GTX 1080 is overkill for Fallout 4 on Ultra/1920x1080?

[Fixadent]

Is a GTX 1080 overkill for Fallout 4 on max settings @1920x1080?

[27X]

No. Fallout is terribly optimized and memory speed is your actual bottleneck.

 

You're still going to lag like fuck in diamond city.

[Fixadent]

No. Fallout is terribly optimized and memory speed is your actually bottleneck.

 

You're still going to lag like fuck in diamond city.

 

Will a Core i7 7700K with 16GB DDR4 3000+Mhz memory help?

[vinfamy]

Well, with the high resolution DLC, a bunch of 4k texture mod and a kick-ass ENB, not an overkill at all.

[RitualClarity]

I played with many mods just fine with a 4th generation processor 4Ghz, 16 gigs of ddr3 ram and a GTX90. I had plenty of mods but refrained from the super large and reworks of meshes. Many of those are not fully optimized, at least when I tried them. However the rest of the game and the visuals worked just fine. I had no issues with the scripted mods either. 

 

If using a Nvidia graphic card, use their optimization option available and you will get a pretty good result. 

[27X]

 

No. Fallout is terribly optimized and memory speed is your actually bottleneck.

 

You're still going to lag like fuck in diamond city.

 

Will a Core i7 7700K with 16GB DDR4 3000+Mhz memory help?

 

 

It'll help, certainly, but it's not a panacea. FO4 is just a mess under the hood, that's all there is to it.

 

If you're looking to lock 60 you'll be close, but there are places that will simply hang like fuck, particularly if HBAO or enb is involved, because the underlying rendering code bethesda implemented is quite frankly halfassed.

[Fixadent]

Well, with the high resolution DLC, a bunch of 4k texture mod and a kick-ass ENB, not an overkill at all.

 

The official HD texture pack is a staggering 50+GB download, greatly increases hardware demand, kills your framerate (unless you're using an uber gaming PC) and the improvement is barely noticeable.

 

IMHO, the benefits from the HD texture pack aren't worth the negative effects.

 

A nice ENB can have a night-and-day difference between vanilla graphics and modded graphics.

[Bruce Banner]

I have a 980 with a 2560 x 1440 resolution , almost everything on ultra bar god rays ( which is a massive waste of resources on anything bar low ) , HBAO ambient occlusion enabled and the only place I get any lag is the centre of boston near where it starts going under water . I dont get lag in Diamond City . Like others have said , dont bother with the texture pack as its a load of crap . Also use FXAA rather than the other forms of anti aliasing . It looks just as good but performs a lot better and the performance that saves can be used to enable the nice looking stuff like HBAO + which once youve enabled you wont want to disable as it gives depth to the textures like skin dimples , bricks etc . The vanilla look is a bit brighter but looks a lot ' flatter ' by comparison . But no , in short the 1080 isnt overkill ( good hardware is never overkill as the better it is the longer you'll be able to keep playing your games looking the best you can and performing the best you can ) but it should let you ramp up most of the settings . The mistake people make is ramping up ALL the settings , even the ones that barely make any difference but have a substantial impact . Debris effects for example . Dont bother with them theyre a frame killer yet are only on screen for literally seconds so theres no point .

 

So in summary if you dont want to read the rest of the babble Ive just done

 

FXAA on instead of the other types of AA

Dont bother with the HD texture pack from Bethesda

Put God Rays on Low ( you still get god rays but they dont use many resources so looks and performance )

Turn HBAO on to make it look nice

Debris Effects Off

Textures etc on Ultra

 

For me those settings give both great looks and performance and with a bigger resolution and a lesser graphics card than you have so with a 1080 at 1920 you should be buzzing

 

I set my game up to work like that by reading and understanding this and looking at the card and FPS comparisons etc

 

http://www.geforce.co.uk/whats-new/guides/fallout-4-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide

[mgrandy]

your card will do max 4k by 2k pixels i would imagine so running at 1080p should be more than fine which is 1900 x 1080 expect 50fps minium

at 4k by 2k res you should expect anything from 30 fps to 60 probs nearer the 30 fps depending on card and cpu

what your better checking with that card is what res your monitor hits lol

[Kaz Aanh]

Is a GTX 1080 overkill for Fallout 4 on max settings @1920x1080?

 

Nah. Plays fine on 1080 but got heavy fps dips with meme-godrays effect and tons of mods. Still run pretty well even with enb/reshade/sweetfx and graphical mods.

[Bloodfang]

it's never too much ,especially considering how badly optimized the game is. And if you add mods to enhance the graphics on top of that, you'll need a very good computer indeed.

 

I upgraded mainly for that reason... and Mordhau.

