[PCGH.de] Fallout 4 Benchmark

Zanovar · Nov 13, 2015

railven said:
I think it's easiest to accept our fate when we accept more than ever, we are cash pinatas.

haha,thats a bit deep

Udgnim · Nov 13, 2015

seems like FO4 is one of the few games where Hyper Threading makes a tangible difference as well as system RAM speed

http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page6.html

Head1985 · Nov 13, 2015

ShintaiDK · Nov 13, 2015

Super as always Head1985

Thats quite the difference.

Head1985 · Nov 13, 2015

yeah in scene2 3Ghz 6700k with 3Ghz ram=4.5ghz cpu with 1600mhz ram

ZGR · Nov 13, 2015

Wow! That is really good scaling. All that extra headroom means Head1985 should start downloading some mods

cmdrdredd · Nov 13, 2015

tential said:
I know that, but the xbox 360's gpu compared to PC's was quite powerful. The Xbox One/PS4 GPU compared to PCs? Weak.

Devs can't make a game graphically amazing on console. And they won't make a game on console, then take a TON of additional time to make it graphically amazing on PC. Hopefully, the next generation of consoles is powerful enough to significantly raise that minimum graphics bar level. Not sure if I can explain that better.

Look at metal gear solid 5. Game looks great on ps4 and more amazing on PC. Look at witcher 3. Game looks great on console compared to other games in the genre and on PC it's even better.

Developers can and should give PC platforms the proper treatment.

Azix · Nov 13, 2015

I am seriously thinking they may have intended this game for the PS3 and Xbox 360. Doesn't look like anything that couldn't be released on those systems. easily worst looking AAA game this gen.

and bugs. sheesh

werepossum · Nov 13, 2015

SpacemanSpiffVT said:
good thing i just bought a 970 instead of a R9 390 :thumbsup:

Does it really matter when both run the game just fine?

railven said:
I've seen it. NV money hats devs, AAA highly expected titles perform better on their hardware at times crippling performance on AMD and their own older hardware.

Trust me, with Silverforce on the job, I can't forget. I don't even have to read the thread if it's a certain poster and game benchmarks, it's already a given.

Give Nvidia some credit, they devote a lot of resources to writing drivers and they are very good at it.

iiiankiii said:
AMD needs to get off their asses and get game ready drivers on launch day. This game is too big not to focus attention on it.

Having said that, GameWorks suck. Nothing comes out of GameWorks except tanking performance while offering piss poor graphic fidelity in return. Developers already have a hard enough time optimizing and fixing bugs for their games, introducing GameWorks worsen the problem with little positive return.

I agree, it's beyond ridiculous that a game moving 12 million units the first day catches AMD without drivers ready for it.

psolord · Nov 13, 2015

Allow me to post my tests as well. Usual format as always (warning for spicy wallpapers)

Fallout 4 1920x1080 Ultra GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Core i5 2500k @4.8GHz - 119 fps

Fallout 4 1920x1080 Ultra(-) 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i7-860 @4GHz - 79 fps

Fallout 4 1920X1080 High(-) 5850 @950Mhz Q9550 @4GHz - 37 fps

The benchmark session consists of some outdoors action, then the indoors Arcjet mission and then a fight with some friendly robots which I provoked to strain the system.

Ultra minus for the 7950 means low godrays. Very happy with how well the 7950 handled both indoors and outdoors sections. I thought it would blow up after all I read, but it run the game like a champ.

High minus for the 5850 means low godrays and medium textures.

Poor card if it had 2GBs would have done a lot better. Its Vram did not max out, but I know this system. It was loading like crazy at parts. It seems that the game is managing big chunks of graphics data, but with low granularity. So it loads lets say 750MBs on the vram and the rest on the system ram, plus streaming from the hdd. Or something like that.

Anyhoo, don't bite my head off, but I believe the game is solid. Both from a technical perspective and from the fun perspective. If some textures will be given more attention it will be perfect.

Also here are the 970s, FLA Calculator graphs from the benchmark session.

Phynaz · Nov 13, 2015

Head1985 said:
My own test.I tested HT scaling and Ram speed
Test system
6700k
16GB DDR4
GTX970 1500/8000
win10

I found pretty good CPU bound places.Most demanding is here you can download it other one is in diamond city.
http://uloz.to/xxfqHqjH/save9-d4c40935-4865616461-commonwealth-010715-20151113170618-19-2-fos

1920x1080 everything at max even godrays.

