60FPS requirements

[Demon_XIV]

When playing Eviternity + Brutal Doom The game is very sluggish on big maps or in areas full of monsters.

Also I noticed that in contrast to newer games, the GPU's fans RPM stands at zero when playing doom.

What should I do the make the game run smoothly? Is there a way to utilize the GPU when playing Brutal Doom?

 

My current build is as follows:

 

CPU:
    AMD Ryzen 7 2700 AM4 Box
Motherboards:
    Gigabyte B450 Gaming X
Ram Memory:
    Corsair DDR 4 32G (16Gx2) 3000 CL16 Vengeance LPX Black CMK32GX4M2D3000C16    
Video Card:
    Sapphire RX 570 PULSE 8G GDDR5 HDMI DP PCI-E

 

 

[sergeirocks100]

14 minutes ago, Demon_XIV said:

When playing Eviternity + Brutal Doom The game is very sluggish on big maps or in areas full of monsters.

Also I noticed that in contrast to newer games, the GPU's fans RPM stands at zero when playing doom.

What should I do the make the game run smoothly? Is there a way to utilize the GPU when playing Brutal Doom?

 

My current build is as follows:

 

CPU:
    AMD Ryzen 7 2700 AM4 Box
Motherboards:
    Gigabyte B450 Gaming X
Ram Memory:
    Corsair DDR 4 32G (16Gx2) 3000 CL16 Vengeance LPX Black CMK32GX4M2D3000C16    
Video Card:
    Sapphire RX 570 PULSE 8G GDDR5 HDMI DP PCI-E

 

 

GZDoom already utilizes the GPU, Brutal Doom simply has a tendency to slow things down to a crawl because of how badly programmed it is, there's nothing much i can do for you besides recommend that you find something else to play with that isn't Brutal Doom, the base game is plenty fun by itself, and there's a wide variety of other gameplay mods out there for GZDoom if you want to spice things up

[Demon_XIV]

13 minutes ago, sergeirocks100 said:

GZDoom already utilizes the GPU

 

I'm using GZDoom and my GPU's fans aren't moving.. Is there a setting to activate the GPU?

 

Quote

something else to play with that isn't Brutal Doom

 

I saw a gameplay where eviternity + BD where behaving very smoothly so it has to be possible, somehow...

[sergeirocks100]

2 minutes ago, Demon_XIV said:

 

I'm using GZDoom and my GPU's fans aren't moving.. Is there a setting to activate the GPU?

 

 

I saw a gameplay where eviternity + BD where behaving very smoothly so it has to be possible, somehow...

just because your GPU fans aren't moving, does not mean that GZDoom isn't making use of the GPU, if you open up the task manager while running GZDoom, you should see the program making use of the GPU some

[Graf Zahl]

With AMD and complex maps one thing you should check is that you use the Vulkan renderer. OpenGL on AMD can become a performance issue due to poor driver support.

 

[ReaperAA]

7 minutes ago, Graf Zahl said:

With AMD and complex maps one thing you should check is that you use the Vulkan renderer. OpenGL on AMD can become a performance issue due to poor driver support.

 

^This.

 

31 minutes ago, Demon_XIV said:

I'm using GZDoom and my GPU's fans aren't moving.. Is there a setting to activate the GPU?

 

@Demon_XIV If you have a integrated GPU, then make sure that GZDoom is not using that integrated GPU and instead using the dedicated GPU.

[seed]

9 minutes ago, Graf Zahl said:

With AMD and complex maps one thing you should check is that you use the Vulkan renderer. OpenGL on AMD can become a performance issue due to poor driver support.

 

This.

 

But make sure your drivers are also up to date, as they did fix some performance issues in GL apps over the last year. Either way, Vulkan is the way to go on AMD, their GL support simply isn't as good as NVIDIA's.

[Demon_XIV]

23 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

With AMD and complex maps one thing you should check is that you use the Vulkan renderer. OpenGL on AMD can become a performance issue due to poor driver support.

 

 It's actually much better with Vulkan. Thanks!

[Redneckerz]

On 6/5/2020 at 2:41 PM, seed said:

 

This.

 

But make sure your drivers are also up to date, as they did fix some performance issues in GL apps over the last year. Either way, Vulkan is the way to go on AMD, their GL support simply isn't as good as NVIDIA's.

You know years ago there was this talk where one user (Vortex Cortex) wanted to quash the AMD=bad myth by requesting Graf to run GZDoom against a reference OpenGL implementation.

 

Although the offset of that request was done piss poorly (Basically demanding Graf to do those tests himself after a preliminary result was shown), i do have to wonder why to this very day we advice users with AMD on their sloppy OpenGL performance.

 

I know, the usual answers apply, but the only thing that leaves me hanging is the original suggestion of testing GZ against such a professional grade OpenGL reference test.

 

Because personally i find the long lasting theory that GZ is mostly a Nvidia focused app that just runs worse on AMD through OpenGL, purely because of AMD's supposely lacklustre implementations a strange one. We take it for granted, and i am sure there is regression, but i'd love to see this backed up by more evidence. I know Graf's personal tests are a factor here, hence the reference test.

