Fallout 4 CPU results
>sandybridge fags BTFO
>>51279841
Not putting 4790K OC.
Devil Canyon confirmed for better than Skylake once more.
>tfw 6700k + 980ti can't even get 65 fps
>>51279841
I'd be more concerned about AMDfags honestly.
OC'd 9590 with a nuclear reactor and about 250W TDP is barely enough for 30 fps.
Kek nvidia + intel games
>good goy keep spending more
>>51279934
This game is possibly the most shit optimized game we've seen. The graphics are nowhere near where they should be and the animations are ass tier. Fuck Bethesda
>>51279958
>Bethesda
>Expecting a well coded game
You are literally retarded.
>>51279975
They could have at least tried
>caring about benchmarks for a shit game
>>51279978
Wishful thinking
>cpu matters in the year 2015
what the fuck is bethesda doing?
Interesting. Pretty much you need Haswell or newer if you want a good experience.
>mfw I can't do 60 fps on my 4770k without OC
>>51279934
>Nvidia GameWorks inside
It was clear what the results would be the moment GW was mentioned.
>>51279841
there's literally no reason that Fallout 4 needs that much power.
>>51279841
Now again with an amd gpu
>2007 graphics
>Requires a fuken beast computer
>>51280008
>CPU benchmark
>muh GameWorks
Stop being retarded, there is no blaming Nvidia for Bulldozer's failures.
Wonder what 5820K, 5930K and 5960X get.
![f42_1920u[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/fkjhegH.png "f42_1920u[1].png")
>>51280015
I don't think that would paint a very flattering picture.
>>51279841
From a software architecture perspective, it would be amazing to know the amount of layers of crap over crap that is Gamebryo in its current state and what will become of it in the future.
>>51280051
That's not what I meant. I want to see a benchmark of cpus using an amd gpu
>>51280038
Probably somewhere on par with the other Haswell chips, unless Beth somehow figured out how to use more than four cores.
>>51280019
2011 graphics more like.
>>51280051
how
>>51280076
>>51280051
The game literally uses features that favor Nvidia. That's how.
lol AMD BTFO as usual
>muh gameworks slowing us down!!!
prove it
>>51280051
I have a fx-8320 + hd 6850 and I was getting better than some of those
Betshita accomplished to make Creation Engine even shittier? Wow.
>>51279978
why? casual plebs buy it anyway, considering it's been hyped to the moon and back. trying means spending money means less profit for stockholders. can't do that, sir.
>>51280063
Daily reminder that pic related is the engine on top of which FO4 is running.
>>51280051
>Titan X not getting 60 FPS
lmfao what a shit game
>>51280098
Fury under 960, that is your proof.
Do you even know the Crysis 2 tessellation story?
![f43_1920u[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/KYLud7X.png "f43_1920u[1].png")
>>51280109
It's in a pretty demanding spot apparently.
Also PCLab isn't exactly the most trustworthy source in my opinion, but it's a great basis for shitposting on /v/
>>51279841
I am officialy on suicide watcgh.
Thanks /g/
>>51280129
The water was great for it's time.
Shit was rad on my 4800 Ti.
>>51280159
If I recall correctly, Morrowind with the first game to use pixel shaders, and the only thing to use them was the water. It looked amazing, but also kinda out of place in comparison with the rest of the graphics.
>>51280098
There's no logical reason for Nvidia cards to perform as well as they do in benchmarks. AMDs GPUs are far more powerful. More power hungry, yeah, but more powerful. If and when AMD is able to wade through the muck that Gameworks leaves in its wake then driver updates some months down the road will show marked improvements.
The truth is Gameworks is slowing everyone down, even Nvidia users. Just less obviously so. It's so painfully obvious to see what's going on.
>Game looks like ass and runs like ass
>buy more of our 28nm GPUs, goy
>>51280143
I would maybe look more for a driver overhead issue or something, given how incredibly clumped all the AMD cards are.
There is barely a 3 fps difference between a Fury X and 280, which points to more than just tesselation or GW effects. It looks like the cards are bottlenecked somewhere, even the Nvidia ones, although to a lesser extent.
