# [Various] Fallout 4 PC GPU & CPU Benchmarks (Tenth Update)



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


>


*Source 16:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APbMOnZZFcc
*Source 17:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hnAnXFMvbo


----------



## cstkl1

Initial gameplay .. Pass ...uninstall. Hate rpg type but atleast witcher 3 graphics were out of the world that kept the immersion. May try this again when i get a project middle of nowhere with no wifi/internet during the nights..


----------



## Leopard2lx

Just played this for about 20 min. Hot damn, the graphics are bad. I mean, good lord!







I don't even....I just....I mean, it's not even art style or direction....It's just bad!
Is it too much to ask for some MODERN graphics and not something that looks like it's from 2008. It doesn't have to be like Crysis 3 or whatever just something modern....







Then again, consoles would cry because they can't run it (see console performance analisys







)


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cstkl1*
> 
> Initial gameplay .. Pass ...uninstall. Hate rpg type but atleast witcher 3 graphics were out of the world that kept the immersion. May try this again when i get a project middle of nowhere with no wifi/internet during the nights..


Do I see horrible stuttering? Or is my GTX 980 TI stuttering watching your Titan X stutter?


----------



## Dimaggio1103

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Leopard2lx*
> 
> Just played this for about 20 min. Hot damn, the graphics are bad. I mean, good lord!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even....I just....I mean, it's not even art style or direction....It's just bad!
> Is it too much to ask for some MODERN graphics and not something that looks like it's from 2008. It doesn't have to be like Crysis 3 or whatever just something modern....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, consoles would cry because they can't run it (see console performance analisys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Meh your opinion. I think they are fine. if you went into a fallout game expecting great graphics, you have only yourself to blame. It has better graphics than its predecessors that's all I needed. Combat system is nice, and crafting content blows the lame witcher out of the water IMO.

No it does not look like its from 2008 that would be F3 and this is far ahead of that. I feel sorry for these people, sacrificing great gameplay because "derp grafiks not so good pa" Maybe im just an older gamer and grew up praising good content.


----------



## cstkl1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> Do I see horrible stuttering? Or is my GTX 980 TI stuttering watching your Titan X stutter?


No stutter. But was looking arnd quickly alot to check why the frame drop with gpu utilization by just moving a bit facing the samething.. Also maybe on that unzoom part to third party view.


----------



## 8-Ball

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dimaggio1103*
> 
> Meh your opinion. I think they are fine. if you went into a fallout game expecting great graphics, you have only yourself to blame. It has better graphics than its predecessors that's all I needed. Combat system is nice, and crafting content blows the lame witcher out of the water IMO.
> 
> No it does not look like its from 2008 that would be F3 and this is far ahead of that. I feel sorry for these people, sacrificing great gameplay because "derp grafiks not so good pa" Maybe im just an older gamer and grew up praising good content.


For a AAA title game, it's pathetic.









So many games out there that are able to achieve great looking graphics and gameplay. Like GTA V, Witcher 3, MGS:V.


----------



## cstkl1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8-Ball*
> 
> For a AAA title game, it's pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many games out there that are able to achieve great looking graphics and gameplay. Like GTA V, Witcher 3, MGS:V.


I think
Mgsv graphics = fallout 4.


----------



## 8-Ball

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cstkl1*
> 
> I think
> Mgsv graphics = fallout 4.


If you ask me, the character models look great compared to FO4.


----------



## cstkl1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8-Ball*
> 
> If you ask me, the character models look great compared to FO4.


Graphically many ubi games with witcher 3 are in the insane region disregarding on how it runs.
Msgv.. Played only abit. Not my cup of tea. Got that free.


----------



## iCrap

It runs pretty poorly on my system at 4k. Graphics are OK, not the best. But i am enjoying the game a lot so far.


----------



## cstkl1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iCrap*
> 
> It runs pretty poorly on my system at 4k. Graphics are OK, not the best. But i am enjoying the game a lot so far.


End the day thats the target audience n goal of the dev.

Example One piece.. Lol i played alot . Graphics were crap compared to ps4 n in general. Game was way overpriced but found my self trying to complete it.


----------



## zealord

Why do all testers have different results regarding the 290X?









Maybe they just entered filler results they expected to see instead of doing the work


----------



## cstkl1

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8-Ball*
> 
> For a AAA title game, it's pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many games out there that are able to achieve great looking graphics and gameplay. Like GTA V, Witcher 3, MGS:V.


MGS V performed just like fallout 4. So I have no idea what "pathetic" you are talking about.

People need to stop inventing things.


----------



## ebduncan

Yes the graphics are not going to be top notch. This is a bethesda game so they spent their time with the game story, the huge open world, and all the "junk" in the game. I find the improvement over the Fallout New Vegas to be welcome. I understand it's disappointing to those who want state of the art graphics. It honestly looks good for a xbone, and ps4 game. PC well certainly lacks the luster compared to what we normally see in PC vs console graphics. I still find the game enjoyable, and well I'm sure mods will bring it more up to snuff.


----------



## th3illusiveman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cstkl1*
> 
> Initial gameplay .. Pass ...uninstall. Hate rpg type but atleast witcher 3 graphics were out of the world that kept the immersion. May try this again when i get a project middle of nowhere with no wifi/internet during the nights..


no one cares....

Graphics are fine but AMD has alot of work to do with the 290X... the drops are quite severe and it's not because the cards doesn't have the power. Fun game so far but will all these assignments and projects and midterms i doubt i'll have time to get fully immersed.


----------



## cstkl1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> no one cares....


Again n again ppl are popping out of the wood work thinking they represent the world
Ignore list is awesome.

On another note
Third person aim is headshots do not result in one hit kill consistently.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cstkl1*
> 
> On another note
> Third person aim is headshots do not result in one hit kill consistently.


Not in real life.
Example 1
Example 2


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8-Ball*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dimaggio1103*
> 
> Meh your opinion. I think they are fine. if you went into a fallout game expecting great graphics, you have only yourself to blame. It has better graphics than its predecessors that's all I needed. Combat system is nice, and crafting content blows the lame witcher out of the water IMO.
> 
> No it does not look like its from 2008 that would be F3 and this is far ahead of that. I feel sorry for these people, sacrificing great gameplay because "derp grafiks not so good pa" Maybe im just an older gamer and grew up praising good content.
> 
> 
> 
> For a AAA title game, it's pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So many games out there that are able to achieve great looking graphics and gameplay.* Like GTA V, Witcher 3, MGS:V.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Graphics and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive. Great games innovate on all fronts. GTA V is a great example.
Games in 2015 with bad visuals extrinsic to "art" direction should be considered flawed, but some people still dismiss it, accompanied with the argument "it's not important".


----------



## cstkl1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Not in real life.
> Example 1
> Example 2


But first person shot is deadon. 50:50 .. depending on what he was wearing. So double tap he is dead with head blown..

Third person emptied 6-8shots based on that green point...50:50 it was a headshot death or just died because of the amount of bullets.

Or the problem is because of high fps issue ppl been telling. ??
If i Get to kill that dino/monster.. Would make my day. Would write a 5 star vote. Lol so need headshots working.


----------



## cstkl1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Exactly. Graphics and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive. Great games innovate on all fronts. GTA V is a great example.
> Games in 2015 with bad visuals extrinsic to "art" direction should be considered flawed, but some people still dismiss it, accompanied with the argument "it's not important".


Yup and theres so few games that achieve that.. Till then Gameplay trumps graphics. Thats the console game dev working formula for a success game launch..

Currently hunting that dino thing .. Piqued my interest n also getting that servo suit that supposedly can do wonders.

But in last few months.. Battlefront graphics was mind blowing.

Gta v was way cheaper than this game


----------



## SchmoSalt

I played around a bit with Fallout 4. I get way worse FPS in FO4 than I do in my heavily modified ENB Skyrim install. That Skyrim install blows FO4's graphics out of the water.

Bethesda really dropped the ball on this one. I haven't had any major frame rate issues with my Titan X at 4K in any game up to this point. This game doesn't even look that great either.


----------



## Newbie2009

Hmmm, looks like I'm holding off or will pick up on PS4


----------



## BinaryDemon

Thank god graphics aren't everything.


----------



## Dimaggio1103

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Thank god graphics aren't everything.


Right? lol Im part of this minority (actually majority fallout players) that love the gameplay and atmosphere, instead of crying about dem grafiks every 5 min im playing it. Must be an older gamer thing.


----------



## ricklen

I'm very curious about some CPU benchmarks, for example the performance difference between an i7 and a i5.

Does it benefit from HT, can anyone confirm?


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dimaggio1103*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Thank god graphics aren't everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Right? lol Im part of this minority (actually majority fallout players) that love the gameplay and atmosphere, instead of crying about dem grafiks every 5 min im playing it. Must be an older gamer thing.
Click to expand...

No one said graphics are everything, contrary to what BinaryDemon had you believing. But graphics are important. The legitimacy for wanting and advantages of having better graphics in a game are far too numerous to even mention them.


----------



## Star Forge

I find it funny that a lot of people think GTA V's graphics are better than Fallout 4. I really think they are both on par. GTA V's graphics are lacking imho. The car interior and exteriors reeks with lack of polished detail and finesse. The only reason GTA V's graphics look so good is their extremely good use of a color filter that masks the imperfections on the geometry.

MGS V graphics look way better than FO 4 and GTA V. With that said, there is a reason why Bethesda keeps PC modding support on their games. I am sure the modding community will make it look really good in due time. As for the FPS drops, I hope that will be addressed soon. Skyrim didn't come out of the box FPS rock solid either. It took a few patches to stabilize.


----------



## ricklen

Excuse me, I found the CPU benches in the other benchmark thread.

You can find them here (Polish website tough): http://pclab.pl/art66856-16.html


----------



## Rob27shred

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> no one cares....
> 
> Graphics are fine but AMD has alot of work to do with the 290X... the drops are quite severe and it's not because the cards doesn't have the power. Fun game so far but will all these assignments and projects and midterms i doubt i'll have time to get fully immersed.


Hmm, not having any real bad drops with my 390. I'm playing it in 1440p & the lowest I've seen my FPS go is 42 so far. I might do some testing later & see if there is much of a difference running it on my 290X. Preferably I'd just like to have a CF profile for this game though!


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ricklen*
> 
> Excuse me, I found the CPU benches in the other benchmark thread.
> 
> You can find them here (Polish website tough): http://pclab.pl/art66856-16.html


Wow AMD's CPU performance is awful. An the i3-4160 outperform's a 9590.


----------



## ricklen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Wow AMD's CPU performance is awful. An the i3-4160 outperform's a 9590.


Indeed, I was also impressed. Doesn't seem to profit from HT either.


----------



## Noufel

For me ryse is the best looking game for now, but what a boooooring one i couldn't even finish it.... you see my point


----------



## Assirra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> For me ryse is the best looking game for now, but what a boooooring one i couldn't even finish it.... you see my point


Why is it so hard for people to understand that it is possible to get both? I am all for gameplay first but that is by no means an excuse for bad graphics unless you go for a specific art style.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> No one said graphics are everything, contrary to what BinaryDemon had you believing. But graphics are important. The legitimacy for wanting and advantages of having better graphics in a game are far too numerous to even mention them.


