First Fallout 4 performance results

[NumLock21]

Yeah....no.

I'm sorry to say, but your argument is pretty fucking stupid...

Before I got these 980's I had a 780 which I sold to a friend because he couldn't another 780 DCII for SLI. Before that 780, I had 2 480's for 3 years. I am only concerned about FPS when it begins to fall to a number that makes the game look like complete shit.

Are you playing on a TV? 30fps is fucking horrible and once you experience 144hz, 60fps is also

Shit.

So basically for you, can't dip anything below 144FPS?

I'm sorry to say, but your gaming requirements is pretty fucking stupid...

[TorqueS]

You know what really amazes me?

FO4 is pretty much a console port right? Consoles use AMD CPUs and GPUs(on the GCN architecture). So:

[WolfDeville]

NumLock21, on 10 Nov 2015 - 10:18 AM, said:

So basically for you, can't dip anything below 144FPS?

I'm sorry to say, but your gaming requirements if pretty fucking stupid... 

actually its anything below 90fps. I'm sorry to say, but you are pretty fucking retarded.

[MoonSpot]

Now here's to hoping there's no retarded bugs that stay in the game for years.

 

And just like that the notion I had of you having a foot in reality is gone.  Dream on.

[Guest Kloaked]

And just like that the notion I had of you having a foot in reality is gone.  Dream on.

 

What?

[Dabombinable]

Look, the GTX 970 beats the 290X at 1080p. And the 390X is the same GPU at a slightly higher clock speed. Of course the GTX 970 is still going to be ahead. AMD's high end cards are aimed at 1440p and 4K.

[ACatWithThumbs]

Lol people blaming Nvidia for Bethesda's crappy optimization...
It was obvious the game would run bad in the moment they showed the console version running at 30 fps even though the game looked like straight out of 2010.
If they can't even optimize the console version the PC version will obviously run bad as well which the benchmark shows.
Just look at the benchmark there is only a 5fps difference between a GTX980 and a 980 Ti it literally screams software bottleneck.

This is how a good optimized games looks like(and that's just Beta without final drivers):

[HKZeroFive]

Huh, this is interesting. Kinda disappointed they used the 390X as AMD's high end card, would've liked to see at the very least the Fury non-X being benchmarked. Honestly speaking, these preliminary results are probably way too early to be actual reflective performance of the game, and I expect AMD to release drivers that'll boost their performance significantly.

On a side note, I would like to see benchmarks that showcase the 'God Rays' feature on each of its settings. It's widely been recommended for it to be set to low due to performance issues, and I'd like to compare its impact on performance between NVIDIA and AMD cards.

[Misanthrope]

Huh, this is interesting. Kinda disappointed they used the 390X as AMD's high end card, would've liked to see at the very least the Fury non-X being benchmarked. Honestly speaking, these preliminary results are probably way too early to be actual reflective performance of the game, and I expect AMD to release drivers that'll boost their performance significantly.

On a side note, I would like to see benchmarks that showcase the 'God Rays' feature on each of its settings. It's widely been recommended for it to be set to low due to performance issues, and I'd like to compare its impact on performance between NVIDIA and AMD cards.

 

That's pure Tessellation so it should help a lot, specially for AMD users.

[Dabombinable]

That's pure Tessellation so it should help a lot, specially for AMD users.

Yeah, AMD still hasn't made enough of an improvement when it comes to tessellation. That being said it is easier to turn it down on AMD cards then Nvidia's due to CCC.

[Curufinwe_wins]

That's pure Tessellation so it should help a lot, specially for AMD users.

Well either way the CPU driver utilization issues are the real concern right now. Get that fixed and instantly I'd expect the AMD cards to take their proper place.

[MadyTehWolfie]

shame they never post the 295x2 results

No need tbh all the r9 295x2 is, is a dual gpu two 290X's. Just need to test one 290X and youll know what the 295x2 will get.

[Dabombinable]

No need tbh all the r9 295x2 is, is a dual gpu two 290X's. Just need to test one 290X and youll know what the 295x2 will get.

Minus the performance lost due to scaling.

.

