Fallout 4 Upgrade

Art&Science

Senior member
Nov 28, 2014
339
4
46
*Wasn't sure where to put this thread, mods move if needed*

Well, I've been playing Fallout 4 for exactly 2 hours and my current machine won't cut it. I'm running the game @ 1920x1080 on medium settings... not really interested in playing it lower than that. I built this machine in 2010. Let me preface this by saying I am not interesting in ripping this box completely apart and starting over... :)

Current machine:

* MSI 890fxaGD70
* AMD Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.8GHz (does run at 4Ghz but I keep it at 3.8 for cooling).
* ATi Radeon HD5850 1GB
* 4GB DDR3 1600
* 2x1.5TB 5,400 RPM HDs (mirrored).


So a few things:

* My OS is on an SSD (60GB), not enough space for Fallout 4 so I had to put it on my data set (mirrored 1.5 TBs) which makes loading slow. I will buy a 512GB SSD for it.

* I will buy 16GB of DDR3 2133 - this is the max capacity and speed my motherboard supports. The main thing is the game runs out of memory and crashes...

* OK, CPU - I have my CPU monitor up when the game is running and it's not pegged, seems to be around 75-85% on all cores. Do I drop in an AMD FX-8370? Will it help? When the game is running I don't have any stuttering really...

* Now to the GPU - this thing is pegged @ 100% utilization and 100% memory utilization the entire time the game is running. Now, it's running nice and smooth but... well, you know, could be faster. :) I do not want to buy a $300 video card... What about dropping in a second HD5850? They are cheap right now, can be had for $50 on eBay. I have a 1000 watt PSU so power is not an issue. If I were going to get a new video card for around $100-125 what would it be?
 

Bubbleawsome

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2013
4,834
1,204
146
I would grab a 370x at minimum for the game. After that you can start looking at other upgrades I'd say. As your GPU gets more powerful you'll see a large increase on CPU load as the game starts working harder.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,596
257
126
Buy a GTX 960 4GB and another stick of 4GB DDR3 1600 memory.
 

rgallant

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2007
1,361
11
81
"I had to put it on my data set (mirrored 1.5 TBs) which makes loading slow. I will buy a 512GB SSD for it."

ha ha I have 2 samsung 840 pro's 256 gb in raid 0 and FO 4 still loads slow.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Buy a GTX 960 4GB and another stick of 4GB DDR3 1600 memory.

Something like this. You need more RAM and a better GPU, first and foremost. That video card is what.. 6 years old?

If you want even more power, you're probably looking at a whole new PC.
 

Blue_Max

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,223
153
106
Buy a GTX 960 4GB and another stick of 4GB DDR3 1600 memory.

Seconded. The RAM is an absolute must, and any modern $150+ video card is going to feel like a world of difference.

Fallout 4 doesn't seem to benefit from more than 2GB of video memory from what I've seen... You shouldn't need to go crazy on a 4GB card unless you feel like putting all your eggs in one basket. ;)

A CPU upgrade would be good, but another 4-8GB of RAM + video card will show much more improvement than the CPU would. :thumbsup:
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,498
6,044
126
Ram upgrade and a 4gb vidcard(960 or 380) would be best. CPU is likely fine.

Re: 2gb v 4gb Vidcard- even if FO4 is fine with 2gb, other games are not. It's pointless to settle for 2gb these days especially when the difference is $20ish.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
Ram upgrade and a 4gb vidcard(960 or 380) would be best. CPU is likely fine.

Re: 2gb v 4gb Vidcard- even if FO4 is fine with 2gb, other games are not. It's pointless to settle for 2gb these days especially when the difference is $20ish.

I agree:thumbsup:
 

Blue_Max

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,223
153
106
Re: 2gb v 4gb Vidcard- even if FO4 is fine with 2gb, other games are not. It's pointless to settle for 2gb these days especially when the difference is $20ish.

Yeah, good point. Unless you're snagging something used on the cheap.
If you're going to invest in new, do it right. Some of those 3GB AMD cards are a nice value too...

Just don't make the mistake some people do of thinking more VRAM = more speed. :sneaky:
51atW0EazTL._SX425_.jpg
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,080
136
In case the OP is wondering, I have a GTX 760 and while the game is certainly playabe, it is far from ideal. If somebody really feels the urge to upgrade for just this one title, I'd suggest something in the 900 series.

I do not know if dual cards would be especially helpful. Need to see some professional benchmarks.
 

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,470
32
91
Now to the GPU - this thing is pegged @ 100% utilization and 100% memory utilization the entire time the game is running. Now, it's running nice and smooth but... well, you know, could be faster. :) I do not want to buy a $300 video card... What about dropping in a second HD5850? They are cheap right now, can be had for $50 on eBay. I have a 1000 watt PSU so power is not an issue. If I were going to get a new video card for around $100-125 what would it be?

don't buy another 5850, the VRAM doesn't stack in crossfire so you'll be stuck with 1gb which is not nearly enough for new games

i would say maybe look for a used 7950/7970 3gb or 770/960 or if you want to splurge get a 970
 

sweenish

Diamond Member
May 21, 2013
3,656
60
91
In case the OP is wondering, I have a GTX 760 and while the game is certainly playabe, it is far from ideal. If somebody really feels the urge to upgrade for just this one title, I'd suggest something in the 900 series.