>>51280193
>>51280182
It's god rays, -30fps impact for NOTHING
>>51280175
or at least one of the first game to use pixel shaders... I certainly never heard of them before MW came out.
>>51280182
Except I hear that FO4 doesn't work with SLI yet, so you couldn't get the game to run better even if you wanted to add more GPUs.
>>51280175
I believe it's as you say. At least it was the first game I ever saw them used in.
And yes, it looked weird in comparison to the rest, but it was a huge difference to just a flat texture for water surface.
>>51280145
>gpu 1002mhz
at 1500 it'll literally get twice the fps as a fury x
fukking kek amd
if they thought cpu performance was important, they would have made a dx12 game.
>>51280217
It says 1002mhz + (plus) GPU boost 2.0
So It was probably boosting up a few hundred mhz. Maybe 1250 or 1300 or so.
learn 2 reeeeed
>>51280225
Bethesda literally don't know how to code a game.
Theyre great concept artists, but when it comes to making a game they are literal trash.
>>51280242
good fucking luck keeping a ref 980 ti under 70c to take advantage of boost.
Going to test my 5930K rig hopefully later today...
>>51280269
Assuming they're reference cards, they'll still boost up by 100-200 mhz even under high thermal conditions.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti,4164-8.html
I'm not expecting it to run as well as Mgs5, but this is not even 1/3 as good
6 year old nehalem still outperforming all of AMD's offerings.
So basically you need to buy the best GPU and CPU JUST to achieve 60 fps? What faggot in their right mind would buy this game? I saw game play on twitch and it looked like an xbox 360 game. Are people literally retarded or is Todd le master brainwasher?
>>51280447
> Are people literally retarded or is Todd le master brainwasher?
Yes.
>>51280430
>>51280447
On ultra in a very highly demanding part of the game.
Take benchmark graphs posted to /g/ with a pound of salt; they're normally cherry picked.
>>51280465
>talking about CPU's
>Nvidia_CEO_Jew_Joke
Insecure much?
>>51280430
All of AMD's offerings are 6 years old
>>51280489
Sorry but that's a joke. I never liked fallout and was contemplating giving this a try. It looks like shit and needs high end parts just to get 60 fps consistently. Sorry but I'm not that much of a retarded consumerist.
>>51280515
I didn't even realize the file name. I just want to post a funny jew meme :^P
so 970 wins after all
>>51279948
>mfw 980ti is cheaper than fury x and gets ~30% higher fps
>>51279841
Where would my 5820K (OC) rank?
>>51280521
Neither am I. I don't plan on playing this game.
My point still stands about /g/ cherry picking their graphs though. Stick around for longer than a day and you'll see that.
>>51280564
>Be me
>See this
>980ti costs more
>Fury X costs less
>>51280581
980 ti $570 after rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127902&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=IGNEFL111015&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-KB%20Networks,%20Inc.-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10440897&PID=3891137&SID=rewrite
>>51280570
>stick around for longer than a day
How did you manage to come to that conclusion? Because a graph makes me upset? Cherry picked or not these results are still valid. Not need to be a projecting asshole especially with someone who is inclined to agree with you.
>>51280581
At least here in Europe AMD graphics are more expensive and perform a lot worse. Usually you pay >100 EUR more for an AMD card with comparable performance. But honestly, you are and idiot if you still buy AMD in 2015.
>>51280604
Y u so butt mad derpy :^)
>>51280595
I live in UK senpai, AMD is always cheaper here for no reason
>>51280604
Well to be honest I did cherrypick the first GPU benchmark for worst results I could find.
>>51280625
Because you guys pay like 1/3 dollar kwh
I only pay .11kwh
>>51280619
I will always buy Nvidia™ because I only play games The Way It's Meant to be Played™. Nvidia also pioneers innovative new technologies like PhysX™, Gameworks™ and the highest quality driver to ever grace Windows.
When I boot up with a brand new Nvidia™ Geforce™, I can experience the game just like it's mean to be played. Nvidia™ also delivers a far more silkysmooth experience.