Graphics are never important IMO. They are simply icing on the cake. All the great games are sustained by things like story, gameplay, ect... never graphics.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Assirra*
> 
> Why is it so hard for people to understand that it is possible to get both? I am all for gameplay first but that is by no means an excuse for bad graphics unless you go for a specific art style.


Because it is very rare for that to happen. You either focus on developing the game or the graphics generally. Is it possible to have both? Yes, but graphics is largely negligible if the actual game is good and you have fun playing it. I personally don't think an excuse is needed if a game has bad graphics. In fact, I WELCOME bad graphics if the game is engaging, fun, and lasts me a long time. Good/Great games aren't good, because they look pretty.


----------



## Assirra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> Graphics are never important IMO. They are simply icing on the cake. All the great games are sustained by things like story, gameplay, ect... never graphics.
> Because it is very rare for that to happen. You either focus on developing the game or the graphics generally. Is it possible to have both? Yes, but graphics is largely negligible if the actual game is good and you have fun playing it. I personally don't think an excuse is needed if a game has bad graphics. In fact, I WELCOME bad graphics if the game is engaging, fun, and lasts me a long time. Good/Great games aren't good, because they look pretty.


Well why you think it very rarely happens? Because we got excuses like this. Also, for crying out loud everyone in this thread and the others. Stop implying that the people are complaining about this are graphic whores that don't care about gameplay.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Assirra*
> 
> Well why you think it very rarely happens? Because we got excuses like this. Also, for crying out loud everyone in this thread and the others. Stop implying that the people are complaining about this are graphic whores that don't care about gameplay.


Wrong. It happens because there exists this thing called budget. If the game is fun and we have a small minority crying about graphics constantly, then yes... they are graphics whores. Anyone who whines about Bethesda games being less graphically pleasing at this day and age when everyone and everyone's mom who games know that Bethesda does not have top notch graphics are graphics whores. It's like buying a SUV and expecting it to be a sports car. Nothing in the history of TES and FO suggested this game would have great graphics. What it does offer is a huge, immersive, and, more importantly, FUN sandbox world with solid lore and a great modding community to sustain the life of the game. At no point did any FO4 fan go "Hey, I am going to buy this game on launch because the graphics are going to be kickass!" If someone did, I hate to say it, but they must be missing half their brain. Point is, me and I would daresay, most mature gamers, don't give a damn if the graphics are subpar as long as the game is fun and engaging. So far, FO4 has been extremely fun IMO.


----------



## Assirra

Well i hope you return to your game soon then.
I am out of here, enough insults thrown at my face when trying to have a discussion for 1 evening...


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Assirra*
> 
> Well i hope you return to your game soon then.
> I am out of here, enough insults thrown at my face when trying to have a discussion for 1 evening...


Apologies if I offended you, but I don't see where I insulted you, UNLESS you are one of those people who purchased the game expecting top of the line graphics.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rob27shred*
> 
> Hmm, not having any real bad drops with my 390. I'm playing it in 1440p & the lowest I've seen my FPS go is 42 so far. I might do some testing later & see if there is much of a difference running it on my 290X. Preferably I'd just like to have a CF profile for this game though!


Multi GPU support has always confused me since I never used it. Is it typically provided by the GPU maker or the game developer?


----------



## aludka

Overall performance aside, I'm really disappointed by the graphics of the game. I was honestly expecting them to use an updated engine for such a hyped game. I mean come on, how old is the Creation engine? 5 years old now. Bethesda couldn't use a more up to date one? I mean don't get me wrong, it doesn't look horrible and I'm sure the actual game play will more than make up for it, but I still think it could have looked prettier.


----------



## th3illusiveman

Turn Godrays down to Low if you use ANY GPU. There is literally 0 difference between low and ultra and it's a performance hog. Smooths out performance quite abit. Also, Cap FPS to 60 to prevent the games physics speeding up.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aludka*
> 
> Overall performance aside, I'm really disappointed by the graphics of the game. I was honestly expecting them to use an updated engine for such a hyped game. I mean come on, how old is the Creation engine? 5 years old now. Bethesda couldn't use a more up to date one? I mean don't get me wrong, it doesn't look horrible and I'm sure the actual game play will more than make up for it, but I still think it could have looked prettier.


It HAS been updated actually, from a 32-bit engine to a 64-bit engine. Just because it has the same name doesn't mean they didn't do anything to it. Personally, outside of character models (which WILL be addressed later by mods) looking sub-par, I think the game looks pretty good. The lighting is infinitely better than vanilla Skyrim and the textures are definitely higher res. I wish the hair and clothes have physics implementation, but I know the mods will add that. Even the robot and roaches look much, much better than they did in NV.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ricklen*
> 
> Excuse me, I found the CPU benches in the other benchmark thread.
> 
> You can find them here (Polish website tough): http://pclab.pl/art66856-16.html


I am more inclined to believe this bench as it feels more in line with what I am seeing myself. Still seems flawed, the 3970X has no right to be up there in a 2core game unless it somehow takes advantage of quad channel.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I am more inclined to believe this bench as it feels more in line with what I am seeing myself. Still seems flawed, the 3970X has no right to be up there in a 2core game unless it somehow takes advantage of quad channel.


if it were a 2 core game the 2500k should be slower than an i3 4330..


----------



## Slickwily06

Honestly turning down god rays is the game changer. I gained 20 fps in 4k on my Titan X. It rarely drops down below 60 now with everything else to ultra.


----------



## Alvarado

My god what would it take to please some people? Gameplay > Graphics why? because things like Minecraft exist. Yes its possible to have both but They're rare (MGS V being a thing yet people STILL complained about how "bad" it looks) In the case of Fallout 4, Bethesda supports the modding community and you can bet 3-4 years from now it'll look great and bring your system's to their knees. Oh wait, then people will complain at how badly it runs.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alvarado*
> 
> My god what would it take to please some people? Gameplay > Graphics why? because things like Minecraft exist. Yes its possible to have both but They're rare (MGS V being a thing yet people STILL complained about how "bad" it looks) In the case of Fallout 4, Bethesda supports the modding community and you can bet 3-4 years from now it'll look great and bring your system's to their knees. Oh wait then people will complained at how badly it runs.


We live in an era where a lot of people just like complain about anything and everything regardless of how little merit there is. The anonymity of the internet just makes it all the more easier for people to mouth off without thought. Personally, I am all for zero anonymity, where you register your real identity upon setting up your internet. It would cut down on a lot of stupidity and BS.


----------



## degenn

So I still have to cap this at 60fps to prevent physics bugs? Sigh...


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> if it were a 2 core game the 2500k should be slower than an i3 4330..


The dudes at digital foundry call it "core aware" that sees many threads. Will have to take a look myself here.


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> We live in an era where a lot of people just like complain about anything and everything regardless of how little merit there is. The anonymity of the internet just makes it all the more easier for people to mouth off without thought. Personally, I am all for zero anonymity, where you register your real identity upon setting up your internet. It would cut down on a lot of stupidity and BS.


No we live in an era were people have very low standards because they consistently settle for mediocrity. No reasonable person is expecting the game to look like Crysis 3 but for god sakes graphics technology has made a big leap since Fallout 3. This game appears to be 2 generations behind. It's about finding that happy medium between gameplay and graphics and Fallout 4 fails hard on the latter. I could understand if this game was developed by a smaller developer but considering this is a massive AAA title from a large developer based on a hugely successful franchise, I find it unacceptable to be charging customers a premium price for a game worth half of that.

As usual wait six months for the community to complete the leg work Bethesda refuses to do and then pick the game up for $20


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Steffek*
> 
> I am going to take a very good guess that anyone complaining about graphics in this game is either 12 years old or has a slight learning disability. Come on now people, this game is great. A few bugs here and there that will get fixed with a patch or two but what major game doesn't.


Why knock on your own age demographic? Comments like your's usually are derived from a young inexperienced mind. Don't get mad, i'm simply following your line of logic. *"Anyone that thinks otherwise to my point of view"* is a 12 year old with a disabled intellect


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nightingale*
> 
> No we live in an era were people have very low standards because they consistently settle for mediocrity. No reasonable person is expecting the game to look like Crysis 3 but for god sakes graphics technology has made a big leap since Fallout 3. This game appears to be 2 generations behind. It's about finding that happy medium between gameplay and graphics and Fallout 4 fails hard on the latter. I could understand if this game was developed by a smaller developer but considering this is a massive AAA title from a large developer based on a hugely successful franchise, I find it unacceptable to be charging customers a premium price for game worth half of that.
> 
> As usual wait six months for the community to complete the leg work Bethesda refuses to do and then pick the game up for $20


Completely wrong. It is not settling for mediocrity. It is called "priorities" and "wanting a fun game above all else" and graphics does NOT make fun. Engaging gameplay, lore, plot, characters, and/or immersion is what makes a game fun. That's why games like Minecraft are fun. They engage our interest and encourage creative thought. Graphics are nice when available, but not something considered at all important. If something silly like older generation graphics takes away from how fun a video game is, I honestly pity that person. Can the graphics look better? Yes. Would it be nice if they did? Sure! Does it matter at the end of the day? No.


----------



## vmatt1203

While personally I think FO4 looks fantastic, I really dont think people understand how a game is made. Look at the budgets for lets say GTA:V vs Fallout 4.

GTA V development officially started in Sept. 2009 (according to official statement by take two) and was launched in 2013 for 360 and ps3, it looked like crap. Good for that generation, but crap. The another full 2 years go by for it to finally be released on PC. They had 6 years and $265,000,000.00 THATS 265 MILLION DOLLARS to improve upon its engine, graphics and detail. One LARGE studio focusing on one game for 6 YEARS.

According to what I can find Fallout 4 officially started production shortly after the release of Elder scrolls: Skyrim on a QUARTER OF THE BUDGET that went into GTAV with a studio that is much smaller and had less time to push out a working title, mind you they only have one go at it; its there first game with this rendition of creation engine. Fallout has much more to interact with than GTA and much more detail.

What I am trying to point out is:

6 years and $265 Million (and 3 tries at a release) = GTAV PC
3 years and about $66 Million = Fallout 4

YOU CANT COMPARE THEM GRAPHICALLY.

Fallout is in a class of its own, and it is reining king. show me another Post Apocalyptic game of this detail, and amount of content, and this good of graphics and I will gladly eat my own words.


----------



## Alvarado

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> Completely wrong. It is not settling for mediocrity. It is called "priorities" and "wanting a fun game above all else" and graphics does NOT make fun. Engaging gameplay, lore, plot, characters, and/or immersion is what makes a game fun. That's why games like Minecraft are fun. They engage our interest and encourage creative thought. Graphics are nice when available, but not something considered at all important. If something silly like older generation graphics takes away from how fun a video game is, I honestly pity that person. Can the graphics look better? Yes. Would it be nice if they did? Sure! Does it matter at the end of the day? No.


Tldr, Ryse looks pretty but is a boring piece of crap. Minecraft looks like crap but is massively fun. (Also helps that minecraft can be hugely modded something that FO4 can get







)


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Just added GameGPU.ru to the OP, also includes CPU Benchmarks and shows that it looks like this version of the engine can handle up to 12 threads.

