profits, it simply comes down to console competition. Almost 2/3 of game sales (and over 3/4 of sports games) are for consoles. Not a single genre on PC outsells consoles simply because consoles are more accessible. This is literally the only reason AMD is still "competitive" with Nvidia. Even though their APU's are low margin, the volume keeps them afloat.

    Back to my point. The focus will always be on mainstream adoption, not bleeding edge hardware acceleration. Fortunately VR is going to push this focus more toward performance (because now two scenes need to be rendered simultaneously) but this is still big news. It would be interesting to see what Sony does. Microsoft is blindly pushing DX12 without a larger focus on low level rendering (it is a half assed implementation) but Sony is definitely in a position to take advantage of alternative rendering technologies, possibly extending the life of the PS4 for a few years.
  • althaz - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    2/3 of game sales *aren't* on consoles. Until 2014-2015, PC gaming was worth more money and moved more units than *every console combined* - and that's not including sales on Steam.

    Even if 2/3 of game sales were on consoles (which is not the case unless you mean retail-only game sales), that would still mean PC was the dominant platform - there are more than 2 platforms in console land, the PC snatching more than it's share of sales (which 2/3 would be) is pretty impressive.

    PC is actually more like 40-45% of sales (current gen consoles have boosted that industry quite a bit over the last couple of years) now - it's just that different games are sold on PCs.

    PC gamers play real-time strategy games, MOBAs, MMOs, sims and other genres generally not available on consoles. They also buy their games much more slowly than on consoles (for which sales are much more heavily front-loaded). The last makes consoles *very* important to developers - making games is fiendishly expensive and you need to recoup that money back ASAP.

    But there are still mountains of money to be made on PC - PC gamers just tend to spend money on "PC" games and their spending is vastly more spread-out (over time and variety of titles).

    AAA multiplatform games make more money on consoles (except for Mobas, which make all of the money), but almost everything else makes more money on PC.
  • JoeMonco - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    [citations needed]
  • theduckofdeath - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link

    I think you're citation request is needed more on Samus's exaggerated numbers.
    Yes cocaine gaming is profitable, at various levels. Just like PC gaming is profitable at various levels. Dismissing the biggest titles on PC just to make a point makes the whole argument sound silly.
    As to why optimizations like Vulcan is less noticeable with a top of the line GPU, I'd say it's more down to the fact that the rest of the hardware suddenly becomes the bottleneck and you're "left with" marginal differences when your tweak your GPU performance.
  • theduckofdeath - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link

    Autocorrect and this frigging ancient 20th century comment system.... What could go wrong? \o/
  • theduckofdeath - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link

    *consoles, not cocaine.
    In case anyone was wondering. :)
  • tunapirate - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link

    Citation: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-01-26-p...
  • anubis44 - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    @Samus: 'consoles hold back PC gaming.' Actually, it's just the opposite, now that consoles are basically x86-powered PCs.

    It's more like consumers not having lots of money 'holds back' gaming. Consoles actually provide a real service to gaming in general by creating a baseline platform upon which games can be written. Game makers won't make a game unless they have a good idea that they'll make money on their investment. By having a minimum spec, baseline platform in the form of consoles, they can predict with much greater accuracy what their target market size will be. With PCs, on the other hand, there is so much variability in terms of hardware (CPUs, GPUs, quantity of ram, ram speed, storage sizes, etc.) that game makers are much more tempted to just target the lowest common denominator and avoid the risk that not enough people will be able to play their game.
  • ddriver - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    You obviously have no idea that the draw calls bottleneck has long been the N1 problem with computer graphics. With Vulkan and DX12 on the stage, the advantage of consoles will be pretty much diminished.

    Vulkan allows to throw much, MUCH more drawing calls at the GPU, you get MUCH less work on the CPU and much better utilization of hardware on the GPU. Besides games are not all graphics, and prior to Vulkan it often happens that you waste too much CPU time on issuing the drawing calls and you delay stuff like sound, physics, ai or whatever - so gaming experience still sucks.

