Fallout 4 Recommends an AMD RX 490 for High Resolution Texture Pack

Kor said:
Maybe rather than recommending a 5820K they could oh I dunno... fix their fucking renderer so it doesn't issue 40 bajillion batches when drawing shadows.
Click to expand...

That's the only way they could get it to run as shitty on AMD cards, bog down the CPU and gimp the DX11 code path.
 
Kor said:
Maybe rather than recommending a 5820K they could oh I dunno... fix their fucking renderer so it doesn't issue 40 bajillion batches when drawing shadows.
Click to expand...


the-rock-clapping.gif
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
So, I'm curious. What is a 490? A single board with two 480 GPU's on it, like the xx90 moniker has been used in the past, or something new all together?
Click to expand...

WOuld be wierd to start a trend with the 3 digit cards that x90 is just the top end to go back to it being dual GPU. But AMD has never been against confusing product naming schemes.
 
tungt88 said:
Not sure -- it's been a couple of months since I last played Fallout 4, so I don't remember if it was a CPU-centric game in terms of performance (usually my x5670 @ 4.2 is good enough for most games). I seem to recall that the framerates still took a pretty big hit in the downtown Boston area without mods, just not as big of a drop.

The only game that I regularly play that is extremely CPU-centric is Mechwarrior Online (I use it as "sort of" an unofficial benchmark for that reason, as it's also, for some reason, extremely sensitive to GPU overclocks, both core and memory).
Click to expand...

Oh yeah it quite CPU heavy - http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference

And dual/quad channel and RAM speed also impacts performance as well as it improves overall CPU performance - http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page6.html


I personally saw the same thing (and did some testing) when RoTTR first came out and was DX11 only. Slower RAM speed caused lower minimum frame rates in shadow heavy areas, even at 1080P. It was much more pronounced for folks that only had dual channel RAM.

One way to combat that is to lower shadow quality.
 
Those specs are heavy... Is that for 4k?
I wonder if my system would be ok for 1440p.
 
Is there a link for a good 3rd party high res texture pack? Didn't know it already existed.
 
Formula.350 said:
I'm not trying to sound like I'm calling you out here, but at 1080p are we sure 3.5GB of VRam is a bottleneck? I don't really recall what FO4 was consuming for me at 1080p on my R9 390 8GB, at ~High detail (some settings higher, some settings lower), because after I determined that the reason my frame rates were so low was due to my A8-3850 CPU, I opted to turn on AMD's VSR (Virtual Super Resolution) and run FO4 at 4K and downsampled back to 1080p in order to help with the fact that Bethesda made a dick-move by removing MSAA.

Anyways, I've often left GPUz running and checked back at the VRam usage, only to see it consuming 3,800-4200MB of the 8GB available to it. I've also done everything I can to the INI in an effort to maximize not just VRam usage but SYSTEM RAM usage as well (it usually only consumes about 3GB). I wanted to try and get it to perform like it did in the original E3 demo where they made it a point to say "Exterior/Interior will remain cached in order to provide you with almost instant loading after you've gone into a building and exit back to the wasteland", which frankly, I've never noticed happen. But yea, I do seem to now recall complaining to a friend back when I still was at 1080p, that FO4 was only using like 2.5GB of VRam, and IMO that falls in line with my ~4GB usage at 4K... Which yes, I still have GodRays, TAA, etc turned on. The main thing I have turned down is Shadows since in Bethesda's infinite wisdom, decided to offload to the CPU on PCs. Sure, I understand the consoles lack the GPU power and have 7 CPU cores to play with, but c'mon! :( heh

(I'll have to double check, but I'm pretty sure I have the Texture Quality set to Ultra.)
Click to expand...

vanilla FO4 is not that VRAM hungry. i did try using DSR @ 1440p with my 970 with everything max out with god ray disabled and the card running out of grunt (cannot maintain 60fps) before it can reach that 3.5GB mark. most concern with 970 is how that memory segmentation going to affect gaming performance. i try several games to see how that memory segmentation going to affect thing but the only games that i see being affected was assassin creed unity. there were slight stutter from time to time (VRAM usage around 3700-3800mb) which is did not exist with my 960 2GB despite having low frame rates. other games like dying light, shadow of mordor for example was stutter free even when memory usage exceed 3.5GB mark.

also 970 is a best if you can OC them to 1.5ghz mark lol :D . almost able to keep up with 2.1ghz 1060.

 
Last edited:
SiSiX said:
The 490 runs on pixie dust and unicorn farts and now not only accelerates your video, but also washes your windows, cooks your dinner, and tucks you into bed at night and reads you a story :)
Click to expand...

Can it get me a beer and mow the lawn too?
 
