yet another game that fails to understand CPU requirements & performance

[dirtyferret]

Techspot posted another of their PC game hardware performance tests, this time it was on the new DOOM release. The CPU performance should not be shocking to anyone who has kept up with the reality of CPU performance in modern PC gaming as well as the lack of performance from AMD CPUs compared to intel. First lest start of with the system requirements;

http://www.buildingagamingpcsite.com/doom-system-requirements/

Minimum Doom system requirements:

• 64-bit Windows 7/Windows 8.1
• Intel Core i5 @ 3.3 GHz or better / AMD FX-8320
• 8 GB RAM
• Nvidia GTX 670 2GB/ AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB VRAM)
• 6GB HDD space
• Steam account
• High speed internet connection

Recommended Doom system requirements:

• 64-bit Windows 7/Windows 8.1/Windows 10
• Intel Core i7 @ 3.4GHz or better / AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0GHz or better
• 8GB RAM
• Nvidia GTX 970 4GB / AMD Radeon R9 290 4GB
• 6GB HDD space
• Steam account
• High speed internet connection

And the actual results;

 

[Easy Rhino]

sorry, what am i missing?

 

[cadaveca]

sorry, what am i missing?

He's trying to compare Intel CPU vs AMD CPU with same VGA, when they mean AMD CPU for AMD GPU combos.

I read the specs to say Intel Core i7 3.4 GHZ paired with GTX 970, or AMD 8350 paired with Radeon R9 290.

He is reading it as mix and match.

 

[Frick]

He's trying to compare Intel CPU vs AMD CPU with same VGA, when they mean AMD CPU for AMD GPU combos.

I read the specs to say Intel Core i7 3.4 GHZ paired with GTX 970, or AMD 8350 paired with Radeon R9 290.

He is reading it as mix and match.

Wait, what? Why would you read them like that?

What I don't believe is that the game just takes up 6GB.

 

[rtwjunkie]

sorry, what am i missing?

What I see him saying is the CPU is still not important, due to the very small frame difference, despite the fact that some game developers are listing very high CPU requirements.

 

[Easy Rhino]

What I see him saying is the CPU is still not important, due to the very small frame difference, despite the fact that some game developers are listing very high CPU requirements.

okay, that is what i thought but was not sure. yea, i have a 970 and can play the division about around 50 FPS at 1440p with an old x58 xeon. developers are dopes.

 

[dirtyferret]

What I see him saying is the CPU is still not important, due to the very small frame difference, despite the fact that some game developers are listing very high CPU requirements.

well said: This is a two part issue as game developers are clearly lying about requirements that causes confusion in the marketplace leading customers to purchase "future proof" CPUs that will not give them the performance they think they are paying for.

 

[Easy Rhino]

well said: This is a two part issue as game developers are clearly lying about requirements that causes confusion in the marketplace leading customers to purchase "future proof" CPUs that will not give them the performance they think they are paying for.

while i agree a counterargument would be that the developer gets to say what "recommended" is. It isn't like they are saying "recommended" is for simply being able to play it above 30 FPS. They just believe the game is best played above 100 FPS.

 

[dirtyferret]

while i agree a counterargument would be that the developer gets to say what "recommended" is. It isn't like they are saying "recommended" is for simply being able to play it above 30 FPS. They just believe the game is best played above 100 FPS.

I agree they can "recommend" whatever they want but their minimum is laughable and considering people may go out and spend hard earned money on a new PC build based on these requirements then there is a problem with that.

1) the "recommend" CPUs offer no real world difference from the "minimum" recommendations
2) the AMD recommended CPUs is actually the exact same CPU with a slight bump in speed

 

[Easy Rhino]

I agree they can "recommend" whatever they want but their minimum is laughable and considering people may go out and spend hard earned money on a new PC build based on these requirements then there is a problem with that.

But what is your solution ? Write an angry letter to them?

 

[qubit]

While the listed requirements aren't very accurate, they do give an idea of what's required.

Rule of thumb is to go for the most powerful system you can afford and that includes the CPU. One can't have too much power when it comes to games.

 

[Blue-Knight]

i have a 970 and can play the division about around 50 FPS at 1440p with an old x58 xeon. developers are dopes.