    "The 1920x1080pixel display delivered 50-55fps results running on OpenGL, running on a id Software dev machine with a GeForce GTX 1080 handling graphics. The demo, though, ranged between 120 and 200fps once Vulkan was enabled, and remained above 120fps"

    As this demo indicates, nvidia hardware got from 50-55 FPS to 120-200 FPS, that's like 350% better, so do go ahead and take your spoiler somewhere it won't embarrass you ;)
  • SlyNine - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    The performance increase is not that dramatic or anywhere close. After running volkan I can say it's probably around 5-10% on my system at 1440p. (I7-5820 at 4.2, 32gigs of ram, 980GTX) There was an improvement, but it's hard to say how much.
  • ddriver - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Well, that's a 980GTX - it is last gen hardware. It doesn't benefit from DX12 either, in fact it actually loses performance in AOS. The figures in the above post are from a LIVE DEMO, doubt they would go about lying about it.

    And its Vulkan, right there up in the article title ;)
  • SlyNine - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Lol, I'll belive it when i see it...
  • YukaKun - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Well, with your 980 you won't :P

    Cheers!
  • SlyNine - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Actually i will, it's quit the paradox that you're unaware of benchmarking sites
  • YukaKun - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    Oh, my bad. I thought you were implying "first hand".

    Cheers!
  • jwcalla - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    I see somebody bought the marketing hype.
  • Geranium - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    ACE will free lots of CPU cycle and developer can use those free CPU cycle to do other works like more character or do other things.
  • araczynski - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link

    lol, not that it'll benefit them, but the majority (~70% of pc gamers are rocking graphics cards with 2gb or less of vram and similarly 'dated' video cards. i'd wager people don't buy high end cpus and then turn around and pair them up with mid/low range gpu's.

    so your "only" statement is applicable to a tiny bubble of the market.
  • Zak - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    I have not noticed any difference on i7-6700 and GTX1080 at 2560x1440. On max settings the game was already running at around 90-100fps with peaks up to 160 fps. Maybe if it was more demanding there would be a more noticeable difference. Doom is not a very demanding game: there is no foliage, no large open spaces, very little detail in the world. It was built for speed.
  • hyno111 - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    "We are working with NVIDIA to enable asynchronous compute in Vulkan on NVIDIA GPUs. "
    Fine, what about async compute for dx12?
  • Ferazel - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Doom was released like other idtech games as an OpenGL game. It does not have a directx11 or 12 renderer.
  • Eidigean - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    DirectX is not inherently any faster than an OpenGL implementation:
    http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/133824-valve-ope...

    The only reason DirectX is still kicking around is because it's the only way to write a game for the Xbox; as Microsoft wants to lock in developers.
  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    With ass kicking they're receiving from PS4 i don't think they're in a position to lock in sh*t
  • Michael Bay - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    "Ass kicking"? With what, multiplatform sequel electric boogaloo and dog in feathers that will fail to release again?
    Wake up, both are in the gutter, right next to that Mario factory.
  • dudusmaximus - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Doom doesn't use dx it currently uses OpenGL.
  • zmeul - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    they "forgot" to add it to the demo :(
  • zepi - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Vulkan and other new graphics API's are not just about increasing performance in old software, but in fact make things possible that just weren't before.

    The fact that you can have 5 times more draw calls without tanking the performance could be huge, but as long as you design your program with the limitations of old API's, you can't use this benefit to its fullest potential.
  • Samus - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    That's a good point, I hadn't even thought of that. Indeed, boss scenes in Doom have slowdown even on my GTX970 at 1080p, I'm interested to see if Vulkan smooths that over. In other words, scenes once thought too intense/inconsistent from a performance perspective could be implemented the way the developer wanted it to be without dumbing down the detail or changing the scene altogether.
  • funkforce - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    I have a brilliant idea, how about a full GPU review this year, any graphics card will do... You can choose let's see, GTX 1080, 1070, 960, 950 or Radeon RX 480, 390X or 390.

    Last full review was 380X November 23 2015
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9784/the-amd-radeon-...

