nVidia doesnt dictate anything. They are not responsible for your hardware buying decisions.
Lately I've been trying to run most games on 1 card because of the microstutter I see with SLI most of the time now. I don't think SLI even works in this game anyways. Even with a single 1600mhz 980ti I get plenty of 30-35fps windows when there are a lot of those light shafts coming down and heavy outdoor shadowing.
I would turn the light ray setting down if your performance is bad. It's a performance suck and I can't see any visual difference, no idea what is wrong with that setting It's probably in there to give the game the appearance of being cutting edge and to sell more hardware in what is a 60fps locked @1440p with a gtx 970 level of visual quality game. The graphics are quite poor for the most part, at least the game is really good.
Tech wise the only thing they got right in this game is multicore support. The past games on this engine like FO3 and Skyrim were terrible with CPU and memory utilization.
So, this is my first post. I decided to post to help those of you with SLI. As it turns out, Fallout 4 doesn't use SLI as of today (launch Date). I have 2 X GTX780 in SLI. I have noticed that when running the game, the second GPU utilization is always 0%. SO, this is what I did to force the game to use SLI (both GPUs are at 100%).
Launch Nvidia Control Panel--> Manage 3D Settings --> Program Settings --> Select Fallout 4 (Fallout4.exe)-->change SLI Rendering Mode to: Force Alternate Frame Rendering 2. it will warn you against changing this setting, just hit okey and save.
Now, Before this modification my average FPS was 30-40. After the modification, my FPS is always at 60 fps. I'm running at 2560 X 1440 with every thing on ULTRA ,FXAA, 16X filtering, except God Ray on Medium. everything else on ULTRA. My FPS never dips below 60.
I have played through the first 20 minutes of the game and I didn't notice any graphical abnormalities.
Hope this helps some of You. and enjoy this wonderful game
You're clearly not a true 980Ti owner.Lately I've been trying to run most games on 1 card because of the microstutter I see with SLI most of the time now. I don't think SLI even works in this game anyways. Even with a single 1600mhz 980ti I get plenty of 30-35fps windows when there are a lot of those light shafts coming down and heavy outdoor shadowing.
I would turn the light ray setting down if your performance is bad. It's a performance suck and I can't see any visual difference, no idea what is wrong with that setting It's probably in there to give the game the appearance of being cutting edge and to sell more hardware in what is a 60fps locked @1440p with a gtx 970 level of visual quality game. The graphics are quite poor for the most part, at least the game is really good.
Tech wise the only thing they got right in this game is multicore support. The past games on this engine like FO3 and Skyrim were terrible with CPU and memory utilization.
290K now.
Yes, of course. What do you want to know?
If Crytek or DICE made a game with this level of graphics in 2015, it would be running at 100 fps on a single HD7970Ghz at 1080P. In some areas the game looks worse than Crysis 1, a 2007 game. That's not even an exaggeration. If this were actually a great looking game made by Bethesda, it might have required GPU hardware from 2020 to run well given how the company is completely incapable of making a well-optimized game/port. They should have spent another 12-18 months redoing the entire engine and focusing on the game itself, instead of adding GW features to what is an outdated and unoptimized game engine.
I usually agree with alot of your posts, however, you are really comparing apples and oranges here. Bethesda makes large, open-world games with hundreds of thousands lines of dialogue, fully fleshed out systems of loot and character customization, hundreds of NPCs, hundreds of non-procedurally generated locations, etc.
Comparing the games that Bethesda makes (Full RPG experience tailored for singleplayers) to games made by Crytek and DICE (primarily multiplayer FPS) is a stretch at best.
Crytek and DICE have not even made a game with loot as an incentive. Nor an open-world game. One could make the argument the gameplay and world design DICE/Crytek games are much more straight forward. Pretty the graphics up, design individual maps, and give the player the option to shoot different things/people/drive a vehicle/drop ammo/items on the ground.
PvE is a huge component in Bethesda games, PvP is the primary focus in DICE/Crytek games. And lets be honest, the campaigns in Crytek/DICE games are typically supplemental and most often, throwaway.
I see what you are trying to say, that Crytek and DICE use exceptionally well-designed engines in their releases which is true. But that doesn't change the fact that neither has any experience making open-world RPGs.
Sadly, this excuse died the moment The Witcher 3 came out. It also sports an open world, way superior RPG experience, deeper dialogue and quest system, a huge city with hundreds of NPCs in the vicinity of the player at any given moment and all that while having superior graphics and performance at any given scenario and hardware combo. Beth engine is derelict, it belongs to history books,not AAA gaming.