I wonder if its like Skyrim with unoptimized textures due to consoles. So on a PC perhaps we could be fine with a sub 20GB download instead. This pack wouldn't happen without the PS4 Pro.
 
Kind of glad I didn't get into FO4... this gives me an excuse to dig in, at least for a few more hours, until Andromeda comes out...
 
cageymaru said:
Check out the front page post. There has been rumors of a RX 490 since the original Polaris launch.
Click to expand...

In fact, I believe it's shown up in numerous reseller, driver, and support lists for the past few months.

As for the 58GB, FO4 has a ridiculous number of assets -- I assume most of these were updated.
 
harmattan said:
In fact, I believe it's shown up in numerous reseller, driver, and support lists for the past few months.

As for the 58GB, FO4 has a ridiculous number of assets -- I assume most of these were updated.
Click to expand...
Also, if I remember it correctly, behesda ...erm.. forgets sometimes to use compression for textures. There are many mods for fo4 that address that issue, some other mods manage to get higher res/quality textures while at the same time taking less space. Been the same with skyrim as well. It seems that these games are so huge, that the developers can't keep track of what's where and modders need to fix all kinds of issues (unofficial skyrim special editiom patch fixes the same bugs that were present in the original skyrim and that were not fixed by bethesda in the SE).
As for the requirements - let's not forget, that some people (myself included) get low fps in some places even though the gpu sits well below 100% utilisation and none of the cpu cores are maxing out. The engine itself seems to be kind of weird and finds bottlenecks where no other game manages to.
Tl;dr: Knowing bethesda, it's possible that the download size could be smaller if it was done right. Unless they are using 4k textures on even the smallest of things, which doesn't sound smart...
 
vegeta535 said:
I know I'm in the minority here but I think Bethesda games are complete garbage. I can respect them for still supporting a game long after release tho.
Click to expand...


You would be surprised. Even many of us that love their games are well aware that they are pure garbage in a lot of respects. Janky outdated engine. Terrible dialogue. Boring characters. Predictable and snoozeworthy plot. We know, but we still love them for the freedom they give.
 
Koween said:
Also, if I remember it correctly, behesda ...erm.. forgets sometimes to use compression for textures.
Click to expand...

They "forget" it because then they dont have to change it compared to consoles. That works better by avoiding to use CPU to decompress. A bit like when we got uncompressed wav files on the PC.
 
cageymaru said:
Fallout 4 is getting a new high resolution texture pack and PS4 Pro support. The texture pack weighs in as an additional whopping 58GB download to the base game! I feel sorry for those with metered internet or small SSD drives!

But the real story isn't the texture pack or the 1440p PS4 Pro support. The REAL story is that an AMD RX 490 8GB card is on the suggested card list! The same mystery card that I discovered on Sapphire's website long ago. How can there be this many gaffes without hardware existing on some engineer's desk. An I7-5820K is very steep for recommendations also.

Recommended PC Specs
Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS required)
Intel Core i7-5820K or better
GTX 1080 8GB/AMD Radeon RX 490 8GB
8GB+ Ram

Worth mentioning is that Fallout 4 is for sale today on Amazon for $20.
Click to expand...

Those recommended specs are insane. I only see a small fraction being able to use the mod. I am going to try it with my setup and i'll be curious how well it works.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Well this will be a boost after playing 390 hours of FO4 since last October! Best £15 worth of entertainment I've ever spent. Still have Far Harbour and Nukaworld to go. I just hope they work for 1080p too.

Now...just need to uninstall 60GB of Gears of War 4 (that I have played for all of 5 minutes) to fit it.
 
For 1080p I'd wait for a modded texture pack better suited.
Less everything needed has gotta be good.
Thats what I'm doing.
 
I'm not that bothered. I thought they had stopped working on FO4 so this is news that there might still be some more treats to come.
 
Wow with spec requirements like that you'd think the word "optimization" has completely left their vocabulary.
 
buzzbomb said:
I don't think "steep" was meant as price...how many current games recommend a 6C/12T CPU?
Click to expand...

Yeah, totally agree! Current FO4 is far from using a quad, much less a 6 core. I run in on my 6 core and it barely uses 20% cpu if not less on 1600p ultra.
 
tungt88 said:
That high resolution pack needs to be a lot better than the one they did for RAGE -- and I mean a LOT better (that one was a ton of gigs for very little improvement, due to the inherent failings of megatexturing).
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Carmack talked about such a pack for years but it never materialized.
 
