Fallout 4 Benchmarked, Performance Review

The Memory Benchmarks are way wrong. AMD CPU's do not support DDR4. There are no AMD motherboards that support DDR4 yet... and to top it all off there is no such thing as a DDR4-1333.

Edited for nicer language.

Glad you edited for nicer language since all you spotted was an obvious typo. Well done.
 
Glad you edited for nicer language since all you spotted was an obvious typo. Well done.

Yeah, it wasn't intended to sound dickish like it did. I work in a shop where language like that is normal and sometimes forget not to carry that over to outside life. So when I read my post back after submitting it I realized that it was pretty harsh when it wasn't supposed to have been. :/

Being TechSpot Staff I have no doubt that you saw the original post and why I changed it.
 
Yeah, it wasn't intended to sound dickish like it did. I work in a shop where language like that is normal and sometimes forget not to carry that over to outside life. So when I read my post back after submitting it I realized that it was pretty harsh when it wasn't supposed to have been. :/

Being TechSpot Staff I have no doubt that you saw the original post and why I changed it.

The mistake has now been corrected. Thank you for spotting it.
 
You have the 980ti on the charts, which is more or less the same chip, with a few cuda cores less and usually higher frequencies on custom coolers. I doubt this game needs more than 6gb of vram in any situation or resolution.

It should perform a bit better than the 980ti - especially at 4k, which if I ever DO get a new monitor, will become relevant for me...
 
DDR4-2400 isn't exactly quick.. Anyone running DDR3-1866 or higher is getting more performance generally..
Why not chuck in some DDR4-3000+?
 
I've got 970 GTX GPU / 6700K CPU and 32 GB 2666Mhz RAM and I've tried running the same test myself on 1680x1050 resolution.

I've run from the Red Rocket truck stop to Concord and fought some raiders for a few minutes on ultra settings and found out that I had the highest FPS inside the city and it actually did not fell during battles.

My average FPS was 101, my lowest FPS was 70. My highest fps was 131. Which is pretty much the same as in tests above.

Though on some other tests in different places around the map my FPS went as high as 200 inside city's and dipped to 59 while viewing scenery's from an altitude.

Also running in borderless window mode took away about 5-10 FPS on average and running enhanced ReShade mod takes additional 5-10 FPS.

More importantly I did not like how the game was running with unlocked FPS counter. Maybe its just my imagination but it felt like at some points the game was accelerating for no reason and then slowing down ever so slightly. It felt more comfortable running the game at constant 60 FPS.
 
I've got 970 GTX GPU / 6700K CPU and 32 GB 2666Mhz RAM and I've tried running the same test myself on 1680x1050 resolution.

I've run from the Red Rocket truck stop to Concord and fought some raiders for a few minutes on ultra settings and found out that I had the highest FPS inside the city and it actually did not fell during battles.

My average FPS was 101, my lowest FPS was 70. My highest fps was 131. Which is pretty much the same as in tests above.

Though on some other tests in different places around the map my FPS went as high as 200 inside city's and dipped to 59 while viewing scenery's from an altitude.

Also running in borderless window mode took away about 5-10 FPS on average and running enhanced ReShade mod takes additional 5-10 FPS.

More importantly I did not like how the game was running with unlocked FPS counter. Maybe its just my imagination but it felt like at some points the game was accelerating for no reason and then slowing down ever so slightly. It felt more comfortable running the game at constant 60 FPS.
lol dude why are you ruining such low res? I have a 4960k and 970, 8gig ram. I only played for about 10 minutes so far but it seems really smooth at 1080p. Yeah without vsync you will see bursts.


So far the graphics look kind of weak for a single player game. The trees at the start looked like south park season one. Or wow WOTLK to be more precise.
 
Last edited:
I'm running it on a WD Raptor and I am having no issues with stuttering or load times. Maybe a SATA controller driver issue?
 
Bethesda has also stressed that Fallout 4 on PC won't be held back by the console versions, I.e. there's no frame rate cap and you can look forward to superior graphics.
lolwhat.

Maybe after tweaking with replacement texture mods and ENB shaders (real changes, not just colors) it'll look better, but the graphics are average console quality and pale in comparison to other games.. including the original Crysis in many areas. The only advantage the PC version has natively is higher resolution.. and it doesn't even support 21:9 natively and bugs out at higher resolutions.

And the framerate.. yeah, no. 60FPS or bust; engine is broken above it just like Skyrim.

As much hype as I had for it prior to release, it's looking just like another Bethesda game. Months of waiting for patches to initially play it without major issues and dumping hundreds of mods into it to get it to PC standards.
 
As much hype as I had for it prior to release, it's looking just like another Bethesda game. Months of waiting for patches to initially play it without major issues and dumping hundreds of mods into it to get it to PC standards.

You're exactly right. I saw the PS4/Xbox/PC comparison and they look quite close to each other. To say this hasn't been dragged down by consoles is an obvious lie. The game looks like something that came out years ago. Unimpressive.
 
They only real complaint I'm seeing in here is "it's not The Witcher 3".

