[UPDATED] The DOOM System Upgrade Thread

[Nems]

Welp, here's my system specs via Speccy:

Operating System
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1

CPU
Intel Core i5 4460 @ 3.20GHz
Haswell 22nm Technology

RAM
8.00GB Single-Channel DDR3 @ 666MHz (9-9-9-24)

Motherboard
ASRock H81M-HDS (CPUSocket)

Graphics
V223W (1680x1050@59Hz)
2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (EVGA)


I'm not particularly PC literate when it comes to hardware but I have a feeling I'm gonna come up short in the CPU department when it comes to the minimum requirements. :(

[AirRaid]

Your CPU will be fine. And your monitor isn't even running full 1080p, so there's about 15% less load on your system than 1080p would produce.

[MiNaM]

Nems said:

Welp, here's my system specs via Speccy:

Operating System
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1

CPU
Intel Core i5 4460 @ 3.20GHz
Haswell 22nm Technology

RAM
8.00GB Single-Channel DDR3 @ 666MHz (9-9-9-24)

Motherboard
ASRock H81M-HDS (CPUSocket)

Graphics
V223W (1680x1050@59Hz)
2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (EVGA)


I'm not particularly PC literate when it comes to hardware but I have a feeling I'm gonna come up short in the CPU department when it comes to the minimum requirements. :(

Yup as AirRaid said, your CPU is fine, and your GPU "should" handle DOOM @ 1680x1050
so your system is fine but hold on, let's see how the Beta will be..

[ReFracture]

AirRaid said:

He's just looking at the specs of the minimum/recommended cards and extrapolating a bit. Those numbers shouldn't be taken as hard fact, but it's a good estimation of why a lot of those cards will not make the grade for Doom.

MiNaM said:

It's whereever you can find your GPU's detailed specs, CUDA Cores are for Nvidia GPU's & Stream Processors are AMD's..
I see you have a mobile 960m GPU which have 640 CUDA Cores Link

Exactly...

I understand, thanks guys.

[Plasma Gun]

Nems said:

Welp, here's my system specs via Speccy:

Operating System
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1

CPU
Intel Core i5 4460 @ 3.20GHz
Haswell 22nm Technology

RAM
8.00GB Single-Channel DDR3 @ 666MHz (9-9-9-24)

Motherboard
ASRock H81M-HDS (CPUSocket)

Graphics
V223W (1680x1050@59Hz)
2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (EVGA)


I'm not particularly PC literate when it comes to hardware but I have a feeling I'm gonna come up short in the CPU department when it comes to the minimum requirements. :(

You should be all set, to be honest. GTX 960 is about as fast as a GTX 770, which itself is really a re-branded GTX 680. So you are handily above minimum specifications.

Don't even sweat the CPU, yours is almost certainly far more than enough. The CPU inside of the PS4/Xbox One is a fraction of the speed of your chip. I think that these min specs on the CPU side are just way too high.

I would recommend though buying a second stick of RAM. Moving from single channel to dual channel, and going from 8GB to 16GB, should be a worthwhile upgrade for relatively little cost.

[Ironhound]

So.

I have an Intel Core i5-6400 CPU. (2.7ghz)

The minimum spec CPU is the Intel Core i5-2400. (3.1ghz.)

I'm scratching my head here. Which is faster? Both are quad core or whatnot, but I don't really understand CPU's, and if mine will be strong enough. The 6400 was recommended in this thread, but I'm not sure why. What makes it beat the minimum requirements?

Am I going to need to overclock?

[ReFracture]

Your cpu is the current Skylake generation, that one listed is an older Sandy Bridge model from 2011.

Your CPU's standard clock is 2.7ghz. It turbos to 3.3ghz.

http://ark.intel.com/products/88185/Intel-Core-i5-6400-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz

Your CPU is quite a bit faster.

[Deatheye]

why can't I delete my post?

[MrDeAD1313]

Deatheye said:

why can't I delete my post?

