[PCGH.de] Fallout 4 Benchmark

[tviceman]

It runs fine on Kepler, which everyone says has been tanking in large part due to gameworks. So using gameworks as an excuse for crap AND performance is just shifting where the blame should really be placed. More often than Nvidia, AND has crap performance out of the gate. In fact, I am convinced that damn near the only time AMD doesn't need serious driver work is when the game is a GE title.

The pattern is simply undeniable and blaming Nvidia for all of AMD's failures is looking past the problems AMD continues to have.

Edit: I also see the second set of benchmarks showing the 390x tie the 980 at 1440p. Looks spot on to me. This is just another thread where AMD fans make mountains out of ant hills and try to play the victim yet again.

 

[n0x1ous]

The PS4 version runs quite awful in CPU intense areas down to 10FPS. The Xbox One version performs slightly better.

due to slightly faster CPU than PS4 or Bethesda familiarity with Microsoft platforms?

 

[railven]

due to slightly faster CPU than PS4 or Bethesda familiarity with Microsoft platforms?

I haven't checked out any of the reviews/videos for either version, but it seems to be similar to the Witcher 3 situation?

If I Had to guess, the PS4 version probably has higher IQ and thus the slightly slower CPU could produce slow down more so than the XBone version?

Just a guess.

 

[zlatan]

I really don't understand that why they do tessellation with God Rays. There aren't any IQ advantage of it, but it will run much slower.

 

[railven]

I really don't understand that why they do tessellation with God Rays. There aren't any IQ advantage of it, but it will run much slower.

Holy Swear_word, that looks like Storrow Drive!? Ah eff it I'm buying this game.

EDIT:

I THINK I FOUND IT!!
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.354...4!1suLN2gwaJRB9jez0GbmLrIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

It runs fine on Kepler, which everyone says has been tanking in large part due to gameworks. So using gameworks as an excuse for crap AND performance is just shifting where the blame should really be placed. More often than Nvidia, AND has crap performance out of the gate. In fact, I am convinced that damn near the only time AMD doesn't need serious driver work is when the game is a GE title.

The pattern is simply undeniable and blaming Nvidia for all of AMD's failures is looking past the problems AMD continues to have.

Edit: I also see the second set of benchmarks showing the 390x tie the 980 at 1440p. Looks spot on to me. This is just another thread where AMD fans make mountains out of ant hills and try to play the victim yet again.

This should be post of the month. I've been saying this for awhile.

This should answer any questions about console performance:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-fallout-4-performance-analysis

 

[SPBHM]

another test which completely ignores lower end hardware with playable performance, at least Eurogamer saves the day showing the game runs well (much better than consoles) with an i3 + 750 ti with decent settings.

 

[sontin]

I really don't understand that why they do tessellation with God Rays. There aren't any IQ advantage of it, but it will run much slower.

Let me quote the article:

At its lowest level of detail, which still looks extremely impressive, the God Rays setting costs 6.5 frames per second in a graphically intensive benchmark. With the significant image quality enhancement that it applies, transforming almost every outdoor scene throughout the entire game, a mere 6.5 frames is a small sum for such a far-reaching improvement.

For greater control over the setting's detail levels, and to increase image quality even further, check out the tweaking section

So, they are using tessellation because it uses less memory, is very fast and can be customized.

 

[Head1985]

Glad that GTX 780 Ti getting a good performance.

yeah but its 1100Mhz 780TI vs 1300Mhz GTX970.

 

[Udgnim]

Let me quote the article:


So, they are using tessellation because it uses less memory, is very fast and can be customized.

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-co...-interactive-comparison-004-ultra-vs-low.html

need a better image comparison between low & ultra then because based off of the image, it's not worth a 6.5 FPS hit

 

[sontin]

Careful, GodRays are always realized by nVidia's Gameworks libary. So even on "low" is uses Tessellation. Ultra is only a better version of it.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Just tried it, runs fine on both my PCs, never going below 60.

Godrays do tank the framerate though, especially on my 770. Had to turn that setting down to medium.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

What's with the huge difference between the 760 and 770?

 

[Erenhardt]

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-co...-interactive-comparison-004-ultra-vs-low.html

need a better image comparison between low & ultra then because based off of the image, it's not worth a 6.5 FPS hit

6,5 fps @ around 20 fps is a big deal.

Also, there is 0 difference in those pictures...

 

[railven]

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-co...-interactive-comparison-004-ultra-vs-low.html

need a better image comparison between low & ultra then because based off of the image, it's not worth a 6.5 FPS hit

From the examples I just saw at GeForce, I noticed Low was blurrier, but it was barely noticeable I wasn't even going to post, then I saw this example:

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-co...-interactive-comparison-001-ultra-vs-low.html

WHere the blurry is very noticeable.

HEre was the first one where I saw the blur:
http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-co...-interactive-comparison-006-ultra-vs-low.html

EDIT: LOoking the images over, I'd have to say the blurry one looks a little more natural. AT least my eye vision would blur a little if I were looking at a light source through a grate as so.

