First Fallout 4 performance results

[ivan134]

Place your bets now, how long will it take for AMD to fix their drivers, because they should NOT be losing in a 390 vs 970 matchup.

 

Hell, you could start a drinking game out of it. Every new game release, follow these rules for AMD cards: 

 

Gameworks: 1 sip

PhysX: 1 sip

Stuttering: 4 sips

Devs complain: 2 sips

AMD complains: 3 sips

Nvidia denies allegations: 2 sips

Artifacting: 2 sips

Something happens called _____-gate: 5 sips

AMD takes over 1 month to fix: 3 sips

 

I don't want to hate on AMD, but at launch, it almost always seems like Nvidia has better drivers, sometimes even on gaming evolved titles. Although a lot of it is due to Nvidia's actions, that's no excuse to launch at a disadvantage, nearly every time. I know someone'll point out exceptions, but I remember so many launches favoring Nvidia at launch: Project Cars, GTA V, The Witcher III. AMD needs to step up their launch drivers before I'll consider them for my next card.

Not really sure if you're trolling or not. Witcher 3 and Project CARS are GameWorks games so it would be strange if Nvidia didn't have drivers on day 1. Not sure what you mean by AMD not having an excuse. Nvidia having more than 3 times as much resources as AMD is definitely an "excuse" to have better launch day performance. People don't buy AMD cards, but expect AMD to pull out money from their ass.

[christianled59]

Sauce: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Fallout-4-Spiel-18293/Specials/Test-Benchmark-vor-Release-1177284/

 

 

Looks like Gimpworks is doing its work again. GTX770 performing better than R9 290 and 970 outperforming Fury, hahaha ... no.

There aren't any AMD drivers for it yet. There is for nvidia. Nothing to do with gameworks. I'm absolutely fucking tired of this anti competitive conspiracy bullshit.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Random interjection.

 

And people thought the Console's UNIFIED memory would solve bad PC ports. (Not thinking in regards to Fallout, just in general)

It made things worse.

[CommandMan7]

Not really sure if you're trolling or not. Witcher 3 and Project CARS are GameWorks games so it would be strange if Nvidia didn't have drivers on day 1. Not sure what you mean by AMD not having an excuse. Nvidia having more than 3 times as much resources as AMD is definitely an "excuse" to have better launch day performance. People don't buy AMD cards, but expect AMD to pull out money from their ass.

 

I'm (mostly) serious, I am being a bit harsh though. Those examples are very Nvidia biased, but that's not the point. My point is that as a consumer, I'm going to buy what works the best. Although it's interesting to discuss all the fine points of why Nvidia keeps beating AMD at launch, my final concern is going to be functionality and support, provided price/performance is within an acceptable margin. AMD is at a disadvantage, but as a company, it is their duty to provide high quality, competitive, and consistent launch drivers. I'm not trying to hate on AMD, but instead point out that their poor launch support for many games (gameworks games included) is not excusable. This isn't fair, of course, but life isn't fair, and I'm not going to be basing my purchasing decisions off the concept of fairness.

[Bouzoo]

 

 

Oh boy.

[Tomsen]

I really .. REALLY ..wish game dev's stopped designing games for console first then porting to PC.

 

They need to design and create for PC, then dumb it down to console, like back in the day.

 

The majority of games coming out for PC, are ports, and the majority of them have performance and issues caused by the fact they were designed for consoles.

 

Now don't get me wrong, it looks like this game performs good, but damn, I've seen max settings for Fallout 4, and they suck compared to what they could have been done.

 

Still, this is but more proof that you should only buy a console if ur after specific exclusive games, because u can build a budget mini PC that can do what a console can do ..better ..and more.

The thing is, the console have much less computing power than a PC. You don't have to be conservative on the PC port.

Microsoft and sony are probably also pulling their weight on game studios. 

[Misanthrope]

Openworld games are always more taxing and less graphical since they have SO much going on

Witcher 3 is open world and invalidates this myth.

[ivan134]

I'm (mostly) serious, I am being a bit harsh though. Those examples are very Nvidia biased, but that's not the point. My point is that as a consumer, I'm going to buy what works the best. Although it's interesting to discuss all the fine points of why Nvidia keeps beating AMD at launch, my final concern is going to be functionality and support, provided price/performance is within an acceptable margin. AMD is at a disadvantage, but as a company, it is their duty to provide high quality, competitive, and consistent launch drivers. I'm not trying to hate on AMD, but instead point out that their poor launch support for many games (gameworks games included) is not excusable. This isn't fair, of course, but life isn't fair, and I'm not going to be basing my purchasing decisions off the concept of fairness.

Bad launch day performance is common on both sides so I'm not even sure what you're getting at there. Who the hell bases their purchase on day 1 performance? It's fine if you don't want to base your purchase on the concept of fairness, but don't go berating the person (or corporation) for not having the resources to do said thing that requires said resources.

[ShadowCaptain]

Witcher 3 is open world and invalidates this myth.

 

In general, plus I guess bethesda are not targeting having insane graphics few can run, and instead focus on a game everyone can play even on lower end systems

[Trik'Stari]

How is 30 fps+ not playable

 

 

that's how much I get on skyrim with ENB and it still plays smooth ;p

 

I just can''t believe that the 970 gets below 60 on 1080p ultra. Things are not looking good for me wanting to play it on 5760x1080

[PlayStation 2]

said to see no fury, furyX or nano

biased!11!!!!!1!1!!!111!1111!!!11!1!1!!!1

[ivan134]

Witcher 3 is open world and invalidates this myth.

