Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Foebane72

Is a GTX 960 2Gb enough for Doom Eternal in a basic state?

Recommended Posts

I mean, I managed to run Doom 2016 in Intel UHD 630 graphics on an 8Gb PC with i3-8100, so I should be able to run Doom Eternal on a GTX 960, right?

 

I don't care if I have to turn settings down all the way, I'm not really bothered if memory will run out before I complete the game, but I really must play it! I don't think I can wait weeks for a GTX 1650 Super!

 

So what are my chances?

 

EDIT: Forget this thread, it seems my graphics card actually has 4Gb of VRAM after all. Sorry, all.

 

Edited by Foebane72

Share this post


Link to post

I think it should run, but don't expect good performance. Game will refuse to run if you have less than that. Pic is from friends laptop

unknown-101.png

Share this post


Link to post

You can try the video of the lowspecgamer, he run Doom Eternal with a Ryzen 3000G APU (The grafic card on the Procesator)

Share this post


Link to post

Considering the minimum specs recommended a... what, a GTX 1050Ti 4GB I think?

 

No, it just won't be enough for this game, even if it boots it'll probably be just a slideshow and a stutterfest, trying to run games you don't even meet the minimum requirements is never a good idea from my experience. Even if the resolution is cranked all the way down I still doubt it'll be playable. We're gonna have to go for an upgrade for this game Foe - or go console. I'm not gonna be able to play it on my 950 for the time being either, so I've resorted to streams and let's plays of it.

 

BTW, a pretty uninspired decision to go for the 2GB version of the 960, especially now when the VRAM requirements are constantly on the rise. Should've opted for the 4GB version at the time you got it.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, seed said:

BTW, a pretty uninspired decision to go for the 2GB version of the 960, especially now when the VRAM requirements are constantly on the rise. Should've opted for the 4GB version at the time you got it.

 

I got the 2Gb four years ago, never thought of upgrading it since.

 

I can't even afford the GTX 1650 Super yet (or whatever will be the budget king then) for at least six weeks, eight when I count the game on Steam as well.

 

Dammit!

 

Share this post


Link to post

Even then, should've gone for the 4GB version :p .

 

I know how it feels though - you've got no idea how many games I've wanted to play but never could because of underpowered or old hardware - and when I finally upgraded they sometimes weren't compatible anymore...

Share this post


Link to post

Protip: In doubt, just search Youtube "Name of the game + GPU". There are people testing every games with every bizarre hardware combinations you can imagine.

And answering your question, yes, it runs like ass, but it runs.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, jamondemarnatural said:

You can try the video of the lowspecgamer, he run Doom Eternal with a Ryzen 3000G APU (The grafic card on the Procesator)

 

 

Yes, it was very useful! And thanks, Sargeant Mark IV, I already saw that video.

 

On my old PC (can't remember the CPU model or speed), before I got my GTX 960, I got a cheaper GTX 650 Ti to run Doom 2016 on. It only had 1Gb, and I only got as far as Hell after Argent Tower, but I then upgraded to the GTX 960.

 

I got the new i3-8100 PC last year but didn't have a graphics card so I used the UHD 630 to try it with. Then I transferred the unused GTX 960 from the old PC to the new.

 

What I think I'll do is buy the game anyway and try to run it as best I can, then upgrade the graphics later. I really just want to try the gameplay, I'm not too fussed how it looks for now.

 

Share this post


Link to post

It's gonna suck hard without a constant frame-rate. You'll hate it when you die to a framerate drop in the middle of a fight, and seeing how you already admitted that you struggle with doom'16: Don't even try this weird experiment, because there's a +90% chance it'll backfire.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

It's gonna suck hard without a constant frame-rate. You'll hate it when you die to a framerate drop in the middle of a fight, and seeing how you already admitted that you struggle with doom'16: Don't even try this weird experiment, because there's a +90% chance it'll backfire.