Nvidia Geforce™ is also very power efficient. A graphic card is the most power hungry device in your house. Refrigerators, air conditioners, water heaters, dish washers, lights, etc all use significantly less power than a graphic card. Which is why Nvidia™ puts gamers first by ensuring that their gaming experience is of the highest quality while looking out for gamers by giving them the most value in their electrical bill.
At this point in time, there's really no reasons to consider an AMD graphic card at all. I tried one one time, it caused so much heat that it exploded. It also consumed so much power that it gave on an EMP and destroyed the rest of my computer.
Nvidia™ also pioneered how useless GPGPU is with CUDA™. Years ago, everyone thought GPGPU, CUDA™, and OpenCL were the future. Now, Nvidia™ has removed those useless features from their GPUs and increased efficiency. Now you can save thousands a year in electricity thanks to Nvidia™ ensuring that useless features like GPGPU are "optimized" for gamers.
It's quite clear that OP's an AMD shill trying to convince you to settle on something less than The Way It's Mean to be Played™. Nvidia™ is the only real way to play games. We have seen recently that they offer incredible libraries for software developers like Nvidia Gameworks. He is probably too poor to afford the Nvidia Geforce Experience and can not afford to play any games The Way It's Mean To be Played™.
Don't be a poor gamer with bad drivers and a huge power bill. Play games with the Geforce™ Experience™: The Way It's Mean To Be Played™
>>51280604
>he thinks one high usage scenario from one section of the game on from one website represents the entire game.
Bethesda games are bad, but they're not THAT bad.
>>51280625
In Mitteleuropa they are about the same, depends on dollar rates.
Fury X is currently more than some non-reference 980Ti's
>>51280632
I understand that. Cherry picked or not though their still results.
4770K
970 GTX
>inb4 memecard
Feelsgoodman
i wanna see the gpu benchmarks, not cpu .
Is a torrent available yet?
>>51279841
I see they didn't rank my CPU again. Oh well 5820k strong...
The official Fallout 4 system requirements call for a GeForce GTX 550 Ti with 2GB of VRAM for 1280x960, minimum setting, 30 FPS gameplay, and a GeForce GTX 780 with 3GB of VRAM for a higher level of detail. Neither of these previous-generation cards are available to purchase, however, so if you’re looking to build a system for Fallout 4 today, or to upgrade an older rig, what GeForce GTX GPUs should you be targeting for High setting, 60 FPS gameplay?According to our comprehensive benchmarking, the GeForce GTX 970.
The game engine looks very poorly threaded, and code appears to be making use of a lot of FPU ops.
Its pretty much the same situation as Skyrim. Wouldn't surprise me if they used some legacy X87 again too.
>>51280008
Gamewerx isn't going to hurt AMD CPUs.
>>51279934
I'm putting my money on use of ICC.
Still waiting for my copy, so I can't confirm yet.
>>51280707
funny you say that, a lot of the code is ported dircetly from skyrim
>>51280282
Can confirm higher FPS on my 5820k compared to a buddys 6700k. Both of us are running a GTX 760 4gb on a decent OC. Nit maxing out the game, but I see a good 7-15 fps over him.
How does the 3570k OC get easily beaten by even a 6500 at stock clock if theoretical benchmarks show it's almost equally as powerful as the 6700k OC'd to the same clock?
I actually don't know. I was under the impression that recent cpu generations focused almost purely on TDP.
Is Bethesda jewing together with Intel in secret gameworks style, or what?
Please inform me.
>>51280654
really? i always buy nvidia because every time i bought ati/amd i was left with a shitty, buggy card that i regretted purchasing.
>>51280707
x87 in Skyrim was due to ICC, it was only x87 on non-intel CPUs as ICC compiled executables discriminate based on vendor string.
It's pretty easy to patch though, so if it is ICC causing the trouble, AMDfags should be able to get a large performance boost simply trying the icc patcher.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Patchers/Intel-Compiler-Patcher.shtml
>>51280707
What's an FPU?
>>51280743
New products performs better than old products. Those who cannot handle this fact resorts to conspiracy theories amd play victim.
>>51280720
Thank you based Haswell-E bros.