There isn't actually a lot happening in the Witcher's 3 world all the time except in the towns. GTA5 is a much better comparison. I do see where you're coming from though. Even if it's not the next Crysis, it should at least be optimized and not be riddled with so many bugs. I'm not sure why people keep giving Bethesda a pass on this no matter how good their games are.

[CommandMan7]

Bad launch day performance is common on both sides so I'm not even sure what you're getting at there. Who the hell bases their purchase on day 1 performance? It's fine if you don't want to base your purchase on the concept of fairness, but don't go berating the person (or corporation) for not having the resources to do said thing that requires said resources.

 

What I'm trying to say is, that I personally consider launch day performance to be a large factor in my purchasing decisions, and that AMD's poor launch performance is something I believe to be inexcusable, regardless of their disadvantage.

[DarkBlade2117]

YAY if I lower settings my 750Ti can run it. Soon to have 4790k

[Sharkyx1]

Digital Foundry released the first of their analysis.

At least it's not single Threaded anymore

[SmittyShmee]

[Guest]

snip

[Misanthrope]

I'm (mostly) serious, I am being a bit harsh though. Those examples are very Nvidia biased, but that's not the point. My point is that as a consumer, I'm going to buy what works the best. Although it's interesting to discuss all the fine points of why Nvidia keeps beating AMD at launch, my final concern is going to be functionality and support, provided price/performance is within an acceptable margin. AMD is at a disadvantage, but as a company, it is their duty to provide high quality, competitive, and consistent launch drivers. I'm not trying to hate on AMD, but instead point out that their poor launch support for many games (gameworks games included) is not excusable. This isn't fair, of course, but life isn't fair, and I'm not going to be basing my purchasing decisions off the concept of fairness.

So:

1) AMD cards are objectively better performers except on the highest end. Everyone here always recommend 390s and 380s

2) The only exception are major titles at launch. This is (arguably) because Nvidia directly intervening with the development with Gameworks (Yes this title is not officially gameworks but devs admitted high tesselation and help from Nvidia so amounts to the same)

What you are saying is that you don't care which cards are more powerful for the money but who basically bribes developers to have better performance out of the gate.

What you're saying is that you don't care about tech, you rather pay more for the benefit of Nvidia trying to sabotage competitors to make their cards look better.

Makes no sense to me.

[Brennan Price]

Can you play Fallout 4?

Well, I have the AMD equivalent to this i3 and 750Ti so I can deffinitely play it then. Yay!

[SteveGrabowski0]

Witcher 3 is open world and invalidates this myth.

 

Witcher 3 also runs terribly though. And it's about as taxing a game as there is out right now.

[Castdeath97]

Well, I have the AMD equivalent to this i3 and 750Ti so I can deffinitely play it then. Yay!

Do you even snip bro? Don't quote images please!

[Misanthrope]

Witcher 3 also runs terribly though. And it's about as taxing a game as there is out right now.

1) Doesn't actually. Gameworks had the option to disable so everyone reviewing immediately disabled it.

2) It is intensive but unlike FO4, it actually is visually good looking for the performance price you pay. This was my point: you CAN have a visually good looking open world game, it's intensive on resources but it can be done.

[christianled59]

 

I just can''t believe that the 970 gets below 60 on 1080p ultra. Things are not looking good for me wanting to play it on 5760x1080

What? In the OP, it gets 59fps at 1440p. I assume it'll run at 40ish fps on 5760x1080p. (Because that's what I'm doing)

[CommandMan7]

So:

1) AMD cards are objectively better performers except on the highest end. Everyone here always recommend 390s and 380s

2) The only exception are major titles at launch. This is (arguably) because Nvidia directly intervening with the development with Gameworks (Yes this title is not officially gameworks but devs admitted high tesselation and help from Nvidia so amounts to the same)

What you are saying is that you don't care which cards are more powerful for the money but who basically bribes developers to have better performance out of the gate.

What you're saying is that you don't care about tech, you rather pay more for the benefit of Nvidia trying to sabotage competitors to make their cards look better.

Makes no sense to me.

 

 

What I'm trying to say is, that I personally consider launch day performance to be a large factor in my purchasing decisions, and that AMD's poor launch performance is something I believe to be inexcusable, regardless of their disadvantage.

 

Hey, major titles at launch are important. I just don't want inconsistencies in my experience. Although I wish I could of bought a 390 over my 970, I personally don't want the AMD controversy stuff to affect me. Yes, Nvidia is doing horrible and unethical things to gain a competitive edge. But it's a competitive edge.

 

A 390 is like, 5 to 10% faster than a 970 and has double (or 2.28x depending on how you count it) the Vram, but I prefer consistency, stability, and features over the 5 - 10% performance and also I'll be getting a new card before the 4 (or 3.5) Gb becomes a huge issue.

[Misanthrope]

Hey, major titles at launch are important. I just don't want inconsistencies in my experience. Although I wish I could of bought a 390 over my 970, I personally don't want the AMD controversy stuff to affect me. Yes, Nvidia is doing horrible and unethical things to gain a competitive edge. But it's a competitive edge.

A 390 is like, 5 to 10% faster than a 970 and has double (or 2.28x depending on how you count it) the Vram, but I prefer consistency, stability, and features over the 5 - 10% performance and also I'll be getting a new card before the 4 (or 3.5) Gb becomes a huge issue.

Please stop quoting me if you are not gonna address any of my points, I don't need you to repeat the same information, I understood just fine I jus disagreed with your reasoning.