News RTX 3080 Smashes Through Doom Eternal at Over 100 FPS in 4K

[Admin]

RTX 3080 obliterates the RTX 2080 Ti in Doom Eternal, running at over 100 FPS in most of the gameplay demo.

RTX 3080 Smashes Through Doom Eternal at Over 100 FPS in 4K : Read more

 

[husker]

The increase is nice, but using an example with a jump from 90 fps to 190 fps isn't really a difference the human eye can detect. A more meaningful example would be showing the card actually solving a problem, e.g. a game that previously ran at subpar levels to allow something like 90 - 100 fps with the RTX3080. If I were in charge of marketing at nVidia, I would want to show gamers that they can finally max out settings in games that stumble - make gamers think "I need that!" In fact, this example reinforces the idea that current video cards are just fine, folks, only buy our new card if you want to brag. I know that it will make a difference in future games, but why give us an example that is so lackluster?

 

[Math Geek]

it's a good thought except for the fact that most of the less informed don't think like that. they see an increase so "i have to have it or else i'll be missing out"

 

[hotaru.hino]

If I were in charge of marketing at nVidia, I would want to show gamers that they can finally max out settings in games that stumble - make gamers think "I need that!"

I'm going to assume "stumble" means stuttering or whatnot. In which case, that depends on the CPU moreso than the GPU. It's in the best interest of a GPU company to showcase their product in GPU dependent scenarios.

If you're stuttering in GPU dependent scenarios though, well, you likely realize you're due for a GPU upgrade anyway.

 

[Thunderstomp]

For me personally, to make this kind of benchmarking meaningful it would have to be done in a game's such as RDR2 or Horizon Zero Dawn with maxed settings.

 

[Shadowclash10]

The increase is nice, but using an example with a jump from 90 fps to 190 fps isn't really a difference the human eye can detect. A more meaningful example would be showing the card actually solving a problem, e.g. a game that previously ran at subpar levels to allow something like 90 - 100 fps with the RTX3080. If I were in charge of marketing at nVidia, I would want to show gamers that they can finally max out settings in games that stumble - make gamers think "I need that!" In fact, this example reinforces the idea that current video cards are just fine, folks, only buy our new card if you want to brag. I know that it will make a difference in future games, but why give us an example that is so lackluster?

Yeah, I guess. But what were they comparing the RTX 3080 to? A RTX 2080 Ti. Which, costs around or greater than $1200 (hey Nvidia, where r those $1000 RTX 2080 Tis you promised us ). When you consider that the RTX 3080 is waay cheaper than the 2080 Ti, it does solve a problem - the fact that prior to this, reliable 4K gaming was difficult. And if we extrapolate, the RTX 3070 should be a bit above the 2080 Ti, which makes things even more affordable. And hopefully the RTX 3060 will be a bit below/equal to the 2080 Ti (reasonable to expect if it's $400). Ampere does solve the problem of 4K, but yes, the presentation could have been deigned better to focus on that part.

 

[Gurg]

Guess I'm an uninformed deplorable because I want one.

Will probably wait until Pre-Black Friday sale however when all the manufacturers card models will be available and pricing should have settled down. .

I've been waiting and settling for lesser solutions to maxing out the 60 hz 4K 28" monitor I bought at Black Friday sale in 2015 for $350. This animal should finally do it!

 

[hotaru.hino]

Will probably wait until Pre-Black Friday sale however when all the manufacturers card models will be available and pricing should have settled down. .

It's probably going to be worse at that point. Even before the mining craze, scalpers were all over new GPUs and selling them back on the market with a $100+ markup.

 

[Samuel White]

Remember when Nvidia said the 2080ti would crush 4k at 120fps at launch when it struggled to pull high detailed games to 60fps. I do not trust Nvidia's numbers or their testing. You can throw padded numbers all day long to get their pre-order fan bois hooked, but Nvidia has always stumbled at delivering what they promise at launch. I'll believe it after launch and non-bias paid reviews are done in real world PC test. Not some optimized machine to make all the hardware work simultaneously to boost those gpu numbers.

 

[Makaveli]

it's a good thought except for the fact that most of the less informed don't think like that. they see an increase so "i have to have it or else i'll be missing out"

This is a valid point the general public just looks at numbers and bigger number = better.

If the marketing was geared to users on this forum they would have to make it alot better but we are a small part of the whole market.

 

[Zizo007]

Not impressive...A stock 2080 Ti can already play Doom Eternal at 4K over 100fps (106)...Its an easy game. Benchmarks are here:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/doom-eternal-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/4.html

 

[hotaru.hino]

Not impressive...A stock 2080 Ti can already play Doom Eternal at 4K over 100fps (106)...Its an easy game. Benchmarks are here:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/doom-eternal-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/4.html

How did they benchmark it? You can't exactly compare what they did to what anyone else did if they don't tell us where they were in the game and what they were doing.

 

[Zizo007]

How did they benchmark it? You can't exactly compare what they did to what anyone else did if they don't tell us where they were in the game and what they were doing.

You can read the settings, its max graphics, Ultimate Nightmare.

 

[hotaru.hino]

You can read the settings, its max graphics, Ultimate Nightmare.

That only gives me the settings. It doesn't tell me in the game what they were doing. If they were playing the first level for 10 minutes, that's different than being in the middle of the game for 2 minutes.

