First Fallout 4 performance results

[IMPERIUS]

Seems like the game is favoring nvidia. Coincidence? I think not. Devs program it on nvidia hardware then just port it to AMD right?

[Curufinwe_wins]

Well this is a about what I'd expect for Bethesda.

SoM level intensity.

Would be nice to see how fiji does on this but that will come.

[Guest Kloaked]

About where they should be. Now here's to hoping there's no retarded bugs that stay in the game for years.

 

How is 30 fps+ not playable

 

 

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

 

Have you never played at 60fps?

[Mr_Troll]

amd didnt even release a fallout driver... give it time .... it will even things up again....

[Curufinwe_wins]

Seems like the game is favoring nvidia. Coincidence? I think not. Devs program it on nvidia hardware then just port it to AMD right?

Sigh really? Do you not know how game programming works?

Literally this is the case on basically every new title because nvidia actually optimizes a shit load before day 1 launch and amd doesn't.

[Guest Kloaked]

Seems like the game is favoring nvidia. Coincidence? I think not. Devs program it on nvidia hardware then just port it to AMD right?

 

For one, AMD doesn't have a driver out for the game. Two, the performance curves are typical, so I would hardly call this "favoring Nvidia".

[ivan134]

Well this is a about what I'd expect for Bethesda.

SoM level intensity.

Would be nice to see how fiji does on this but that will come.

SoM = Shadow of Mordor?

[Curufinwe_wins]

amd didnt even release a fallout driver... give it time .... it will even things up again....

It will. Nothing special about this game.

I swear people saying nvidia is jipping amd on this title have no idea how DirectX works...

Btw to everyone interested the 390x and 290x used have very different clocks, so that is probably the majority of the performance difference.

[Curufinwe_wins]

SoM = Shadow of Mordor?

Yea.

[Trik'Stari]

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)

If you look at the 1080p graph the average is 80, but the low is 55-57. I'm running 5760x1080 on a single 970, and modern games don't do too great on it. I have to turn stuff down on GTA V to get 60fps, and running below 60fps just doesn't work for me. Too choppy.

[Aytex]

About where they should be. Now here's to hoping there's no retarded bugs that stay in the game for years.

 

 

Have you never played at 60fps?

I can max out skyrim 60 fps with default vanilla...

ENB Is so FPS hungry....

[Monarch]

Welp, looks like gameworks is showing it ugly face once more

 

AMD's poor tessellation performance and high driver overhead are showing their ugly face once more.

[Guest Kloaked]

I can max out skyrim 60 fps with default vanilla...

ENB Is so FPS hungry....

 

Well yeah I understand that, but I was more so commenting about you asking how 30fps isn't playable, which I agree that it's not.

[christianled59]

If you look at the 1080p graph the average is 80, but the low is 55-57. I'm running 5760x1080 on a single 970, and modern games don't do too great on it. I have to turn stuff down on GTA V to get 60fps, and running below 60fps just doesn't work for me. Too choppy.

Yes but the min is 1%. That is so low. It would be minor studder. Trust me, I too am running a 970 on 3 monitors. The studder is very unnoticeable. I tend to stick with the average fps. I bet we could easily play this game at upper 50-60fps. Just turn down some AA and view distance. This game runs better than dying light and I got dying light 60fps near ultra on 3 monitors.

Edit: also take into account that it is AVERAGE. Meaning those min values have to be made up for by higher ones to even average at 80. So at times the game would even be running at 90fps to make up for those short drops.

[Guest Kloaked]

 Yes, Nvidia is doing horrible and unethical things to gain a competitive edge. But it's a competitive edge.

 

What are they doing that's so unethical and horrible?

[Bouzoo]

 

Well yeah I understand that, but I was more so commenting about you asking how 30fps isn't playable, which I agree that it's not.

 

It is. It's not the smoothest experience when you get used to 60 or even higher refresh rates, but it's far from unplayable. Below 30 is unplayable, anything higher is playable, it just depends on how smooth of an experience you'll get.

[Trik'Stari]

Yes but the min is 1%. That is so low. It would be minor studder. Trust me, I too am running a 970 on 3 monitors. The studder is very unnoticeable. I tend to stick with the average fps. I bet we could easily play this game at upper 50-60fps. Just turn down some AA and view distance. This game runs better than dying light and I got dying light 60fps near ultra on 3 monitors.

