RadioactiveLobster
Member
Same here. Ultra PhysX in BL2 and BL Pre-Sequel tank my FPS in certain scenario.
It only happens in these games, I personally think it's a bug with that engine or games.
Fallout 4 PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter Hip Hop
- Start date
Same here. Ultra PhysX in BL2 and BL Pre-Sequel tank my FPS in certain scenario.
It only happens in these games, I personally think it's a bug with that engine or games.
Some just said earlier in this thread that it had to do with the new PHYSX effects? Set them to high and try loading a game again. (Weapon debris)
Apparently "ultra" causes long load times.
Reading around it seems HBAO+ can have a pretty large impact on FPS, which is a shame as I've gotten performance just where I want it, not sure I am prepared to sacrifice up to 15fps (as others are reporting) for slightly better IQ. Hopefully the debris effect isn't to impactful on settings lower than Ultra.
Once they fix the load time problem I'll give it a try for myself.
Once they fix the load time problem I'll give it a try for myself.
Where have you seen HBAO+ hainv such a large performance hit ?
I have an AMD card so weapon debris doesn't even show up for me.
Yeah, "solely because" is probably a bit of an exaggeration, even though I was talking solely about the amount of draw calls, not the total frametime. I should mention that as far as I know, the base building -like features exist all around the world and the runtime has access to individual decorations outside of set base building areas. Not to say that's the most efficient way of doing things (though I can see how it would make the level production a little easier, less riskier and support modding stability better), but it should add quite a bit of overhead in the amount of draw calls.
I also definitely wouldn't say it's "the way it should be" since I haven't got even close to a fraction of information needed to have say in the bigger picture related to the technology and production, but as is with any game technology, there's always pros and cons, and in the case of the engine it comes with superior modding support compared to pretty much any AAA game out there right now.
In any case, really glad to see HBAO+ implemented in patch since the AO was very much lacking without it. Since I've not had that many qualms about performance (other than I would love to up the shadow distance, but that too is a result of amount individual objects to be drawn I'm not too hopeful to see many improvements there) nor have had any stability issues or bugs, I am really eager to see the new toolkit and learn more about how technology has evolved.
The Lamonster
Member
Mine too, which is a good thing because now I actually have time to read the loading screens lol
Seems a little longer, but not really noticeable (my load times were never all that great to begin with). I've got particles on High.
Performance seems about the same as it did before. Whatever improvements they made are offset by the HBAO+, but that's a good thing.. feels like HBAO doesn't actually hurt performance all that much, at least on my rig.
Performance seems about the same as it did before. Whatever improvements they made are offset by the HBAO+, but that's a good thing.. feels like HBAO doesn't actually hurt performance all that much, at least on my rig.
Deaf Spacker
Memb
ChoklitReign
Member
Something has increased my loading times. A lot. Before the new patch it was like 10 seconds from boot or fast traveling, something reasonable. But now it feels like Bloodborne at launch's loading times, at least 40 seconds, maybe a minute. The first time the game loaded from the main menu I saw FOUR hints on the screen. Never seen something like that before. Context: I was playing in borderless fullscreen, which I've never done before, but why would that increase the loading times? My save file sizes have also not increased significantly since the last time I played and they're around 11 MB. Edit: I see most of you have longer load times, too, but I haven't changed any of the graphics settings.
Also a few of my mods are disabled like Pleasant UI. I use the custom config menu and I clicked archive invalidated to see what it did (it erased my string edits). Do I still need to use string edits to use mods? NMM warned me about something involving using string edits or something like that. AFAIK most of them work so maybe I should just reinstall the ones I notice are missing.
Also a few of my mods are disabled like Pleasant UI. I use the custom config menu and I clicked archive invalidated to see what it did (it erased my string edits). Do I still need to use string edits to use mods? NMM warned me about something involving using string edits or something like that. AFAIK most of them work so maybe I should just reinstall the ones I notice are missing.
This happens to everyone. Some people simply don't care about the framerate dropping and frametime wildly fluctuating and say the game is fine.
Irobot82
Member
HBAO+ performance impact evaluated :
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/fallout_4_retested_hbao_performance_impact/1
It's early in the morning and my eyes are blurry. Is this saying Nvidia takes a greater performance his with HBAO on than AMD?
Same here. AMD card user. No Pysx on and all that. I did turn on HBAO but my load times went from 10-20 second to like a minute. I'm on an SSD.
The long load times were unacceptable for me, so I rolled back. HBAO+ looks amazing but I don't want to waste time sitting loading screens.
I am running from SSD and am pretty sure its the new patch causing the long load times, since after rolling back its been fast and smooth.
I am running from SSD and am pretty sure its the new patch causing the long load times, since after rolling back its been fast and smooth.
In this scenario at least, yes. Could be different elsewhere.
Irobot82
Member
Well it's a fantastic graphics option. Now we just need objects to cast shadows!
dgrdsv
Member
I don't see why it can't considering that HBAO+ is a postprocessing pass dependent on Z fetches and framebuffer blurring and Fury has gobs of bandwidth to do well here.
