Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [PCGHW]Fallout 4 in art test with benchmarks for release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[PCGHW]Fallout 4 in art test with benchmarks for release - Page 33

post #321 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superplush View Post

"Hey, you've bought the game. Don't worry if it doesn't run at high framerate, you can just lower the graphics setting on your £2000 rig because one GPU manufacturer has gimped your GPU's for you. It's okay, don't play it "The way it's meant to be played" .. play it the way Nvidia wants you to play it" rolleyes.gif

End of the day, as an AMD enthusiast I shouldn't have my top-of-the-line GPU's gimped because Nvidia are allowed to inject their code into somone elses game. Granted the blame rests with Dev and Nvidia but this is just blatant sabotage of the competition.

Counterpoint to that my 7870 6gb's ran both watch dogs and the witcher 3 on approx 60fps 1080p on day of release with all the "Eye candy" turned on. Even getting a steady 45 fps with a single card on Anno 2205 so I'll be happy to test this with them biggrin.gif

Nvidia Gameworks, can you think of a more Oxymoronic phrase ?

its funny because a 800$ pc can run those games maybe not maxed but quality<60fps
btw most games use physx code even on console and some run fine or better on amd
Quote:
Originally Posted by zealord View Post

I compared God rays on low and God rays on high/ultra. No visual difference.

fps in with god rays on high/ultra 45~

fps with god rays on low 60~.


Quite funnily Nvidia even took their Fallout 4 graphics optimization guide down rolleyes.gif
true i run that setting on low
the guide is still there
http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-god-rays-quality-interactive-comparison-004-ultra-vs-medium.html

the grid changes but the quality is the same
http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-god-rays-quality-gr-grid-tweak-debug1-interactive-comparison-001-64-vs-1024.html
Edited by jmcosta - 11/10/15 at 7:18am
post #322 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradleyW View Post

Put God Rays to Low. No visual loss and 30+ extra frames, even on the Ti. (As proven on one of the benchmark websites). Also, visual loss = 0 as proven on the GeForce Optimize article before it got pulled.

Going to give it a try when I get home. It was only in VERY specific areas and only when outside in heavy 'tree' areas. Never even thought about that but it would make sense given my location and view area. I thought God Rays was simply a box tick for on and off, I'll have to peruse the settings again. Thanks, heres hoping it works!
post #323 of 701
CPU results.






Ouch...
post #324 of 701
Did anyone open up and read the OP article? They did Gameworks off runs which clearly show the 390X heavily underperforming at 1920x1080, getting a bit better at 2560x1440, and closing the gap almost completely at 3840x2160 with the 980. It looks like a fairly obvious AMD CPU overhead issue:






Ice-nine
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K Asus Z170-DELUXE Gigabyte G1 GTX 980 Ti Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 2 TB Asus DVD Drive DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Phanteks PH-TC14PE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro AOC Q2770PQU Corsair K95 RGB - Cherry MX Blue EVGA Supernova G2 750W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal Edition Logitech G502 Proteus Core Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Small Cyber Acoustics Satellite CA-3602 
Audio
Oppo PM-3 Closed Back Planar Magnetic Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
Ice-nine
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K Asus Z170-DELUXE Gigabyte G1 GTX 980 Ti Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 2 TB Asus DVD Drive DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Phanteks PH-TC14PE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro AOC Q2770PQU Corsair K95 RGB - Cherry MX Blue EVGA Supernova G2 750W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal Edition Logitech G502 Proteus Core Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Small Cyber Acoustics Satellite CA-3602 
Audio
Oppo PM-3 Closed Back Planar Magnetic Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
post #325 of 701
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serandur View Post

Did anyone open up and read the OP article? They did Gameworks off runs which clearly show the 390X heavily underperforming at 1920x1080, getting a bit better at 2560x1440, and closing the gap almost completely at 3840x2160 with the 980. It looks like a fairly obvious AMD CPU overhead issue:






+rep,
haha, motion to have the last 33 pages of sewage dropped on nvidia stricken from the record. what are they supposed to do ? visit amd and write them a driver?
post #326 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

CPU results.






Ouch...
no haswell-e ?
but those amd cpus getting whipped

edit: motivated me to watch another gameplay vid - but looks like something my old 5850 could have handled on i7 860 at stock ... just unoptimized **** in graphics department sadly
Edited by CriticalHit - 11/10/15 at 7:39am
haswell-e build
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 5820k GA-X99-UD4 r9 290x r9 290x  
GraphicsRAMHard DriveHard Drive
r9 290x  crucial DDR4 samsung evo  WD caviar blck 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Custom loop Win 8.1  dell 2311 dell 2311 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
dell 2311  Logitech G110 1xcorsair hx1050 HAF stacker 945 
AudioOtherOther
x-fi fatal1ty pro corsair tx750 haf stacker 915r 
  hide details  
Reply
haswell-e build
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 5820k GA-X99-UD4 r9 290x r9 290x  
GraphicsRAMHard DriveHard Drive
r9 290x  crucial DDR4 samsung evo  WD caviar blck 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Custom loop Win 8.1  dell 2311 dell 2311 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
dell 2311  Logitech G110 1xcorsair hx1050 HAF stacker 945 
AudioOtherOther
x-fi fatal1ty pro corsair tx750 haf stacker 915r 
  hide details  
Reply
post #327 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by zealord View Post


I compared God rays on low and God rays on high/ultra. No visual difference.

fps in with god rays on high/ultra 45~

fps with god rays on low 60~.


