DOOM: The Dark Ages arrives next week, and it’s looking like most folks will be able to experience high frame rates using its Ultra Nightmare preset when gaming at 1080p or 1440p. Using the id Tech 8 engine, the latest entry features ray traced global illumination and, as is normal, is primarily a GPU-bound title, but that’s not a bad thing. While the current DOOM series has been GPU-bound, id Tech has done well in making them very scalable across a wide range of GPU models and resolutions, and this latest game is no exception. There are six graphics setting presets: Low, Medium, High, Ultra, Nightmare, and Ultra Nightmare. Multiple reviews (1, 2, 3) have given a general idea of what will be needed to game at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K.
DOOM: The Dark Ages acts as a prequel for DOOM Eternal (2020) and DOOM (2016), giving players a chance to see the roots of the Slayer’s epic story with, per Bethesda, “over-the-top” visuals. Its release coincides with the latest GPU generational launches from AMD, Intel, and NVIDIA and will support FSR 3.0, Xess, and DLSS 4 (including Multi-Frame Gen 3x/4x) on launch day. However, it should come as a relief to many to know that no upscaling technology is needed to play the game at its highest settings with many mid-tier cards at either 1080p or 1440p. However, those seeking to see all of the game’s carnage at 4K will need a top-tier card to do so or resort to upscaling to reach above 60 FPS.
1080p breakdown using Ultra Nightmare preset
PC owners still holding onto their 1080p displays have little to worry about when using the highest preset level without using upscaling. Reviews have shown that players can achieve 60 FPS with graphics cards such as an AMD RX 6800 16 GB or NVIDIA RTX 3070 8 GB but also be in the general vicinity with an Intel Arc B580 12 GB, NVIDIA RTX 3060 Ti, or AMD RX 6750 XT if they don’t mind dips into the low 50s/high 40s. However, if wanting to reach upwards of 120 FPS, something like an overclocked RTX 3090 Ti 24 GB/RX 7900 XT 20 GB will at least be needed.
1440p breakdown using Ultra Nightmare preset
As expected, things get a bit tougher on hardware, but it’s still not the end of the road for those with older graphics cards or newer, more budget-friendly options. At 1440p, players are going to need at least an RTX 3080 10 GB or RX 7900 GRE 16 GB to nail that 60 FPS target, but an overclocked RX 7800 XT 16 GB should also be able to come in close or above. Unfortunately for those not wanting to use upscaling, either an RTX 4090 24 GB or RTX 5090 32 GB will be needed if wanting to get to 120 FPS.
4K breakdown using Ultra Nightmare preset
Well, at 4K, using the Ultra Nightmare preset is pretty much a nightmare for most users, if not using upscaling. NVIDIA’s top-tier cards are more or less required if wanting to reach 60 FPS. The RTX 4080 SUPER 16 GB, when overclocked, could reach upwards of 60 FPS, as could an RTX 5080 16 GB, but otherwise players will need either an RTX 4090 or RTX 5090.
Quality Upscaling settings using Ultra Nightmare preset
Once again, upscaling technology will be the emergency parachute for many wanting higher framerates, if they don’t mind a bit more lag. At the forefront of this approach is NVIDIA’s DLSS 4, featuring x3 and x4 multiframe generation. It’s been said that DOOM: The Dark Ages performs well using x4, but given the fast-paced nature of the franchise, most would still do better to stick with either x2 or x3 to keep latency to a minimum. That being said, NVIDIA’s RTX 50 series shines here, and using MFG x3 combined with DLAA, even an RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB can attain a staggering 171 FPS at 1080p, albeit latency is unfortunately 36 ms, which is sure to be noticeable. Similarly, a 5070 Ti at 1440p, MFG x3 using DLAA, reaches 184 FPS with 37 ms of latency. Meanwhile, the RTX 5090 continues this scaling trend at 4K, MFG x3, and DLAA, at 189 FPS and latency at 35 ms.
An NVIDIA RTX 50-series graphics card is by no means required for an optimal playing experience using upscaling technology. At 1080p, anything from an RX 6600 XT 8 GB, RTX 3060 12 GB, or Arc A770 16 GB can hit around or above 60 FPS. Players with an RX 7800 XT/RTX 3080 can get within sight of 120 FPS, and even the Arc B580 is seen reaching over 83 FPS.
Taking this up a notch to 1440p and the RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, Arc B580, and RX 6800 all hit similar marks around or higher than 60 FPS. To get in the area of 120 FPS, folks will need at least an RTX 4070 Ti/RX 9070. At 4K, things are still tough, but 60 FPS is nearly attainable with an RX 7900 GRE/RTX 3080/RTX 4070, but easily doable with anything more powerful than an RTX 4070, which, when overclocked, can probably get over 60 FPS at 4K.
Discussion (9 replies)
Join Discussion →We are going backwards. 1080p was the peasant setting even 10+ years ago.