[lordgdavid]

I do not know your gaming habits but as others mentioned, Fallout 4 runs on an old engine and the game is not quite well optimized. I would advise agains deciding what gpu you buy based on Fallout 4. I think on 1080p it can be considered overkill. There is the 60fps problem with the creation engine, look it up if you do not know about it. The point is, the game is not meant to go above 60fps. Let us say you could reach over 60 in many areas of the game, but there is the problem of the engine. And as it was mentioned before me, I do not think there is any gpu that would not dip in the business district. I am happy with my 970, and accepted that the game has issues. Personally I would not buy a 1080 only for this game.

[Guest]

I do not know your gaming habits but as others mentioned, Fallout 4 runs on an old engine and the game is not quite well optimized. I would advise agains deciding what gpu you buy based on Fallout 4. I think on 1080p it can be considered overkill. There is the 60fps problem with the creation engine, look it up if you do not know about it. The point is, the game is not meant to go above 60fps. Let us say you could reach over 60 in many areas of the game, but there is the problem of the engine. And as it was mentioned before me, I do not think there is any gpu that would not dip in the business district. I am happy with my 970, and accepted that the game has issues. Personally I would not buy a 1080 only for this game.

THIS THIS THIS!!!

 

I had a GTX 970 for Fallout 4. I was running the game on a 1080 monitor with ENBs, texture packs, the regrowth mod and all this resulted in frame rates of 25-30. I begged my now ex-boyfriend to get me a 1070 just for Fallout 4 (and of course other games can use it). He popped in the GPU for me, loaded up FO4, and the difference was negligible and doesn't warrant the $350 spent on the GTX 1070. Now my games run at about 60 FPS indoors, 40 FPS outside on the commonwealth, and still only 25-35 in downtown areas. Was not a huge improvement at all and not worth it in my opinion.

 

It was only that I realized after that something about the fallout 4 engine is very poorly optimized to maintain 60 FPS and more so anything higher.

 

Huge disappointment. Also realize that sometimes the CPU can be the bottle neck

[mgrandy]

 

I do not know your gaming habits but as others mentioned, Fallout 4 runs on an old engine and the game is not quite well optimized. I would advise agains deciding what gpu you buy based on Fallout 4. I think on 1080p it can be considered overkill. There is the 60fps problem with the creation engine, look it up if you do not know about it. The point is, the game is not meant to go above 60fps. Let us say you could reach over 60 in many areas of the game, but there is the problem of the engine. And as it was mentioned before me, I do not think there is any gpu that would not dip in the business district. I am happy with my 970, and accepted that the game has issues. Personally I would not buy a 1080 only for this game.

THIS THIS THIS!!!

 

I had a GTX 970 for Fallout 4. I was running the game on a 1080 monitor with ENBs, texture packs, the regrowth mod and all this resulted in frame rates of 25-30. I begged my now ex-boyfriend to get me a 1070 just for Fallout 4 (and of course other games can use it). He popped in the GPU for me, loaded up FO4, and the difference was negligible and doesn't warrant the $350 spent on the GTX 1070. Now my games run at about 60 FPS indoors, 40 FPS outside on the commonwealth, and still only 25-35 in downtown areas. Was not a huge improvement at all and not worth it in my opinion.

 

It was only that I realized after that something about the fallout 4 engine is very poorly optimized to maintain 60 FPS and more so anything higher.

 

Huge disappointment. Also realize that sometimes the CPU can be the bottle neck

 

thats y you buy amd lol

 

free fps control, modded bios to unlock extra shader's and the like, but  your cpu could be bottleneck best to check on http://www.game-debate.com/can-I-run/?BethesdaSoftworks

 

here my result too on rx 460 

http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=5013&game=Fallout%204&p_make=AMD&p_deriv=FX-9370&gc_make=ATI&gc_deriv=Radeon+RX+460+Sapphire+Nitro+4G+D5&ram=8&screenRes_width_FPS=1920&screenRes_height_FPS=1080&checkSubmit=#systemrequirements

 

[Guest]

I don't know jack shit about parts lol. I had my computer built for me by the ex-bf. but I'll keep that in mind for when I do my own build whenever that comes.

[Fixadent]

I don't know jack shit about parts lol. I had my computer built for me by the ex-bf. but I'll keep that in mind for when I do my own build whenever that comes.

 

What's your CPU and memory?

 

That might be causing a bottleneck.

[Guest]

I think I am.....

 

I have an intel i5-6500 with 16 GB of DDR4 RAM @ 2133 hz. I hope no one judges lol I had this build since May of 2016.

[mgrandy]

I think I am.....

 

I have an intel i5-6500 with 16 GB of DDR4 RAM @ 2133 hz. I hope no one judges lol I had this build since May of 2016.

you wouldn't get a bottleneck with that unless some crappy g card. also if its ddr4 theres no point in upgrading as your system is new

[Guest]

Okay hold up. What the fuck is everyone talking about here? I run Fallout 4 on Ultra on a 1050 TI SSC and have never gone below 60.