After reading what bigdogchris' link had to say, I got to thinking that maybe the entire purpose behind this is sorta marketing, as alxlwson said? (I don't believe he meant it in the same way that I'm thinking, though)

I don't think this is a Vega-related card, as I think we all can/do agree (yes?) that AMD wouldn't use the 400 series for a brand new card. Just as well, I think we all can also agree that it's far more likely that the 490 is a dual-GPU solution --and I wouldn't be surprised if AMD throws a slight curveball where these are MCM packaged like the later Opterons-- or will at the very least be some sort of unexpected fat-shader variant that has more than the 480 does.

I based this on the fact that while digging through drivers (the INF), it's clearly obvious that Polaris was designed originally for Laptops, but no doubt there were setbacks with Vega and they repurposed it to desktop as a stop-gap. Think about it... that'd explain why they didn't have an answer to GTX1080, when in the past AMD and nV have always released competing products within a couple months of each other... Plus the fact that 390X (Hawaii) and Fury X are still more powerful, and look at how old Hawaii is! Anyways, what I feel makes it most obvious that it was aimed at laptops, is if you pay attention to the 'modules' in the INF that tell it what registry entries get installed, based on what platform or chip variation a card is aimed at (I'm not including the entire entry, just the relevant info, it'd be too much text otherwise). NOTE: These were all taken from the DESKTOP drivers, not ones for Laptops!
This is the Device ID part, which tells the installer what section of the INF to reference for files to add/remove and reg entries to add/remove:
"%AMD67DF.1%" = ati2mtag_Polaris10, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_67DF&REV_C7​
And that section tells part of the story, which ends up leading us to here:
[AMD_Service_Inst_Polaris10]
AddReg = ati2mtag_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_Polaris10_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_MultiUVD_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_Mobile_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_Mobile_PX_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_Mobile_PXAA_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_ProxySettings_DX10
AddReg = ati2mtag_ProxySettings_DX10_PXAA
AddReg = ati2mtag_PXAA
AddReg = ati2mtag_Polaris10_PX
AddReg = ati2mtag_DX11
AddReg = ati2mtag_PXService_2ID
<snip>​

Now look at a product that was marketed as 'for-laptop' (even though, as far a we know, Tonga was for desktop)...
AMD6920.1 = "AMD RADEON R9 M395X" (This is Tonga with all 2048 cores, the best pre-Polaris mobile chip)
"%AMD6920.1%" = ati2mtag_Amethyst, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_6920&REV_00
[AMD_Service_Inst_Amethyst]
AddReg = ati2mtag_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_Amethyst_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_MultiUVD_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_Mobile_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_Mobile_PX_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_Mobile_PXAA_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_ProxySettings_DX10
AddReg = ati2mtag_ProxySettings_DX10_PXAA
AddReg = ati2mtag_PXAA
AddReg = ati2mtag_Amethyst_PX
AddReg = ati2mtag_DX11
AddReg = ati2mtag_PXService_2ID
<snip>​

Compared to my R9 390's section (which we all know are Hawaii-based, to save pasting more)...
[AMD_Service_Inst_Hawaii]
AddReg = ati2mtag_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_R575_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_Hawaii_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_Desktop_SoftwareDeviceSettings
AddReg = ati2mtag_ProxySettings_DX10
AddReg = ati2mtag_ProxySettings_DX10_PXAA
AddReg = ati2mtag_Proxy
AddReg = ati2mtag_DX11
AddReg = ati2mtag_PXService_2ID
DelReg = ati2mtag_RemoveDeviceSettings
<snip>​

I can't say it's the best evidence, but if it were a Rorschach Ink Blot, that's what I'd see. :p

[hardcore-speculation mode] Also, perhaps they designed Polaris to be somewhat modular in design, allowing them to stack in more CU Modules to extend the chips performance life in laptops. My thinking on why that'd kinda make sense is that Polaris was meant to be this low power-high performance chip, and yet some-months later they managed to refine it further and roll out a new stepping that consumed less power. So, keeping in mind this was a mobile-targeting chip, could it be that they had known early on about the power draw, opted to green light it but removed (not cut) some shaders in order to keep it under that power envelope until they rectified the problem... something they managed to and have since released. As such, they have more thermal headroom now and can re-add the CU module to pack Polaris with the amount of shaders that were originally planned, then to save face are just going to call it 'Polaris 12'. It'll be the cream of the crop for 400s and then they can fill in the lower end 500's with it in cut down version, changing the 480 into perhaps a '560' then. [/speculation]

Maybe? Who knows, we probably never will, though heh
 
Well I was going to wait for GOTY edition of Fallout 4, but oh heck, I just picked up the $20 version on Amazon. Who knows, maybe I'll actually get the chance to install and play it one day.
 
Didn't Mythbusters do a show on shining a turd, only to find out that its still a turd at the end of the day?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top