[PCGH.de] Fallout 4 Benchmark

[tential]

I wonder how much of the general PC gaming population even knows about all this crap we talk about. I assume most people just buy it, install it, set automatic settings and that's it right?

Its really sad what 'enthusiasts' have to go through with PC gaming. Seems like every release runs like crap for one camp or the other (or both), looks like a console port, does't worth with SLI/CF, has other issues etc... The more you spend on your computer the worse value you get (always the case, but seriously obvious when games still look like there are from 2012.)

I feel like if EVERYONE was aware of and read threads like this, PC gaming would be over in a month. This is total BS. And as the closer consoles get to PC's the worse they are becoming as well (updates, frame rate issues etc.)

There have been jokes nonstop for months on more general pc gaming forums like reddit about how this game looks poor.
But it is a Bethesda game as stated by the poster above you. I just was hoping for better fidelity but I guess pc gaming graphics don't move forward much anymore.

I'll take a look at the game in 6 months though. Launch day graphics benches don't mean much to me I don't know why I'm looking. I'll always wait for a couple of patches and most dlcs before purchasing a game anyway. In this case and gta 5 waiting for mods.

 

[Leyawiin]

They'll clean it up in time. If you guys remember the developers made a mistake compiling Skyrim and it wasn't discovered for months after release. When it was patched performance on all cards shot up like 20%. Basically, that game runs totally differently after the final patch (and driver optimizations by both NV and AMD) vs. release day. That's not excusing Bethesda's slipshod approach to releasing a game, its just a reminder.

 

[ShintaiDK]

377000 online in steam playing it now and it keep going up. Reviews shows people love the game.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

377000 online in steam playing it now and it keep going up.

So jealous. Can't wait to play, its killing me.

 

[boozzer]

Hmm, I didn't really get into any of the other Fallouts, pity it is GW.

try it out when the goty editions go on sale. it is what I did. to be honest, fallout 4 is barely better looking than 8 years old fallout 3. that says alot.

@amenx please learn what the word sheep means in that context before you use it.

 

[3DVagabond]

On an unrelated note, I think x/10 rating systems should be retired. Something I know not all people agree with but too many rely on the opinions of others for justification of their decisions. You should be the one making your decisions based on your interpretations.

I think they should do something where they rate Graphics, overall quality, game play, replay ability separately with a weighting towards which is most important. Something like Jonny Guru does for PSU ratings.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think they should do something where they rate Graphics, overall quality, game play, replay ability separately with a weighting towards which is most important. Something like Jonny Guru does for PSU ratings.

I like the reviews where the bottom line is "should you play this?" Yes or no and why you should or shouldn't and a quick list of pros and cons. That's all we need. Really there are too many games with inflated scores and some good games that people dismiss because they think a 75/100 is a bad score. If the game is good tell us why and recommend we play it, if not then let us know why.

Kind of how High Def Digest does Blu-Ray reviews. They say skip it, recommended, worth a look, rent it, must own etc and they have a bar that tells you what they think of the movie itself, the audio, the video, the extra features and rate those out of 5. So you can see at a glance how it looks, sounds, whether it's a good film and whether they recommend buying the disk for your collection. That could also work for games.

 

[slag]

Its the grid layout. Higher number, more cells loaded into memory.

5 vs 13 for example.
http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-co...-001-ugrids-13-fully-tweaked-vs-ugrids-5.html

5 is default.

Video memory or computer memory? Still no benefit to AMD cards with 8 GB of memory vs the Nvidia 4 GB?

 

[frozentundra123456]

I wonder how much of the general PC gaming population even knows about all this crap we talk about. I assume most people just buy it, install it, set automatic settings and that's it right?

Its really sad what 'enthusiasts' have to go through with PC gaming. Seems like every release runs like crap for one camp or the other (or both), looks like a console port, does't worth with SLI/CF, has other issues etc... The more you spend on your computer the worse value you get (always the case, but seriously obvious when games still look like there are from 2012.)

I feel like if EVERYONE was aware of and read threads like this, PC gaming would be over in a month. This is total BS. And as the closer consoles get to PC's the worse they are becoming as well (updates, frame rate issues etc.)

Really, cant we just enjoy the game, setting it at whatever IQ our rigs will run, and not get caught up in AMD vs nVidia, gameworks is a plague, etc. Just enjoy the damn game!!

 

[gamervivek]

has a 5 point something user review score at metacritic, hopefully the mods make it more palatable.

 

[dogen1]

Video memory or computer memory? Still no benefit to AMD cards with 8 GB of memory vs the Nvidia 4 GB?

Both, I'd expect.

 

[Udgnim]

Video memory or computer memory? Still no benefit to AMD cards with 8 GB of memory vs the Nvidia 4 GB?

might be a difference in Black Ops 3 although that has more to do with lazy & poor porting

potential difference once FO4 mods get released

 

[escrow4]

Posted in the PC gaming thread, but on my 780 Ti @ 1215MHz and 5930K @ 3.7GHz I have a smooth 60FPS locked with the High profile, textures at Ultra and god rays at low. 1200p and sliders are 50%. FXAA (the game suggested TXAA). I'll adjust the sliders higher, that has too much pop in but its sufficient FPS wise. It looks like this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37823989&postcount=782



I wouldn't say its CPU heavy, more like CPU core heavy. As expected, consoles need to be threaded to avoid stutters (which is still happening heh ).

 

[Kuiva maa]

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.