HT scaling
CPU 3Ghz 1600Mhz cl9 Ram
HT OFF
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_1r3pyi.png
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_1z4p7s.png
HT ON
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_10to7j.png
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_1syo87.png
Ram speed test with HT ON
CPU 3Ghz 1600Mhz DDR4 CL9
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_10to7j.png
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_1syo87.png
CPU 3Ghz 3000Mhz DDR4 CL14
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_1ebpyy.png
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_1g0owj.png
CPU 4.5Ghz 1600Mhz DDR4 CL9
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_1zep69.png
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_12lp9e.png
CPU 4.5Ghz 3000Mhz DDR4 CL14
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_14gpfg.png
http://abload.de/img/fallout4_2015_11_13_1ajp7m.png

Thanks, I didn't know you could change the color of the hud. I need to turn down the bright geen.

Azix · Nov 13, 2015

werepossum said:
I agree, it's beyond ridiculous that a game moving 12 million units the first day catches AMD without drivers ready for it.

You find it ridiculous only because you are trained to think drivers need to be released every launch. yet there is no glaring advantage to doing so besides maybe trying to fight gameworks.

I am not making any performance conclusions from the game because its simply graphical manure. Its rubbish in looks. All that is warranted here is saying whether or not performance from a card is good enough, and for AMD that is the case.

Dkcode · Nov 13, 2015

Face2Face said:
I'm eagerly awaiting some type of High res texture pack from the modding community or Bethesda themselves... Textures in this game are decent on some things but really bad on others. Regardless, I'm still enjoying the game.

This looks good:

Then you see this:

If you just come round from a coma after playing Half Life 2 back in 2004 you would be like well I haven't missed much in 11 years...

boozzer · Nov 13, 2015

Dkcode said:
If you just come round from a coma after playing Half Life 2 back in 2004 you would be like well I haven't missed much in 11 years...

it's a bethesda game. at this point, they can release a total turd and it will still sell. just look at how well yearly cod games sell should give you an idea of what I am talking about

SPBHM · Nov 13, 2015

psolord said:
High minus for the 5850 means low godrays and medium textures.

Poor card if it had 2GBs would have done a lot better. Its Vram did not max out, but I know this system. It was loading like crazy at parts. It seems that the game is managing big chunks of graphics data, but with low granularity. So it loads lets say 750MBs on the vram and the rest on the system ram, plus streaming from the hdd. Or something like that.

yes the game seems broken with 1GB, I also played it with a 5850 and the load times are quite terrible, I had lot's of moments when the picture froze for over a second, it doesn't load textures properly most of the time and all, the GPU itself seems to be fine, apart from heavier indoor areas from what I noticed.

I also noticed the memory load rarely goes near 1GB, at many times it's under 600MB and when it's loading an area it kind of gets near 1GB on the load screen and then goes back to around 600-700MB when the game starts, it's really weird,

in any case, this is by far the worst experience caused by limited vram that I've found from any game so far, including things like Witcher 3 and Project Cars, but I haven't tried all that many recent games to be honest... I think one of those rare 5800s with 2GB would be running this pretty OK.
with 1GB, I'm thinking it's better to skip this game or upgrade the VGA, it seems like a 260x or 750 with 2GB runs the game pretty well, 1GB is unplayable once you hit the heavier areas.

whatever they are doing with the 1GB cards it seems pretty poor optimization when a lot of the vram is not being used and it's performing this way.

Azix · Nov 13, 2015

Maybe I am a bit too harsh. Some high res textures would go a really long way in making the game look better. They have some decent effects in there but the polygons and textures are horrible.

jpiniero · Nov 13, 2015

Azix said:
Maybe I am a bit too harsh. Some high res textures would go a really long way in making the game look better. They have some decent effects in there but the polygons and textures are horrible.

I think part of it is because the game originally was going to be also available on the PS3/360 and part of it is to minimize the loading times since the consoles have a HDD. Probally won't take much from the modders to really need gobs of ram and a high memory video card to avoid the hitches.

Annisman* · Nov 13, 2015

I'm sure it's been brought up, but why bother benchmarking a game that you can't play above 60fps ?

MrPickins · Nov 13, 2015

psolord said:
Allow me to post my tests as well. Usual format as always (warning for spicy wallpapers)

Fallout 4 1920x1080 Ultra GTX 970 @1.5Ghz Core i5 2500k @4.8GHz - 119 fps

Fallout 4 1920x1080 Ultra(-) 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i7-860 @4GHz - 79 fps

Fallout 4 1920X1080 High(-) 5850 @950Mhz Q9550 @4GHz - 37 fps

/snip

Thanks for the benchmarks. I had been wondering how my 7950 would handle the game. :thumbsup:

littleg · Nov 13, 2015

SPBHM said:
yes the game seems broken with 1GB, I also played it with a 5850 and the load times are quite terrible, I had lot's of moments when the picture froze for over a second, it doesn't load textures properly most of the time and all, the GPU itself seems to be fine, apart from heavier indoor areas from what I noticed.