 

Everyone here is talking like they know more about the game than everyone else...shut the fuck up. You know nothing.

 

I ran FO4 on Medium on an LGA 771 processor and a GTX 460 1GB with 8GB DDR2. Yall got some splainin to do.

 

I should add that at 1080P FXAA is the only type of antialiasing needed and your eyes cannot tell the difference between 8x aniso and 16x aniso, even at high resolutions.

 

Furthermore any Pascal card can run Fallout 4. I ran Fallout 4 at 30FPS on a Lenovo Thinkpad E545.

 

SO THE FINAL ANSWER:

 

GTX 1080 IS NOT OVERKILL BUT IT SURE AS HELL HELPS.

 

 

 

As an addendum:

WHat the fuck kinda mods you guys playing that drops your framerate below 60 on a 1080? I have 60+ mods and FO4 never ever goes below 60.

[quin666]

 

 

 

 

My i7 using GTX 980Ti drop frames max out graphic setting. Ultra to high Shadow setting is unplayable. FX 8320 GTX 950 doing same thing on High setting. Same spot. Same locations. Both share the same problems. Anybody got two computers? I do. I can't maintain 60 fps on both computers. GTX 1080 not going help you, just put band aid on broken leg. You can't throw upgrades at unoptimize piece of shit game. 

[27X]

Okay hold up. What the fuck is everyone talking about here? I run Fallout 4 on Ultra on a 1050 TI SSC and have never gone below 60.

 

Everyone here is talking like they know more about the game than everyone else...shut the fuck up. You know nothing.

 

I ran FO4 on Medium on an LGA 771 processor and a GTX 460 1GB with 8GB DDR2. Yall got some splainin to do.

 

I should add that at 1080P FXAA is the only type of antialiasing needed and your eyes cannot tell the difference between 8x aniso and 16x aniso, even at high resolutions.

 

Furthermore any Pascal card can run Fallout 4. I ran Fallout 4 at 30FPS on a Lenovo Thinkpad E545.

 

SO THE FINAL ANSWER:

 

GTX 1080 IS NOT OVERKILL BUT IT SURE AS HELL HELPS.

 

 

 

As an addendum:

WHat the fuck kinda mods you guys playing that drops your framerate below 60 on a 1080? I have 60+ mods and FO4 never ever goes below 60.

 

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Guest]

Okay hold up. What the fuck is everyone talking about here? I run Fallout 4 on Ultra on a 1050 TI SSC and have never gone below 60.

 

Everyone here is talking like they know more about the game than everyone else...shut the fuck up. You know nothing.

 

I ran FO4 on Medium on an LGA 771 processor and a GTX 460 1GB with 8GB DDR2. Yall got some splainin to do.

 

I should add that at 1080P FXAA is the only type of antialiasing needed and your eyes cannot tell the difference between 8x aniso and 16x aniso, even at high resolutions.

 

Furthermore any Pascal card can run Fallout 4. I ran Fallout 4 at 30FPS on a Lenovo Thinkpad E545.

 

SO THE FINAL ANSWER:

 

GTX 1080 IS NOT OVERKILL BUT IT SURE AS HELL HELPS.

 

 

 

As an addendum:

WHat the fuck kinda mods you guys playing that drops your framerate below 60 on a 1080? I have 60+ mods and FO4 never ever goes below 60.

Photorealistic common wealth ENB

Regrowth mod

HD Ivy + leaves mods

HD roads and highways mod

HD creatures mod

HD vehicles mod

Ultra everything --> shadow distance high, weapon debris ultra

Godrays Ultra

grass load distance 14,000

Natural Atmoshpheric Commonwealth

 

These are all visual mods only. This doesn't count into the 200 other mods I have with outfits that often have 2k-4k textures. Even without these mods, having everything on ultra only still fucks up frames for some people.

 

Yeah your post is bullshit. Do a simple google search and you'll see MANY users suffering from low framerates with even half the visual mods I mentioned. Even an ENB alone can make it worse if you aren't using an ENB that optimizes FPS. We aren't saying this just to fuck around with the OP. As I mentioned earlier, going from a 970 to a 1070 barely gave me back 10 frames. Not enough to justify the price. More so with a 1080. I didn't say it won't help at all. But at BEST you'll be getting 50 FPS with maybe half the mods I mentioned. Does it justify paying $450-$500 for a 1080 just for Fallout? Absolutely not.

[quin666]

 

Okay hold up. What the fuck is everyone talking about here? I run Fallout 4 on Ultra on a 1050 TI SSC and have never gone below 60.

 

Everyone here is talking like they know more about the game than everyone else...shut the fuck up. You know nothing.

 

I ran FO4 on Medium on an LGA 771 processor and a GTX 460 1GB with 8GB DDR2. Yall got some splainin to do.

