Doom eternal 4K Raytracing Benchmark

OP was pretty cool today.

Nvidia's website recommended the 3080ti as minimum spec for anyone playing at 4K60, implying that anyone considering a base 3080 should spend more for the ti variant if they expect to play at 4K... it is blatantly baiting consumers to spend more than they need to. Heck, with DLSS Quality a 3070 is more than adequate, perhaps even a 3060ti...

What is a 3080? I have only heard, but never seen such a thing out in the wild.

Even having gotten a card from this generation, I'm always baffled at this viewpoint. You're assuming anyone has a choice on what card they can get besides which ones they try for. People are "spending more than they need to" to get a card at all.

Well, the only truth to that, that I can see, is the memory bottleneck. I have a 3070ti and have, a couple times, run into issues where if I try to run max settings, it uses too much memory. Typically not an issue with DLSS, but it's a shame that they shipped with so little memory compared to AMD.

I have a 6900xt that I'm currently selling on eBay and if it doesn't sell, I may just switch to that and sell the 3070ti. Especially now that FSR is out.

What does that card do on lets say a 3600.. How much is the performance influenced by cpu? i mean, its always a big ass rig what its tested on.. But what if its tested on a little more of a midrange cpu?

Nah, it's because they'll discontinue the 3080 base version soon. 8nm yields are so good now very few dies are so defective to not be 3090's, so 3080ti they can milk more money during the inflated prices continue

Anyone know if we're likely to get Fidelity FX super resolution on doom eternal?

Big update yesterday had me hoping but I don't see it mentioned.

Maybe more a ram bandwidth issue than the actual vram? Would be curious to see where the 3070 ti lands

The 3070 is probably bandwidth limited, the 3070 has a throughput of 448GB/sec.

the 3080 has a throughput of 760GB/sec

that means the 3080 has a bandwidth boost over the 3070 of 68% percent.

The results here are 98.6 for the 3080 and 59.5 for the 3070 that means the 3080 is leading by 66% Scaling linearly with the bandwidth.

This game really loves raw compute horse power and bandwidth, the performance is scaling linearly with CUDA core/RT core count and bandwidth compared to other games which scale less.

Its leveraging the raw power of Ampere very well in general. the 3080 Ti is 85 Percent faster than the 2080 Ti which is the difference usually only seen in compute workloads

The 3070 is probably bandwidth limited, the 3070 has a throughput of 448GB/sec.

If that is the case, then maybe overclocking 3070's GDDR6 Vram to 16.5 GB/s probably could help here, in my case i usually OC mine up to 528 GB/s whole bandwidth throughput which is a 18% increase over standard 448 GB/s at GPU demanding games.

Also dont forget you can easily OC the shit ouf of mem clock on the 3080 because it got error correcting Vram which the 3070 doesnt have.

yes at a certain OC you will get dimishing returns or even slower ones but iam atm at +700 on my 3080 FE and still get gains in multiple benchmarks and it clocks ingame way above 10.000mhz i heard People going above +1000

and this was also the reason why the Memory OC range was extended on afterburner.

The 3070 is probably bandwidth limited,

If that is the case, situation would change in its favor at lower resolutions.

It changes in the other direction, at 1440p 6800 (non XT) beats it too.

Probably vram limited at 4K but the 2080 ti has 11gb...

GPU order doesn't change at 1080.

It's a massive difference, yes, but the 6800XT+ seem to give the user a fairly solid 60fps, which is the gold standard, this is a good thing, it shows that AMD can do ray tracing at playable frame rates without dedicated RT hardware.

Plus I'd bet you reasonable money that there's as big a gap between the 5700XT and the 6700XT as there is between the 6900XT and the 3090, which is a pretty solid generational leap in and of itself.

These are AMD's first generation of ray tracing cards, Nvidia is on their second generation, even if they weren't using dedicated hardware they'd still probably have an edge just because of familiarity with the tech.

Frankly I think 55-66fps for a 4k ray traced game is pretty fuckin' good, all things considered. No, not as good as Nvidia, but still good.

Amd does have dedicated ray tracing hardware. They are built into every CU so the 80 CU 6900xt has 80 ray Traversal accelerators. Compared to something like the 3080 ti which also has 80 ray tracing cores and 80 SMs. Its just that AMDs rt cores arent as potent under most circumstances

60 fps isn't the gold standard, it's the minimum for a "good experience." I would call 60+ fps average with dips below that to be a bronze standard, maybe.

Isn't this par for the course in ray-traced comparisons - the 3070 trades blows with/is slightly below the 6800X and 6900X while all three are crushed by the 3080/TI/3090

Bunch of reviews I read showed the 3070 handily beating the 6800XT in Control, Metro Exoduis (release version), and BF5 with RT on, apples/apples.

Depends on the level of RT.

A fully path traced title like quake 2 or mine craft will heavily bias towards nvidia, like to the point a 2060 = 6900XT

For anything....more optimized....yeah you're right.

amd GPUs are beating a 3070

Only those who cost 150+ more. The one that costs 100 more doesn't

Only those who cost 300+ more.

3070 MSRP - $499

6800XT MSRP - $649

That is 150 more expensive.

Even on Metro Exodus Enhanced, the RDNA 2 GPU seems to perform reasonably acceptable as well, with 6800XT matching 3070 not as good as shown here with Doom Eternal, but not as bad as like Cyberpunk and Control shown before.

It depends on the type of RT.

Something with a lot of RT like control or metro will result in a bigger gap than this.

That's not bad, the AMD GPUs are beating a 3070.

AMD GPUs twice as expensive

AIB markups yes, but my 6800xt was bought for $650 and was about $150 more than the 3070 msrp. The 6800xt performs exceptionally well in rasterized games that I mostly play though at 1440p.

Not in my region, 3070s are in stock at retailers at $1600, 6800 XTs are at $1700 ($1090 vs $1150 in American doll hairs.)

I played for a few hours with my 6800xt at 1440p and was 130-150 fps. Game looked and felt great. The reference cooler was working overtime as temps for north of 90c multiple times while playing.

Interesting. That reference cooler is showing its limitations then. With vsync on I don't break 60c even after a couple hours, since the GPU load is lowered to what is needed to achieve 144 fps. If I take vsync off, I will max out at 72c. This is all on air in an old / crowded case that doesn't have the best airflow.

How come these benchmarks only have the 6900XT at 129 fps average for 1440p? Are you sure you have Ultra Nightmare settings, RT on and TSSAA 8TX? 21.6.2 drivers?

Are you using Vulcan or DX?

Not trying to imply anything, just trying to understand the discrepancy. Are they maybe testing in a different part of the game? Their 1080p results are 180 fps average.

Do you know the reason why this is the case? Ive noticed that i cant really see a graphics difference with dlss on @ 4k besides the increase in fps, yet on other monitors it looks like things get blurred by dlss

Depends on the game, implementation and version of DLSS. But it seems to look really good in Doom Eternal.

Check out this comparison. It's hard to tell the difference even while zooming in. I don't expect you to see any difference during gameplay.