It costs $39.99 to delete a post

[antiriad]

Hola,

• Chassis: Thermaltake Core V1
• Mainboard: ASUS H110I Plus D3
• CPU: Intel Core i5-6400
• RAM: Kingston HyperX FURY 16 GB, 1600 MHz, DDR3L
• HDD: Samsung SSD 850 EVO, SATA III 2,5" 250 GB
• GPU: GIGABYTE GTX960 4GB Windforce OC
• PSU: Thermaltake Smart SE 630W

I'd like to play the new DOOM in 1080p on highest settings at 60FPS (no AA).
In your opinion it will be sufficient to buy a GTX 970?

Thanks

[Deatheye]

MrDeAD1313 said:

It costs $39.99 to delete a post

:(

I'll get my 970 tomorrow for doom PogChamp

[Moon Marin]

Nems said:

pc specs

your system will be fine. Your only limiting factor is the 2gb frame buffer but on your monitor size it shouldn't be a significant issue. Consider turning down shadow quality, texture quality or AA on release if you have issues as those consume the most VRAM.

Ironhound said:

So.

I have an Intel Core i5-6400 CPU. (2.7ghz)

The minimum spec CPU is the Intel Core i5-2400. (3.1ghz.)

I'm scratching my head here. Which is faster? Both are quad core or whatnot, but I don't really understand CPU's, and if mine will be strong enough. The 6400 was recommended in this thread, but I'm not sure why. What makes it beat the minimum requirements?

Am I going to need to overclock?

The 2000 series i5 runs on an older architecture. Clock for clock your skylake series i5 is probably 10-15% faster per instruction. Your 2.7Ghz i5 is similar to a 3105 Mhz 2000/sandybridge series i5 at a ratio of 15% increased performance. You may even see higher than 15% per instruction but its better to assume safer values of course. no issues man.

antiriad said:

Hola,

• Chassis: Thermaltake Core V1
• Mainboard: ASUS H110I Plus D3
• CPU: Intel Core i5-6400
• RAM: Kingston HyperX FURY 16 GB, 1600 MHz, DDR3L
• HDD: Samsung SSD 850 EVO, SATA III 2,5" 250 GB
• GPU: GIGABYTE GTX960 4GB Windforce OC
• PSU: Thermaltake Smart SE 630W

I'd like to play the new DOOM in 1080p on highest settings at 60FPS (no AA).
In your opinion it will be sufficient to buy a GTX 970?

Thanks

Your system is more than sufficeint the way it is to play Doom 1080p without AA. You might see drops into the upper 30s/low 40s during intense moments but the 960 is sufficient on its own especially since you have the 4gb version. If you are going to the 970 you will see 50-60 FPS most of the time with AA enabled at least as of the alpha. If you don't care about AA your 960 is probably enough to do what you want. Consider trying the beta this month if you can get in before spending 300 on a new card.

AirRaid said:

I would never consider a GTX *50 card for serious gaming. They are budget cards and their performance will always be seriously compromised. The 950 is barely faster than the 750Ti.

The GTX 950 averages roughly 10+ frames in similarly spec'd systems in most game benchmarks, at a price of about 40-50 USD more.

10+ frames is a similar amount of performance gain in steps between the 960 to 970 or the 970 to 980 in most triple A titles released during 2015 and 2016, with a bit of variance of course. If the 950 is 'barely faster' than a 750ti then a 970 is 'barely faster' than a 960 at a similar price step of about 80-100 USD above the cost of a 960.

The point of buying a graphics card for gaming is to play a title you intend to enjoy. Regardless of how 'minimally better' your opinions are about current GPU's the 950 will be enough to play Doom 2016 with some compromises on settings. The user we were replying to was already using a 750ti, clearly someone interested in budget components. Do you think I should recommend a 980ti to him instead so he can do "serious gaming"? He obviously isn't the target demo for the 980ti so I feel its better to recommend him a part that seems to appeal to his buying sense that will allow him to do what he wants to do - which is play Doom 2016. So he should get a 960 or a 380 if he has cash to spend, or a 950/370 if he wants to spend as little as possible.