The quote was in reply to RS's comparison of Bethesda to DICE/Crytek, not CD Projekt RED.
Anyways, I thought the Witcher 3 was a bit over-hyped. Put about 85 hours into that particular title, 70 on the Witcher 2 and played through the first.
My comment was not meant to defend the Creation Engine, not sure why you thought that.
Sometimes I think people forget that one particular game is not directly comparable to another, especially if the two titles do not even share core elements. Strategy vs FPS, FPS vs RPG, RPG vs Space Sim even.
cpu benchmark.For haswell/skylake its GPU bottleneck.Sandy on other hand struggle.6600k is 23% faster at 3.5-3.9Ghz than 4.5Ghz 2500k(Around 40% if its not GPU bottleneck)
I don't disagree with your point about comparing different games. I just brought TW3 in the discussion because people often defend Beth games on the premise they are open world. This would be valid 8 years ago,not today. I agree that Battlefront is not directly comparable to FO4, but Dragon Age Inquisition is using the same engine with BF, it is pure team based RPG and while it is not pure open world, it has maps so vast , that are enough to make a case for Frostbite as a state of the art tool to create open world games. I have been playing DA:I these days, did not finish it before The Witcher 3 came out. It is so easy to get immersed in that game, the animations are impeccable and amazingly well thought (eg when walking parallel on slopes, your character will slightly bend towards the inside and put his arm on the rock ,balancing like a real person would). Quality reflections, high res textures everywhere, truly advanced light system, particles, superb modeling etc etc. I bought FO4 last night, put a couple of hours into it because I enjoyed previous beth games. Right now I find it hard to concentrate because the primitive nature of its visuals are a constant distraction.
As expected its extremely CPU heavy.
As expected its extremely CPU heavy.
I don't disagree with your point about comparing different games. I just brought TW3 in the discussion because people often defend Beth games on the premise they are open world. This would be valid 8 years ago,not today. I agree that Battlefront is not directly comparable to FO4, but Dragon Age Inquisition is using the same engine with BF, it is pure team based RPG and while it is not pure open world, it has maps so vast , that are enough to make a case for Frostbite as a state of the art tool to create open world games. I have been playing DA:I these days, did not finish it before The Witcher 3 came out. It is so easy to get immersed in that game, the animations are impeccable and amazingly well thought (eg when walking parallel on slopes, your character will slightly bend towards the inside and put his arm on the rock ,balancing like a real person would). Quality reflections, high res textures everywhere, truly advanced light system, particles, superb modeling etc etc. I bought FO4 last night, put a couple of hours into it because I enjoyed previous beth games. Right now I find it hard to concentrate because the primitive nature of its visuals are a constant distraction.
game gpu tests sucks.they testing in wrong areas for CPU benchmarksExplains why fx8350 is tied with i5-4670k:
that is bad, but turn on VSynch and the problem goes away. you don't see those extra frames anyway.
game gpu tests sucks.they testing in wrong areas for CPU benchmarks
Game is CPU heavy.PPL already reporting FPS drops in cities.
As long as we're in agreement the game looks poor/runs poor for the hardware I'm ok.That is fine, but the gameplay is also extremely lacking in DA:I. Weapon variants are few and otherwise meaningless other than "more damage, more buffs". For a mage, 4 staff 'looks', predetermined rolls for 3 levels of imbuement quality gets extremely monotonous from a customization standpoint. The animations are decent, I agree, its just that they are point and click in nature. As a player, you mostly just click individual buttons while your character does the work. Don't get me wrong, I really liked DA:I and Origins, but gameplay is an issue. Sank about 95 hours into DA:I.
The scale of the maps serve no other purpose other than being extremely large, for the most part.
This is where I always felt Bethesda games excelled compared to RPGs from other studios. I always took the lack of visual fidelity,smooth animations, and overall lack of polish as a compromise for meaningful gameplay and genuinely unique and interesting locations to visit (something I though the Witcher 3 lacked). Not to mention the plethora of guns and weapons to choose from, each of which have a unique look.
I guess we don't share the same sentiment on graphics vs. gameplay. If a game is 'fun', I don't really care about visual fidelity all that much. Plus, tons of texture packs will be released thanks to the always stellar Bethesda modding community.
Have to work all day today but I'm looking forward to falling down the rabbithole of Fallout tomorrow.
that is bad, but turn on VSynch and the problem goes away. you don't see those extra frames anyway.
Define "heavy".game gpu tests sucks.they testing in wrong areas for CPU benchmarks
Game is CPU heavy.PPL already reporting FPS drops in cities.
Hilarious when all their prior games ran excellent on every vendor.