Or rather, there's a world of difference if all they did was stare at vistas vs. being in actual combat with a dozen mobs.

 

[Zizo007]

That only gives me the settings. It doesn't tell me in the game what they were doing. If they were playing the first level for 10 minutes, that's different than being in the middle of the game for 2 minutes.

Or rather, there's a world of difference if all they did was stare at vistas vs. being in actual combat with a dozen mobs.

Well I didn't say its 100% precise but its close. There shouldn't be a big difference. Anyways, ask Nvidia to run the benchmark option in the game lol

 

[TechyInAZ]

The video shows the 2080 Ti performance a lot. The nice thing about the RTX 3080 is that it never dipped below 100FPS at any noticeable time frame.

But I do concur it is a very very optimized title, so it is easier to run than most AAA titles. Still, if you can get over say 70FPS at 4k ultra in regular AAA titles, that'd be amazing. (with no DLSS)

 

[Zizo007]

That only gives me the settings. It doesn't tell me in the game what they were doing. If they were playing the first level for 10 minutes, that's different than being in the middle of the game for 2 minutes.

Or rather, there's a world of difference if all they did was stare at vistas vs. being in actual combat with a dozen mobs.

Hers a full gameplay, it never dips under 100:

View: https://youtu.be/n6nM4CyZczE

 

[Zizo007]

This game is too easy to run. We need RDR2 benchmarks! I get 46-48fps with several loops of the benchmark at max settings 4K with 2080 Ti. No antialiasing.

 

[hotaru.hino]

But I do concur it is a very very optimized title, so it is easier to run than most AAA titles. Still, if you can get over say 70FPS at 4k ultra in regular AAA titles, that'd be amazing. (with no DLSS)

I'd say that reflects poorly on the developer and if we have to keep using Moore's Law to make up for their deficiencies...

 

[Turtle Rig]

Well 100fps doesn't cut it, I need 200fps and never fall below 140fps. With all nVidia panel settings maxed out and turned on and all AA methods and game maxed out at 4k you will not get 144fps sustained matter of fact you will get dips in the double digits even with a 3090. However the 3090Ti might fair a little better but not by a lot. They say 8k gaming lol. Who has a 8k gaming monitor what audience are they targetting? Also if you already have a 2xxx series card why would you upgarde so soon. That is 1800 dollars on a video card to get 40fps more in any given situation. As if you can tell the difference between 140fps and 190fps unless you have a counter. Wait til a game warrants a upgarde from a 2xxx series however those with 1xxx series and below and AMD 5700XT and below a upgrade to a 3090 would be mighty impressive even a 3080. TLDR 💯🤷‍♀️

However if you want the 3090Ti that will cost you 2500 dollars. Remember its not the ammount nVidia says the cards will cost it is the ammount the manufactorer want's to sell it for by using gimicks like OC version Super Overclock Version etc. With ton of fans and lights etc. These cards will cost 800 1200 and 1400 respectively and a founders edition will be so rare that will cost a arm and a leg. Bottom line if your on 1xxx and below or AMD side 5700XT and below then highly consider the 3xxx series of cards. Those that want to leap into 4k gaming and not leave 4k to the desktop then don't expect triple digits fps to match your display not this time around at least however with 3090Ti anything is possible that will be a beast. If you can sustain 144fps without drops and all panel settings turned on and AA and MSAA etc. Then play at 2k you will have the best experience of visuals especially if you put it to high or ultra and what not. If you want all the visuals and AA methods and very tiny FPS AAA titles that are not only small which we want on desktop not really in games plus you get a drastic reduction in FPS to 90fps. I think nVidia claiming 8k gaming is ridicilous for the hard core gamer with a gaming monitor or display and what not. 😲🖐✌🍩☮

 

[PapaCrazy]

Remember when Nvidia said the 2080ti would crush 4k at 120fps at launch when it struggled to pull high detailed games to 60fps. I do not trust Nvidia's numbers or their testing. You can throw padded numbers all day long to get their pre-order fan bois hooked, but Nvidia has always stumbled at delivering what they promise at launch. I'll believe it after launch and non-bias paid reviews are done in real world PC test. Not some optimized machine to make all the hardware work simultaneously to boost those gpu numbers.

Fully agree. After the RTX launch there should more grains of salt going around. It's also interesting to see that everyone is just accepting the price increase as defacto now. Gamers are still being saddled with the responsibility of maintaining Nvidia's artificially inflated post-bitcoin stock price. To me, even a 2x performance increase doesn't justify it. There was a time when 2x performance increase gen to gen was just expected.

There has been a huge power shift from consumers to corporations, and its the attitudes of consumers that allowed that to happen.

 

[HyperMatrix]

The increase is nice, but using an example with a jump from 90 fps to 190 fps isn't really a difference the human eye can detect.

Oh Jesus not with this garbage again.

 

[jkflipflop98]

Oh Jesus not with this garbage again.

I was just thinking the same thing.

When anyone besides your optometrist trots out Ye Olde "The human eye. . ." line, you know they're about to pull something directly from their backside.

 

[HyperMatrix]

I was just thinking the same thing.

When anyone besides your optometrist trots out Ye Olde "The human eye. . ." line, you know they're about to pull something directly from their backside.

If your optometrist tells you your eye can’t see the difference between 90fps and 190fps, he’s telling you that you have eye cancer.

 

[excalibur1814]

Max FPS is pointless. The MINIMUM is more important!