[MrDeAD1313]

Deatheye said:

:(

I'll get my 970 tomorrow for doom PogChamp

Lol :D

[Plasma Gun]

Ironhound said:

So.

I have an Intel Core i5-6400 CPU. (2.7ghz)

The minimum spec CPU is the Intel Core i5-2400. (3.1ghz.)

I'm scratching my head here. Which is faster? Both are quad core or whatnot, but I don't really understand CPU's, and if mine will be strong enough. The 6400 was recommended in this thread, but I'm not sure why. What makes it beat the minimum requirements?

Am I going to need to overclock?

Skylake (your CPU) is about 30% faster per clock compared to Sandy Bridge (the CPU in the minimum requirements). This means a 2.7GHz i5-6400 is on par with a ~3.5GHz Sandy Bridge.

You should be all set, no overclocking needed.

[antiriad]

Moon Marin said:

Your system is more than sufficeint the way it is to play Doom 1080p without AA. You might see drops into the upper 30s/low 40s during intense moments but the 960 is sufficient on its own especially since you have the 4gb version. If you are going to the 970 you will see 50-60 FPS most of the time with AA enabled at least as of the alpha. If you don't care about AA your 960 is probably enough to do what you want. Consider trying the beta this month if you can get in before spending 300 on a new card.

Thank you. Unfortunately I didn't get a Beta code, and I'm primarily interested in single player experience. My concern is the CPU, that could be a bottleneck for 1080p 60FPS gaming in single player, and that it make no sense to spend more than for a GTX 970 on the GPU side. The fact is: I really don't know how "real" is CPU impact in game.
BTW there are yet some infos about the graphic options/levels that will be available on PC? With my CPU and a 970 I really hope to get a significantly better experience than console...

[Plasma Gun]

antiriad said:

Thank you. Unfortunately I didn't get a Beta code, and I'm primarily interested in single player experience. My concern is the CPU, that could be a bottleneck for 1080p 60FPS gaming in single player, and that it make no sense to spend more than for a GTX 970 on the GPU side. The fact is: I really don't know how "real" is CPU impact in game.
BTW there are yet some infos about the graphic options/levels that will be available on PC? With my CPU and a 970 I really hope to get a significantly better experience than console...

CPU will not be a bottleneck, I can guarantee you this.

[Moon Marin]

antiriad said:

Thank you. Unfortunately I didn't get a Beta code, and I'm primarily interested in single player experience. My concern is the CPU, that could be a bottleneck for 1080p 60FPS gaming in single player, and that it make no sense to spend more than for a GTX 970 on the GPU side. The fact is: I really don't know how "real" is CPU impact in game.
BTW there are yet some infos about the graphic options/levels that will be available on PC? With my CPU and a 970 I really hope to get a significantly better experience than console...

your cpu should be fine, but assuming we get a ton of enemies on screen at once like we are hoping from the single player its reasonable to assume you wont stay at 60 fps without any drops at all.

I dont think there is anything wrong with your rig, you should be fine to play doom in 1080p without AA as you stated you are trying to do without needing to spend any additional money. You will more than likely have a better experience than consoles already, outside of just better graphical fidelity and likely better performance you'll be able to tweak settings console users cant.


There isn't any known graphical settings yet outside of console commands, resolution and AA but thats only because all we've seen so far is the alpha. We are hoping the beta has more options, so hang out for a couple weeks until the beta comes out and hopefully we will all have a better idea of what options we will be able to tweak.

p.s. if youre looking to get a beta key gamestop is supposedly giving them out for free april 1st. if you have one around you maybe you should check in.

