Fallout 4 Discussion Thread

http://bethesda.net/#en/events/game...allout-4-important-release-info/2015/10/08/35

Minimum
Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS required)
Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
8 GB RAM
30 GB free HDD space
NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent

Recommended
Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS required)
Intel Core i7 4790 3.6 GHz/AMD FX-9590 4.7 GHz or equivalent
8 GB RAM
30 GB free HDD space
NVIDIA GTX 780 3GB/AMD Radeon R9 290X 4GB or equivalent


Fallout 4 has plug & play compatibility with both the Xbox One and Xbox 360 controllers. Alternate controller options may require additional user adjustments


[Edit]

BENCHMARKS!!!

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

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2177-fallout-4-pc-video-card-fps-benchmark-all-resolutions

 

Can't wait!

 

Wow, I really can't believe this: http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Mobility-Radeon-HD-5830-vs-GeForce-GTX-550-Ti

In DX9 benchmarks it seems my laptop actually performs better.

 

WTF?! Someone explain how 550 Ti and 7870 are in the same sentence.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1034?vs=1133

GPU Boss is unreliable. 550 Ti is roughly equivalent to 8870M.

 

ok. Never mind (Ninja'd by octiceps).
Will play anyway on my mobility 5870.

 

Nvidia: The Way It's Meant to be Paid?

Actually previous games published by Bethesda Softworks also had some weird specs, Dishonored and a few others as well. Could be they didn't have a whole lot of different cards lying around for the testing process. This is a lot smaller company compared to EA, Activision, etc.

They also tended to err on the conservative side with the specs for previous games.

 

How accurate is this list? http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Or rather, how relevant is the Passmark score to gaming performance?

 

...and why would you think the game is in DX9?

 

Avoid:
FailMark
CPU B**S
GPU B**S

#ThatIsAll

 

This game better have zero loading in between areas, seeing as how the Witcher 3.....

Oh who am I kidding this is Bethesda. Maybe next console gen.

The 550 Ti is as fast as the 5770, thus it destroys and burns the corpse of the 5830M.

 

I happened to notice in the intro that there was no loading going in and out of the house. Perhaps they solved it. I'll play the snot out of it either way so.. Whatever

 

Let's get them to make a game that is capable of alt-tabbing first

 

Uhmmm... TW3 has loading screens between the areas. Though once in a certain area, yes - it's loading screen free

 

Oh sorry, by "areas", I was picturing transitions between buildings, houses, shops, and the like.

 

Can the 970M run this on 1080p max settings 60fps?

 

Hard to tell - the game isn't out yet.

 

I doubt that, high-near max and above 30fps seems arguable ...anything after that will take a time machine ...or patience to discern.

 

If it's OC'd heavily enough, it could. I've seen stock 780M SLI matched by a 970M, and it seems to benefit from easier tessellation too. Since I don't get under 60fps with max (even though TAA isn't configured correctly) then I assume 970M is just fine.

D2ultima thought this was in the Battlefront page. Please disregard everything D2ultima has just said. D2ultima knows nothing about this.

 

The 970M is constantly underrated.

 

But Fallout 4 ain't even out yet... Is this D3 Ultima from the future???

 

The recommended spec GPU is GTX 780 / R9 290, and for all we know at this point, "Recommended" might correspond to 1080p 30fps high (not max) settings.

As this game is not going to run at all on the old gen consoles and probably only 30fps med settings on the new gen, I would not be surprised if it turns out to be a hell of a lot more demanding than Skyrim, for example. On the other hand, sometimes the requirements for Bethesda games turn out to be much lower than the published specs.

 

Oh. I THOUGHT I WAS IN THE BATTLEFRONT PAGE

 

I hate it when I do that.

 

I have a speculation: It is that the performance disparity between AMD and Nvidia minimum required GPUs can be explained by DX12/DX11.3.

GTX 550Ti - The lowest Nvidia DX12 GPU with 2GB. [Without having to split hairs about GTX 460 2GB vs higher 4xx series cards with less VRAM which could get confusing]

HD 7870 - First 2GB AMD DX12 GPU spec'd higher than the PS4's GPU.

DX11.3, which brings DX12 features to DX11 still require GPUs capable of those DX12 features..

 

You really think Bugthesda would be one of the first to jump aboard DX12 given their history of being behind the curve? Ha we're lucky that Fallout 4 is even DX11, and that's only because of current-gen console exclusivity. If it were on last-gen, it would be on the same brokeass DX9 Creation Engine that Skyrim is.

 

No, which is why I hedged my bet with DX11.3. It only takes utilizing a single feature to explain ...and you have to admit, it fits as an explanation.

 

It seems the game has gone gold, only a couple weeks now:

 

It's Gamebryo. Nothing will make it run well. Bethesda and co still can't get shadows to render properly on Skyrim. LULZ!!!!