 

I think there's some confusion here, I'm not attempting to run Doom Eternal on the integrated graphics of the i3-8100, but the GTX 960 2Gb. Doom 2016 runs fine on the latter.

 

Share this post


Link to post

the Vega 8 graphics built into my cpu run Eternal fine with ~30-40 fps on low, the game is pretty well optimized

Share this post


Link to post

I have seen videos of the 960 and similar older graphics cards that are around the same performance like the 770 2GB (which i currently own), and the game while it runs, the framerate is just too unstable to play it properly, meanwhile the 1050 with 2GB of VRAM runs the game stably, with everything in low of course but it's perfectly playable, so i believe the issue here is drivers and Vulkan support on these older cards, that while technically they do support, but to be honest, it isn't the best, Doom 2016 for example runs smoothly on my machine running in OpenGL but it's much more unstable on Vulkan.

 

tl;dr: NVIDIA has shitty support for Vulkan for cards older than the 10 series.

Share this post


Link to post

Seconded.  Avoid playing anything in Vulkan with a 960.  It will harm your performance, not help it.  Doom Eternal forces Vulkan like The New Colossus did, so don't try it.  When I saw the requirements for Doom Eternal, I got a 2060 to replace my old still functional 960, since I'd wanted a card with ray tracing for a while anyway because of rumors all the news consoles would have it built in.  My 960 hated 2016 and wolfenstein the new colossus but the 2060 maxes both of those.  Doom Eternal runs at a solid 1080/60 on a mix of high and ultra settings.  I know upgrading hurts with the bitcoin bubble making Nvidia cards cost more, but you have to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, AlektorophobiA said:

tl;dr: NVIDIA has shitty support for Vulkan for cards older than the 10 series.

 

Factually incorrect, Vulkan is perfectly fine on the 900 series too (950 user here).

 

It only tends to be bad once you go below that (considering that would be hardware from well before Vulkan was even a thing, it is expected), but Maxwell Gen II and above is fine. And anyway, older generations have stopped receiving new feature support and optimizations a while ago, only Kepler and above does now.

 

@AFallingObject It hated your 960 because it is technically below the requirements of 2016 (a 970 was recommended, and the equivalent of a 670 and above for minimum. Even worse if you had the 2GB variant instead of the 4GB one, because these games really love their VRAM and that alone was going to make a difference) - and definitely below TNC's. That's a simple case of underpowered hardware.

Edited by seed

Share this post


Link to post

Doom 2016 looked OK on my 960, I thought. At least it was running fine on 1080p.

 

So shall I wait at least two weeks to gather enough to get the GTX 1650 Super, and then wait another two weeks to be able to afford the game? I hope it can even run it, and run it well!

 

Share this post


Link to post

I've just looked a bit over its specs, and it seems to be a bit weaker than the regular 1060, but should still be ok for medium-high settings.

 

I see the GTX 1060 is quite expensive though, so the 1650 definitely offers more value for the money. But again, it probably won't be able to run it on High as a 1060 was recommended for that and the 1650 is a bit weaker than it (it's also 2GB short, compared to the 6GB variant of the 1060).

Share this post


Link to post

Change of plan: I'm buying the game first, then the gfx card later. I believe I can get it running on the 960 at a reasonable frame rate at a much lower resolution than 1080p, even if it looks terrible.

 

I want to get the game added to my Steam to get it out of the way so I can gather the money for the 1650S later, just so I can try the game first.

 

I've done it before, gotten a hot new game when my PC was less than the intended spec, and liked it enough to upgrade. Besides, at the moment, none of the other games in my Steam need anything more than a 960. :)

 

Thanks for all the useful info, anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/23/2020 at 11:06 AM, seed said:

Factually incorrect, Vulkan is perfectly fine on the 900 series too (950 user here).