Also added Guru3D. Looking for others too.

Added Tom's Hardware as well.


----------



## Newbie2009

bet nobody is moaning about the witcher 3 graphics downgrade now, eh? EH?


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmatt1203*
> 
> While personally I think FO4 looks fantastic, I really dont think people understand how a game is made. Look at the budgets for lets say GTA:V vs Fallout 4.
> 
> GTA V development officially started in Sept. 2009 (according to official statement by take two) and was launched in 2013 for 360 and ps3, it looked like crap. Good for that generation, but crap. The another full 2 years go by for it to finally be released on PC. They had 6 years and $265,000,000.00 THATS 265 MILLION DOLLARS to improve upon its engine, graphics and detail. One LARGE studio focusing on one game for 6 YEARS.
> 
> According to what I can find Fallout 4 officially started production shortly after the release of Elder scrolls: Skyrim on a QUARTER OF THE BUDGET that went into GTAV with a studio that is much smaller and had less time to push out a working title, mind you they only have one go at it; its there first game with this rendition of creation engine. Fallout has much more to interact with than GTA and much more detail.
> 
> What I am trying to point out is:
> 
> 6 years and $265 Million (and 3 tries at a release) = GTAV PC
> 3 years and about $66 Million = Fallout 4
> 
> YOU CANT COMPARE THEM GRAPHICALLY.
> 
> Fallout is in a class of its own, and it is reining king. show me another Post Apocalyptic game of this detail, and amount of content, and this good of graphics and I will gladly eat my own words.


I am not sure why I am answering since you find this game graphics fantastic but here goes (And this coming from someone actually working in games industry)
GTA V is available on five platforms, versus three for FO4. I cannot stress enough what a significant difference that is in terms of production, developing, QA/cert etc. and how many extra costs are involved. Also you might wanna check CDPR budget and size as company compared to beth. As for FO4 looking fantastic,being detailed etc. I will just not comment.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> bet nobody is moaning about the witcher 3 graphics downgrade now, eh? EH?


Nobody should have been crying about them to begin with.


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> Nobody should have been crying about them to begin with.


Agree, but you know the internet.


----------



## vmatt1203

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I am not sure why I am answering since you find this game graphics fantastic but here goes (And this coming from someone actually working in games industry)
> GTA V is available on five platforms, versus three for FO4. I cannot stress enough what a significant difference that is in terms of production, developing, QA/cert etc. and how many extra costs are involved. Also you might wanna check CDPR budget and size as company compared to beth. As for FO4 looking fantastic,being detailed etc. I will just not comment.


But again bethesda game studios has just over 100 employees, while take two interactive has hundreds and multiple other studious it out sources to inside 2k games and rockstar. They also had income inbetween the developement stages because of the stagered releases, I just hate seeing people comparing the two just because they are AAA titles, they are in differnt teirs.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmatt1203*
> 
> But again bethesda game studios has just over 100 employees, while take two interactive has hundreds and multiple other studious it out sources to inside 2k games and rockstar. They also had income inbetween the developement stages because of the stagered releases, I just hate seeing people comparing the two just because they are AAA titles, they are in differnt teirs.


Do you realize that Bethesda is also big AAA publisher with hundreds of employees, and not the half indie studio that you make them to be? TES Online, Dishonored, Rage, Wolfenstein ,do they ring a bell?


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> Graphics are never important *IMO*


Thank you for your input.


----------



## Swiftes

anyone managed to get Fallout 4 working on a 2nd display yet? I like to run mine on my TV and lie in bed from time to time but there is no 2nd display option and can't seem to find anything that would work in the cfg files


----------



## Wihglah

I've played for about 3 hours and I think the graphics look great.

Not the best in the world, but not shabby.

Certainly better than having it look realistic but only locked at 60FPS.

Also I would rather have 2nd tier graphics and a great game than first tier and crappy gameplay. cough ::: _MGSV_ :: cough


----------



## vmatt1203

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Do you realize that Bethesda is also big AAA publisher with hundreds of employees, and not the half indie studio that you make them to be? TES Online, Dishonored, Rage, Wolfenstein ,do they ring a bell?


I am not talking about bethesda publishing, I am talking about bethesda game studios, the team of 124* working at the STUDIO THAT DEVELOPED THE GAME. Not the publisher as a whole. Just as I was talking about Take two not Rockstar/2k as a whole. The actual people developing, coding and testing the game. Take two had hundreds of staff working on GTAV. There were only 124 in the studio that developed fallout 4. Not only that but the people complaining about the graphics are the people who don't own it and have yet to play it. Everyone that owns it states the graphics are good and don't understand the harshness other people are throwing at it. I am not making them out to be an indie developer. Since when is a studio that is 100 strong an indie team. If that's the case I guess CDPR is borderline indie.

*(the number when I googled the number of staff on the development team, could be wrong i don't believe everything I see on the internet.)

But everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess


----------



## tedman

FO4 looks good enough for me. I don't quite think some of the graphics-moaners on here realise how much work and resources have gone into creating the immersive sandbox world. Who gives a crap about top-notch graphics when you're having a whale of time?!


----------



## Tobiman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cstkl1*
> 
> Graphically many ubi games with witcher 3 are in the insane region disregarding on how it runs.
> Msgv.. Played only abit. Not my cup of tea. Got that free.


Can I have your copy then?


----------



## Arturo.Zise

Looks very good......on my PS4









Graphics are always nice, but I will take an epic story and game play over them every time.


----------



## LGSS

Looks much better than I expected for a game of it's size, after about an hour yesterday breaking down items upgrading my armour/weapons and building structures I went and paid for a season pass to the DLC. Loving it so far


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmatt1203*
> 
> I am not talking about bethesda publishing, I am talking about bethesda game studios, the team of 124* working at the STUDIO THAT DEVELOPED THE GAME. Not the publisher as a whole. Just as I was talking about Take two not Rockstar/2k as a whole. The actual people developing, coding and testing the game. Take two had hundreds of staff working on GTAV. There were only 124 in the studio that developed fallout 4. Not only that but the people complaining about the graphics are the people who don't own it and have yet to play it. Everyone that owns it states the graphics are good and don't understand the harshness other people are throwing at it. I am not making them out to be an indie developer. Since when is a studio that is 100 strong an indie team. If that's the case I guess CDPR is borderline indie.
> 
> *(the number when I googled the number of staff on the development team, could be wrong i don't believe everything I see on the internet.)
> 
> But everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess


You are making far to many assumptions here. For instance I have started playing the game before it was even officially released.


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmatt1203*
> 
> I am not talking about bethesda publishing, I am talking about bethesda game studios, the team of 124* working at the STUDIO THAT DEVELOPED THE GAME. Not the publisher as a whole. Just as I was talking about Take two not Rockstar/2k as a whole. The actual people developing, coding and testing the game. Take two had hundreds of staff working on GTAV. There were only 124 in the studio that developed fallout 4. Not only that but the people complaining about the graphics are the people who don't own it and have yet to play it. Everyone that owns it states the graphics are good and don't understand the harshness other people are throwing at it. I am not making them out to be an indie developer. Since when is a studio that is 100 strong an indie team. If that's the case I guess CDPR is borderline indie.
> 
> *(the number when I googled the number of staff on the development team, could be wrong i don't believe everything I see on the internet.)
> 
> But everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess


Having under 200 employees is not a reason for a game to look bad graphically. Monolith Soft has less than 150 staff. Xenoblade Chronicles X world looks better than fo4, and its world is larger than all the recent titles combined (theres a video that compares it to skyrim directly). That game runs on wiiu hardware(barely faster than xbox 360/ps3)


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Added another video performance review to the OP. Apparently this game is highly multi-threaded and supposedly this reviewer was seeing 90% usage with an i5 (an overclocked i5 6600k @ 4.9GHz bottlenecking a game?)






https://youtu.be/F5ojEukUj94?t=371


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmatt1203*
> 
> I am not talking about bethesda publishing, I am talking about bethesda game studios, the team of 124* working at the STUDIO THAT DEVELOPED THE GAME. Not the publisher as a whole. Just as I was talking about Take two not Rockstar/2k as a whole. The actual people developing, coding and testing the game. Take two had hundreds of staff working on GTAV. There were only 124 in the studio that developed fallout 4. Not only that but the people complaining about the graphics are the people who don't own it and have yet to play it. Everyone that owns it states the graphics are good and don't understand the harshness other people are throwing at it. I am not making them out to be an indie developer. Since when is a studio that is 100 strong an indie team. If that's the case I guess CDPR is borderline indie.
> 
> *(the number when I googled the number of staff on the development team, could be wrong i don't believe everything I see on the internet.)
> 
> But everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess


Why do you even bring TT in the discussion then? How many pople had Beth/zenimax working in the game? Do you know? What about outsourcing code? (A member of my team has worked for Bethesda as coder for FO3 from Ukraine without being their employee ). Do you realize that studios within a big company can use many resources that are not part of their dev team or studio headcount? (Loc, QA,cert, submission, ops etc). How about "paratroopers" during crunch to meet deadlines?









The reason behind FO4 awful graphics ( I got the game day one, I will enjoy it but not nearly as much I would If it had even 2009 level of visuals) is primarily the derelict engine it uses, nothing else. It is a matter of ROI. Beth can get away with it because the game will sell that's all.


----------



## th3illusiveman

The Dips are killing me Q.Q AMD PLS!

The lighting is the culprit but without godrays the game loses way too much fidelity.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> The Dips are killing me Q.Q AMD PLS!
> 
> The lighting is the culprit but without godrays the game loses way too much fidelity.


Nonsense you can hardly notice the difference between low and ultra

I turned them to low and my framerate went from all over he place to near enough 60 all the time


----------



## Kuivamaa

Ultra Godrays are slightly sharper vs low. I prefer low to be honest, looks more realistic.


----------



## Lass3

So 8 core FX at 5 GHz loses to i3 stock..


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dimaggio1103*
> 
> Right? lol Im part of this minority (actually majority fallout players) that love the gameplay and atmosphere, instead of crying about dem grafiks every 5 min im playing it. Must be an older gamer thing.


Personally, graphics definitely aren't everything; however, I would expect the game to perform on hardware in accordance to it's visual fidelity. Many recent games do not have the graphics to justify the hardware required. It's fine an dandy to say graphics don't matter, but why should you need to buy a $200+ GPU to play a low end graphics game at 60fps....?


----------



## cstkl1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Personally, graphics definitely aren't everything; however, I would expect the game to perform on hardware in accordance to it's visual fidelity. Many recent games do not have the graphics to justify the hardware required. It's fine an dandy to say graphics don't matter, but why should you need to buy a $200+ GPU to play a low end graphics game at 60fps....?


Fallout 4 price point to expectation is y graphic became an issue.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cstkl1*
> 
> Fallout 4 price point to expectation is y graphic became an issue.


I would agree with what others are saying in respect to that, though... I mean, if a AAA game is really fun to play but doesn't have the best graphics, I would still pay the full AAA price to play it.