 

And 400+ hours later in Skyrim I still didn't care.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

The worst blocky flickering shadows pissed me off from the moment I saw them. And got bored of the game after 35 hours and I was annoyed to the very last second. Disgrace for a $60 AAA title to have garbage shadow.

I"ll get FO4 because I own FO3 and FO:NV even though I couldn't stand either one, but I may give more effort to FO4 to see if it resembles Boston or not. I highly doubt it, I have very little faith in Bethesda's visual dept.

 

My current laptop is doing fine but is somewhat slow for photo and video editing, which is why I'm thinking of getting a second laptop. Since it is 99% home bound, I thought might as well get a gaming rig as well. I prefer a laptop for space reasons.

However, I not familiar with how well mobile GPUs would run games. I'm a Fallout fan and plan on playing Fallout 4. Do you believe a 980m will run it decently (1080P / high settings / 30 FPS)?

 

980M will run FO4 @ Ultra @ 60 FPS. Don't worry about FO4, it's Gamebryo 2.0, improved feces. And because it is still Gamebryo, be prepared for it to have countless issues, and instability problems. Bethesda sucks, don't understand why folks support these greedy farts by paying full price pre-orders. Their games should be purchased on Steam sales @ $10.

 

Why would you doubt it? 970M is powerful GPU, more than enough for DX11 1080p. Plus it's Bethesda. If 970M can chomp on TW3, it can chomp anything Bethesda can pull out their greedy lazy incompetent buttholes.

The brilliant trailers people saw were not IN GAME, they were live action barf. If you see actual in game footage, it is NOT impressive. TBH, it sucks. Let's be honest, it sucks. Watch actual game footage, it sucks for a 2015 AAA title from a behemoth butthole that is Bethesda.

Point being, 970M is enough for FO4. The only reason it won't be is because it's a horrible mess, which frankly won't surprise me. Just adding more junk on top of junk to this atrocious Gamebryo and becoming less and less optimized, that would not surprise me.

 

The 970m "chomps" TW3?

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-970M.126694.0.html


...it seems to me like the 970m gets some TW3 stuck in its throat on ultra and needs to lower settings ...and take smaller bytes.

If it was just a matter or the 970m, I'd still doubt the 970m would maintain 60fps at max settings. With most mobile CPUs in consideration too, I see maintaining 60fps falling further out of reach.

I wasn't knocking the 970m, I just didn't want to guarantee more than I could comfortably estimate ...which was high to near max settings and a comfortably playable frame rate.

 

Wow, you didn't like FO3, New Vegas or Skyrim and you are buying Fallout 4?

I imagine it's gonna be very similar to these games.

In my case, I had zero stability issues with vanilla Skyrim and vanilla New Vegas. Only after adding lots of mods that enhance the enemy A.I., add increased spawns, more scripting, etc., did I experience instability.

I almost never buy any game at release. So many in my Steam library I haven't even installed yet, have no problem waiting 1-2 years after launch to buy most games for around $5 - 10 including DLC. And my laptop is so old, new games don't run very well anyways.

Only exception is Bethesda games - these I always pre-order so I can start playing when they unlock. In the view of a lot of people, Bethesda's open world games have a much higher entertainment value than other AAA games on the market.

These are games you can play for several hundred hours that cost only $60. So far, played Skyrim over 900 hours since it came out - that's around 6 cents per hour! Probably spent around the same amount of time designing mods.

What's crazy is I'm still playing Skyrim four years after its release and haven't even completed the major questlines, not to mention the hundreds of quest mods available. I've tried other games and then still go back to Skyrim because the combat and the progression is fun as hell, especially once you boost up the difficulty with mods. In my opinion this one is a masterpiece, perhaps one of the greatest games ever made.

If you're not into this kind of sandbox game, though, I highly doubt you'd enjoy Fallout, certainly wouldn't recommend buying it. The core gameplay is going to be very similar to Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim and New Vegas.

 

These games are not CPU intensive. Mobile CPU is more than enough for any game. Even a E class i7 adds only a few FPS to a game. Why you bring up CPU as if that would be an issue is beyond me, you should know considering you've been buying high end hardware for a long time and gaming. CPU is so overrated in gaming. My 4790K was not for gaming, has no impact for a 4800HQ mobile CPU in gaming.

And high on TW3 @ 45 FPS is chomping IMO. Bethesda wish they could create a game that looks as good as TW3 on low.

 

He sounds a bit like me lol. Though I did like Skyrim, until I discovered TW3 that is. Afterwards I forgot about Skyrim. Still, I did have a lot of quality time with it so I can't complain.
However, neither FO3 nor NV did it for me. Gameplay was a mess, despite NV being overall a nice game. Will keep an eye how this one goes. Maybe I'll buy once Bugthesda releases complete edition and it goes on sale.