[AirRaid]

Moon Marin said:

The point of buying a graphics card for gaming is to play a title you intend to enjoy. Regardless of how 'minimally better' your opinions are about current GPU's the 950 will be enough to play Doom 2016 with some compromises on settings. The user we were replying to was already using a 750ti, clearly someone interested in budget components. Do you think I should recommend a 980ti to him instead so he can do "serious gaming"? He obviously isn't the target demo for the 980ti so I feel its better to recommend him a part that seems to appeal to his buying sense that will allow him to do what he wants to do - which is play Doom 2016. So he should get a 960 or a 380 if he has cash to spend, or a 950/370 if he wants to spend as little as possible.

I agree, but considering the "title you intend to enjoy" in this instance is Doom 2016, I feel that a 950 wouldn't really cut it. I wouldn't necessarily advise a 980Ti, no, but for the $30 or $40 extra I'd definitely say go for the 960 over the 950, it would be well worth the extra outlay.

[Vorpal]

I waited for the stuff I wanted to be on sale and pulled the trigger:


Intel i3-6100
Asus B150M-A D3 (this is small even for micro atx, was torture to do cable management)
XFX Radeon R9 380x

-------
Continue to use from previous system:
750W Rosewill PSU
4x Kingston 4GB DDR3 1333
Some WD 5400rpm HDDs

While the performance increase jumps is one of, if not the biggest upgrades I've done, I am not totally satisfied with comparison to published benchmarks. In some articles and forum posts, I see those radeons achieving 7800-8200+ in 3DMark Firestrike for example. Without overclocking I get 7200-7400. I even saw a claim with that card but Phenom II 965 (the cpu I am upgrading from) 8000+ scores.

It makes me wonder if I have yet to configure some important stuff via software, like I don't know my way around the crimson driver suite yet, and I am using the same harddrive (and thus OS, win8.1) that the Phenom/Radeon6670 was using, is that a problem to possibly have old mb/cpu/gpu drivers or bloat kicking around somewhere? I've only disabled some non-cpu power saving options in bios and win8, everything else is probably default.

[FLAW_88]

Hey guys. So I just finished my first time build for Doom. I bought the mobo, cpu, gpu, ram and liquid cooler from a good friend all for $500. They came packaged and looking like new. Literally perfect. I spent an extra $200 on the rest including case. My budget was $700. My friends say I'll be able to run Doom no problem. Just wanted your opinions on wether it'll run, how good it will run and how I did for my first build. Any feedback is appreciated.

OS: Windows 7 pro 64 bit
Mobo: Asus p8p67 deluxe
Cpu: i5 2500k @3.3
Gpu: Evga Geforce gtx 780
Ram: 16g ddr3
Psu: Evga Supernova 750 watt

[Plasma Gun]

FLAW_88 said:

Hey guys. So I just finished my first time build for Doom. I bought the mobo, cpu, gpu, ram and liquid cooler from a good friend all for $500. They came packaged and looking like new. Literally perfect. I spent an extra $200 on the rest including case. My budget was $700. My friends say I'll be able to run Doom no problem. Just wanted your opinions on wether it'll run, how good it will run and how I did for my first build. Any feedback is appreciated.

OS: Windows 7 pro 64 bit
Mobo: Asus p8p67 deluxe
Cpu: i5 2500k @3.3
Gpu: Evga Geforce gtx 780
Ram: 16g ddr3
Psu: Evga Supernova 750 watt

It should run Doom just fine. GTX 780 is faster than a GTX 960, so you're definitely close to "recommended" specifications.

[Plasma Gun]

Vorpal said:

I waited for the stuff I wanted to be on sale and pulled the trigger:


Intel i3-6100
Asus B150M-A D3 (this is small even for micro atx, was torture to do cable management)
XFX Radeon R9 380x

-------
Continue to use from previous system:
750W Rosewill PSU
4x Kingston 4GB DDR3 1333
Some WD 5400rpm HDDs

While the performance increase jumps is one of, if not the biggest upgrades I've done, I am not totally satisfied with comparison to published benchmarks. In some articles and forum posts, I see those radeons achieving 7800-8200+ in 3DMark Firestrike for example. Without overclocking I get 7200-7400. I even saw a claim with that card but Phenom II 965 (the cpu I am upgrading from) 8000+ scores.