I think they are playing on the safe side. Better safe than sorry!

Imagine if users are told that a CPU and GPU "x" will be fine and they do not?

But you know, people are always complaining no matter what. And this topic is just one more proof of this.

 

[dirtyferret]

But what is your solution ? Write an angry letter to them?

can't hurt

While the listed requirements aren't very accurate, they do give an idea of what's required.

Rule of thumb is to go for the most powerful system you can afford and that includes the CPU. One can't have too much power when it comes to games.

never heard of that rule of thumb, sounds wasteful

 

[qubit]

There are many things you haven't heard of. It's not wasteful. Note I said within what one can afford.

 

[dirtyferret]

There are many things you haven't heard of. It's not wasteful. Note I said within what one can afford.

probably but I learned to spot a fool from a mile away pretty early on in life

 

[qubit]

probably but I learned to spot a fool from a mile away pretty early on in life

You have no good argument so you've resorted to a cheap personal attack. Reported.

 

[Mindweaver]

Hey let's play nice and not call one another names. Warning issued

 

[MrGenius]

Good thread. I couldn't agree more with the premise. In my experience I have ALMOST NEVER seen a recommended or minimum requirement that made much sense at all. They are almost all blown completely out of proportion, on the way too high end of the spectrum. The one time I've seen some that made any real sense was when the moderators of a certain forum asked for suggestions based on forum members running the pre-release demo of the game on various systems. And they passed that info gathered on to the developer to make accurate minimum and recommended system requirements for the game. Which were nearly spot on. If not entirely. The minimum reflected what was required for ~30+ fps @ 1080p with max/ultra settings. The recommended reflected what was required for ~60+ fps @ 1080p with max/ultra settings. The sad thing is I participated in that decision making process on that forum, as a member and strong supporter of the title. But I'm so disgusted with the game since it was released, and that forum shortly after which, that I refuse to advertise for either one. So don't even ask.

 

[Tomgang]

I can comform. Doom docent need the newest monster cpu to run perfect. Played for a hour total, so havent come tath far in the game. But my setup runs the game apselutely perfect maxet out.

Present on ultra, field of veiw at 130 and resolution at 1920 x 1200. Power by a i7 920 @ 4Ghz and two gtx 970 in sli but the game docent support sli so only one of my cards has Load on gpu.

That gives when it is worst 62 fps and in general 80 to 120 fps and peak is over 140 fps. No sudden lag spikes og others Thing that can ruin a pc game, like ubisoft is so good at to do...

ID SOFTWARE made with DOOM a well optimized game. at least in my opinion.

 

[GoldenX]

The Phantom Pain has similar CPU req's and I can play it perfectly fine on a Haswell Celeron, and worse, on a dual core APU (that's a single FPU).
Devs are crazy or just lazy.

 

[Caring1]

You have no good argument so you've resorted to a cheap personal attack. Reported.

I know this has nothing to do with me, but I fail to see any personal attack in the generalised statement that was given.
Some people apparently need to drink a cup of concrete and move on.

 

[Frick]

While the listed requirements aren't very accurate, they do give an idea of what's required.

Rule of thumb is to go for the most powerful system you can afford and that includes the CPU. One can't have too much power when it comes to games.

Depends on how much money you have. Like those dual socket monster builds, for gaming those is criminally wasteful. Extreme Intel CPU's too.

 

[Toothless]

Depends on how much money you have. Like those dual socket monster builds, for gaming those is criminally wasteful. Extreme Intel CPU's too.

But what if you can game AND find the meaning of life at the same time? Eh? Eeeehhh?

Yeah everything should get some low-end i5 and a gtx960 and call it a day. More money = more food in the tumtums is my theory.

 

[qubit]

I know this has nothing to do with me, but I fail to see any personal attack in the generalised statement that was given.
Some people apparently need to drink a cup of concrete and move on.

You're right, this has nothing to do with you.

You should try that concrete sometime.

 

[Jetster]

Reality is, we have a distorted view of playable range. I've seen people play a game on a subpar laptop, at 17 fps. And beat the game. So game developers list minimal specs as what appears to us as unplayable. Where we like to play at 100+ fps range. Its always been this way. Get the best hardware you can afford. New games will come and go and requirements will get tougher