[dimitriianghelov]

http://wccftech.com/fallout-4-pc-performance-analyzed-gameready-drivers-nvidia-amd-gpus-runs-geforce/ contains nvidia guide to performance ( you lose 30% from high to ultra for no actual visual gain )

[Monarch]

Lol people blaming Nvidia for Bethesda's crappy optimization...

It was obvious the game would run bad in the moment they showed the console version running at 30 fps even though the game looked like straight out of 2010.

If they can't even optimize the console version the PC version will obviously run bad as well which the benchmark shows.

Just look at the benchmark there is only a 5fps difference between a GTX980 and a 980 Ti it literally screams software bottleneck.

This is how a good optimized games looks like(and that's just Beta without final drivers):

 

 

Battlefront runs well on AMD because it's not heavy on draw calls. And it's not heavy on draw calls because it doesn't have much objects to render, not because it's well optimized. Maps in Battlefront are essentially wastelands and tundras. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just reminding people WCCTECH sucks and Das Germans always have the most rigourous game metrics... http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Fallout-4-Spiel-18293/Specials/Test-Benchmark-vor-Release-1177284/

[ivan134]

Look, the GTX 970 beats the 290X at 1080p. And the 390X is the same GPU at a slightly higher clock speed. Of course the GTX 970 is still going to be ahead. AMD's high end cards are aimed at 1440p and 4K.

Except a 390x is essentially tied with a 980 at 1080p in every other game. AMD hasn't released a driver for this game, so people are losing their shit over it a little too early.

[ivan134]

Battlefront runs well on AMD because it's not heavy on draw calls. And it's not heavy on draw calls because it doesn't have much objects to render, not because it's well optimized. Maps in Battlefront are essentially wastelands and tundras. 

Wow, you're still on this CPU overhead thing. AMD has fixed their drivers in those games where performance was bad on their cards due to high CPU overhead. I'll ask again: Do you live under a rock?

[Monarch]

Wow, you're still on this CPU overhead thing. AMD has fixed their drivers in those games where performance was bad on their cards due to high CPU overhead. I'll ask again: Do you live under a rock?

 

No, they haven't. Have you been living under a rock? Why the hell do you think AMD performs bad in CPU-bound games? This is why:

 

AMD:

 

Nvidia:

 

 

That's 32% difference.

[App4that]

Except a 390x is essentially tied with a 980 at 1080p in every other game. AMD hasn't released a driver for this game, so people are losing their shit over it a little too early.

The driver is out, you just have to go into Catalyst and download it. Came out hours ago

[ivan134]

No, they haven't. Have you been living under a rock? Why the hell do you think AMD performs bad in CPU-bound games? This is why:

 

AMD:

 

Nvidia:

 

 

That's 32% difference.

Oh, that game. I tried playing it once but didn't like the mechanics and character development was non existent. 2/10, would not recommend.

[Monarch]

Oh, that game. I tried playing it once but didn't like the mechanics and character development was non existent. 2/10, would not recommend.

 

When you see game benchmarks where AMD loses, you say it's GW and not driver overhead. When you are given draw call numbers from an API overhead test that clearly proves AMD's driver overhead for CPU is higher, you reject it because it's not a game. How else would you measure draw calls? Games don't give out that information.

[Mauri]

How does the game use up that much gpu power with such shitty graphics?

[Guest Kloaked]

How does the game use up that much gpu power with such shitty graphics?

 

Draw distance and bad engine.

[mattebad]

When you see game benchmarks where AMD loses, you say it's GW and not driver overhead. When you are given draw call numbers from an API overhead test that clearly proves AMD's driver overhead for CPU is higher, you reject it because it's not a game. How else would you measure draw calls? Games don't give out that information.

Except the amount of draw calls in a real game almost never reach the amount that are showing in a draw call test. It's like saying that Fire Strike is an accurate measurement for how intensive a game is. It's completely unrealistic and should never be compared to real world scenarios. 

As a matter of fact, how many times has Linus and Luke said that synthetic benchmarks are completely unreliable to use for real world performance? Like, what, every benchmark video?

 

Secondly, every single game that has had gameworks in it in the past half year has run horribly on all hardware that isn't Nvidia's 9xx series. But every other game that doesn't have gameworks in it has been reasonably optimized for both side, strange isn't it?