It makes me wonder if I have yet to configure some important stuff via software, like I don't know my way around the crimson driver suite yet, and I am using the same harddrive (and thus OS, win8.1) that the Phenom/Radeon6670 was using, is that a problem to possibly have old mb/cpu/gpu drivers or bloat kicking around somewhere? I've only disabled some non-cpu power saving options in bios and win8, everything else is probably default.

Should be good, though I cringe to see such a nice system bogged down with a 5400RPM drive ;-)

[FLAW_88]

Plasma Gun said:

It should run Doom just fine. GTX 780 is faster than a GTX 960, so you're definitely close to "recommended" specifications.

I'm a tad worried about the cpu. I plan to overclock it though.

[AirRaid]

For what it's worth my stock clocked 2500K ran the alpha like butter. (paired with a GTX970)

[FLAW_88]

AirRaid said:

For what it's worth my stock clocked 2500K ran the alpha like butter. (paired with a GTX970)

Nice. I guess I should be able to get decent performance then.

[Deatheye]

AirRaid said:

For what it's worth my stock clocked 2500K ran the alpha like butter. (paired with a GTX970)

aww nice to see we have almost the same spec :D 2600k here

[Vorpal]

Plasma Gun said:

Should be good, though I cringe to see such a nice system bogged down with a 5400RPM drive ;-)

I use systems with SSDs sometimes and have not noticed a real difference. Maybe virus scans will be minutes faster? Win 8.1 boots in about 3 seconds on this current system, sometimes so fast that I dont even see the win startup logo because the monitor takes longer to switch display modes. I dont do daily or even weekly backups, nor run a file server, so I dunno what benefit I would get from a high rpm hdd.

[Plasma Gun]

Vorpal said:

I use systems with SSDs sometimes and have not noticed a real difference. Maybe virus scans will be minutes faster? Win 8.1 boots in about 3 seconds on this current system, sometimes so fast that I dont even see the win startup logo because the monitor takes longer to switch display modes. I dont do daily or even weekly backups, nor run a file server, so I dunno what benefit I would get from a high rpm hdd.

Just curious, why on Windows 8.1 instead of Win 10?

[Vorpal]

Plasma Gun said:

Just curious, why on Windows 8.1 instead of Win 10?

Ever since the new privacy policy came out I dont even feel comfortable using 7 or 8. Further, it is still unclear to me whether MS will move to the subscription model for win10. Also being a one-time upgrade, I'm unable to do fresh installs for any reason (like upgrading those 5400 rpm drives haha). Oh and hearing rumors about advertisements in the start menu and whatnot is alarming.

1-2 years from now I dont see myself using a microsoft product of any sort. More likely Fedora or Mint for general use, and a VM or secondary partition with win7 or 8.1 if I need some specific task done.

[PsychoGoatee]

Deatheye said:

aww nice to see we have almost the same spec :D 2600k here

I'm right there too, my good ol' rig has a 2500k and just got a 970 last week.

Vorpal said:

Ever since the new privacy policy came out I dont even feel comfortable using 7 or 8. Further, it is still unclear to me whether MS will move to the subscription model for win10. Also being a one-time upgrade, I'm unable to do fresh installs for any reason (like upgrading those 5400 rpm drives haha). Oh and hearing rumors about advertisements in the start menu and whatnot is alarming.

1-2 years from now I dont see myself using a microsoft product of any sort. More likely Fedora or Mint for general use, and a VM or secondary partition with win7 or 8.1 if I need some specific task done.

For the record you can make a Windows install disc and also USB stick to boot from etc, I do believe you can do fresh installs after upgrading. As long as you still have a legit key and Microsoft knows it, otherwise you might need to contact support for a new key. I just upgraded to Win 10 last week, you can turn off at least most of the weird privacy invading stuff.