• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[PCGH.de] Fallout 4 Benchmark

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
did you notice there is a chart directly from nvidia showing the 980ti getting below 60fps on ultra at 1080p?

Yes, you can always find a specific spot. NVidia is also there to sell 980TI.

Overall you pretty much get 60FPS with everything on ultra around the game.
 

description says

"We'll be uploading PC performance comparisons of Fallout 4 as and when we complete our testing. We've already shown how a budget PC can take on the consoles, but now we're aiming for full 1080p60 playback at ultra settings. Note that the game enforces v-sync, and we can't turn it off on AMD, hence the lack of unlocked performance here. All GPUs compared here using a Core i7 4790K running at 4.6GHz."

I'll be absolutely shocked if there is actually no way to disable vsync on AMD

are they actually talking about a 60 FPS cap?
 
Yes, you can always find a specific spot. NVidia is also there to sell 980TI.

Overall you pretty much get 60FPS with everything on ultra around the game.
How would a chart showing the 980ti below 60 fps on max settings help nvidia sell 980tis?

Unless you believe not being able to run max settings at 1080p is desirable and that people will rush out to buy second 980tis so that maybe 1440p ultra is available to them!
 
Last edited:
How would a chart showing the 980ti below 60 fps on max settings help nvidia sell 980tis?

Unless you believe not being able to run max settings at 1080p is desirable and that people will rush out to buy second 980tis so that maybe 1440p ultra is available to them!

nVidia is there to sell you more GPU power, not less.

A GTX980 is fine for ultra settings at 2560*1440 and getting pretty much 60FPS average. Yes, you can find some spots where you may get 40FPS.
 
description says

"We'll be uploading PC performance comparisons of Fallout 4 as and when we complete our testing. We've already shown how a budget PC can take on the consoles, but now we're aiming for full 1080p60 playback at ultra settings. Note that the game enforces v-sync, and we can't turn it off on AMD, hence the lack of unlocked performance here. All GPUs compared here using a Core i7 4790K running at 4.6GHz."

I'll be absolutely shocked if there is actually no way to disable vsync on AMD

are they actually talking about a 60 FPS cap?

...Don't you just have to set iPresentInterval=0 in the .ini files? 'Twas how it went with the previous Bethesda games.
 
Just a couple of hours and amd engineers will be able to claim their steam game codes to provide performance drivers for amd gpus. Can't wait!
 
nVidia is there to sell you more GPU power, not less.

A GTX980 is fine for ultra settings at 2560*1440 and getting pretty much 60FPS average. Yes, you can find some spots where you may get 40FPS.
Again you don't answer my question at all.
How does nvidia showing the 980ti struggling at 1080p on ultra helping nvidia sell gpus. I'm not talking about the gtx 980, so no need to bring it up.
If you don't have an answer that's fine.
 
Again you don't answer my question at all.
How does nvidia showing the 980ti struggling at 1080p on ultra helping nvidia sell gpus. I'm not talking about the gtx 980, so no need to bring it up.
If you don't have an answer that's fine.

Why dont you like the rest of us get the game and try 🙂

Then you also wouldn't think a GTX980TI would do sub 25FPS either.
fallout-4-ugridstoload-performance-640px.png


Or even lower:
fallout-4-ugridstoload-fully-tweaked-performance-640px.png
 
Last edited:
if there is a setting that crushes your performance but looks the same, just lower the setting. All your friends will still think you are the coolest kid on the block, don't worry.
 
if there is a setting that crushes your performance but looks the same, just lower the setting. All your friends will still think you are the coolest kid on the block, don't worry.

I once told my best friend I dropped dynamic shadows to Medium during a gaming session.

He kicked me out of the clan and next day someone spray painted "CONSOLE PEASANT" on the side of my car. :'(

#ELITISMHURTS
 
I once told my best friend I dropped dynamic shadows to Medium during a gaming session.

He kicked me out of the clan and next day someone spray painted "CONSOLE PEASANT" on the side of my car. :'(

#ELITISMHURTS

You mean I shouldn't turn down some settings in BF4 to make it easier to see things? (have been told I'm cheating for not having everything set to ultra...)
 
You mean I shouldn't turn down some settings in BF4 to make it easier to see things? (have been told I'm cheating for not having everything set to ultra...)

If you aren't playing in wire-frame mode, you aren't playing competitively enough.
 
So poor performance on Xbox One and PS4 is due to AMD too then? Certainly not due to the way the game is coded (including black box effects). No, it's definitely AMD's fault that the dev which always launches games with bugs launched a game with bugs.

This thread has nothing to do with underpowered consoles. Did you watch the link below?


Clearly it's not AMD's fault, right? Right? Clearly they are always on top of new game releases, especially ones that aren't in their GE program. Cry babies will be cry babies and play the victim no matter what.

/extreme sarcasm
 
Charts you post when you have no answer for the question presented.

Considering there are not only 2 benchmarks in this thread showing 60+ in 1080p. There are also videos. Yet you still proclaim it cant be done because something NVidia posted on their site that you dont fully understand shows something else?
 
Its likely not AMD or Nvidia but that old arse engine from 2006 that was rejigged in 2011 for Skyrim and re-rejigged in 2015 for Fallout 4. There is only so much you can bolt on and maintain performance.
 
Considering there are not only 2 benchmarks in this thread showing 60+ in 1080p. There are also videos. Yet you still proclaim it cant be done because something NVidia posted on their site that you dont fully understand shows something else?

At the risk of being impertinent, it isn't clear to me what a \mu-grid is either, could you clarify ShintaiDK?
 
This thread has nothing to do with underpowered consoles. Did you watch the link below?



Clearly it's not AMD's fault, right? Right? Clearly they are always on top of new game releases, especially ones that aren't in their GE program. Cry babies will be cry babies and play the victim no matter what.

/extreme sarcasm

Drivers can only do so much for a game. The way I see it is that no matter how much you optimize a game if that particular game has a bunch of features that favors a specific vendor it will be much harder for the opposing side to get the performance desired relative to the power of said card. PC games on a whole has been lackluster all we get are half arsed ports that tax powerful hardware much more than it should with little to no benefit to the average consumer.

Why do we cry "PCmasterrace" when game developers treats us like second class citizens and feed us nothing but dog food? Their is literally no next gen game as of current which truly requires the power of a 980ti or fury X. All we get are inflated requirements and brand biased games. Developers are getting lazy when it comes to pc games on whole.
 
Back
Top