• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Fallout 4 Benchmarks

I don't understand how Bethesda makes games and why they are so popular.

FO4's animations (skeletal and facial) look like what they had in Skyrim, Fallout 3 and even Oblivion back in 2006. And that game wasn't exactly revolutionary on animation.

B's games tend to look nice in screenshots, especially with mods, but once you're in you see NPCs float like it's 2005 again, with absolutely no facial expressions and physical animations on par with 2$ iPad games.

But Bethesda ain't no small shop. They've sold games. Oblivion moved twice as many copies as the first two Witcher games combined. Yet CD Project RED delivered The Witcher 3, which not only looks better, but also has better writing and plotting.

What the hell goes on in Maryland? Skyrim sold 20m fucking copies and they still can't be bothered to at least license a better engine, not to speak of actually developing one.
 
Had to disable vsync and set a fps cap in the driver to get the 48fps cap removed at 1440p. Now my fps are around 60-90 at 1440p with the tessellation cap still in place. Going to try freesync next to see if it works at all with this game.
 
babadook said:
I don't understand how Bethesda makes games and why they are so popular.
Click to expand...

I didn't either until I actually played one. Then it made more sense. Try it sometime.
 
Last edited:
Oh the usual toxic posters earlier in the thread already chimed in, what a surprise.

Funny how many users say god rays look softer and better in game on lower settings. This is also the only difference I could see in two of the many ultra vs low godray screenies on nvidias site.

I work with light on a daily basis and soft edged god rays do look more realistic to me also. A small point source is the only way to get harder edges, e.g. laser or very small led chip with good optics. The sun is much larger than either of those, thus soft rays are typical...

So now it seems the same old 'turn tesselation down' and lower godrays does the trick.
But the PR damage is done. Now AMD gpus suck again, drivers suck, mostly because of this issue.

This is also why I never buy or play Bethesda titles within the first month or two.. let the crap be ironed out and the correct settings and drivers be tweaked as needed.

The fact you need a hack to enable SLI or CFX speaks volumes. Nvidia should have at least got that going from the get go, given they had a closer relationship. In many ways, both Nvidia and AMD dropped the ball on this one, but you'll only hear how AMD sucks. Nvidia has a free pass on driver issues.
 
i've been to that same area. there's no cpu bottleneck, it's something else that i've never heard or read any explanation of. it happens in borderlands as well; low fps, low gpu usage, and low cpu usage. you can look at my screenshot i posted earlier and see how every core is below 70% usage (i was streaming so it was more like 20 or 30 percent) while my gpu also had low usage and my framerate was 28.
 
I don't get this game.

Walk into tiny bowling alley, GPU gets absolutely fucking shit on. Instant 99% GPU usage and FPS starts dipping. Outside with kilometer of open expanse? Meh, 60~ GPU usage and pegged at the 60 fps cap I set.

Some indoor areas are just crazy heavy on performance and I literally cannot see why.
 
N4CR said:
In many ways, both Nvidia and AMD dropped the ball on this one, but you'll only hear how AMD sucks. Nvidia has a free pass on driver issues.
Click to expand...

Not true. There's plenty of complaining about lack of day-one SLI support.
 
socK said:
I don't get this game.

Walk into tiny bowling alley, GPU gets absolutely fucking shit on. Instant 99% GPU usage and FPS starts dipping. Outside with kilometer of open expanse? Meh, 60~ GPU usage and pegged at the 60 fps cap I set.

Some indoor areas are just crazy heavy on performance and I literally cannot see why.
Click to expand...
I think I hit 20fps in some areas of Lexington, especially on-top of the big factory. Unbelievable.
Standing at tall heights and looking out over a city is what kills fps the most. It's not as bad when you're on the ground.

I have yet to actually go to the main Boston city area, though.
 
limitedaccess said:
If we look at PCgamehardware.de numbers for Dragon Age inquisition and Fallout 4 at 1080p using a common AMD measuring point the R9 290 Tri-X -

FO4: 62 fps
DAI: 49 fps

And DAI was an AMD partnered game using Mantle whereas FO4 is I guess what you might consider a Nvidia partnered game.

It also had it's fair share of issues (Frostbite games in general are not problem free either. Battlefront still has bugs in that were there in BF3) - http://kotaku.com/months-later-dragon-ages-pc-version-is-still-disappoin-1681031116
Click to expand...

DA:I is also a much better looking game...
 
Sycraft said:
Tricks are actually rather necessary and are what one also might call good optimization. We can't do photo realistic rendering in realtime on current systems. We can't do a full radiosity calculation for everything, etc, etc. So what developers need to do is figure out ways to make things look good, while staying in the constraints of the hardware people have.

Most of the games really famous for their visuals were that way. Doom is a great example. Nobody thought you could do any kind of realtime 3D back then and really, you couldn't. However iD figured out ways to fake it. They used a ton of clever tricks to make that game happen on what is some extremely limited hardware when you look back.