R
Rösti
Unconfirmed Member
I decided to re-enable textures to allow for more colors, but doing so made some changes for some reason to mipmapping settings. When I did not have any textures enabled, effectively making most characters and objects purple, the mipmapping setting could be changed easily with noticable results. This is what I used (in Fallout4Prefs.ini) with textures disabled:
iTexMipMapSkip=65536
This made foliage, fire etc. appear as simple blocks. But the same setting with textures enabled does not change foliage at all, it appears as normal. My intention is to turn Fallout 4 into what I made Fallout 3 look like (blockiness most apparent in the first image):
Am I missing something here? I find it very strange it works with textures disabled, but not when they are enabled.
iTexMipMapSkip=65536
This made foliage, fire etc. appear as simple blocks. But the same setting with textures enabled does not change foliage at all, it appears as normal. My intention is to turn Fallout 4 into what I made Fallout 3 look like (blockiness most apparent in the first image):
Am I missing something here? I find it very strange it works with textures disabled, but not when they are enabled.
lemonlyman
Member
Anyone else getting an issue where the game crashes anytime I try to transfer items to anything?
icecold1983
Member
http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/fallout-4-beta-patch-1-3-test-gpu.html
benchmarks of the new patch. big wins for amd
benchmarks of the new patch. big wins for amd
Koutsoubas
Member
Quick question: I felt something odd in the mouse movement the first 2 days i played. I switched to the controller afterwards.
Have that been resolved?
Have that been resolved?
QuantumSquid
Member
Probably not, from my experience the mouse movement feels weird in every Bethesda game.
abracadaver
Member
That looks bad, only the high end cards can achieve stable 60fps in 1080p? Or is there a crazy amount of AA applied?
icecold1983
Member
That looks bad, only the high end cards can achieve stable 60fps in 1080p? Or is there a crazy amount of AA applied?
the game doesnt perform too spectacularly
Ya there are several expensive settings that will tank even good rigs.That looks bad, only the high end cards can achieve stable 60fps in 1080p? Or is there a crazy amount of AA applied?
DOT DASH DOT
Member
I'll try that, I've had a 3 minute load time a few times!
They're doing something wrong in their settings. My 680 is getting better than what that chart says, and I'm running 1440p.That looks bad, only the high end cards can achieve stable 60fps in 1080p? Or is there a crazy amount of AA applied?
I can see using benchmarks like that as a simple comparison tool, but it completely fails if you're trying to use it to estimate what your actual performance will be like. Turn down a couple of settings and bam, another 20-30fps. They should make a version of those with "optimized play settings" or some such, the settings that players will actually use (like turning god rays down), and then run the comparison.
That looks bad, only the high end cards can achieve stable 60fps in 1080p? Or is there a crazy amount of AA applied?
Ultra god rays.
icecold1983
Member
they are just testing at max settings
Hands of Stone
Member
How's a 690 performing better than a 970?
icecold1983
Member
a 7870 right there with a 770. 280x beating a 780ti. more and more games.
Hands of Stone
Member
Yeesh.
Just gives me more incentive to get a proper processor and sell the 970 for Pascal later this year.
Bubba_Sparks
Member
This game has some very terrible performance overall. Area's in downtown Boston can absolutely destroy performance. Settings like shadow distance to High or Ultra will absolutely kill FPS in denser areas if you don't have a very powerful CPU. You can go from 60FPS to 30FPS very quickly and sometimes it doesn't seem like scene complexity increases at all.
The 690 is a dual GPU card.
Hands of Stone
Member
Yeah just looked it up.
I thought Bethesda would have put in a bit more time in this generation when it came to PC ports but I guess some things never change.
icecold1983
Member
i dont think thats likely to change the situation for nvidia. the architecture isnt expected to change from maxwell.
dgrdsv
Member
Funny how it was "a game running on an old engine" because of which it was favoring NV just a month ago and now it's a part of that "more and more games" mantra of yours.
This is a benchmark done on a specific scene on a beta version of patch 1.3. Before jumping to conclusions you should at least wait for the patch to be released even though I'd prefer to have couple other sites do the test as well to have more data.
The Pascal architecture will change from Maxwell. Not that it needs to as Maxwell is perfectly fine in comparison to GCN.
iNvid02
Member
Dick Justice
Banned
That looks bad, only the high end cards can achieve stable 60fps in 1080p? Or is there a crazy amount of AA applied?
Makes sense if all settings (especially shadow distance and god rays) are maxed out, along with physx and HBAO+. I get 10-15fps drops from a vsync'd 60fps in Diamond City on my 970 if shadow distance is above medium.
icecold1983
Member
nvidia themselves have released slides saying pascal = maxwell + hbm and mixed precision support, the latter of which will likely only be used for deep learning. id expect games use to be minimal if it happens at all.
wrt fallout 4, yes it is on a very outdated engine, but with this new beta patch its now one of the ever increasing games where nvidia lags behind. i dont see how you can deny this trend. mind showing me a bunch of recent games where a 770 hangs with a 290 and 290x? that would be the corollary to the variety of games ive shown you where a 280x hangs with a 780 and 780ti. every 6 months amds chips move up in performance compared to nvidia. checking techpowerups performance summaries over the years shows huge changes in gpu positioning.
dgrdsv
Member
NV released slides showcasing the biggest changes from their previous architecture. They do this all the time and it never was as easy as "prev arch + new features" in the end. Pascal will be different from Maxwell down to its shader SIMDs - that much you can be certain of.
As for mixed precision its usage will depend on how much performance benefit it will have in real world applications. Games can certainly use it as they are already on mobile h/w.
Well, there is no trend as you're still using your selective benchmark approach and this FO4 case is just a perfect highlight of how it was "old engine" before and thus it didn't count and is a "part of trend" now based on just one benchmark of a beta patch in your words. All in all this is just bullshit.
Do your homework and search for benchmarks yourself. There are a plenty of recent games where this exact situation is happening (when 770 isn't VRAM limited which it usually is in recent games and I think that I've shown you this already in technicolor), you just chose to not see them because they are going against that "trend" theory of yours.
icecold1983
Member
so gamegpu.ru, pcgameshardweare.de and techpowerup benchmarks are me using benchmarks selectively?
may 2013
september 2014
june 2015
jan 2016