>2015
>buying a bunch of DDR4 RAM and a new mobo just to buy a quadcore memelake
Tell your friend to step the fuck up.
>>51280771
>amd play victim
Unintentional freudian slip on behalf of SwiftKey
>>51280076
This game appears to be purposely coded to run like shit on AMD. I can get over 100FPS in GTAV on a 290X at 1080p/Ultra with FSAA off.
>>51280743
The game was compiled to use a lot of horribly inefficient code. Intentionally.
There is no other explanation.
>>51280771
That doesn't answer anything. Why are 3570k and 6700k synthetic benchmarks extremely close at the same clock but in this game they're worlds apart? Is Bethesda purposely holding back the chip? Is there some specific new tech starting in haswell that fo4 uses?
>>51280770
Floating point unit, typically does most math operations, including the extremely complex ones and/or ones involving very large numbers.
>>51279841
>1080p
>980 Ti OC
>63 fps
>polish website
Obvious bullshit benchmark
I'm still gonna buy a fx-6300 for my poor rig, and there is nothing you can do to stop me
>>51280808
avx2+fma4
>>51280782
I'm considering either 6700k or 5820k, paying extra 100$ for a motherboard and getting a new cooler on top of that make the X99 quite a bit more expensive.
Dunno if it's worth it, I'm on a 4670k and still fine.
>>51280820
+TSX for skylel
>>51280819
I used to be like you. Putting around in the shallow end of the pool. Just put the money down for a decent Intel chip m8, its well worth it.
>>51280819
Nothing wrong with amd chips they're just not as powerful as intel. They're still good chips and are worth the money. Intel CPU with amd GPU is god tier combo.
Isn't Fallout 4 just badly unoptimized? Their biggest market is consolefags.
It kind of sucks that no game company updates their games after release so they can run better. Fallout 4 looks like the kind of game a Q6600 should handle.
>>51279841
> pclab.pl
They hate amd because amd won't give them free cards or processors. I don't doubt that Intel beats amd in processors, but it's definitely not as bad as pclab.pl portrays it.
>>51280851
I second this. In fact I'd recommend getting a shitty used GPU to afford the nice CPU instead of a crap CPU and decent GPU.
You can always EASILY upgrade GPU at any time later, but upgrading CPU is a bitch, and if you have a bad platform like AM3+ instead of lg a 1150/51 then it's impossible.
Optimisation must be non-existent. There's no way there would be that much variation between CPU's.
>>51280851
Any decent Intel chip is literally twice the price.
FX-6300 is by far the best chip you can buy for $100.
>>51280866
>Their biggest market is consolefags.
Our biggest complaints are framedrops from 60 to 30 and performance issues with certain settings.
Meanwhile in 'optimized' console country, Xbone is getting drops to 0fps for 4-5 seconds when gameplay heats up and PS4 is only pulling 3-4fps in the same areas.
It's turd for everyone.
>>51280743
>How does the 3570k OC get easily beaten by even a 6500 at stock clock if theoretical benchmarks show it's almost equally as powerful as the 6700k OC'd to the same clock?
Because theoretical do not matter. Improvements to Skylake pipeline and the improved L1 and L2 cache performance don't necessarily affect synthetical benchmarks, but they affect real-world applications.
Besides, even synthetical benchmarks show very clear IPC improvements between Ivy Bridge and Skylake, so I'm not sure what you're on about.
>>51280841
Nothing is worth it. Stay on that chip. The investment is almost $200 after selling the chip you have now and you LOSE 1% single core performance just to gain 3% multicore performance
I dunno what you fags are on about my 4790k and 980ti run this console port flawlessly at 1440p. Fuckin game looks like garbage tho, gonna tweak the ini later
>>51280889
yeah but are you really saving money when you buy a relatively weak cpu? how long is it going to last when it's already struggling?
Have a 4670k at 4.5GHz so I'm guessing it would be a good few fps more
>>51279841
>980 Ti OC
>i7-6700k OC
>1920x1080
>only slightly above 60 fps
How is that acceptable in any way? GTA V looks a LOT better than Fallout 4, and it runs hell of a lot better as well.