It's just that (and I have said this in multiple threads now) people like my friends stopped playing PC games because the hardware requirements continue to get bigger and bigger at what seems like an increasing pace... and it's not just on games trying to sell visual fidelity like crysis... all these new AAA games seem to have streamlined performance and some clearly look much better than others. I don't get how a games like the original crysis could run well on a 5850 or like a gtx460... and now days, if a game looks like that it needs a 7870 minimum... why?


----------



## xxela

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> So 8 core FX at 5 GHz loses to i3 stock..


From 2 charts you choose the one who make you feel better. Is called DELUSION


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> The Dips are killing me Q.Q AMD PLS!
> 
> The lighting is the culprit but without godrays the game loses way too much fidelity.


Quote:


> The reason is simple. Excessive use of tesselation and Nvidia benefited tech. Why? Most likely because Nvidia paid bethesda softworks.
> You see, Nvidia card softwares are better at tesselation than AMD softwares, and the margin is quite large. Normally you don't use much tesselation, so it is not a problem. However in fallout 4 people have detected absurdly large levels of tesselation being used, so large in fact it is more than pointless. This does reduce performance on Nvidia cards, but even moreso on AMD cards. As a natural result, people are calling it sabotaging.
> I can promise you that one out of three things will happen.
> Bethesda backs out and makes it possible to disable Nvidia tech completely, and keep tesselation at reasonable levels
> AMD puts out drivers doing better or on par with Nvidia regarding tesselation.
> modders does what's said in number 1. This WILL happen, if 1 or 2 doesn't, i almost guarantee it.
> Until then, there are some things you can do to solve it.
> Force tesselation values for fallout 4 in the catalyst controll pannel. This will override the insane tesselation settings made by Nvidia, and thus even the odds quite a bit. Either disable it or lower it to manageable levels
> go to catalyst control panel under "games", then "3d-program settings" (or something. translated from norwegian, so not 100% sure if acurate. At the bottom you have tesselation settings. Override these either for just fallout 4, or all applications. That's all.
> Disable godray. This takes a bit of tweaking. read how here. Note to all you Nvidia users. This will work for you guys too, because godray EATS FPS for everyone: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2180-fallout-4-volumetric-lighting-benchmark-and-disable
> Some users have brough to my attention that the difference from som setting sliders are neglible for how it looks, so lowering your settings can also improve it a lot, for borderline zero reduction in visuals.
> realize the fact hat Nvidia released a huge driver update a couple days ago, giving a decent boost to their modern lineup, and with some special attention to fallout. So some of the performance Nvidai got IS due to the drivers. AMD is likely to do the same soon, and it's well known they're cooking on something. Be patient. (and if you think fallout 4 is bad, then remember how Brink was opon release? 20 frames on the strongest AMD cards, on minimum. A simple driver put those cards well over 60 on ultra)


Source


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> Source


They removed the source on the link to Reddit. Wonder what it was?


----------



## Slay

Why are the numbers so diffenent? Especially on AMD?


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> I would agree with what others are saying in respect to that, though... I mean, if a AAA game is really fun to play but doesn't have the best graphics, I would still pay the full AAA price to play it.
> 
> It's just that (and I have said this in multiple threads now) people like my friends stopped playing PC games because the hardware requirements continue to get bigger and bigger at what seems like an increasing pace... and it's not just on games trying to sell visual fidelity like crysis... all these new AAA games seem to have streamlined performance and some clearly look much better than others. I don't get how a games like the original crysis could run well on a 5850 or like a gtx460... and now days, if a game looks like that it needs a 7870 minimum... why?


1. Crysis did not have to cater to console parity, which takes out from the budget available
2. Crysis was a linear FPS, which is much less demanding than an open world sandbox game on the scale of Fallout 4
3. The GPU needed to run Crysis on even high was extremely demanding when released
4. Fallout is using a new 64-bit engine so optimization from dev and GPU will take some time
5. Atmospheric lightning and dynamics are way, way more advanced than anything Crysis had


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Added OC3D's results to the OP which includes Godrays Benchmarks.


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> 1. Crysis did not have to cater to console parity, which takes out from the budget available
> 2. Crysis was a linear FPS, which is much less demanding than an open world sandbox game on the scale of Fallout 4
> 3. The GPU needed to run Crysis on even high was extremely demanding when released
> 4. Fallout is using a new 64-bit engine so optimization from dev and GPU will take some time
> 5. Atmospheric lightning and dynamics are way, way more advanced than anything Crysis had


I'm not specifically comparing this game to crysis I'm saying generally this theme applies. Look at games like Rage, Just Cause 2, Battlefield 3... and remember that game called skyrim? All those games came out over 4 years ago. Why did those games all run well on a 5870, and many games today that look the exact same if not worse sometimes, require like 2x the graphical horsepower to get the game running on lowest settings and reduced resolution at 60 fps?


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> I'm not specifically comparing this game to crysis I'm saying generally this theme applies. Look at games like Rage, Just Cause 2, Battlefield 3... and remember that game called skyrim? All those games came out over 4 years ago. Why did those games all run well on a 5870, and many games today that look the exact same if not worse sometimes, require like 2x the graphical horsepower to get the game running on lowest settings and reduced resolution at 60 fps?


1. Fallout 4 is far better looking than any of those games you mentioned IMO, especially considering atmospheric and lightning dynamics





IMO, FO4 is clearly superior in terms of textures, edges, and lighting

2. Just because games look similar does not mean that they are anywhere close to being the same. Here is a great example:



You eventually get to a point where you can add a lot more (which also takes more GPU to generate), but the end result is not the huge leap that one would expect.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> Crysis was _not_ a "linear" FPS.


Completely wrong. Crysis was a linear shooter game placed in what one could consider as an open world level. At the end of the day however, An actual open world game would be like Just Cause 2 or Far Cry 3 for example.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Fallout 4 is far better looking than any of those games you mentioned IMO, especially considering atmospheric and lightning dynamics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, FO4 is clearly superior in terms of textures, edges, and lighting
> 
> 2. Just because games look similar does not mean that they are anywhere close to being the same. Here is a great example:
> 
> 
> 
> You eventually get to a point where you can add a lot more (which also takes more GPU to generate), but the end result is not the huge leap that one would expect.


The lighting is really the only thing that stands out to me... textures really don't look that different.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmatt1203*
> 
> While personally I think FO4 looks fantastic, I really dont think people understand how a game is made. Look at the budgets for lets say GTA:V vs Fallout 4.
> 
> GTA V development officially started in Sept. 2009 (according to official statement by take two) and was launched in 2013 for 360 and ps3, it looked like crap. Good for that generation, but crap. The another full 2 years go by for it to finally be released on PC. They had 6 years and $265,000,000.00 THATS 265 MILLION DOLLARS to improve upon its engine, graphics and detail. One LARGE studio focusing on one game for 6 YEARS.
> 
> According to what I can find Fallout 4 officially started production shortly after the release of Elder scrolls: Skyrim on a QUARTER OF THE BUDGET that went into GTAV with a studio that is much smaller and had less time to push out a working title, mind you they only have one go at it; its there first game with this rendition of creation engine. Fallout has much more to interact with than GTA and much more detail.
> 
> What I am trying to point out is:
> 
> 6 years and $265 Million (and 3 tries at a release) = GTAV PC
> 3 years and about $66 Million = Fallout 4
> 
> YOU CANT COMPARE THEM GRAPHICALLY.
> 
> Fallout is in a class of its own, and it is reining king. show me another Post Apocalyptic game of this detail, and amount of content, and this good of graphics and I will gladly eat my own words.


Um, what about Crytek? They are no where the size of Rockstar yet they managed to make the best looking game ever made on PC (Crysis 3).


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Um, what about Crytek? They are no where the size of Rockstar yet they managed to make the best looking game ever made on PC (Crysis 3).


wait that isnt Homefront which will be open world?


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## 8-Ball

I decided to jump into the hype of Fallout 4, and I found the graphics worse than I thought.

The textures are *extremely bland*, and the Anisotropic filtering in game is also very poor.

There's also mouse lag.

Not very happy with the game at the moment.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> So not a linear shooter then. F.E.A.R is a linear shooter, Crysis is not.


Feel free to believe what you want to believe. Just know that you are completely wrong.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

How is Crysis, a game where you can go anywhere and do anything however you want to do it, a linear shooter?


----------



## Artikbot

It runs like absolute horse posterior orifice in my computer, for what it's worth.

1080p rock bottom settings.


----------



## ImJJames

Played this game on my friends 980 on 1440P, God Rays (Gimpworks) from low to ultra looks completely identical but destroys your FPS. Also the graphic's look like something created 4 years ago. There is no way this game should be requiring this much resources.

Gimpworks is destroying games, not making them better.


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## ImJJames

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> I think you're putting more emphasis on Gameworks than is warranted. Bethesda is perfectly capable of making visually underwhelming, poorly optimized games without any help from Nvidia.


Gimpworks was just the cherry on top.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> I think you're putting more emphasis on Gameworks than is warranted. Bethesda is perfectly capable of making visually underwhelming, poorly optimized games without any help from Nvidia.


Lol, that's a good point!


----------



## Artikbot

Okay I can't fight more than one enemy at once inside a building. Framerates are single digits.


----------



## 47 Knucklehead

It's ok, you know you wanna at least giggle.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Okay I can't fight more than one enemy at once inside a building. Framerates are single digits.


It will be because your computer is below the min specs

Try playing it at 720p


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> How is Crysis, a game where you can go anywhere and do anything however you want to do it, a linear shooter?


Crysis was super linear. All it had going for it was the absolutely amazing graphics, unmatched when it came out. But we all know graphics are never important. So, Crysis was, basically, crap.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Crysis was super linear. All it had going for it was the absolutely amazing graphics, unmatched when it came out. But we all know graphics are never important. So, Crysis was, basically, crap.


I think there is confusion on the term linear. A linear FPS is one that gives you a straight path through the game which you cannot deviate very far from. Halo for example is linear, call of duty campaigns are linear... It's like an instance or dungeon in WoW versus the actual open world game.

IIRC you can walk wherever you want on the whole island in crysis regardless of the mission.


----------



## Kuivamaa

As people have already pointed , Crysis 1 is anything but linear (semi open world actually) and of course both rage and BF3 ,2011 games, have three classes more advanced visuals than FO4. The only thing which is post 2010 worthy is its outdoors lighting system plus some reflections. Indoors it looks horrendous. Poly-count belongs to a 2005 game , shadow mapping is poor , textures the same , AO is meh. Basically it looks like a moderately made up, wrinkled 90 yo ex beauty queen.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Crysis was super linear. All it had going for it was the absolutely amazing graphics, unmatched when it came out. But we all know graphics are never important. So, Crysis was, basically, crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is confusion on the term linear. A linear FPS is one that gives you a straight path through the game which you cannot deviate very far from. Halo for example is linear, call of duty campaigns are linear... It's like an instance or dungeon in WoW versus the actual open world game.
> 
> IIRC you can walk wherever you want on the whole island in crysis regardless of the mission.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic, lol.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> I was being sarcastic, lol.


lol ok thank god.


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> I was being sarcastic, lol.


Quit being sarcastic on the internetz, unless you got a webcam. We can't read your poker face.