What impresses isn't the most technically correct implementation of things, but the one that gives the best experience to the end user. I use DAI as an example because the visuals in that game were good enough to make me go "wow" on multiple occasions.

The engine influences what tricks/optimizations are available as well. A really good engine is capable of doing a lot of things to help designers and artists make the most of what they have.
Click to expand...

"Tricks" may not be the best term. But the optimizations being discussed here are higher level design optimizations. Like I said it certainly is a valid approach, although not necessarily without drawbacks, but it should be considered somewhat separately from whether or not the engine itself is better optimized. If DAI is faster because they chose not to use real time lighting but still made a good looking game that should be a credit to the design and artists, it doesn't mean that that the engine it uses would be "better" for another developer with different design requirements.

I'll go back to comparing Battlefront and BF4, since I'm more familiar with those two, as a lot of was said that Battlefront performed better. But how much of it was actually because of engine optimizations versus that they cut down design goals in terms of things like environment size, interactions (destruction), player count, and on screen effects?

Also at the end I think you touch on the more important issue. I feel that whatever engine is chosen should mostly be considered from the development end and not the user end. If Bethesda is more familiar with what they have and that is more suited to make the type of game they want it is a much more important factor than what the end user might feel is more advanced. This is basically not considered from the user end.

ReaderX said:
DA:I is also a much better looking game...
Click to expand...

I was replying purely in regards to how fast they ran in comparison and whether or not the game had issued. I haven't played DAI personally so I won't comment deeply regarding that.

However I will still state I think there is an underestimation of the how demanding the game is based upon how people tend to use a rather "static" comparison of visuals. For example in FO4 in the garage you can encounter rather early even something in the background like some tires piled on each other are actual individual objects which the player can interact with (such as knocking them over if you run into it). In many other games which "look better" background items like this will simply be some static single mesh. Now you can argue I guess that this type of detail is frivolous (especially true when comparing screenshots) but designing this way is certainly more performance challenging.
 
I never played fallout /2/3 or 4 .. but I do play some games that Nvidia has had there dirty hands in for awhile and in do time AMD will fix it..

I play WoT and AW WHICH has never look at that great on Nvidia (770GTX) hardware for me but the 290x is jaw dropping in the Nvidia game.
 
fanboy said:
I never played fallout /2/3 or 4 .. but I do play some games that Nvidia has had there dirty hands in for awhile and in do time AMD will fix it..

I play WoT and AW WHICH has never look at that great on Nvidia (770GTX) hardware for me but the 290x is jaw dropping in the Nvidia game.
Click to expand...

There is no difference in image quality between the brands at the same settings. If you are talking about having enough horsepower to enable extra settings then my GTX 670 can effectively max out WoT at 1080/60, so you shouldn't notice any difference with a 290x unless we're talking about higher resolutions or 120/144 fps.
 
Seems that AMD users have a way to get Crossfire working in Fallout 4. Hope this helps someone. ;)
https://www.reddit.com/r/fo4/comments/3t5b5o/got_crossfire_working_with_15111_beta_driver/

Of course this requires the new driver that has support for Fallout 4.
AMD Catalyst™ 15.11.1 Beta Driver

Highlights of AMD Catalyst™ 15.11.1 Beta Windows Driver
Performance Optimizations
Includes quality and performance optimizations for the following titles:

Star Wars™: Battlefront
Fallout 4
Assassin's Creed® Syndicate
Call of Duty® : Black Ops III
 
cageymaru said:
Seems that AMD users have a way to get Crossfire working in Fallout 4. Hope this helps someone. ;)
https://www.reddit.com/r/fo4/comments/3t5b5o/got_crossfire_working_with_15111_beta_driver/

Of course this requires the new driver that has support for Fallout 4.
AMD Catalyst™ 15.11.1 Beta Driver

Highlights of AMD Catalyst™ 15.11.1 Beta Windows Driver
Performance Optimizations
Includes quality and performance optimizations for the following titles:

Star Wars™: Battlefront
Fallout 4
Assassin's Creed® Syndicate
Call of Duty® : Black Ops III
Click to expand...

several days late, they should have had a fallout 4 driver on day one. I mean everyone knew it was being released.

as far as fallout4 performance goes, it's crap. There is no excuse for the poor performance. It's not like it had super great graphics, several games have better graphics and still perform better. The amount of effort they put into the game seems to be minimal. It really stands out if you compare this to Dragon Age: Inquisition or The Witcher 3. Credit to bethesda though their franchise sells well despite these short comings, and is still a fun game.
 
It is a fun game. It's well worth a go and runs very well on my 5960x. That's even when you take into consideration how the game looks.

I have also read it is one game that makes use of high speed ram.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top