 

For what it's worth, among others the main DXVK developer has always said that all pre-Pascal Nvidia cards aren't that good for Vulkan, and to expect much more loss of performance vs. native D3D than on newer cards. (DXVK is a D3D implementation running on top of Vulkan which is popular in the Linux gaming community nowadays, it can be used to run Windows games with surprisingly good performance via Wine)

 

Still, I managed run quite a few games acceptably on my old Kepler card (GTX770) via DXVK before upgrading to Turing. :D ...and some others tanked really really bad with no particularly good (at least visible) reason to

Edited by xttl : links

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/23/2020 at 10:43 AM, Foebane72 said:

Change of plan: I'm buying the game first, then the gfx card later. I believe I can get it running on the 960 at a reasonable frame rate at a much lower resolution than 1080p, even if it looks terrible.

 

I want to get the game added to my Steam to get it out of the way so I can gather the money for the 1650S later, just so I can try the game first.

 

I've done it before, gotten a hot new game when my PC was less than the intended spec, and liked it enough to upgrade. Besides, at the moment, none of the other games in my Steam need anything more than a 960. :)

 

Thanks for all the useful info, anyway.

 

Honestly, I spoiled myself last week and got an MSI GTX 1660 TI Super. I don't regret it, yeah it costs a bit more than the 1650, but if you pay a bit more now, you can go longer without having to replace the thing. I had my old GTX 760 TI since 2014, and I kept trying to convince myself that it was still ok. It wasn't. And I finally decided to go ahead and buy Doom Eternal anyway, so I needed to finally get a new card. I love using logic like that.

 

Long story short, I was getting 35-60 FPS on Doom 2016 on high settings, some on ultra with the old card. Now it's a solid 200 FPS on ultra, because that's as high as the engine goes. On Doom Eternal, I'm getting 150-200 FPS on Ultra, 120-200 on Nightmare, with the texture preloading turned down to Ultra (Because it says 6GB isn't enough VRAM to have the texture preloading set to Nighmare). I would say save up a bit, I ended up paying $280 with tax getting it from Best Buy, simply because they had one in store. And I think my 760 cost around $320, even though it was an older card when I bought it.

 

I can't tell you what to do with your money, but I'm really surprised at how well this card works for the price. I would recommend it.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, xttl said:

 

For what it's worth, among others the main DXVK developer has always said that all pre-Pascal Nvidia cards aren't that good for Vulkan, and to expect much more loss of performance vs. native D3D than on newer cards. (DXVK is a D3D implementation running on top of Vulkan which is popular in the Linux gaming community nowadays, it can be used to run Windows games with surprisingly good performance via Wine)

 

Still, I managed run quite a few games acceptably on my old Kepler card (GTX770) via DXVK before upgrading to Turing. :D ...and some others tanked really really bad with no particularly good (at least visible) reason to

 

Well, of course, considering the hardware itself was not optimized for it after all. Vulkan only came out back in... 2016 I think, from what I can find? And the 900 series cards came before that, so while Vulkan will work, it obviously won't be the same as on 1000 or 2000 series card where the hardware and software is much more optimized to handle the API. And it gets worse the farther you go.

 

But, it still isn't horrible, that's what I was trying to point out there.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a pretty old and barely at minimum specs cpu (i5 3570) and paired with a Radeon 580 RX 8gb I bought for $180 this game runs great at 1080p high/ultra. 

 

i know nvidia is generally more popular than amd, but if you prioritize eternal, they’re worth looking at.

Share this post


Link to post

I've gotten quite far into the game, at least I think I have, and have had no problems, and am actually finding the combat to be intense but challenging, even though I haven't quite mastered the combined double-jump and dash yet.

 

I changed the settings to "Medium" overall, and it looks a little better and plays just as well.

 

Oh, and I tracked down my original Amazon order of the GTX 960 and can confirm that it IS a 4Gb model. I don't know why I thought it was only 2Gb.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, deepthaw said:

i know nvidia is generally more popular than amd, but if you prioritize eternal, they’re worth looking at.

 

It depends on the purpose.