 

Why would you say, ...and why should I guarantee, that FO4 isn't CPU intensive?

I have been PC gaming a long time and the game that brought me in was TES: Oblivion, so I'm familiar with how Gamebryo [...and sons] behaves to some extent. I know in general that it scales to CPU clock speed.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2007/07/17/intel_core_2_qx6850_e6850_e6750/4

I know Skyrim could utilize HT threads somewhat because I tested it myself.



Having an idea of how Bethesda designs their games, how their games on this engine generally runs on various hardware, that NPCs are containers, that there is a lot of non-static objects and not knowing how NPC density will vary ...on the high end ...why should I think FO4 is not CPU intensive?

What do I have that tells me FO4 won't be CPU intensive?

Certainly not the move to a x64.exe or the 8GB minimum RAM requirement. When I see that the recommended Intel CPU is an i7 4790, I interpret that as recommending an Intel CPU that uses all four physical cores at 3.8GHz.. Most mobile processors aren't gonna do 3.8GHz on all four cores.

 

Nvidia has announced a Fallout 4 giveaway promotion. You send Fallout-themed thumbs up pic to Nvidia with #Radiation and then you get a chance to win Fallout modded PC and EVGA GTX 970:





https://contests.nvidia.com/en-us/fallout-4-radiation-check

 

I'm just going to leave this here

http://wccftech.com/fallout-4-nvidia-gameworks/

I'm off to play Life Is Strange episode 5 before I have to box my PS4 up for my move that may mean my PS4 and everything else I own but clothes and my Clevo end up in storage before I find a place that isn't a couch to sleep on.

 

Damn you beat me to the punch. Was just about to say "Fallout 4 wrekt confirmed!"

 

CLOTHES AND CLEVO

LIVIN WITH BARE ESSENTIALS

OR SOMETHING.

Okay I'm going to sleep now.

 

That was my point with FO4. They add more junk to their Gamebryo 2.0 engine to make it seem up to date and advanced but the rest of the game looks so bad, it doesn't matter, all it does is reduce performance for a crummy looking game.

I rather have DX9 Witcher 2 than DX11 + Nvidia Gamesabotager FO4. Instead of focusing on these idiotic features that will make no difference, Bethesda ought to create a new engine that doesn't suck.

It would be a different story if EA started adding these Nvidia features considering how impressive the FB3 engine is without them.

 

I think Fallout requiremetns are pretty good:.780gtx is probably for 1440p 60fps(or 4K 30fps) without gameworks(probably HBAO).Lets hope it wont be buggy as most bethesda games but the performance should be good even on low hardware

 

LOL.

No.

Try 1080p 30fps "high" settings. MAYBE 1080p 60fps "high" settings.

There has never been a game I have ever seen released (that isn't a fighting game) where its "recommended specs" have EVER equated to maxing or near-maxing the game at 1080p 60fps.

 

Edit: I assumed it was a mobile card being spoken of.

 

Far Cry 4

• 
  RECOMMENDED:

• Processor: 2.5 GHz Intel® Core™ i5-2400S or 4.0 GHz AMD FX-8350 or better
• Memory: 8 GB RAM
• Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon R9 290X or better (2 GB VRAM)

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_OC/images/farcry4_1920_1080.gif

pg5 [config]: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_OC/5.html


Yes, the CPU is higher, but it shouldn't be the thing getting the GTX 680 to 42.fps or a R9 290 [non-x] to 64.3fps if they would just be getting 30fps with the i5 2400s.

I don't expect the recommended GPUs to guarantee max @ 60fps, but I do expect recommended to max the major settings with AA and Gameworks features being a variable and a minimum frame rate comfortably above 30fps ...so close to 40fps or better.

 

IMO for anyone who wants to make the smart choice...

WAIT. Buy FO4 when it's on sale for 75% on Steam, GOTY edition with ALL the crappy DLCs and after the game has been patched 5000 times, because that's how long it will take Bethesda to release a playable game.

For those who pre-ordered or buy day one are chumps. You'll be alpha and then beta testers, and not get paid.

 

Besides, all necessary mods will be released by that time.

But obviously I have nothing against people buying FO4 right now, it's their choice, though preordering is usually not a smart move.
Also, Zymphad, why such hostility?

 

I wanted to buy the Fallout anthology before getting FO4. But after previously buying the Fallout 3 game of the year edition and it not working on 8.1. It looks like the version in the Anthology still doesn't work, atleast on 8.1 and that's the Steam edition. Would love to get to play FO3 on my PC but it doesn't look like there is any working version. Unless they show they care about people who have bought multiple versions of their previous games that don't work, I won't buy this game.