I totally disagree here. I find DA:I gameplay outstanding. Its melee combat especially is nearly excellent and its audiovisuals are key here. The sense of slowly gathering pace and beating the inertia when whirling in conjuction with the feeling of steel thrashing on armor is second to none. I bound action buttons to my mouse and the experience is the most enjoyable I have had in a party RPG since late nineties.

Stats wise, there are just about enough attributes to toy without making the game a mess.

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Attributes_%28Inquisition%29

When it comes to beth games, Fallout ones in particular were traditionally lacking sorely in my book. I did play FO3 a lot back in the day, but I could only press myself last year to put 37 hours in NV (which otherwise it has better story than all TES and FO games post 2002 since it was made by Obsidian and not in house) because of the crappy engine for 2014 when I played it . Poor shooting mechanics in particular, in a game that did its combat through shooting speaks volumes, VATS was just a workaround mechanic for this shortcoming. At least FO4 is greatly improved here, there is no need for VATS really from what I have experienced until now. As a friend likes to quote "Bethesda games are vast as an ocean but the ocean is only 2 inches deep" . Lots of things to do, just no depth whatsoever, NV being the obvious exception here.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Does this game have a built-in benchmark or perhaps, some scripted demo sequence?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Explains why fx8350 is tied with i5-4670k:

Radeons are just bad at this game, kepler doesn't shine either:

Gamegpu test

The cpu results look like they are from 2 different games. FX looks good here while it gets destroyed in the PC Lab benchmarks. Game.gpu really needs to update their cpus though, or at least overclock 4770k to 4790k speeds. I know results can vary based on the part of the game used for testing, but this is a very unusual discrepancy between two tests.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Maybe next year I can buy F4 will all the DLC, bug fixes, and 4K texture pack for $30. I just started my first playthrough of New Vegas today in honor of this release. No problems locked at 60fps.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Have to be honest, Fallout looks fantastic @ 1440p with all settings maxed out. From all the reviews and people talking like F4 graphics are appalling, I expected visuals to be pretty bad.

That is not the case, the game looks and feels great. Not sure if these people have yet to play the game or have unrealistically high expectations but I will say people had me fooled. Though I shouldn't have been.

Just a heads up to anyone who may be thinking of getting the game, if you are hesitant because of what you have heard about 'graphics' I can safely say that alot of it is hoopla.

Just make sure you limit your FPS to 80, the game breaks when at high FPS. You cannot exit from terminals and become stuck :hmm:

 

[lyssword]

Game looks pretty decent on ultra/taa and low godrays.

 

[kaesden]

try it out when the goty editions go on sale. it is what I did. to be honest, fallout 4 is barely better looking than 8 years old fallout 3. that says alot.

@amenx please learn what the word sheep means in that context before you use it.

fallout 4 looks way better than fallout 3, but not entirely for technical reasons. Mostly because of how they used a far broader color palette than 3 or NV. It just makes the world look more alive. Alive and dead at the same time. But yeah, compared to some other recent games, it doesn't look amazing or anything. Definately better than fallout 3, but its not ground breaking by any means.

 

[MBrown]

I tried forcing SLI @ 1440p but it would just crash. 1080p with the high preset runs quite well at 78fps (I put a frame limit on) except for when I get to some areas where I am fighting a bunch of ghouls and the frame rate will drop into the 50s and 40s. It is incredibly frustrating to be wondering around the world very smoothly and then when some enemies pop up the frame rate drops. Is this a CPU issue at this point? Memory Speed?

 

[Red Hawk]

fallout 4 looks way better than fallout 3, but not entirely for technical reasons. Mostly because of how they used a far broader color palette than 3 or NV. It just makes the world look more alive. Alive and dead at the same time. But yeah, compared to some other recent games, it doesn't look amazing or anything. Definately better than fallout 3, but its not ground breaking by any means.

That may be a more technical improvement than you realize. Fallout 4 uses a physically based lighting model, unlike Fallout 3. The new lighting model may have been what allowed them to have a broader, more vibrant color palette than FO3.

 

[Erenhardt]

The cpu results look like they are from 2 different games. FX looks good here while it gets destroyed in the PC Lab benchmarks. Game.gpu really needs to update their cpus though, or at least overclock 4770k to 4790k speeds. I know results can vary based on the part of the game used for testing, but this is a very unusual discrepancy between two tests.

It would help if pclab installs the game before fabbing their charts...
Not the first time their results are very much different than anyone else.

Also, I wonder if there is something offloaded to CPU with radeon GPU systems, which is otherwise accelerated on nv gpu... a'la 600Hz physics calculation.

 

[wolf_squad]

It would help if pclab installs the game before fabbing their charts...
Not the first time their results are very much different than anyone else.

Also, I wonder if there is something offloaded to CPU with radeon GPU systems, which is otherwise accelerated on nv gpu... a'la 600Hz physics calculation.

I think Creation engine still uses Havok for physics, not physx.

my 2c, I'm playing with 30-50 fps on an i7 920/hd 7850. 1080p, FXAA, high textures, low godrays, rest medium.

honestly, for a gameworks title, I expected faaaaaaaar worse, but it's very much playable.

 

[frozentundra123456]

It would help if pclab installs the game before fabbing their charts...
Not the first time their results are very much different than anyone else.

Also, I wonder if there is something offloaded to CPU with radeon GPU systems, which is otherwise accelerated on nv gpu... a'la 600Hz physics calculation.

Of course any data which show AMD in a bad light must be made up, right?

Actually this test shows data much more similar to pclab than game.gpu:

gamer's nexus cpu bench