/ontopic

I think Bethesda's first and foremost priority was just getting the game to work on the underpowered consoles. Anything on top of that, are enthusiast pipe dreams. The last I checked, crappy console games are $60, so you're not really entitled to anything.

Crysis and similar PC-exclusives do need a medium setting that will run on the majority of computers at 40+ fps, because that's their audience. Anything above that is pushing the technology and is icing on the cake, but very much welcomed.


----------



## fashric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> 2. Just because games look similar does not mean that they are anywhere close to being the same. Here is a great example:
> 
> 
> 
> You eventually get to a point where you can add a lot more (which also takes more GPU to generate), but the end result is not the huge leap that one would expect.


Except that example is wrong http://i.imgur.com/6vCXW0G.jpg

I just don't get this condescending attittude you seem to have to anyone that thinks graphics can and do play an important role in gaming and them being dissappointed with the lack of progress Bethesda has made visually with FO4 comapred to the competition. You seem to interpreting it as them saying nothing else matters !11!! But not one person has said that (well James Hetfield did). You really need to stop fanboying Bethesda and be open to others opinions. Also complaining about lack of progress should never be dismissed its the way we get our voice as consumers heard and so hopefully better value for money.


----------



## 8-Ball

Anyone else getting frames?

This game isn't that visually demanding yet it's bringing my GTX 970 to its knees in this game...specifically in Lexington.

God rays are off.


----------



## tpi2007

So, the game needs patches, higher resolution textures, Nvidia must once again work with the developer to ensure that Gameworks doesn't gimp the game as much and AMD has to release a new driver that ungimps the game.

Business as usual then.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Crysis was super linear. All it had going for it was the absolutely amazing graphics, unmatched when it came out. But we all know graphics are never important. So, Crysis was, basically, crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is confusion on the term linear. A linear FPS is one that gives you a straight path through the game which you cannot deviate very far from. Halo for example is linear, call of duty campaigns are linear... It's like an instance or dungeon in WoW versus the actual open world game.
> 
> *IIRC you can walk wherever you want on the whole island in crysis regardless of the mission.*
Click to expand...

No, you can't, it's a common misconception, and for those who played it, your memory is playing tricks on you. The game is divided in chapters and at the beginning of lots of them there is a barrier (some are artificial) so that you can't go back.

There are chapters where you can wander around in a big area and complete the objectives in any way you like (although the script doesn't 100% adapt if you stray off from what they envisioned), so it's kind of a hybrid.


----------



## SpykeZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Leopard2lx*
> 
> Just played this for about 20 min. Hot damn, the graphics are bad. I mean, good lord!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even....I just....I mean, it's not even art style or direction....It's just bad!
> Is it too much to ask for some MODERN graphics and not something that looks like it's from 2008. It doesn't have to be like Crysis 3 or whatever just something modern....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, consoles would cry because they can't run it (see console performance analisys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


I'm a bit late here but of course Bethesda isn't going to spend their time modernizing graphics. Their fan base are a bunch of sheep and will buy up anything they make regardless how it looks. Then they'll release a mod kit and just let the community fix everything for them because, well, what company doesn't love legal free labor. Why make high resolution models when PC gamers are going to do it FOR them, free of cost to them. Well, actually people pay Bethesda to do free work for them...kinda genius actually.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I think the world looks fine. Nothing better textures cant fix. I just don't like character model.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpykeZ*
> 
> I'm a bit late here but of course Bethesda isn't going to spend their time modernizing graphics. Their fan base are a bunch of sheep and will buy up anything they make regardless how it looks. Then they'll release a mod kit and just let the community fix everything for them because, well, what company doesn't love legal free labor. Why make high resolution models when PC gamers are going to do it FOR them, free of cost to them. Well, actually people pay Bethesda to do free work for them...kinda genius actually.


As Bethesda aren't going to fix FO 4 the game should come at bottom barrel price as it will require the community to fix it.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> No, you can't, it's a common misconception, and for those who played it, your memory is playing tricks on you. The game is divided in chapters and at the beginning of lots of them there is a barrier (some are artificial) so that you can't go back.
> 
> There are chapters where you can wander around in a big area and complete the objectives in any way you like (although the script doesn't 100% adapt if you stray off from what they envisioned), so it's kind of a hybrid.


Hmm, I guess I never really played through the game, I would always just mess around looking at the scenery lol.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

HardOCP got around to do their testing of the game, updated OP to reflect their extensive testing with Godrays, AA, and overall performance in various areas (with a 980 Ti and Fury X @ 1440p).


----------



## Oubadah

..


----------



## mutatedknutz

Im actually getting constant 60fps all the time, i only had dips to 55 in the pod in the fault during the game start.
Here are my settings, thought it could help some with similar hardware to get 60fps
Resolution:1920x1080
Antialiasing : TAA
Ansiotropic filtering: 16x
Texture quality: Ultra
Shadow quality: Low
Shadow distance: Medium
Decal quality: Ultra
Lightning quality: Ultra
Godrays quality: Low
Depth of field: Bokeh
Ambient occlusion:SSAO
Screen space reflection: ON
Wetness: ON
Rain occlusion: ON
Motion blur: OFF
Lens flare: ON
View distance all sliders are to MINIMUM.
Distant object detail: Ultra
Object detail fade: Ultra

Hope these settings help people with similar config to run at constant 60fps. So far game is running good for me







loving the game


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Okay I can't fight more than one enemy at once inside a building. Framerates are single digits.
> 
> 
> 
> It will be because your computer is below the min specs
> 
> Try playing it at 720p
Click to expand...

It's not, and plenty of people manage much better framerates with slower computers (FX6xxx, 7850s, 750Tis).

At this point Skyrim beats the ever living crap out of Fallout in graphical fidelity and it runs flat vsynced at 60FPS.

Hell even GTA V runs better.

Any other game released this year that I've played runs at 40-45FPS mix match of medium and high settings, Fallout gets below 10.

There is something very funky going on, and it clearly isn't a lack of power.

A 7870 2GB minimum requirements? GG programmers on crack.

And for the record, I said changing the settings makes no difference. All maxed out to the top (no AA) gives me 60FPS looking at the sky, floor, or something nearby. Looking into the distance, a city, or a light source (light sources DESTROY performance), single digits.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> It's not, and plenty of people manage much better framerates with slower computers (FX6xxx, 7850s, 750Tis).
> 
> At this point Skyrim beats the ever living crap out of Fallout in graphical fidelity and it runs flat vsynced at 60FPS.
> 
> Hell even GTA V runs better.
> 
> Any other game released this year that I've played runs at 40-45FPS mix match of medium and high settings, Fallout gets below 10.
> 
> There is something very funky going on, and it clearly isn't a lack of power.
> 
> A 7870 2GB minimum requirements? GG programmers on crack.
> 
> And for the record, I said changing the settings makes no difference. All maxed out to the top (no AA) gives me 60FPS looking at the sky, floor, or something nearby. Looking into the distance, a city, or a light source (light sources DESTROY performance), single digits.


So you bought a game that your computer is below the specs for it to run , the game does run (but poorly) so that is the developers fault ?


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> So you bought a game that your computer is below the specs for it to run , the game does run (but poorly) so that is the developers fault ?


Yay lets support dev's making bloated inefficient games so that we can keep buying better hardware for the same graphics year after year!!!!!!









I would also like to bring up the game Mad Max. A 750ti can run it decently (30-40fps) at 1080p VHQ settings. Also, a single 980ti can run it well at 4k VHQ settings. It is gorgeous, open world, and runs well. Shouldn't be possible by todays standards.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Yay lets support dev's making bloated inefficient games so that we can keep buying better hardware for the same graphics year after year!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would also like to bring up the game Mad Max. A 750ti can run it decently (30-40fps) at 1080p VHQ settings. Also, a single 980ti can run it well at 4k VHQ settings. It is gorgeous, open world, and runs well. Shouldn't be possible by todays standards.


He's trying to run the game on a fire year old card that is below min requirements , I don't see what Mad Max running on budget cards from last year has to do with anything


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> He's trying to run the game on a fire year old card that is below min requirements , I don't see what Mad Max running on budget cards from last year has to do with anything


His card is faster than a 750ti. Heck, there are a ton of videos of people playing Mad Max with 5850's and 5870's at med-high settings getting like 40fps...


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Guys the game is perfect stop arguing:


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Guy's the game is perfect stop arguing:


hahahahaha


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> His card is faster than a 750ti. Heck, there are a ton of videos of people playing Mad Max with 5850's and 5870's at med-high settings getting like 40fps...


Again ,it's below the min requirements and what has mad max running well on old cards got to do with Fallout 4 ?


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Again ,it's below the min requirements and what has mad max running well on old cards got to do with Fallout 4 ?


It looks better, it's open world, and runs better on lower end *edit* all *edit* hardware. That's what it has to do with Fallout 4.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> It looks better, it's open world, and runs better on lower end *edit* all *edit* hardware. That's what it has to do with Fallout 4.


1) it doesn't look better , FO4 is not just sand dunes
2) there is a lot more going on in FO4

The reason the game won't run well (as I have said 3 times now) is because he is running it on a AMD card from five years ago that is below the min specs

Upgrade to card above min specs and it will run well

I fail to see what this has got to do with the developers - they say "this is the card you need to run the game" , trying to run it on a card that is below this mark you're clearly going to have some problems.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> I fail to see what this has got to do with the developers - they say "this is the card you need to run the game" , trying to run it on a card that is below this mark you're clearly going to have some problems.


Their point is not a card below minimum requirements failing to deliver. Their point is that much better looking games that came out before FO4 run better on the same hardware.
GTA V and BF4 are perfect examples (those are the ones i know and have experienced myself).

But the user reviews speak for themselves. Clearly, a lot of gamers are unhappy with the game, for some reason or another. Optimization might have something to do with it.


----------



## Assirra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Guys the game is perfect stop arguing:


To be fair, user score means nothing. I don't even have the game yet i could go rate it a 0 on metacritic.
The more interesting part is the review score. I have not looked around for reviews but from what i heard around here it is all in 90's yet it somehow doesn't go above 90.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> 1) it doesn't look better , FO4 is not just sand dunes
> 2) there is a lot more going on in FO4
> 
> The reason the game won't run well (as I have said 3 times now) is because he is running it on a AMD card from five years ago that is below the min specs
> 
> Upgrade to card above min specs and it will run well
> 
> I fail to see what this has got to do with the developers - they say "this is the card you need to run the game" , trying to run it on a card that is below this mark you're clearly going to have some problems.


It has everything to do with the developers Lol. They are the ones who make the game, and are able to optimize it, and make it run decently... you know? The point is why would you support dev's that make a game with so-so graphics compared to the rest of the crop, and have it not run well on lower end systems. Why do you want to pay more for PC hardware to run games that are "not about the graphics". That makes no sense to me.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Assirra*
> 
> To be fair, user score means nothing. I don't even have the game yet i could go rate it a 0 on metacritic.
> The more interesting part is the review score. I have not looked around for reviews but from what i heard around here it is all in 90's yet it somehow doesn't go above 90.