What I think happened here is that so many people loved The Witcher 3 that they wanted more of the same. They wanted Fallout 4 to provide that. It's a shame that our honeymoon with Whitcher 3 is over, but there's a blonde at the bar called Fallout 4 that'll let you put it where you want it when your wife wont. So let's just try to enjoy it for what it is while we have it and stop trying to to make excuses for why "it's not as good as you thought it'd be".

And quite frankly I'm having a blast in fallout 4. It was never about the graphics for me. If they'd make the graphics as good as The Whitcher 3 then people with older hardware would be bitching about how they can't play it. Granted, the graphics aren't cutting edge, but they aren't THAT dated.
 
Last edited:
So nice to see a benchmark using both the stock and overclocked G3258.
Could you please do this at least for a couple of months for H1 2016 games, because there are a lot of us who use this little beast.

Thanks
 
Is SLI/Crossfire working?

Here is how you can get SLI working in Fallout 4:

1. Download Nvidia Inspector from
http://www.guru3d.com/files-get/nvidia-inspector-download,4.html

2. Click the Wrench Icon to bring up the Profile Settings window.

3. Under Profiles, click the dropdown and select 'Fallout 4'

4. Under Compatibility, change the setting for "SLI compatibility bits (DX1x)" to
"0x080200F5 (Max Payne 3)" by clicking the dropdown next to it.

5. In Nvidia Inspector, scroll down to the SLI section.

6. Here is what you need to change under SLI:

Number of GPUs to use on the SLI rendering mode = SLI_GPU_COUNT_TWO
(You can select FOUR if you have four graphics cards in SLI mode. Select accordingly.)

NVIDIA predefined number of GPUs to use on SLI rendering mode = SLI_PREDEFINED_GPU_COUNT_AUTOSELECT

NVIDIA predefined SLI mode on DirectX 10 = SLI_PREDEFINED_MODE_DX10_FORCE_AFR2

8. Run the game and enjoy the increase number of frames per second!
______________________________________________________________

Here are how my settings look: http://I.imgur.com/832vCOd.png
 
Here is how you can get SLI working in Fallout 4:

1. Download Nvidia Inspector from
http://www.guru3d.com/files-get/nvidia-inspector-download,4.html

2. Click the Wrench Icon to bring up the Profile Settings window.

3. Under Profiles, click the dropdown and select 'Fallout 4'

4. Under Compatibility, change the setting for "SLI compatibility bits (DX1x)" to
"0x080200F5 (Max Payne 3)" by clicking the dropdown next to it.

5. In Nvidia Inspector, scroll down to the SLI section.

6. Here is what you need to change under SLI:

Number of GPUs to use on the SLI rendering mode = SLI_GPU_COUNT_TWO
(You can select FOUR if you have four graphics cards in SLI mode. Select accordingly.)

NVIDIA predefined number of GPUs to use on SLI rendering mode = SLI_PREDEFINED_GPU_COUNT_AUTOSELECT

NVIDIA predefined SLI mode on DirectX 10 = SLI_PREDEFINED_MODE_DX10_FORCE_AFR2

8. Run the game and enjoy the increase number of frames per second!
______________________________________________________________

Here are how my settings look: http://I.imgur.com/832vCOd.png

Thank you for that advice but could of just said no :p, I normally wait for a few months before I buy new games to they can patch them anyway
 
Ok... an Nvidia game will run SLI. Great! However, I have 2 r9 290X's in crossfire. Will it run Crossfire? Secondly, I am confused about what you said about memory and i7 processors. I am running a 5930 6 core with 16gig of DDR4 2666 memory running on an Azus Rampage V motherboard. When I look in the bios it says the memory is set to 1333. Someone told me once that since it is "dual channel" or something that that is the correct setting. Is that right? I am confused! The computer runs nicely as it is, and sometimes I can actually play at 3840X2160 in some other games, but sometimes I get stutter. I have an Acer B326HK monitor and so I am wondering about the frame rate limit and so forth. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
 
Steve, do you have time to update the article with performance benchmarks using HBAO+ and FleX? v1.3 just officially released the other day.
 
I'm happy to see that my 680 still has enough kick in it to run this game maxed at 1080p. I do experience some major FPS dips I can't explain, but they last around 5 seconds then go away. Usually right before or right after something scripted happens.

i7-3770k
12GB ddr 1600
GTX 680


if anyone has any ideas I'd be more than appreciative.
in no way a 680 can "max out" this game runs maxxed out at 60fps in 1080p, you even have difficulties with a 4770k in some places
 
I'm happy to see that my 680 still has enough kick in it to run this game maxed at 1080p. I do experience some major FPS dips I can't explain, but they last around 5 seconds then go away. Usually right before or right after something scripted happens.

i7-3770k
12GB ddr 1600
GTX 680


if anyone has any ideas I'd be more than appreciative.
in no way a 680 can "max out" this game runs maxxed out at 60fps in 1080p, you even have difficulties with a 4770k in some places
I meant with a 970 and I play maxxed out
 
in no way a 680 can "max out" this game runs maxxed out at 60fps in 1080p, you even have difficulties with a 4770k in some places
Well my stuff is all heavily over clocked since it's coming to the end of its life cycle. I have an MSI twinfrozr GTX 680 and a 3770k at 4.6.
 
Back