WOW this looks so much fun than what we have seen before. fast paced non stop. maybe PC version they made is actually more faster since we have only seen console gameplay.
Doom first PC gameplay on nvidia GTX 1080
- Thread starter B-Cell_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
WOW this looks so much fun than what we have seen before. fast paced non stop. maybe PC version they made is actually more faster since we have only seen console gameplay.
you played MP beta which is not made by ID softwareMishaK said:
PC version of this game is more faster and no more weapon wheel time freezing.
I never understand why they didnot market this version and market a slow paced console version since E3? but now all my worries are gone. game is fast enough. a fast paced non stop shooter. it makes me very happy we got a Real FPS game in a long time.Ezekiel said:
I think I'll stick with my 970 GTX for a while. I don't think anything's really going to push it for a while. These new super cards are probably only going to be useful for people pushing super resolutions or for virtual headsets, neither of which I'm running yet.
According to Nvidia. And they have such a stellar track record when it comes to telling the truth, right? Without benchmarks from both Nvidia and AMD their own words are meaningless.Gundam GP01 said:
Which may just be thanks to the game's own optimization. Like I said we need BENCHMARKS. It's their flagship GPU after all, so it's supposed to be able to handle every new game on highest settings. And this was running at 1080p by the way on a card that's supposed to handle 4k. All in all, we don't know if that framerate is actually indicative of how impressive the GPU is or how well optimized the game is.Gundam GP01 said:
Mate, at this point you sound like you're frantically trying to convince yourself as much as anyone else.B-Cell said:
Besides, it's a video of a video. That's just not going to cut it as a demonstration of graphics. The only thing notable about it is the 120FPS in the corner.
Bingo. The proof is in the (benchmark) pudding.Adam Jensen said:
nVidia and AMD can claim whatever the hell they want. Until I see real-world numbers, it's all meaningless.
I feel like this may likely be the case. The beta ran buttery smooth on my Crossfired 290 setup.
Seems id may have learned a lesson or two after their RAGE fiasco...
Well Nvidia did state the 1080 was in development for two years, and cost billions in R&D costs. Any less than what it currently boasts, would be a faliure. Considering that Nvidia specifically stated the R&D costs was a multi billion dollar investment. You have to also remember, that a new architecture. Allows for so much more tech to be packed in the card than previous gens.Supahewok said:
Personally, if I can build a PC in the near future. This is the card I wanna get. $600 is a still a hefty price tag. But given the greap technological leap this card is, and how efficient it is. The 1080 will be a good long term investment.
I spent about that much on a card last year. My old PC was aging and the mobo didn't allow for new upgrades, so new rig. Waiting a year when that setup was running into texture loading issues with older games, not an option. However, with the deal I got for my card I don't regret not waiting to upgrade and that would've been a full year without the Witcher. On that note, my current PC is operating on an R9 295x2 that I purchased at $630 new and was the top performing card at half the price of Nvidia.
I don't doubt that there was some serious optimization made specifically for that card in this video. I also don't doubt that upon release, retailers are going to gouge gouge gouge so they can get at minimum, a 100% profit margin. So expect to be seeing these at around $1200 when they release. I await the benchmarks to see how this card performs outside of a conference environment and maybe later, when AMD releases its zen architecture, how it compares on a price/performance basis. But mostly, I'm waiting for the killer ap, the game that would actually require this much graphic power to run and be worth the cost of entry. Like VR, I might dip my toe in at some point but only after thorough testing and a product is readily and affordably available.
I don't doubt that there was some serious optimization made specifically for that card in this video. I also don't doubt that upon release, retailers are going to gouge gouge gouge so they can get at minimum, a 100% profit margin. So expect to be seeing these at around $1200 when they release. I await the benchmarks to see how this card performs outside of a conference environment and maybe later, when AMD releases its zen architecture, how it compares on a price/performance basis. But mostly, I'm waiting for the killer ap, the game that would actually require this much graphic power to run and be worth the cost of entry. Like VR, I might dip my toe in at some point but only after thorough testing and a product is readily and affordably available.
The fact that they're not giving out many review codes, and also left Jim Sterling off the list because they're in "short supply" gives me a faint inkling that it might be a total stiff. Why development was not given to MachineGames is beyond me.Zhukov said:
considering how awful wolf new order was im glad those talentless hacks didnot work on this.09philj said:
atleast Doom is fast (on PC), has no iron sight, sprint system where you cant shoot while running, forced stealth etc