If you know anything about how to use Metacritic, you know to entirely ignore the review score and go by the user score. The user score means everything.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> It has everything to do with the developers Lol. They are the ones who make the game, and are able to optimize it, and make it run decently... you know? The point is why would you support dev's that make a game with so-so graphics compared to the rest of the crop, and have it not run well on lower end systems. Why do you want to pay more for PC hardware to run games that are "not about the graphics". That makes no sense to me.


Min requirements 7870

It's optimized to run on that , not exactly high requirements either

If you don't have that card (or higher) then don't buy the game - simple


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Min requirements 7870
> 
> It's optimized to run on that , not exactly high requirements either
> 
> If you don't have that card (or higher) then don't buy the game - simple


Lmao this is pointless, because you think we are trying to debug some issue. Yes, the game runs like crap on cards below that, we are saying that it SHOULDN'T. lol. kthxbai


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Assirra*
> 
> To be fair, user score means nothing. I don't even have the game yet i could go rate it a 0 on metacritic.


You could, but you wouldn't feel compelled to do so if you thought the game was good. To the same effect, not everyone wants to "troll" user scores. Averages usually reflect how the community really feels about the game, especially considering a lot of people are voting.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> You could, but you wouldn't feel compelled to do so if you thought the game was good. To the same effect, not everyone was to "troll" user scores. Averages usually reflect how the community really feels about the game, especially considering a lot of people are voting.


Also, when 400k people are playing the game on PC at one time... there is a good chance that those 2k reviews are coming from owners as a majority.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Lmao this is pointless, because you think we are trying to debug some issue. Yes, the game runs like crap on cards below that, we are saying that it SHOULDN'T. lol. kthxbai


The guy was saying he had low framerates - I pointed out why

I think there has to come a cut off point for games running on older hardware. Personally I would want games to be more demanding so they can take advantage of better graphic cards and can look better


----------



## ricklen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> If you know anything about how to use Metacritic, you know to entirely ignore the review score and go by the user score. The user score means everything.


Indeed, it does mean something. It atleast gives a good rough indication about the game.

Think about games you like a lot and then check out it's score and you'll see it has a good score.

For example Skyrim is rated with an 8.0, the game was also hyped a lot and also had a lot of bugs.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> The guy was saying he had low framerates - I pointed out why
> 
> I think there has to come a cut off point for games running on older hardware. *Personally I would want games to be more demanding so they can take advantage of better graphic cards and can look better*


What happens then, when the game doesn't look better, yet still demands the newer hardware???

You definitely have a point in terms of games trying to sell fidelity. If someone complained that their hd 5770 wasn't playing crisis 3 or the new battlefront well I would lol. This is a game that everyone is spouting gameplay>graphics and that graphics aren't everything. Which they aren't, but why should you pay for better hardware to play with the same old graphics?


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> What happens then, when the game doesn't look better, yet still demands the newer hardware???
> 
> You definitely have a point in terms of games trying to sell fidelity. If someone complained that their hd 5770 wasn't playing crisis 3 or the new battlefront well I would lol. This is a game that everyone is spouting gameplay>graphics and that graphics aren't everything. Which they aren't, but why should you pay for better hardware to play with the same old graphics?


FO4 does have good graphics anyone saying different has not played the game or is an idiot. Apart from that there is a lot going on besides the graphics


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> FO4 does have good graphics anyone saying different has not played the game or is an idiot. Apart from that there is a lot going on besides the graphics


Annnnnd this is where we leave it, good talk.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> FO4 does have good graphics anyone saying different has not played the game or is an idiot. Apart from that there is a lot going on besides the graphics
> 
> 
> 
> Annnnnd this is where we leave it, good talk.
Click to expand...

Yeah, guys, it's getting late. See you next week!


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> It's not, and plenty of people manage much better framerates with slower computers (FX6xxx, 7850s, 750Tis).
> 
> At this point Skyrim beats the ever living crap out of Fallout in graphical fidelity and it runs flat vsynced at 60FPS.
> 
> Hell even GTA V runs better.
> 
> Any other game released this year that I've played runs at 40-45FPS mix match of medium and high settings, Fallout gets below 10.
> 
> There is something very funky going on, and it clearly isn't a lack of power.
> 
> A 7870 2GB minimum requirements? GG programmers on crack.
> 
> And for the record, I said changing the settings makes no difference. All maxed out to the top (no AA) gives me 60FPS looking at the sky, floor, or something nearby. Looking into the distance, a city, or a light source (light sources DESTROY performance), single digits.
> 
> 
> 
> So you bought a game that your computer is below the specs for it to run , the game does run (but poorly) so that is the developers fault ?
Click to expand...

It is not below the minimum specs.

And you tell me how is a 550Ti faster than a 6950.

Because I will tell you, it is not, nowhere close in this dimension or any other.

Not even in the Gameworks dimension.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> It's not, and plenty of people manage much better framerates with slower computers (FX6xxx, 7850s, 750Tis).
> 
> At this point Skyrim beats the ever living crap out of Fallout in graphical fidelity and it runs flat vsynced at 60FPS.
> 
> Hell even GTA V runs better.
> 
> Any other game released this year that I've played runs at 40-45FPS mix match of medium and high settings, Fallout gets below 10.
> 
> There is something very funky going on, and it clearly isn't a lack of power.
> 
> A 7870 2GB minimum requirements? GG programmers on crack.
> 
> And for the record, I said changing the settings makes no difference. All maxed out to the top (no AA) gives me 60FPS looking at the sky, floor, or something nearby. Looking into the distance, a city, or a light source (light sources DESTROY performance), single digits.
> 
> 
> 
> So you bought a game that your computer is below the specs for it to run , the game does run (but poorly) so that is the developers fault ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not below the minimum specs.
> 
> And you tell me how is a 550Ti faster than a 6950.
> 
> Because I will tell you, it is not, nowhere close in this dimension or any other.
> 
> Not even in the Gameworks dimension.
Click to expand...

I don't know why everything quoted like that, but anyway, a 7870 is 23% faster than a 6950. I wonder if they meant 750ti, because a 6950 is like 60% faster

Recommended specs are 780/290X


----------



## Artikbot

Yeah, sorry I still have in my head what it was when they launched.

Anyway, people are playing the game at med/high on my CPU and a 750Ti, not even disabling godrays or volumetric lighting, hovering mid 50s outside and 60s inside.

Proves my point a little bit. I will keep messing around with the INI, hoping to at least make it to 30FPS.

I have also found after disabling GW that for the most part it's not low framerates, it's insane stuttering (to the point where mid 30s will feel like single digits).


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Yeah, sorry I still have in my head what it was when they launched.
> 
> Anyway, people are playing the game at med/high on my CPU and a 750Ti, not even disabling godrays or volumetric lighting, hovering mid 50s outside and 60s inside.
> 
> Proves my point a little bit. I will keep messing around with the INI, hoping to at least make it to 30FPS.
> 
> I have also found after disabling GW that for the most part it's not low framerates, it's insane stuttering (to the point where mid 30s will feel like single digits).


Why u dont play games in PC with a card that costs less then the game itself. I sure hope you got the game legitimately.


----------



## SoloCamo

If the 6950 is now deemed a card incapable of running FO4 visuals at 1080p and people are accepting that, than some people on this forum have lost their marbles. The 6950 while old, is hardly incapable of pumping out those visuals....

The 6950 is better than GTX480 performance, and a 7870 realistically is not much quicker at all over either. A 750ti is often slower than a 480 as is..

I've had a 550ti, 750ti, gtx480 as well, and the 550ti is ridiculously slower than those


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> If the 6950 is now deemed a card incapable of running FO4 visuals at 1080p and people are accepting that, than some people on this forum have lost their marbles. The 6950 while old, is hardly incapable of pumping out those visuals....
> 
> The 6950 is better than GTX480 performance, and a 7870 realistically is not much quicker at all over either. A 750ti is often slower than a 480 as is..
> 
> I've had a 550ti, 750ti, gtx480 as well, and the 550ti is ridiculously slower than those


How dare you have common sense.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> If the 6950 is now deemed a card incapable of running FO4 visuals at 1080p and people are accepting that, than some people on this forum have lost their marbles. The 6950 while old, is hardly incapable of pumping out those visuals....
> 
> The 6950 is better than GTX480 performance, and a 7870 realistically is not much quicker at all over either. A 750ti is often slower than a 480 as is..
> 
> I've had a 550ti, 750ti, gtx480 as well, and the 550ti is ridiculously slower than those


HD 7870 is faster then GTX580 which was 10-15% faster then HD 6970. This was when GCN was a brand new architecture. Now HD 7870 will be a lot faster then HD 6950. HD 6950 is a not a bad card but when R9 290X gets ~ 50 fps @ 1080p which is a lot stronger then expect low performance.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> HD 7870 is faster then GTX580 which was 10-15% faster then HD 6970. This was when GCN was a brand new architecture. Now HD 7870 will be a lot faster then HD 6950. HD 6950 is a not a bad card but when R9 290X gets ~ 50 fps @ 1080p which is a lot stronger then expect low performance.


when GCN was released the 7870 was similar to a 580 or slighly slower, now it seems that is way faster due to drivers improvements


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Updated OP with TechSpot's video card and CPU benchmarks of the game. Looks like clock speed really has an effect on the performance of the game, as well as memory speed, as with their 4770k they saw a 67% improvement in performance going from 1333MHz memory to 2400MHz memory.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> Yeah, sorry I still have in my head what it was when they launched.
> 
> Anyway, people are playing the game at med/high on my CPU and a 750Ti, not even disabling godrays or volumetric lighting, hovering mid 50s outside and 60s inside.
> 
> Proves my point a little bit. I will keep messing around with the INI, hoping to at least make it to 30FPS.
> 
> I have also found after disabling GW that for the most part it's not low framerates, it's insane stuttering (to the point where mid 30s will feel like single digits).
> 
> 
> 
> Why u dont play games in PC with a card that costs less then the game itself. I sure hope you got the game legitimately.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, conclusion jumping much? Of course I did.

That I can't be bothered to upgrade for a single game with injustified requirements doesn't mean that I don't buy the games from one of my favourite sagas.

Also I will confirm my thoughts that there is something very funny going on with the light sources in FO4.

I can play with all set to medium/high in exteriors/open spaces and be around 40-45 FPS, no problems, all fine. The moment a shadow-casting light source enters the scene (most obvious - those wall-mounted follower lights and the construction lights) the framerates tank down to single digits.

I refuse to believe that is by design and it is justified.

And what's best, if I disable any shadows from the .ini (it is doable) there is ZERO performance improvement.

Whatever light sources are doing - it is broken.


----------



## Noufel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> It's not, and plenty of people manage much better framerates with slower computers (FX6xxx, 7850s, 750Tis).
> 
> At this point Skyrim beats the ever living crap out of Fallout in graphical fidelity and it runs flat vsynced at 60FPS.
> 
> Hell even GTA V runs better.
> 
> Any other game released this year that I've played runs at 40-45FPS mix match of medium and high settings, Fallout gets below 10.
> 
> There is something very funky going on, and it clearly isn't a lack of power.
> 
> A 7870 2GB minimum requirements? GG programmers on crack.
> 
> And for the record, I said changing the settings makes no difference. All maxed out to the top (no AA) gives me 60FPS looking at the sky, floor, or something nearby. Looking into the distance, a city, or a light source (light sources DESTROY performance), single digits.
> 
> 
> 
> So you bought a game that your computer is below the specs for it to run , the game does run (but poorly) so that is the developers fault ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not below the minimum specs.
> 
> And you tell me how is a 550Ti faster than a 6950.
> 
> Because I will tell you, it is not, nowhere close in this dimension or any other.
> 
> Not even in the Gameworks dimension.
Click to expand...