The current arrangement is too comfortable for AAA developers and video card manufacturers. Devs can use computationally expensive features that barely improve graphics if not outright making it worse, while nvidia sells their "nextgen" hardware with no real innovation or leap, so you can play a game that looks no better than the games from 5 years ago.
I know, but sadly, that is the state of things. On the plus side, at least textures and effects are making strides so that modern 1080p doesn't look as awful as it did back then. Just for kicks, I've been doing a lot of testing with newer games, with every IQ setting maxed, and then some if good mods are available to increase further, at 1080p, and I admit I'm impressed at how well it can natively be. For a while now, I've wondered why so many still game at it, beyond stupidly high FPS for competitive stuff, but it still has some merits. However, I ultimately still aim for native 4K when possible, especially if able to use DLAA.
I hadn't seen the reviews you posted yet, but I saw this one:
[embedded media]
At 4:56 to 7:02 he shows side-by-side differences between all the graphics presets, and well as he points out, there's almost no f*cking difference. And he says no it's not the YT compression, it's just that the game really doesn't have many differences between the settings at all. Is that a bug? Is that how the game was designed? I wonder what's up.
4080 performing better than 5080 at 1080p, and exactly the same at 1440p and 4K? Sounds like a GPU driver issue or game needs to be patched.
Radeon 9070 XT beating the RTX 5080 and 4080 Super, and matching the Radeon 7900 XTX at both 1080p and 1440p. At 4K, the 7900 XTX, RTX 5080, 4080 Super, and 4080 were all performing about the same, with the Radeons leading. None of them were above 60fps at 4K (this is without upscaling). The only two cards that could do above 60fps at 4K are the 4090 and 5090.
9070 XT using FSR vs RTX 5080 using DLSS, the Radeon comes out ahead.
At 14:25 he looks at the 5060 Ti at 4K (DLSS Balanced) and 1440p (DLSS Quality), 8GB vs 16GB. Amazing how the same exact card gets crippled so terribly in the 8GB variant. Lowering the texture pool size setting from the default 2GB to just 1.5GB helps out 8GB video cards a lot. Also DLSS Frame Generation didn't really work with the texture pool size set to the default 2GB. It was kinda buggy on the 8GB 5060 Ti, but worked fine on the 16GB one.
He says cuz so many gamers still have 8GB cards, these cards are holding back PC gaming. He said developers have to make a choice between supporting the vRAM configuration that most people have, or leaving those cards behind to push visuals and features to modern standards (which then f*cks over owners of 8GB cards). Sounds like id Software tried to accommodate them as best as they could.
I think it's also important to point out how according to the Steam Hardware Survey, most gamers on Steam do NOT have a graphics card with RT hardware, so I wonder if it's really right for devs to require it. First Indiana Jones and the Great Circle required RT, and now this game. To be fair, you shouldn't have a PC that is weaker than the current-gen consoles if you are a gamer. But that's not a reality for most people.
In other news, a friend randomly gifted me the game, so I guess I'll get to try it out for myself.
RT cards have been out since 2018.
Most people that have non-RT GPUs are running esports or indie games as current AAA games run like crap on decade old hardware unless you want 1080p low (probably with FSR) to hit 60fps.
Next gen console ports will all pretty much require RT GPUs and those are coming in a couple years (not including 2d/indie games).
I would be surprised if GTA6 doesn't require an RT capable GPU.
I don't think people remember the 2000s when you almost had to constantly update your GPU to play the latest and greatest or be fine with 20-30fps. Current GPUs are so much better than that.
That's expected when no fakery is in place. In raw performance the 5xxx series is a sidestep at best.
I guess I'll find out in a few days how good the 5090 does in 4K with this game. Glad to see the positive reviews, and hopefully it's as good as the reviewers say it is.
Yes, but they're better because the hardware limited the software more. The majority of gamers have been stuck with 8GB for 8-10 years now. If I'm stuck spending $400 for a top of the line 1080p or entry level 1440p gpu, I want it to actually be capable and last awhile. That isn't even really the case now with the 5060ti. It isn't much of a RT card at 1080p let alone 1440p. Hardware companies going back to 2 year near required upgrade cycles is not going to sit well in this environment. Not after my 8gb card has been quite good for my needs for the past 5 years. That will just limit the games and graphics unless these companies want to sell fewer copies.
The great irony to me is that the hardware companies and the game software companies are doing a great job of actually killing the gaming industry, leading to another market crash with idiotic hardware and bad game value for money.
Yes, but in the 2000s, you could upgrade your PC every 8-10 months just by saving up your lunch money. Now it would cost me 3 to 4 months* salary just to buy a 5090. Things are very much not the same. People are getting priced out of the industry, there will be no PC enthusiasts soon if this keeps up.
*Just to drill it in how dire the situation is: I don't mean 3-4 months worth of saving, but literally the whole money I get from my job that pays above average for my region.
I agree. I have spent too much on my setups lately, and though I keep saying this will be it for me I am sticking to my guns now. I wanted to build the fastest PC I could get now that should last me until I officially hang up the whole gaming hobby altogether. Retirement is getting closer also.