    I heard betting sites are now taking bets on if AT is going to have a full GPU review in 2016.
  • ddriver - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    You will have it, 6 months after all requisites are publicly available. AT's new thing is being really really slow to review stuff ;)
  • usernametaken76 - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Nah, their new thing is to just do previews.
  • Stochastic - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    It's hard to complain when their "previews" are more in-depth than many other sites' reviews.

    I do think it might be in Anandtech's best interest to hire more writers, though. They would probably have to spend more time covering GPUs and smartphones to get enough clicks to pay these writers, but that would be fine by me.
  • pencea - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    It's still not an excuse nor acceptable regardless how well or in-depth their articles are. They had more than enough time and should've of release reviews for the GTX 1070, GTX 1080, and 480x by now.
  • JackNSally - Friday, July 15, 2016 - link

    I'd do it for the price of keeping the reviewed GPU's, going to press events and say minimum wage...
  • Manch - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    For timely content is Life
    This is the way dailytech ended
    This is the way anandtech will end
    Not with a 404 but a unrefreshed page.....
  • Eden-K121D - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    HaHa. I'm betting only previews until Fall 2016
  • funkforce - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    No no fall, winter is coming! ;)
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    I'd like to gamble $8000 worth of CS:GO skins in that AT gets another full GPU review shortly, according to Valve time.

    https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Tim...
    >Shortly: In six months
  • just4U - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Well.. I don't think this would bother a lot of people provided it was not hinted at that certain full reviews would be out soon... Can't say your going to do it and than not follow thru. If time is a issue with Ryan, he may need pass on some of the video reviews to others.

    I'm not worried about it one way or another. They will sort it out.. and the previews were nice.
  • just4U - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    All that being said, it's also possible that there are some backend politics going on.. Many theorize the workings between popular sites and the hardware they review.. so you never know.. could even have to do with some issues they have with their samples and getting them in a timely fashion
  • Devo2007 - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Well, if the full RX 480 review isn't posted by the end of this week, then I'll give up.

    The initial preview mentioned the full review would be posted by the end of that week (which would be July 2nd). Last Thursday after the driver was released to fix the power issue, he said the full review will be posted this week.

    We'll see........
  • pencea - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    Ryan promise in the GTX 1070, GTX 1080, and 480x previews he'll follow up with the reviews days after the cards were launch. He also said several times in the comments section that they are coming, but gave us no timeline when exactly. For a site like this, it's simply unacceptable. In the past when Anand was still working on this site. Reviews came out on time like they're suppose too.

    Since Ryan took over, it's been getting more and more late each time. He didn't even do a review for the GTX 960.
  • Meteor2 - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    I'd actually forgotten that AT had promised reviews. I'm pretty content that the 'previews' will be it. Any in-depth reviews will just be curiosities by the time they're published.
  • BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    I don't think the lack of GPU reviews are really that meaningful. Sure, AT is pretty slow about posting reviews, but let's be honest with ourselves about the need for those reviews. Halo products like add-in graphics cards for desktop PCs in a world filled with mobile devices like phones, tablets, and laptops (where laptops are mostly equipped with just an iGPU) are pretty unimportant. Only a small number of people are going to buy a dedicated GPU. Among those that do, even fewer are going to bother picking up something that costs more than $200 and even that's stretching things. If AT wants to appeal to a larger demographic, putting priority on top end graphics cards isn't the way to do that. Instead, it should continue to focus on mobile and review integrated graphics as new CPUs are released rather than investing time in older form factors that aren't as relevant to the technology landscape in which we live today.
  • maximumGPU - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link

    small number of people buying top end gpus does not mean they're the only ones interested in a review. Even those who only buy at the 200$ mark still want to read about the halo products.
    How many would buy the 1M+ LaFerrari supercar? yet every car magazine plastered it on their cover when their issue had a review.. readers want that.
  • xemorc - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    I have it hung up with vulkan enabled just by the intro... Dunno now how to it work since I can't even reach the settings. Got 1070.
  • Samus - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Update drivers, had same problem with my GTX970.
  • xemorc - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    I have the latest drivers... Going to try to verify the integrity by steam, hope this might help.
  • usernametaken76 - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    I can confirm a 1080 is overkill at 1080p with Vulkan. A 1070 is seeing 200 fps at 1080p/Ultra. At nightmare it only drops down to the 160s.
  • just4U - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    I confess I haven't kept up on such things.. but I wasn't even aware that Doom was a thing of interest anymore.
  • bill.rookard - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    They're not talking 1990's era Doom which fit on a floppy disk or two... They mean the latest release (reboot?)...
  • HollyDOL - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link