Quite funnily Nvidia even took their Fallout 4 graphics optimization guide down rolleyes.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BradleyW View Post


God Rays:
Ultra = x64 Tess
Low = x4 Tess

Visual loss = 0.
FPS = current value + 35 to 40.

I'd prove it but Nvidia removed their God Rays comparison interactive images and their whole Fallout 4 tweak guide on the GeForce optimize website.

 

Just tried it. Some bushes seemed a bit more crisp with God Rays on Ultra but nothing worth mentioning, FPS was roughly the same. Maybe I'm CPU bottlenecked.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FallenFaux View Post

So.... I played FO4 for about 6 hours last night with a single 290x @ 1200Mhz. 4K on Ultra (FXAA, low Godrays) and it was perfectly playable. I really only got FPS drops a couple times right after loading into areas. I feel like if one of my 2 year old GPUs can handle this game at 4K, this thread may be overblown.

 

I'm thinking the same thing. I was pretty intimidated by the initial benchmarks and bug reports but the game runs flawless for me (except for the lack of surround support)

post #328 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serandur View Post

Did anyone open up and read the OP article? They did Gameworks off runs which clearly show the 390X heavily underperforming at 1920x1080, getting a bit better at 2560x1440, and closing the gap almost completely at 3840x2160 with the 980. It looks like a fairly obvious AMD CPU overhead issue:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)




]


I'd be surprised if anyone doesn't think its not a driver overhead(and driver) issue at this point. The main goal is for AMD users to get that boost in FPS to make the game playable, as Bethesda probably tied the game's engine to 60 FPS, so optimally getting a min of 60 fps is the goal.
Obligatory Build
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-3770K Asus P8Z77-M Pro Sapphire Reference 290 w/ Aquacomputer Kryogeni... Samsung Low Voltage 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Blue PNY XLR8 Swiftech H220 + Swiftech 120mm Rad Acer P216HL Black 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Legend Rosewill Hive 550w Silverstone PS07B-W Mionix Avior 7000 
Mouse Pad
Custom Artscow Mousepad 
  hide details  
Reply
Obligatory Build
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-3770K Asus P8Z77-M Pro Sapphire Reference 290 w/ Aquacomputer Kryogeni... Samsung Low Voltage 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Blue PNY XLR8 Swiftech H220 + Swiftech 120mm Rad Acer P216HL Black 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Legend Rosewill Hive 550w Silverstone PS07B-W Mionix Avior 7000 
Mouse Pad
Custom Artscow Mousepad 
  hide details  
Reply
post #329 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlademaster01 View Post


Just tried it. Some bushes seemed a bit more crisp with God Rays on Ultra but nothing worth mentioning, FPS was roughly the same. Maybe I'm CPU bottlenecked.


I'm thinking the same thing. I was pretty intimidated by the initial benchmarks and bug reports but the game runs flawless for me (except for the lack of surround support)

Possible. Have you tried disabling God Rays completely in the .ini files? Some people on Guru3D have said this helps.
X79-GCN
(22 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3930K 4.5GHz HT GIGABYTE GA-X79-UP4 AMD R9-290X GEil Evo Potenza DDR3 2400MHz CL10 (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung 840 Pro 120GB EK Supremacy (CPU) NF F12's P/P (360 Rad)  NF A14's (420 Rad)  
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC Chrome Compression Fittings EK RES X3 150 Primochill PremoFlex Advanced LRT Clear 1/2 ID EK-FC (R9 290X) 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK D5 Vario Top-X  Phobya G-Changer V2 360mm Phobya G-Changer V2 420mm Win 10 x64 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ XR3501 35" Curved Corsair Vengeance K90 Seasonic X-1250 Gold (v2) Corsair 900D 
MouseAudio
Logitech G400s Senn HD 598 
  hide details  
Reply
X79-GCN
(22 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3930K 4.5GHz HT GIGABYTE GA-X79-UP4 AMD R9-290X GEil Evo Potenza DDR3 2400MHz CL10 (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung 840 Pro 120GB EK Supremacy (CPU) NF F12's P/P (360 Rad)  NF A14's (420 Rad)  
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC Chrome Compression Fittings EK RES X3 150 Primochill PremoFlex Advanced LRT Clear 1/2 ID EK-FC (R9 290X) 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK D5 Vario Top-X  Phobya G-Changer V2 360mm Phobya G-Changer V2 420mm Win 10 x64 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ XR3501 35" Curved Corsair Vengeance K90 Seasonic X-1250 Gold (v2) Corsair 900D 
MouseAudio
Logitech G400s Senn HD 598 
  hide details  
Reply
post #330 of 701
maybe it's the 3930k, what speed are you running it? I can see that even OC'd 2600k is getting kicked in the butt at 1080p.There's 11fps difference on avg between 4500MHz 4690K and 3570K. So even Sand and Ivy are becoming obsolete... weird cause frankly this game doesn't look like much. Maybe it's the open world, but e.g. Dying Light looked nicer and ran much better.
Edited by Klocek001 - 11/10/15 at 7:55am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [PCGHW]Fallout 4 in art test with benchmarks for release