I do not know if dual cards would be especially helpful. Need to see some professional benchmarks.

Your standards must be ridiculously high, then.

GTX 760 for me, playing just fine at 1440p. God rays on low, a lot distance shadows turned down, etc. Runs ~60 fps no problem.

I wouldn't call it ideal, but I certainly wouldn't say it's far from ideal, either.

With that said, I'd still recommend the 970 over the 960. Get an upgrade that will last a few years with very solid performance.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
NewEgg still has a Zotac GTX760 2GB (from third party vendors) for $140. Personally I think that's a waste of $140, but YMMV.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500306&cm_re=gtx_760-_-14-500-306-_-Product

Guru3D's tl/dr analysis is that at 1080p, 2GB is sufficient, but that a GTX 960 or R9 380 (either at 2 GB) is a good match. That matches recommendations I've seen other places.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/fallout_4_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html

Personally I would not purchase a gaming video card without 4GB today because that's what the consoles have. That's either a GTX 960 or an R9 380X. My own choice though was between a GTX 970 and an R9 390, because I dislike upgrading video cards too often.

EDIT: Gamer's Nexus did an excellent CPU benchmark. Note that this is with a GTX980Ti, so your performance will be drastically lower. Their excellent GPU benchmark can give you a good idea how much lower.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-ben...rmance-difference#!/ccomment-comment=10003958
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2177-fallout-4-pc-video-card-fps-benchmark-all-resolutions
 
Last edited:

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
14,082
2,563
126
* MSI 890fxaGD70
* AMD Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.8GHz (does run at 4Ghz but I keep it at 3.8 for cooling).
* ATi Radeon HD5850 1GB
* 4GB DDR3 1600
* 2x1.5TB 5,400 RPM HDs (mirrored).


So a few things:

* My OS is on an SSD (60GB), not enough space for Fallout 4 so I had to put it on my data set (mirrored 1.5 TBs) which makes loading slow. I will buy a 512GB SSD for it.

* I will buy 16GB of DDR3 2133 - this is the max capacity and speed my motherboard supports. The main thing is the game runs out of memory and crashes...

* OK, CPU - I have my CPU monitor up when the game is running and it's not pegged, seems to be around 75-85% on all cores. Do I drop in an AMD FX-8370? Will it help? When the game is running I don't have any stuttering really...

* Now to the GPU - this thing is pegged @ 100% utilization and 100% memory utilization the entire time the game is running. Now, it's running nice and smooth but... well, you know, could be faster. :) I do not want to buy a $300 video card... What about dropping in a second HD5850? T

i do not know how well a second 5850 will work;

first off, go for a 240 Gb SSD, they are far cheaper (bar any crazy last minute web deals) than the 512 Gb, and you will have plenty of space for games.

dont buy 16Gb of ram, it's too much for that controller and you don't need it anyway; 8Gb (a second 4Gb kit) is plenty. also, get the cheap stuff.

i would not invest any more money on a CPU for that socket. Intel is far more efficient, and anyway, i suspect your GPU is the culprit.

(also, your PSU is waaay too big .. god knows what efficiency you are getting when it's running at 40% all the time)

i suggest to just get a R9 290 (should be the cheapest safe bet, but check the latest deals) and you should be good.
 

Art&Science

Senior member
Nov 28, 2014
339
4
46
Thanks for advice all.

I went with a 240GB SSD because I had a coupon.

I went with 16GB of ram because I also have VMs which can benefit.

PSU is fine, this is an Antec CP1000 paired with a P182 bought together in 2010. Like I said, I am not ripping the box apart, this has been the most reliable PC I've ever had - it has run basically 24/7 since fall of 2010.

I think I'm set on a 4GB R9 380... haven't purchased yet.

Going to leave the CPU alone for now as I don't think it's an issue - also there is some discussion about if the FX would really be any father than my 965 @ 3.8 for games.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
In case the OP is wondering, I have a GTX 760 and while the game is certainly playabe, it is far from ideal. If somebody really feels the urge to upgrade for just this one title, I'd suggest something in the 900 series.

I think it plays fine on my GTX660, and the only things I backed off on were god rays and setting all draw distances to 75%. I suggest people with lower end cards spend a little time tweaking. There are already some excellent guides which have been posted in the other thread. Console compatibility has been keeping poly counts and texture sizes down, so outside of some lighting effects (i.e. god rays) I don't see any reason a mid- to low-end card can't run this game acceptably.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
22,025
868
126
I'm still rocking a 775 mobo from 2008. Has a q9500. Last year I went SSD and got an r290x and 4gb of ram for a total of 8gb DDR2. Playing (actually finished last night) FO4 and run it on ultra at 1920x1080. Plays and looks great. GTAV is also played at highest settings and gets around 40-45 fps. The vid card and SSD really helped.
 