I also noticed the memory load rarely goes near 1GB, at many times it's under 600MB and when it's loading an area it kind of gets near 1GB on the load screen and then goes back to around 600-700MB when the game starts, it's really weird,

in any case, this is by far the worst experience caused by limited vram that I've found from any game so far, including things like Witcher 3 and Project Cars, but I haven't tried all that many recent games to be honest... I think one of those rare 5800s with 2GB would be running this pretty OK.
with 1GB, I'm thinking it's better to skip this game or upgrade the VGA, it seems like a 260x or 750 with 2GB runs the game pretty well, 1GB is unplayable once you hit the heavier areas.

whatever they are doing with the 1GB cards it seems pretty poor optimization when a lot of the vram is not being used and it's performing this way.

I don't think you can reasonably expect to play a AAA 2015 title with 1GB VRAM. The technology has moved on beyond even 2GB at this point so a 1GB is a relic. It's like complaining that modern software runs slow on your Athlon 3800 with 1GB RAM.

3DVagabond · Nov 14, 2015

littleg said:
As I remember TW3 added sliders after the benchmarks were in.

'Whoops, 64x tesselation isn't a good idea, who'da thunk it? Everyone done testing [redacted]? Ok, you can turn it down now.'

They did it to match the capability that AMD cards have with the tessellation adjustment. What happened was with AMD you could turn down tessellation, not notice any loss in IQ, and outperform nVidia cards with hairworks on. They couldn't have that.

Jaydip · Nov 14, 2015

Someone earlier said how this game is not selling well, here you go

http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/116427-fallout-4-sells-12-million-copies.html

stahlhart · Nov 14, 2015

5150Joker said:
Did I say anyone? I said specifically that there are AMD shills that have done it. Then there's a good chunk of AMD customers that have bought the b.s. those shills have fed them. Don't like God Rays? Set it to low and problem solved. I know I know, that would be too easy. I'd go into more detail but this forum isn't conducive to those kinds of discussions as the moderators here are extremely picky about that sorta thing so I'll stop here.

You've made your point. Now shut the hell up, and GET OUT OF THIS THREAD, NOW.
-- stahlhart

PhonakV30 · Nov 14, 2015

Is it Possible to run on HD5770 and Athlon X2 7850 at lowest setting?

Edit: Resolution = 1440*900 , 6 GB ram , Cpu runs at 3GHz.

psolord · Nov 14, 2015

MrPickins said:
Thanks for the benchmarks. I had been wondering how my 7950 would handle the game. :thumbsup:

Heh, no problem mate.

I believe the 7950 will be handling games in the future in far more convincing manner than the old 5850 today does. That's due to its 3GBs video ram and fair bandwidth.

littleg said:
I don't think you can reasonably expect to play a AAA 2015 title with 1GB VRAM. The technology has moved on beyond even 2GB at this point so a 1GB is a relic. It's like complaining that modern software runs slow on your Athlon 3800 with 1GB RAM.

We are not complaining my friend. We just did some observations.

For me, if you are a true hardware lover, you don't snob old hardware. You just appreciate what it gives you, no matter how little that is.

behrouz said:
Is it Possible to run on HD5770 and Athlon X2 7850 at lowest setting?

Edit: Resolution = 1440*900 , 6 GB ram , Cpu runs at 3GHz.

It will be a difficult task for sure.

My lowest of the systems above has a 5850@950Mhz and a Q9550@4Ghz.

The game was barely playable at high settings with medium textures (lowest available setting) and low godrays.

I decided to go for these settings for the benchmark, because even going lower than that, did not gain much performance, not to mention it made the game downright ugly.

Now remember that the 5850 is already around 50% faster than the 5770 and I am using an additional 25% overclock on both core and vram.

Even going to 900p instead of 1080p that I tested, wouldn't help much I guess.

To top it off, your cpu would not help either.

This what my Q9550's cpu usage looked like for 37fps average, during my benchmark session. It was a very stuttery 37fps too. FLA Calculator, errmm calculated that I was experiencing 25fps real performance and this is exactly what it felt like.

You can see that it goes above 50% on average and the Q9550@4Ghz has around 4/2 cores+50% clock=300% more processing power than your Athlon X2.

The whole thing does not paint a pretty picture. :S

I would throw an X4 in there and 750Ti 4GB to go for a quick and cheap upgrade. 200$ cheap.

[PCGH.de] Fallout 4 Benchmark

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Lifer

Golden Member

Platinum Member

Lifer

Golden Member

Elite Member

Platinum Member

Lifer

Golden Member

Senior member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Lifer

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Super Moderator Graphics Cards

Senior member

Platinum Member