 

I should add that at 1080P FXAA is the only type of antialiasing needed and your eyes cannot tell the difference between 8x aniso and 16x aniso, even at high resolutions.

 

Furthermore any Pascal card can run Fallout 4. I ran Fallout 4 at 30FPS on a Lenovo Thinkpad E545.

 

SO THE FINAL ANSWER:

 

GTX 1080 IS NOT OVERKILL BUT IT SURE AS HELL HELPS.

 

 

 

As an addendum:

WHat the fuck kinda mods you guys playing that drops your framerate below 60 on a 1080? I have 60+ mods and FO4 never ever goes below 60.

Photorealistic common wealth ENB

Regrowth mod

HD Ivy + leaves mods

HD roads and highways mod

HD creatures mod

HD vehicles mod

Ultra everything --> shadow distance high, weapon debris ultra

Godrays Ultra

grass load distance 14,000

Natural Atmoshpheric Commonwealth

 

These are all visual mods only. This doesn't count into the 200 other mods I have with outfits that often have 2k-4k textures. Even without these mods, having everything on ultra only still fucks up frames for some people.

 

Yeah your post is bullshit. Do a simple google search and you'll see MANY users suffering from low framerates with even half the visual mods I mentioned. Even an ENB alone can make it worse if you aren't using an ENB that optimizes FPS. We aren't saying this just to fuck around with the OP. As I mentioned earlier, going from a 970 to a 1070 barely gave me back 10 frames. Not enough to justify the price. More so with a 1080. I didn't say it won't help at all. But at BEST you'll be getting 50 FPS with maybe half the mods I mentioned. Does it justify paying $450-$500 for a 1080 just for Fallout? Absolutely not.

 

Well said!

[mgrandy]

lov it how people are blowing goats over the 970, 1080 and the likes.  ive really tried as long as i can to hold off on this one but here goes......

 

just a thought but the rx460 comes with 896 shaders as bog standard out the factory locked.. now give it a modded bios 1024 shaders and boom there we go an extra 5-10% for FREE yes free. no spending millions of bucks on the latest, greatest card.

 

now imagine, i have 2x rx 460 -unlocked bios. so we double the average frames which in this case would be about 45 - about roughly -10% due to the sli, coff i mean crossfire. which leaves you with roughly 80 fps - 2x 4gb ddr 5 and 2048 shaders for the measly sum of £200. now compare that to your price per shader graph and see if it computes o wait you cant because no1 out there believes in amd or has 200 to blow to try. its the reviews you dont see that you should be interested in. but i can already see the cash symbols circling your brain at an extra 10 fps with the 1080 ,70 ,50 or what ever.

 

company's are releasing cards, boards, chip-sets like they are going out of fashion every year happens with everything you name it even your local asda , wallmart get your next local product in b4 your old 1 is even dead and buried. Christ even games company's are at it. look at Nintendo shutting down servers for wii and ds, next its crap box. o my im going to have some serious Lulz then. even apple and Samsung.

 

now go and find an nivida with 2k+ sp for less than £200 along with 8 gbs of ram, please.

There are stupid (usually rich, born into), There are dumb and then theres the people who dont fit in ether. 

by al means go blow the £500 on a 1080 but when its out the box and you only get half your value for your extra 5-10 fps for it dont blame me.

 

now take the above mix and compare on 4k resolution which is what these cards are ment for. 1080 would win hands down but my does the rx 480 come close. yes i did say "480" there.

with a 1080 you need "VR" preferably oculas-rift at £800 along with the best 4k t.v to make full use of these cards. can you afford all 3? is what you need to ask. i too also find it funny on all them that bought a 3dtv as it is now an antique, no longer being made.

 

lets ask how many here own a 3DTV? erm STUPID?! or dumb?! but bet they have learned the hard way like you also. 

if you ask me. wait, the 1080ti has just arrived in response to the 480. so expect prices to plummet thats upto u. like the above poster said does 5-10 fps really matter? for all we know atm 4k tv could be a dud just like VR, just like 3dtv. a mere stepping stone of whats to come.

 

y do people bet on an underdog? more return if it pays off, simple on that note im going to go break my 460 lol. meh at 100 notes i can afford another 4-5 cards at the price of 1, 1080ti

 

lets do a quick check :- 750ti, 4gb ddr5, 650 sp, £125, 128bit bus

                                  :- rx 460, 4gbs ddr5, 1024 sp, £100.  128bit bus

now see where im cumming from, o well i tried. 

[Veladarius]

The only things I have done visually is added the basic enb and made some changes here and there, settings are on ultra for everything and I have increased the ugrids to 7.

 

For my system I have an older i5 2500k overclocked to 4.0 ghz, 16 gb ram and dual amd r280x 3gb cards running at a resolution of 1920 x 1200 and I average 40 fps in places like sanctuary (built up) or diamond city.