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
I'm still rocking a 775 mobo from 2008. Has a q9500. Last year I went SSD and got an r290x and 4gb of ram for a total of 8gb DDR2. Playing (actually finished last night) FO4 and run it on ultra at 1920x1080. Plays and looks great. GTAV is also played at highest settings and gets around 40-45 fps. The vid card and SSD really helped.

I'm in a similar boat :) Q9450@3.0GHz + 4GB GTX670 + 8GB RAM + SSD. I'm playing at 1080p, very high preset with low godrays and changed shadow distance a bit from max (by 1/4?). I'm usually at 40-45 FPS, but the game does slowdown with huge vistas to 25 FPS or so. Still very enjoyable!

@OP: upgrade your graphics card (GTX960 or even a GTX970) and get 8GB of RAM and you're good to go for a still enjoyable experience. Your CPU will hold you back, but it doesn't mean the game won't run fine. Cause it will.
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
A 290 is 50-100% faster than a 380 for slightly more. Go with a 290 non reference. 290 is in the same league as 970. A 380 is closer to 960. We are talking of nearly 75-100% extra performance.

And I strong recommend you pick up a used i7 2600k or better.
 

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,298
23
81
I would suggest a used 7970 GHz (eBay ~$140-150). Add that to the SSD + 16GB you're already getting and you could be set. Try it and see. If not good enough at that point, only option really is step up to Intel setup. The used 2600k above is good suggestion but you could really consider any of the i5/i7 chips that have been launched since the Sandy Bridge generation (Gen 2/3/4).

I understand you don't want to rip the whole thing apart and start over, but honestly, if you're willing to replace current CPU with a newer model...that's a rip down anyway. So might as well go all in at that point and get a true performance boost.
 

Art&Science

Senior member
Nov 28, 2014
339
4
46
I would suggest a used 7970 GHz (eBay ~$140-150). Add that to the SSD + 16GB you're already getting and you could be set. Try it and see. If not good enough at that point, only option really is step up to Intel setup. The used 2600k above is good suggestion but you could really consider any of the i5/i7 chips that have been launched since the Sandy Bridge generation (Gen 2/3/4).

I understand you don't want to rip the whole thing apart and start over, but honestly, if you're willing to replace current CPU with a newer model...that's a rip down anyway. So might as well go all in at that point and get a true performance boost.

Thanks, I think I am going to hold off on the video card for now. The Memory and SSD will get Installed tonight after work (Thank you Amazon!) and I'll see. I'll report back to see how much of an improvement there is. I really think my main problem is memory and lots of swapping.

I wouldn't mind dropping a CPU in, I just don't want to change my motherboard as I would have to reload the OS and deal with my mirrored RAID set, which I don't want to do. Basically the SSD, memory, GPU and CPU are drop in and I don't touch the OS or any of my data. The new SSD is going to be just for games, my main SSD is staying put. I know that sounds kind of nit-picky but once I have a system setup "right" I like to leave it alone, LOL!
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Thanks for advice all.

I went with a 240GB SSD because I had a coupon.

I went with 16GB of ram because I also have VMs which can benefit.

PSU is fine, this is an Antec CP1000 paired with a P182 bought together in 2010. Like I said, I am not ripping the box apart, this has been the most reliable PC I've ever had - it has run basically 24/7 since fall of 2010.

I think I'm set on a 4GB R9 380... haven't purchased yet.

Going to leave the CPU alone for now as I don't think it's an issue - also there is some discussion about if the FX would really be any father than my 965 @ 3.8 for games.
Sounds like you made smart choices. None of the AMD CPUs really work great in Fallout 4, but as the consensus seems to be poor optimization rather than absolute need, maybe it gets improved via patches or mods. And if your CPU is good enough for everything else you do and runs good enough in Fallout 4 for your tastes, I agree - why change it?

I think it plays fine on my GTX660, and the only things I backed off on were god rays and setting all draw distances to 75%. I suggest people with lower end cards spend a little time tweaking. There are already some excellent guides which have been posted in the other thread. Console compatibility has been keeping poly counts and texture sizes down, so outside of some lighting effects (i.e. god rays) I don't see any reason a mid- to low-end card can't run this game acceptably.
Seems like virtually everyone agrees that god rays are not worth any performance hit between low and ultra.
 

Art&Science

Senior member
Nov 28, 2014
339
4
46
So I got the memory installed, fiddled with the speed/timing a bit and am up and running. The SSD is not in yet.

This made a HUGE difference. I'm seeing memory utilization peaking at about 6.5GB on my box now (granted that isn't all the game but about 4.5GB is). There is no more stuttering.

The obvious bottleneck is the HD now as I can tell when the box is crunching to move stuff into memory - there is no slowdown but the disks are getting hit good. Can't wait for the SSD.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
So I got the memory installed, fiddled with the speed/timing a bit and am up and running. The SSD is not in yet.

This made a HUGE difference. I'm seeing memory utilization peaking at about 6.5GB on my box now (granted that isn't all the game but about 4.5GB is). There is no more stuttering.

The obvious bottleneck is the HD now as I can tell when the box is crunching to move stuff into memory - there is no slowdown but the disks are getting hit good. Can't wait for the SSD.

Yeah you will be happy. I have an Evo 840 as my main drive and it makes a big difference.