Fallout 4 - AMD vs Nvidia Performance Review

tinytomlogan

The Guvnor
Staff member
10173804669l.jpg


Let's have a look at Fallout 4's performance with AMD's R9 Fury X and Nvidia's GTX 980Ti. Is Godrays the new HairWorks?


Fallout 4 - AMD vs Nvidia Performance Review
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi

I installed the Nvidia update and went with the recommended settings which were "Ultra" on my GTX 980. I really appreciate your article and photos. I got a couple hours into the game and at 1440P on Ultra it was very smooth for me.

I really am going to go in and make the changes to low quality and turn god rays off eventually. Right now i wish I had a vacation day available to actually play today

Loving it so far

--Rick--
 
awesome review Mark, lots of info to read up on for those who are not yet playing the game.

it would be awesome if you could add in sli/crossfire scaling for people still rocking older hardware and maybe if you got time to add in i5 vs i7?

only if you got time
 
Am I the only one who's not seeing the article/and link in the OP?

Nice write up WYP, although it would be interesting to see some i5 vs i7 comparisons. Someone in a different thread reported a website benchmarking both and there were big differences between them.
 
Am I the only one who's not seeing the article/and link in the OP?

Nice write up WYP, although it would be interesting to see some i5 vs i7 comparisons. Someone in a different thread reported a website benchmarking both and there were big differences between them.

It's not there, I've added something to the OP.
 
I'm finding the performance to be pretty good thus far. I'm getting a steady 60fps pretty much everywhere, with the very occasional drop into the 40's kind of like the way Skyrim was.

That's at 1080p with an i7-6700k and GTX 780 where neither are overclocked.
 
I was just had a little play and I was hitting 80-95fps @ 1440 ultra only with the AA n all that rubbish off, using i7 4970k @4.5 and 980ti classy @ stock
It the first time i have played FO4, or any fallout actually but i quite like it, even though I'm not one for those type of games
 
Nice write up Mark. Really informative thanks and I especially liked the comparisons on the God rays on/off. For a relatively small graphical advantage it seems to be a big hit on the performance.

I'm not sure what percentage of gamers have refresh rates higher than 60hz. I agree it would be annoying to shell out for a 120/144/165hz beast and be locked at 60 but I imagine the devs are trying to cater for the most mainstream setups.

I'm actually pleased that the game is playable on single (admittedly top end) cards up to 1440p on release.
 
nice review, got 970 sli recently, pretty terrible performance since no sli optimisation, i tried some workarounds etc. but in the end just disabling sli and going with single 970 somehow gives best performance... not impressed bethesda. not to mention often fps drows below 40 on scenes while doing fine and going for over 100 on others. very bad optimised game imho.
 
Nice to see my Ti is only 5 FPS off @1440p.


Is anyone else on cheapo monitors having issues telling the difference between the two reds in the graphs for AMD?
 
hah just checked on my work monitor.

The reds and greens on this screen are identical.

Its fine on the Swift back home though.
 
hah just checked on my work monitor.

The reds and greens on this screen are identical.

Its fine on the Swift back home though.
I'd imagine my home monitors are fine. I'm deffo having issues with the reds at work though. Good ol' Acer B243hls once again showing there is no such thing as color
 
There was so much scare mongering going on with this game that it was unreal. I can play it at ultra with God Rays set to low on my Fury X at 4k and it's been absolutely fine. Few slow downs here and there but then Fallout 3 did that at times too. More of a bug in the code than a performance issue.

As for the game? hah ! my absence for the last couple of days explains it all. It's absolutely bloody fabulous.
 
Good coverage of this game.

Thank you for writing this and for the pictures.

I do not like how the Godrays are displayed, it looks like a brighter blob. And frankly, I am not impressed with the visuals at all. It might have been good for games made 6 or 7 years ago.

As to the 60fps limit, 97% or 98% of PC gamers still use monitors or HDTVs that have a refresh rate of 60, so, I understand why they did this. Why hire someone to write code for 2 or 3 percent of gamers?

The visuals between AMD and Nvidia are not much different.

Performances between AMD and Nvidia are significant and should improve for AMD when game specific drivers are released.

You mentioned something to the affect that Nvidia is not releasing important information that other companies could use to improve [performance], and that the issue is complex.

Actually, the issue is not complex, it is a matter of money. Remember years ago when a power supply for a crap average Mac PC cost $300? In it's basic form it is called greed. The result for Mac computers was loss of market share. There is not enough competition in the consumer video card market to force Nvidia to release anything that would benefit consumers, or more importantly, manufacturers of of non-Nvidia PC graphics cards, like AMD.

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to express our thoughts and, again, good job with your article.

[Edit: I have an MSI GeForce GTX 980 Ti Lightning LE video card, so I am not an AMD fan boy in case someone gets the wrong impression.]
 
Last edited:
I wonder how much people getting paid to say these bull.
All I see in steam forums is people with nvidia having all the problems.

But I guess in this day and age everything works that way right?
 
Back
Top