    More important... can you still outrun your own rocket? :-)
  • ddriver - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    LOL, are you quite literally living under a rock :)
  • xemorc - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    By guru3d it's around 20 per cent gain for 2k, while zero gain for 1080.
  • xemorc - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    20 % gain for rx 480 in 2k i meant
  • ddriver - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    Not too shaby, I was expecting ~30% in real life situations (not tech demos designed to showcase it).

    Still at 20% improvement, that reduces the advantage for the 1070 from 60 to 30%. Considering in the local retailer the 1070 is 70% more expensive, the RX480 definitely increases in value when it comes to next-gen titles.
  • tipoo - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    "though the company says it's working with Nvidia to bring async compute features to the green team's graphics cards, too."

    Now, Pascal only, or "we swear it's coming in the drivers HEY LOOK PASCAL" Maxwell?
  • Stochastic - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    I'm very curious how Nvidia is going to implement async compute. This seems to be the one big advantage AMD has over Nvidia at the moment.
  • ddriver - Monday, July 11, 2016 - link

    My bet is they will implement it in software, it will show as supported but without the actual hardware underneath won't result in gains.
  • yannigr2 - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    Dynamic load balancing on Pascal is what probably they where promising for Maxwell. But they thought that it will be better to show it as a feature for Pascal, than give it for free to the Maxwell users. And many where convince to pay the ridiculous Pascal prices thinking that Pascal comes with async compute. One more win for Nvidia's marketing department. Looking of course at Doom benchmarks, it is just a useless marketing feature for games.
  • pencea - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    Sooo where are the reviews of the GTX 1070, GTX 1080, & 480x that you said you'll follow up soon after those cards were launched?
  • powerarmour - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    Down the toilet, like this site.
  • DonMiguel85 - Tuesday, July 12, 2016 - link

    I'm still waiting on the GTX 960 review myself
  • damianrobertjones - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link

    I don't actually see an option NOT to install this when updating or installing the nVidia driver? That's a bit naughty and just another pile of crap to remove. Why oh why do they do this!?
  • xenol - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 - link

    If it wasn't for consoles in the first place, a lot of graphical features and optimizations wouldn't have happened as they do now. In fact, a lot of these nice features we take for granted had their start on a console.

    Besides that, consoles going away won't make game developers suddenly target high-end PCs. They'll target lower end PCs to maximize their market base.
  • ASEdouardD - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    Yeah. Sitting here with my 970, I have a feeling my next GPU won't be from NVIDIA. Probably getting a Vulcan based card when they come out unless they have some major unexpected flaw. All this dx12, async compute, Vulcan stuff really makes me worry something like the 1070 will become obsolete way too fast.
  • ASEdouardD - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    VEGA, not Vulcan of course. Duh.
  • xenol - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link

    Asynchronous compute is solving a problem that AMD and NVIDIA tackle in different ways. AMD uses a hardware scheduler. NVIDIA uses a software one. There's nothing wrong with either solution.

    If Vega cleansweeps Pascal in DX12/Vulkan games that make heavy use of async compute, then we can start pointing fingers at NVIDIA.
  • Lazlo Panaflex - Monday, July 18, 2016 - link

    Performance on my 970 was actually worse after enabling Vulcan...um, WTF??
  • damianrobertjones - Tuesday, July 19, 2016 - link

    I'd just like to use Direct X12 thanks. I do not want another thing to update or fix when something goes wrong and, frankly, please ASK ME if I'd like to install Vulcan.
  • ACE76 - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    I recently built a new PC and went with the RX480 8gb video card...after this Vulkan patch came out, I can easily play the game with settings completely maxed out at 1440p...I haven't tried 4k yet but it's giving me excellent performance at 1440p.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now