I hade a 6950 crossfire and i can confirm that the 6950 was faster than the 550ti and more comparable to a 560ti, i think that AMD stopped driver optimization for the VLIW architecure and are only focused on the GCN one


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Added ComputerBase.de's benchmarks of the game to the OP. Includes; 1080p, 1440p, and 4K testing alongside Gameworks performance, AA performance and CPU scaling performance.


----------



## white owl

Longest OP I think I've ever seen.
Did I miss it or was there no i5 on a CPU test?
I'm sure it'll be fine.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *white owl*
> 
> Longest OP I think I've ever seen.
> Did I miss it or was there no i5 on a CPU test?
> I'm sure it'll be fine.


You missed it, and you will definitely be fine:


----------



## white owl

More than I was expecting from a stock CPU. Thank you.







<--- never seen this before...just for you.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *white owl*
> 
> More than I was expecting from a stock CPU. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <--- never seen this before...just for you.


Your welcome.

Also, If you have an unlocked processor I highly recommend overclocking, you can see a decent gain in performance:














Side Note: Updated OP again, added a budget gaming Video Card review of the 750 Ti vs R7 360 in FO4 (in the Digital Foundry section):


----------



## thegreatsquare

My laptop is running FO4 pretty well. I stay well above 30 @ 2103x1183, max settings except god rays on high plus ugridtoload is set to 7.

I tried 1440p and medium godrays and got 45fps in the starting area, but mostly 30s and I dipped into the 20s in other places.


----------



## cstkl1

Side note. Have u ever noticed
1. Reviewers nowadays dont do tx sli oced vs ti sli oced
2. 4790k oced 4.7/4.8 vs 6700k
In game benchmarks. Its as if all of them sign a agreement with intel n nvidia.
1. I have both n former is superbly smoother gameplay
2. Still curious y on this.


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cstkl1*
> 
> Side note. Have u ever noticed
> 1. Reviewers nowadays dont do tx sli oced vs ti sli oced
> 2. 4790k oced 4.7/4.8 vs 6700k
> In game benchmarks. Its as if all of them sign a agreement with intel n nvidia.
> 1. I have both n former is superbly smoother gameplay
> 2. Still curious y on this.


1. You can estimate SLI/X-fire numbers usually. Assuming the game supports it. Last i remember SLI has 70% scale-ability and X-fire 90%.
2. OCing is too variable to include in a large bench. You may see one on youtube, but generally not from the well-known sites. Most people do not oc their rigs, so its easier to gauge relative performance based on stock speeds.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

I was waiting for Techspots benchmark review, trust them over GameGPU and also Guru3d these days.

Interesting to see their findings on RAM speed affecting performance a huge amount on Intel systems if no one mentioned it already.


----------



## ladcrooks

dont even game anymore, well having a break , but interesting - alot of work hava rep


----------



## Derp

That memory speed scaling....

If you're one of those guys on a Haswell or Devil's Canyon setup with 1600Mhz ram then don't be afraid of overclocking it. You can feed 1.65v to garbage 1.5v 1600Mhz ram and it will often run at 2400Mhz without much effort.


----------



## white owl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> That memory speed scaling....
> 
> If you're one of those guys on a Haswell or Devil's Canyon setup with 1600Mhz ram then don't be afraid of overclocking it. You can feed 1.65v to garbage 1.5v 1600Mhz ram and it will often run at 2400Mhz without much effort.


1.65 is safe?
I have heatspreaders.








I'm at 2200Mhz 1.6v
Stock was 1333.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *white owl*
> 
> 1.65 is safe?
> I have heatspreaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm at 2200Mhz 1.6v
> Stock was 1333.


Safe? I don't know about that







. All DDR3 kits sold at 2400+ have XMP profiles with 1.65v though.


----------



## Dimaggio1103

This is where im glad I have an Intel chip, OC to 4.5 and im flying. Love this single core performance. Yes I wish the game took advantage of more than 2 cores, but im use to devs doing this. lol


----------



## tweezlednutball

My 3.5 year old 7970ghz in crossfire runs this game buttery smooth and streams it to my living room at 60fps ultra everything cranked. im not complaining at all. i actually really like how the game looks too.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dimaggio1103*
> 
> This is where im glad I have an Intel chip, OC to 4.5 and im flying. Love this single core performance. Yes I wish the game took advantage of more than 2 cores, but im use to devs doing this. lol


Exactly... It's a shame but it is what it is. Got sick of dealing with poor performance.. Games like this are the reason I'm happy I switched from a 9590 to a 4790k, the difference is ridiculous. Being that my 290x is already a cpu overhead bottleneck in this game as is, the extra cpu performance is a huge plus here for me.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Added Digital Storm's 1080p, 1440p, and 4K video benchmarks of FO4 to the OP:


----------



## Solohuman

That gamegpu graph of cpu usage looks exactly what I get with my FX-6300 in skyrim. Same engine I suppose, so no news here. Thinking current gen consoles have up to 8 cores but.... multicore x86 cpus too hard to optimise for devs... or not enough market to warrant investment of resources..


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Thought someone would like to see these benchmarks:

Playthrough and Performance of Fallout 4 with the Acer X34 Predator @ 3440x1440 with a Single 980 Ti:










Also added WCCFTech's benchmarks which are AMD heavy.

Updated OP


----------



## dagget3450

Maybe we can get benchmarks done again with new driver for AMD that has FO4 optimizations.


----------



## NateN34

Who cares about the benchmarks!

The game has a serious bug, causing drops with anything higher than medium shadow-distance! Bug or the engine is garbage..... Doesn't matter how good your PC is at the moment.

Seriously needs a patch, before it can be played or even benchmarked properly.


----------



## traxtech

I haven't dipped under 105 fps at all the entire time i've been playing, at 1440p/Ultra except for God rays which is on low


----------



## Artikbot

-Maxwell: Check.

-Stupid single thread capability: Check.

This revision of Creation is at home with your computer, lol.

Can't wait to test the new Betas on VLIW4. I'm not expecting any improvement, but hey, GTA V got a good 20% framerate improvement and the stuttering went away completely. So a man can hope.


----------



## Stewart=B

I've done a lot of testing with this game myself. Clearly it suffers from a lot of stuttering which makes fps look lower than they are. Can be mostly solved with an ENB mod which requires a lot of ram (16gb). I've heard that increased ram speed will boost the game fps considerably which is odd for a pc game. What is even more odd is that doing things like verifying game cache and increasing graphics settings may give better fps... It is really is a mess. As for anyone who says that the game will be patched or something piss off, MGSV was nigh on one the best ports I have ever seen day 1. Wasn't it a bethesda dev who once boasted to have made the longest shader script ever... What a company.

Any cheese fallout fans? okay okay it's a decent game otherwise.


----------



## NateN34

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *traxtech*
> 
> I haven't dipped under 105 fps at all the entire time i've been playing, at 1440p/Ultra except for God rays which is on low


You sure? Have you actually gone to the big cities? Go to the tower outside Corvega plant and see what happens.

Everyone even with the same CPU as you are complaining about the same issue. Not sure how you're skidding by.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ghost_z*
> 
> On the performance side of things, you can see my current hardware below, i am playing the game locked at 60 fps with every setting on ultra without any hiccup,stuttering or drops(Godrays on high tho, ultra kills the performance big time !)
> 
> Thats my honest observation about the game till now !


You too! If you guys are running it fine, I hope a simple patch will fix this issue I'm having then. Was running great, until I got to Corvega plant, near Lexington...the drops....so bad..


----------



## ghost_z

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NateN34*
> 
> Who cares about the benchmarks!
> 
> The game has a serious bug, causing drops with anything higher than medium shadow-distance! Bug or the engine is garbage..... Doesn't matter how good your PC is at the moment.
> 
> Seriously needs a patch, before it can be played or even benchmarked properly.


10 hours in, 1 CTD, and 2 mipmap load issues, latter of which is a minor annoyance while former made me lose 15 minutes of progress !

So yes definitely bugs are there but not as much as some would make you believe !

While it is true that hardcore fans are protecting their precious, its also true that just because its Bethesda, some people are way more agitated than they should be, because its fun to hate









On the performance side of things, you can see my current hardware below, i am playing the game locked at 60 fps with every setting on ultra without any hiccup,stuttering or drops(Godrays on high tho, ultra kills the performance big time !)

Thats my honest observation about the game till now !

EDIT : Oh wait, my bad i didn't update my config...sigh.

Lemme fix it in 5 mins.


----------



## ghost_z

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NateN34*
> 
> You sure? Have you actually gone to the big cities? Go to the tower outside Corvega plant and see what happens.
> 
> Everyone even with the same CPU as you are complaining about the same issue. Not sure how you're skidding by.
> 
> You too! If you guys are running it fine, I hope a simple patch will fix this issue I'm having then. Was running great, until I got to Corvega plant, near Lexington...the drops....so bad..


As i said i am 10 hours in and it feels like i have just barely scratched the surface, i am yet to reach the locations you have mentioned, so will post my findings once i reach there


----------



## traxtech

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NateN34*
> 
> You sure? Have you actually gone to the big cities? Go to the tower outside Corvega plant and see what happens.
> 
> Everyone even with the same CPU as you are complaining about the same issue. Not sure how you're skidding by.
> 
> You too! If you guys are running it fine, I hope a simple patch will fix this issue I'm having then. Was running great, until I got to Corvega plant, near Lexington...the drops....so bad..


Yeah, i'm 20 hours in and ive been everywhere basically. Still haven't seen anything below 105fps apart from loading into the game at the loading screen.

Memory speed seems to play a biiiiiiiiiig role in frames on this game, and i have mine overclocked to 2800 so i'm sure that's helping my performance by alot


----------



## Pro3ootector

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2579/amd-catalyst-15-11-1-beta-win-7-8-10-64-bit/mirrors

Seems that drivers for Fallout 4 just came out.


----------



## KYKYLLIKA

Wait, am I reading this right? Source 12 says Fallout 4 actually gains significant framerate from hyperthreading? What is this magic? I’ll go to the store get 8-core i7 real quick, brb.


----------



## moustang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KYKYLLIKA*
> 
> Wait, am I reading this right? Source 12 says Fallout 4 actually gains significant framerate from hyperthreading? What is this magic? I'll go to the store get 8-core i7 real quick, brb.


Hyperthreading gives about a 7% boost in performance.

But the MAJOR difference is RAM SPEED.

PC2400 RAM is about 65% faster than PC1333 RAM in this game. That means that a system with a GTX 970 with PC2400 RAM could outperform a system with a GTX 980 Ti with PC1333. The game is that dependent on RAM speed.