[seed]

18 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

Because personally i find the long lasting theory that GZ is mostly a Nvidia focused app that just runs worse on AMD through OpenGL, purely because of AMD's supposely lacklustre implementations a strange one. We take it for granted, and i am sure there is regression, but i'd love to see this backed up by more evidence. I know Graf's personal tests are a factor here, hence the reference test.

 

The problem here is that none of the developers are actually running AMD hardware as well, so they simply cannot test it for regressions like they could on NVIDIA, so if NVIDIA takes advantage of something that AMD does not, well, there you have it.

 

The simple truth is that AMD simply has not invested into OpenGL for a very long time. I had friends with AMD hardware and the said hardware of the time was quite good for GL applications, but later on something changed, and they chose to focus on DirectX and later Vulkan instead of OpenGL, so they've settled for a highly standard compliant implementation and never gave it further love. This can be observed on their support page where most GL performance reports get seemingly ignored or just get a "token support" type of answers. Unless the users manage to figure out the root cause by themselves, they don't seem to do much research.

[Redneckerz]

1 hour ago, seed said:

 

The problem here is that none of the developers are actually running AMD hardware as well,

Graf used to.

 

And if none of the developers actively are using it, is that not an unexplained territory then? I refuse to believe that we keep saying this with the sole reason that AMD's OpenGL drivers are shoddy.

You would only see such severe performance deficits in the demoscene world.

1 hour ago, seed said:

so they simply cannot test it for regressions like they could on NVIDIA, so if NVIDIA takes advantage of something that AMD does not, well, there you have it.

That does not explain the significant deficits that occur. I can absolutely understand performance margins because honestly, its only in recent times that AMD's driver support is getting there. But even in modern gaming, older GCN cards hold up better than similar Nvidia spec machines (albeit Nvidia holds longer driver/feature support overall).

But thats the thing: GZDoom by basis isn't a modern game. Its a rejuvenated take in a walled garden surrounded by 1993 paradigms. Its not the most likely combination a driver has to face.

1 hour ago, seed said:

The simple truth is that AMD simply has not invested into OpenGL for a very long time. I had friends with AMD hardware and the said hardware of the time was quite good for GL applications, but later on something changed, and they chose to focus on DirectX and later Vulkan instead of OpenGL, so they've settled for a highly standard compliant implementation and never gave it further love.

Inbetween AMD had Mantle which effectively set the stage for Vulkan as a demonstrator for low level API's.

Again, i understand that the usual answers may apply, as they have been applied for several years. But that's beside the point. I personally do not believe the AMD deficit is purely because of crap OpenGL implementation, even when taking in reasonable margin. So therefore, why not a reference test?

 

At the very least it either backs up the advice that has been applied for several years (So more convincing evidence) and otherwise it tells you that things can improve. There is not really anything lost by this.

1 hour ago, seed said:

This can be observed on their support page where most GL performance reports get seemingly ignored or just get a "token support" type of answers. Unless the users manage to figure out the root cause by themselves, they don't seem to do much research.

But that's for modern games and apps - The AMD performance theory exists for several years.

 

I realize that such a standard test costs money so that may very well be why it was not attempted. But i recall Vortex had a free version of the test up - Graf simply had to test it. Ofcourse, this was.... 2008? I am not sure. I should look it up.

[seed]

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

Again, i understand that the usual answers may apply, as they have been applied for several years. But that's beside the point. I personally do not believe the AMD deficit is purely because of crap OpenGL implementation, even when taking in reasonable margin. So therefore, why not a reference test?

 

I do, because it affects all GL-based video games (heard that for non-games it isn't bad), so what do we have here then, all games optimized only for NVIDIA? Highly doubt that. Crappy driver support is the only one that makes sense to me in this scenario.

[Redneckerz]

2 hours ago, seed said:

 

I do, because it affects all GL-based video games (heard that for non-games it isn't bad),

I don't think it affects it this severely. But what is the measuring stick, modern OpenGL titles (Of which there are few) or older?

Quote

so what do we have here then, all games optimized only for NVIDIA? Highly doubt that.

That's not entirely the case here. I am not stating that every game is purely Nvidia optimized - I am saying that GZDoom's disrepancy regarding AMD hardware is difficult to picture being solely because of its OGL implementation.

Quote

Crappy driver support is the only one that makes sense to me in this scenario.

And if that's the case, then why not test GZ on a reference OpenGL implementation to see how the code stacks up?

 

I recall ZDoomGL was half as slow as GZDoom, but one could see why because ZDoomGL was tested against that reference spec. It was ultimately just unoptimized code that caused it. So how would GZ fare?

 

It can't just solely be on AMD's OpenGL implementation with that kind of regression. Because GZ was never tested against a reference spec, you cannot thus be for certain its only the AMD OpenGL driver.

 

Mind you: I do think that the state of the driver has a great deal to do with it, but that should bar no saying.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Redneckerz : Finishing a post might work better if you do it instantly.