Good thing I didn't buy this piece of shit game.
>>51280841
I was in a similar situation before I bought my 5820k. I also had a 4670k, which is fine for just about everything, but I wanted to record and stream BF4, something the i5 struggled with, and I just wasn't sure a 4790k would get it done. At the same time Skylake benches came out and were kind of underwhelming so the extra cost for X99 seemed worthwhile.
>>51280911
Depends on what you're doing. If you're just gaming then an i5 is "fine" but that is increasingly becoming less obvious as time goes by and more games utilize hyperthreading.
It's amazing how unoptimized Bethesda games are
GTAV at 1440p almost maxed out runs at a constant 60fps but I probably won't even get 30fps on this despite it looking worse in every area
>>51280918
The $100 saved can be spent on a beefier GPU, which can make the whole PC last way longer before you need to upgrade.
Upgrading individual parts is rarely worth it in low budget builds. By the time poorfags upgrade the whole system is obsolete anyway.
>>51280943
Over 100 dollars extra is not worth a 2-5fps gain in a couple of games
>>51280970
It's not 100 dollars, the new CPU isn't free.
Wasting hundreds of dollars for 2-5% more performance is utterly idiotic unless you're a millionaire.
>>51280943
>Depends on what you're doing. If you're just gaming then an i5 is "fine" but that is increasingly becoming less obvious as time goes by and more games utilize hyperthreading.
I mostly game on it, some programming when I don't feel like going to the office. Lately I've started dicking around with video capture and such, just for fun.
It's still great for my needs, but I've just got some more disposable income and want to upgrade as a bit of a celebration and to make ready for the next few years as multithreading starts to become more prevalent.
I can absolutely wait, so far just eyeing the situation.
>>51279841
Assuming that my CPU performs about as good as a i7-6700K on multithreaded tasks, where should it be placed in this chart? Is this game optimized for multicore performance or it still gains from high clock speed and fast single core?
>>51281003
And to add to that, when talking about video games, most of them are not CPU-bound, unlike Fallout 4 here. Means there won't be an improvement at all.
>>51281003
I'm saying the difference between getting an i5 and an i7
>>51279841
>bethesda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4EHjFkVw-s
>>51280963
i disagree. the graphics card becomes obsolete the fastest, so if you're going to pay a premium for something why start there? imo it's better to spend more on the cpu/mobo and get something fast that can be overclocked and then buy a used, previous gen mid range gpu as needed since that's really the sweet spot for price to performance. you can get a gtx 770 these days for around $160 and it's still an excellent card. then in a few years if you need something more you have more cheap used cards to choose from and your cpu is still keeping up. you'll have a better overall system for a similar price in the long run.
>>51281062
Damn my 770 was a lot more when it came out. It's still a great card and runs games at 1440p great
>>51280051
Wanna know why?
>>>51281049
>>51279958
>Playing RPGs on release and not a few months down the line when they've actually started fixing the broken thing.
Why bother? You'll get exact the experience then than you will today, only it'll have less broken shit that frustrates you.
>>51281012
I'd expect your CPU to place near the bottom of the chart, likely close to the i5-760.
Games always favor single-thread performance over multi-threaded performance and benefits beyond 4 cores rarely exist, certainly not for a Bethesda game with a shit engine.
HT at the very least makes no difference whatsoever in the chart above.
>>51281062
>Paying $1000 for a PC with last years graphics
that's beyond retarded. Either buy a well balanced $500-600 PC or a well balanced $1000-$1200 PC. Don't do a half arsed PC that's wasting half of its potential for half of its lifetime.
>>51280970
>>51281003
>2-5 FPS
Keep dreaming. I play BF4 on a 144 Hz monitor. Even while not recording or streaming, the difference between my old 4670k and 5820k is obvious. I'm talking abrupt dips to 30-50 fps on the old i5 when things got crazy. That just doesn't happen with this 5820k, even at stock speeds.
This is just one game that takes advantage of extra threads. I'm sure there are more out there.
Is the cost worth it for everyone? Obviously not. But the days of claiming i5's are "good enough" for gaming now has to come with the caveat of "usually good enough."