I suspect a lot of the people having problems with stuttering and hangs are using low speed RAM. The performance difference is so massive that two people with identical systems other than the RAM could be getting 60FPS or 25FPS, with nothing but the RAM speed being the difference.


----------



## Biorganic

I am running a 7950 boost slightly overclocked to 1050 core with my 2700k at 4.5.
Settings are:
1080p
AA TAA
AF 16
Texture High
Shadow Quality Med
Shadow distance Med
Decal Medium
Lighting High
Godrays Low
DoF Standard (low)
Ambient occlusion SSAO(high)

Everythin else is on, except motion blur.

I realize that these settings are not ULTRA, but on my dated 7950 I have yet to really notice a slowdown. Also, at these settings I really don't have many complaints about the actual graphics. Character models and tecxtures could definitely be better, yes.

I find the content and gameplay to be greatly improved. Crafting, gunplay, base building, increased color in the world, are all improved.

I have put ~17 hours in so far and I am completely enjoying the game. I cannot think of one time I was upset that the ghoul I just splattered everywhere wasn't slightly higher definition.... I definititley wish I didnt waste so many 0.38 bullets on the stupid ghoul, but that is gameplay not graphics...

YMMV though, I have always leaned more towards gameplay than graphics. IMO the graphics are much better than previous fallouts and even vanilla skyrim, and are more than sufficient for me to enjoy the game.


----------



## narmour

Looking at all the facts it's safe to say this game is broken!


----------



## Defoler

Now with the new drivers out and it seems that performance is finally on par on where it should be, all that "it's nvidia's fault! they are crippling AMD knowingly!" crap, is behind us.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oubadah*
> 
> can someone with the game and a 6+ core processor shed some light on the multithreading capabilities of FO4?
> 
> ie. Disable HT, find an easily replicable CPU bottlenecked scenario, run benchmark, drop one core, repeat benchmark, drop another core, and so on.


4 threads max. Seeing ~50% usage on an 8 core machine and still not seeing 100% GPU usage.


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Yeah, sorry I still have in my head what it was when they launched.
> 
> Anyway, people are playing the game at med/high on my CPU and a 750Ti, not even disabling godrays or volumetric lighting, hovering mid 50s outside and 60s inside.
> 
> Proves my point a little bit. I will keep messing around with the INI, hoping to at least make it to 30FPS.
> 
> I have also found after disabling GW that for the most part it's not low framerates, it's insane stuttering (to the point where mid 30s will feel like single digits).


Unless you turned off vsync, the game should fluctuate in fps like that. If you have a 60hz monitor. You will either run at 30fps or 60fps. Turning it off means the potential for more game breaking bugs to happen.


----------



## Mopar63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Thought someone would like to see these benchmarks:
> 
> Playthrough and Performance of Fallout 4 with the Acer X34 Predator @ 3440x1440 with a Single 980 Ti:


I can tell you once you play any RPG at 21:9 regular monitors become lame.

I am currently playing Fallout 4 on an LG 34UC97-S with a Sapphire R9 Tri-X Fury and am pegging game play at 60 FPS at 3440x1440 on Ultra. I am however saving my pennies for an Acer XR341CK. Freeysnc at 3440x1440 on an IPS screen, curved is my idea of gaming HEAVEN!


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Now with the new drivers out and it seems that performance is finally on par on where it should be, all that "it's nvidia's fault! they are crippling AMD knowingly!" crap, is behind us.


Clearly for FO4 AMD had to release drivers. I think it was Fury cards that where greatly under-performing.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Side Note: Updated OP again, added a budget gaming Video Card review of the 750 Ti vs R7 360 in FO4 (in the Digital Foundry section):


Thanks!

Wait a minute, they are comparing the 750 Ti with an R7 360 and the 360 is holding on (slower min fps still, but holds on otherwise)? The 750 Ti is as fast as an HD 7850 (or an underclocked R7 370 if you will), at most it should be competing against the not yet released R7 360X or the previous full Bonaire R7 260X.

Does this mean that AMD's newer drivers solved the performance problem on their end? How is it going with higher end cards?


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mopar63*
> 
> I can tell you once you play any RPG at 21:9 regular monitors become lame.
> 
> I am currently playing Fallout 4 on an LG 34UC97-S with a Sapphire R9 Tri-X Fury and am pegging game play at 60 FPS at 3440x1440 on Ultra. I am however saving my pennies for an Acer XR341CK. Freeysnc at 3440x1440 on an IPS screen, curved is my idea of gaming HEAVEN!


I originally was going to jump into the Ultrawide bandwagon myself but I cannot seem to find a 3440x1440 monitor that is at a reasonable price at the moment. So I think I'm going to move to either a 32-inch 1440p or 40-inch 4K.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Wait a minute, they are comparing the 750 Ti with an R7 360 and the 360 is holding on (slower min fps still, but holds on otherwise)? The 750 Ti is as fast as an HD 7850 (or an underclocked R7 370 if you will), at most it should be competing against the not yet released R7 360X or the previous full Bonaire R7 260X.


I think they are comparing them because they are in a similar price range. Right now on Newegg you can get a 750 Ti for $110-120 while the R7 360 is around the same at about $110-120


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> I think they are comparing them because they are in a similar price range. Right now on Newegg you can get a 750 Ti for $110-120 while the R7 360 is around the same at about $110-120


Ah, that makes sense then. Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Ah, that makes sense then. Thanks for the clarification!


No problem, also keep in mind that in the video they are running an i3 for testing to make it similar to a budget build. Your experience will probably be a lot better on a 3820 with 16GB of memory.

Also updated OP to display AMD's new driver implementation for the game:
Quote:


>


You will be able to see before and after in OP.


----------



## traxtech

So, unfortunately my save corrupted and i lost everything... restarted with a more ideal build this time so i don't care too much, plus it's an enjoyable game.

Now here comes the frustrating part, after the save corruption my performance seems to have dropped, lowest i'm getting now is 85(EDIT** Make that 75) (versus over 100 before) and i'm also getting the terminal glitch where i HAVE to cap my frames at 90 otherwise my game freezes.

GG.


----------



## santerino

The game is broken,its only Bethesda fault.No matter if Nvidia&Amd will launch new drivers,we need patches from developer.
Its not good&fair to have such low fps in towns or industrial complex,in the wild no problem to have 60fps.

The game runs ok(it was designed to be ) with FOV 80 and 60 fps capped in RTSS.Over 90 FOV & 61 fps the char will remain stuck in terminals.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *santerino*
> 
> The game is broken,its only Bethesda fault.No matter if Nvidia&Amd will launch new drivers,we need patches from developer.
> Its not good&fair to have such low fps in towns or industrial complex,in the wild no problem to have 60fps.
> 
> The game runs ok(it was designed to be ) with FOV 80 and 60 fps capped in RTSS.Over 90 FOV & 61 fps the char will remain stuck in terminals.


We totes need patches from the developer to fix problems that don't exist unless you go out of your way to create them.

The game runs terribly on my 8 year old PC with a new GPU in it. Bethesda should patch their broken software so it can run on Core2 based hardware at 60 fps, like all my games from 8 years ago.









On a more serious note, Im still waiting for game engines to finally emerge from the 2 thread dark ages. Haven't seen more than a handful of games that use more than ~2 cores yet. World of Warships uses all 8 cores, but the only thing its doing with them is madly shoving threads around in a circle.


----------



## 2010rig

@Artikbot have you tried the new drivers? See improvements?


----------



## Kayaler

The Latest Benchmark.

http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/fallout-4-beta-patch-1-3-test-gpu.html


----------



## Xuper

Fallout 4 Patch 1.3 with AMD Crismon 16.1.1 and Nvidia GeForce 361.75.Huge boost for Only AMD Fury X.(perhaps Fury and Nano) and Little Boost for GTX 980Ti.

Fallout 4 Benchmark (version 1.2(?) / 2015-11)

Fallout 4 Benchmark (version 1.3 / 2016-02)


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> @Artikbot have you tried the new drivers? See improvements?


And about 4 months later I shall awaken!  sorry I don't get notified of mentions or quotes.

Performance with Crimson on my rig is rubbish, way worse than prior releases, especially around settlements.

Gonna test this 1.3 patch.


----------



## DrFPS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> And about 4 months later I shall awaken!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry I don't get notified of mentions or quotes.
> 
> Performance with Crimson on my rig is rubbish, way worse than prior releases, especially around settlements.
> 
> Gonna test this 1.3 patch.


Your below min spec. Minimum GPU 7870 Considering the 6950 was released in 2010.
Quote:


> Minimum
> Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS required)
> Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
> 8 GB RAM
> 30 GB free HDD space
> NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent


http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-pc-minimum-and-recommended-pc-specs-conf/1100-6431267/


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DrFPS*
> 
> Your below min spec. Minimum GPU 7870 Considering the 6950 was released in 2010.
> 
> http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-pc-minimum-and-recommended-pc-specs-conf/1100-6431267/


The 6950 should still hold it's own though providing there's adequate driver support, I think AMD recently dropped the driver support of the 6000 series, however I think that was after Fallout 4 released.
The 6950 is also much faster than the 550 Ti, the system requirements appear to be inflated in favour of NVIDIA cards.

I'm tempted to put my 6850 back in my PC to see how it runs Fallout 4.


----------



## SuperZan

I feel like we discussed the 6950 and the minimum specs like twenty pages ago.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I feel like we discussed the 6950 and the minimum specs like twenty pages ago.


I'm sorry, I happened to have been living under a rock at the time of this thread, a rock called Fallout 4, I'm literally just popping into this thread now aha.
I've gone back and read and it was surely an interesting discussion.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I'm sorry, I happened to have been living under a rock at the time of this thread, a rock called Fallout 4, I'm literally just popping into this thread now aha.
> I've gone back and read and it was surely an interesting discussion.


It was a fun playthrough







. I'm saving my next for a second-wind moment. I just very keenly remembered that back and forth and I had to laugh.


----------



## MadjinnSayan

Ahh, good to see the 780 ti is still holding up (well that should not surprise me but still, with recent "driver contrevorsy"), and DANG SON the memory frquency impact is HUGE, wish they would add even higher ones


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DrFPS*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> And about 4 months later I shall awaken!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry I don't get notified of mentions or quotes.
> 
> Performance with Crimson on my rig is rubbish, way worse than prior releases, especially around settlements.
> 
> Gonna test this 1.3 patch.
> 
> 
> 
> Your below min spec. Minimum GPU 7870 Considering the 6950 was released in 2010.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum
> Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS required)
> Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
> 8 GB RAM
> 30 GB free HDD space
> NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-pc-minimum-and-recommended-pc-specs-conf/1100-6431267/
Click to expand...

You're 3 months late to the discussion.

And the game runs just fine with pre-Crimson.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I feel like we discussed the 6950 and the minimum specs like twenty pages ago.


Yup. We did.


----------



## KarathKasun

Eh, played it on an HD 6850 1gb and a R7 240 2gb (DDR3) with no problems.
Had to deal with some fugly textures on the HD 6850 because not enough vram and had to drop resolution on the R7 240 cause its pretty horrible overall.

only issue I ever had with FO4 was the fact that it chews up CPU cycles like candy with distant shadows enabled.


----------