 

[Face2Face]

As a Kepler owner, this make me very happy, but I don't think AMD owners should worry too much, as drivers should help fix the performance.

 

[thesmokingman]

As a Kepler owner, this make me very happy, but I don't think AMD owners should worry too much, as drivers should help fix the performance.

Just lower the hardly perceptible god ray level to low.

 

[tential]

Just lower the hardly perceptible god ray level to low.

I'll wait for a couple patches too. I expect my 290 will d well enough.

 

[thesmokingman]

I'll wait for a couple patches too. I expect my 290 will d well enough.

I haven't tested it myself but word is fps shot up by 40%.


Ooh, found it.

 

[Headfoot]

It runs fine on Kepler, which everyone says has been tanking in large part due to gameworks. So using gameworks as an excuse for crap AND performance is just shifting where the blame should really be placed. More often than Nvidia, AND has crap performance out of the gate. In fact, I am convinced that damn near the only time AMD doesn't need serious driver work is when the game is a GE title.

The pattern is simply undeniable and blaming Nvidia for all of AMD's failures is looking past the problems AMD continues to have.

Edit: I also see the second set of benchmarks showing the 390x tie the 980 at 1440p. Looks spot on to me. This is just another thread where AMD fans make mountains out of ant hills and try to play the victim yet again.

So poor performance on Xbox One and PS4 is due to AMD too then? Certainly not due to the way the game is coded (including black box effects). No, it's definitely AMD's fault that the dev which always launches games with bugs launched a game with bugs.

 

[5150Joker]

Isn't it getting old blaming GameWorks every time AMD does poorly in a game? Seems to be the case more and more everyday. What was it yesterday? Oh yeah Anno 2205...surely it can't be that AMD drivers are just lagging in optimization or the game needs more patches, nope no way, it MUST be that evil GW! Reviews such as the one from Ars Technica note that the game also drops below 30 fps and chugs on a PS4, is Game Works to blame for that too?

PC MASTER RACE
Though my primary playthrough took place on a PlayStation 4 (since I received that version first), I also spent a few hours putting the Windows version through its paces on an i7-4770K machine with a GeForce GTX 760. In short, I regretted not getting the PC version first. Both games stumbled on rare occasions due to glitches, but I was able to run the Windows version on a mix of "medium" and "high" settings across the board—apparently crisper than my PS4 version—and enjoy a nearly solid 60 frames-per-second refresh.
The PS4 version, on the other hand, struggled to maintain a smooth 30 FPS refresh, often chugging in sequences that didn't appear to have any particularly strenuous content. The PlayStation 4 version was playable enough, but should your PC be up to it, that's my vote. (I also preferred playing with a gamepad, mostly because the game was clearly built with gamepads in mind.)

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/...your-next-gen-expectations-at-the-vault-door/

And AMD retweeted this, I guess this guy's gonna be disappointed :

 

[Headfoot]

Its hilarious. I can't remember the last time Bethesda released a highly polished game at release. Because its never happened. Do you guys not remember having to download unofficial patches to fix pretty glaring bugs?

It's perplexing to me that anyone would expect this release to be any different. Every bethesda release is at actual final state 6 months after it comes out. I'm day 1 buying it anyways because the content of the games are always fantastic, but Im not deluding myself about the level of release day bugginess... FFS Skyrim didn't even use SSE2 cpu instructions until half a year went by after release...

Did any of you play release day New Vegas?

 

[amenx]

My big concern is quality of graphics in the game rather than performance:

From Gamersnexus performance review:

Fallout 4 is an odd game. It doesn't look at all impressive – I mean, just look at the above screenshot. You can literally count the polygons in that fencepost – it's less than 40, for sure. The fence itself is a flat barrier with zero depth. The game, objectively, is dated in its visual presentation. That doesn't make the game bad – our review actually suggests otherwise – but it does make its graphics less impressive by modern standards. We'd expect performance to be stellar given this simplified aesthetic, but Fallout's huge view distances and shadow application take a lot of that away. For anyone trying to achieve a higher framerate than represented here, we'd suggest first lowering Shadow Distance, then tabbing down a few of the view distance settings by modest amounts.

 

[Headfoot]

Reviews such as the one from Ars Technica note that the game also drops below 30 fps and chugs on a PS4, is Game Works to blame for that too?

You realize this is evidence for the exact opposite of what you're trying to say, right? You are trying to say the performance deficit is due solely to AMD lacking optimized drivers.

Well, AMD doesn't do drivers on the PS4 and Xbox One.
What is common between all 3 platforms? The code in the game.
What is not common between all three? Who maintains the lower level APIs with which the game interacts.

I'm sure driver updates will bring both sides up as time goes on, as well (and probably primarily) updates from Bethesda especially for console.

 

[Erenhardt]

nm