>>51280093
even with nvidia it cant get 60fps
with the fucking 980ti and a titan x
what the fucking fuck
>>51281166
cpus and motherboards hold their value, gpus don't. a gpu doesn't suddenly become insufficient in 12 months, but it does become reasonably priced. you could buy a $400 gpu now, or you could buy it's previous gen part for $160 that performs within 15% of it and can match it with an overclock. then when something comes along that really needs extra performance you can swap it out for a better one that performs even better than the original $400 card and still be saving money. resell the previous card and you can easily upgrade a third time and have a vastly superior gpu while having spent the same amount overall.
nothing retarded about that, m8.
>>51279841
This explains perfectly why the consoles bog down below 10 FPS all the fucking time.
Why is there no 4670k overclocked on that list? Running mine at 4.6ghz
>>51281508
Because there is a 4690k overclocked you master thinker.
>>51281508
Because the 4690k is literally the same exact thing.
>>51281412
that's still $1500+ spent over 5 years or so. Meanwhile a poorfag can build a $600 machine that can easily last 4 years.
>>51281137
That's great except another anon said (no pics so bear with me) his 5820k was getting 7-15 more FPS over a 4690k
Also, that single Nehalem CPU was at stock clocks.
Also, Westmere has slightly more optimized pipes and caches.
I think a 5650 at 4.2 should be getting about 55FPS, if these are the case.
>>51279841
>no 5820K
yeah ok
>>51282983
shit, didnt read the chart right.
Well a 4Ghz 750 was getting 38, by those numbers a 4.2 x5650 could see ~45fps
>just turn down some ambient occlusion shadows and the nvidia tricks
>>51280796
>GTAV
>love amd
>>51283858
>pclab
nice meme senpai
I will always buy Intel™ because I only play games with Intel Inside™. Intel pioneers innovative new technologies like Hyper Threading Technology™, Intel Rapid Start Technology™ and the highest quality chipsets to ever grace motherboards.
When I boot up with a brand new Intel™ i7™ with the latest Z chipset, I can enjoy the games the way they where meant to be with Intel Inside™. Intel™ also delivers a far more silkysmooth experience with its Hyper Threading Technology™.
Intel i5™ is also very power efficient. A processor is the most power hungry device in your house. Air conditioners, water heaters, lights, etc all use less power than a processor. Which is why Intel™ puts gamers first by ensuring that their gaming experience is of the highest quality while looking out for gamers by giving them the most value in their electrical bill.
At this point in time, there's really no reasons to consider an AMD processor at all. I tried once, it caused so much heat that it exploded and nearly burnt down my house. It also consumed so much power that it produced an EMP and destroyed not only the rest of my computer but my entire neighborhood.
Intel™ also pioneered how useless MORE CORES is with the i™ series processors. Years ago, everyone thought MORE CORES were the future. Now, Intel™ has debunked that myth entirely and increased efficiency. Now you can save thousands a year in electricity thanks to Intel™ with its powerful IPC. MORE CORES will never be part of Intel's™ line up.
It's quite clear that OPs an AMD shill trying to convince you to settle on something less than the optimal experience with Intel Inside™. Intel™ is the only real way to play games. We have seen recently that they offer incredible libraries for software developers like Intel C++ Compiler. He is probably too poor to afford the Intel Inside™ experience and can not afford to play any games.
Don't be a poor gamer with bad chipsets and a huge power bills. Play games with Intel Inside™
>>51283922
>normal texture
>TFW stock clock Phenom II x6 1055
I got super unlucky and it has almost no overclock potential, which is crazy for a CPU so well known for overclocking.
>>51279841
this game is such an unoptimized piece of sh*t.
I will bet you that a 2500k is not nearly maxed out, the same goes with the AMD fx parts.
It's like a god damn conspiracy with intel or something dayone
>>51280808
there's a very oddly run benchmark/review on tomshardware that is showing between a 2600k and a 4790k ~7fps on average lost with a 970 at 1080p ultra. both are still above 100fps though so not like it matters.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/fallout-4-pc-benchmarks-vsync,30527.html