Edit: also take into account that it is AVERAGE. Meaning those min values have to be made up for by higher ones to even average at 80. So at times the game would even be running at 90fps to make up for those short drops.

Wait, how did you get Dying Light to near ultra at 60fps? What 970 are you running, overclocks?

 

I can't get dying light anywhere NEAR ultra on triple monitor without the framerate dive bombing.

[CommandMan7]

What are they doing that's so unethical and horrible?

Gameworks and the like. Upping tesselation just to screw with AMD. 970 3.5 + 0.5 Gb.

[Guest Kloaked]

It is. It's not the smoothest experience when you get used to 60 or even higher refresh rates, but it's far from unplayable. Below 30 is unplayable, anything higher is playable, it just depends on how smooth of an experience you'll get.

 

If I ever drop below 40 in a game multiple times, I'm turning settings down, personally (which is rare since I have a fairly high end system). Reason is because anything below that threshold is choppy and unplayable to me, and I would venture to say that most PC gamers who have played at 60fps in most of what they do would agree.

 

I've even heard people who play on 120hz monitors say that 60fps isn't smooth at all to them anymore, and I believe them.

[Guest Kloaked]

Gameworks and the like. Upping tesselation just to screw with AMD. 970 3.5 + 0.5 Gb.

 

Gameworks isn't bad. The main titles we've seen use the library come from studios who don't give a shit about the PC platform to begin with.

 

Tessellation wasn't upped anywhere just to screw with AMD. Only situation that's probably true about Nvidia sabotaging AMD's performance was in one of the Crysis games.

 

The 970 was a fine card and there's nothing wrong with it. They didn't deceive anyone. The internet got in an uproar over nothing.

[Misanthrope]

Gameworks isn't bad. The main titles we've seen use the library come from studios who don't give a shit about the PC platform to begin with.

Tessellation wasn't upped anywhere just to screw with AMD. Only situation that's probably true about Nvidia sabotaging AMD's performance was in one of the Crysis games.

The 970 was a fine card and there's nothing wrong with it. They didn't deceive anyone. The internet got in an uproar over nothing.

Any more revisionism you'd like to add?

[Albatross]

Ah, good, the 750 Ti works well enough that my brother can still play comfortably. Nice!

[Guest Kloaked]

Any more revisionism you'd like to add?

 

I don't know what your reply has to do with anything or what you're even trying to say.

[Bouzoo]

If I ever drop below 40 in a game multiple times, I'm turning settings down, personally (which is rare since I have a fairly high end system). Reason is because anything below that threshold is choppy and unplayable to me, and I would venture to say that most PC gamers who have played at 60fps in most of what they do would agree.

 

I've even heard people who play on 120hz monitors say that 60fps isn't smooth at all to them anymore, and I believe them.

 

They are used to 120 and that's just fine, it's all a matter of habit. Mind you I don't like playing @ 30 FPS either, I think above 45 is acceptable in most games, with 55-60 being the sweet spot. You are not used ti playing @30 and that's fine as well, but that doesn't mean it's unplayable. You can play, but the experience will be different. As I said, those people that play @ 120 will be able to play it but it'll be a horrible experience for them since it's a huge difference. 

While we're at it, I'd really like to give people that play @ 120+ the hardware that could only run games @ 30, and leave them like that for a month and see if it'll become normal for them. I'm really curious what would happen.

[Guest Kloaked]

They are used to 120 and that's just fine, it's all a matter of habit. Mind you I don't like playing @ 30 FPS either, I think above 45 is acceptable in most games, with 55-60 being the sweet spot. You are not used ti playing @30 and that's fine as well, but that doesn't mean it's unplayable. You can play, but the experience will be different. As I said, those people that play @ 120 will be able to play it but it'll be a horrible experience for them since it's a huge difference. 

While we're at it, I'd really like to give people that play @ 120+ the hardware that could only run games @ 30, and leave them like that for a month and see if it'll become normal for them. I'm really curious what would happen.

 

I mean, I came from console gaming to PC. I know what it's like to be gaming at 30fps.