 

Part of the reason why NVIDIA is more popular especially among gamers is because they have all-around great driver support, whereas AMD still hasn't gotten their heads out of their ass in some regards, notably OpenGL support. Their OpenGL support is vastly inferior to NVIDIA's, so if you play games or use applications that depend on the API, going for AMD is the bad choice. But the DX and especially Vulkan support is good.

 

42 minutes ago, Foebane72 said:

Oh, and I tracked down my original Amazon order of the GTX 960 and can confirm that it IS a 4Gb model. I don't know why I thought it was only 2Gb.

 

Considering the game actually boots, it pretty much confirms it has more than 2GB of VRAM memory available. You could also easily tell this by firing up dxdiag in Run or opening System Information in the driver's control panel.

 

Now it explains why you had no issues with 2016.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a r9 290 and it runs.

 

First time I run it was running ok, now it stutter a bit, not sure why.

 

I need to look at the settings and see if it can be optimised, several settings are set on high and I don't think they should be. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, seed said:

Considering the game actually boots, it pretty much confirms it has more than 2GB of VRAM memory available. You could also easily tell this by firing up dxdiag in Run or opening System Information in the driver's control panel.

 

Now it explains why you had no issues with 2016.

Pretty much this. I had no issues with Doom 2016 on High settings (well more of a custom setting) and i have the 4GB version of the 960. It's a decent card for what it is.  Well it was at the time at least depending on the version you bought.

 

I wouldn't try playing Eternal though, but that's just me. It would prob run though, depending on CPU and RAM too. My CPU isn't that great sooo yeah. I'd rather play a game on at least med/high settings although i've played on low/very low in the past on laptops and i hated it. Kinda why i like to play on med/high with a steady framerate nowadays lol.

 

This isn't concerning the OP, just some people in general:

 

It still boggles my mind how some people don't know what's in their PC when they actually have pretty decent gear. I mean, i'm not a tech but i do know how to check what's in a PC at least and put one together (although it's been a while and i've only built one). I would have killed for a nice intel processor back in the day as well as a killer GPU such as a 780 or 980ti).

 

 I remember reading that some people were complaining that they wouldn't be able to run Eternal even though one of them had a i7-6700K and a GTX 1080. I was like "WTF?". I mean, maybe not in 4k because that equipment is getting up there in age but damn. I'd love to have that lol. Some people man, some people.

Share this post


Link to post

Lmfao at not being able to run it on that kind of hardware, that's well above the recommended specs. Maybe in 4K, sure, because 4K requires a fucking beast of a PC to run Eternal, but not 1080p or 1440p. Sounds like snobs to me.

 

You're not the only one who had enough of running games on Low and crappy resolutions, hence why I don't even bother anymore. If it doesn't run well at my monitor's native res and on high, then it gets a hard pass. I'd rather play older games I know I can run then, hardware struggle is NOT fun.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Foebane72, I am running Doom Eternal with the 960 GTX with 2 GB RAM version of the card at high settings and it's flawless. Give it a try.

Share this post


Link to post

One thing " required" by the game is to install the video card's driver for the game itself, advertised on their official website. All I had to do.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Cellerion said:

Hi Foebane72, I am running Doom Eternal with the 960 GTX with 2 GB RAM version of the card at high settings and it's flawless. Give it a try.

Hmm interesting. That's neat that it works, especially on high. I'm assuming you have Windows 10 and a decent processor and amount of RAM though. I'm not sure how much that accounts into actually running the game though tbh.

 

I'm assuming Foebane72 has Windows 10 as most people do. Not sure if that matters though as the minimum specs state that it will run on 7 although at this point i'd probably use 10 if i could.

 

Thanks for the update though. Now i know that i could at least run the game ;)

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, CyberDreams said:

I'm assuming Foebane72 has Windows 10 as most people do. Not sure if that matters though as the minimum specs state that it will run on 7 although at this point i'd probably use 10 if i could.

 

I do.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×