• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

1800X To 8700 K 1440P Gaming ?

Collated it from the babeltech reviews, site had all the info. obviously the newer 8700k stuff had engine and driver revisions that are superior to the 6700k but as I don't have these things I can't do that sort of comparison myself.

Feel free to double check the data, I collated it in my lunch hour quite quickly, I believe it to be accurate but don't burn me at the stake if you find an error :p :D

Interestingly it has been mentioned in one of the comments threads on the site that they are looking at comparing 6700k to 8700k with SLI themselves so keep an eye on the site and you might find that pop up all with the same OS and patch level which will be interesting.
 
Last edited:
sandys said:
I know nothing of fall out mods but you'll see in the table I posted Fallout 4 got zero benefit from CPU upgrade at 1440p but near double the framerate with more GPU power.

Obviously ivy is a bit older so may be impacted more but you're not doubling your frame rate with a cpu upgrade.
Click to expand...

Ok,this post will be a bit long,so I can explain why I have that opinion. Sorry for the wall of text!!:p

The Creation Engine in FO4 is based on the Gamebryo Engine which is a 90s engine but Bethesda first used it in Morrowind. By its very nature its not that well threaded.

Bethesda also have a ****** record of optimising their own game efforts for AMD CPUs,and yes Bethesda is an AMD partner. I mean they still used X87 instructions in Skyrim and the community fixed that before they did!!

I have been following reviews to see if Ryzen has received any performance patches and I am yet to see any.

The Creation Engine in Fallout 4 only uses one to two cores massively and 4 cores less with much lower utilisation. Bethesda attempted to multi-thread the engine since they added a lot of extra stuff on top of an oldish engine - that being much greater NPC density,more advanced NPC routing and the settlement building mechanic but ended up having the worst of both worlds. Now think what this does to a game which is based on an evolved version of the Skyrim engine.

You are going from a SKL 4C/8T CPU to a CFL 6C/12T CPU - the engine won't care about the 50% extra threads,as the cores are exactly the same in IPC and general clockspeed. Also since one to two threads are the major limiting factor,its one of the few games which shows improvements with faster RAM too on both SKL/KL/CFL and Ryzen:

https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1089/bench/RAM.png
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1171/bench/Fallout.png

In fact if you look at SKL/KL/CFL they are all much of sameness in the game,and these CPUs with fast RAM should offer very good improvements over other Intel CPUs,and indeed Ryzen,which are all bunched quite closely together.

The major improvements with SKL/KL/CFL come in much better minimums and lower stutter in certain CPU taxing areas.

The thing is most reviews do not test the worst aspect of the game settlements - they test mostly desolate areas. There are parts of the Boston Commons and one or two areas of Far Harbour which have decent NPC density and you can see the dips,especially during large scale battles.

Now once you build your settlements up,it increases NPC density,and then on top of this the DLCs added factories,logic gates,etc which means this further taxes the CPU.

So settlements end up causing noticable dips,as they become bigger and bigger. The other problem is you can have multiple settlements in ONE CELL,which further causes issues.

Now,the only review site to bother with testing even ONE settlement was HardOCP:

https://images.hardocp.com/images/articles/14958035970qy2jlakgl_5_2.png

That is an overclocked Core i7 2600K with 2133MHZ DDR3 and a Core i7 6700K with only 3000MHZ RAM. Look at the minimums. If you are running faster RAM,it improves minimums.

I am running a Xeon E3 1230 V2/Core i7 3770 with 1600MHZ DDR3,so expect my system to perform worse.

Now,add multiple settlements,the mods which allow you to further increase settlement NPC numbers,number of NPC spawn points in game,and even enable you to add further production mechanics,and logic gates,you can literally see those one to two threads hit the ragged edge.

Minimums start going down even more.

Also,its one of the few games,which is noticeable better with SSDs in normal gameplay(it has massive loading times),but once you start settlement modding,adding improved image quality mods,etc,just wow,an HDD starts to become unplayable. My previous main SSD died(crap Sandisk) and I tried an HDD,and the game stuttered so much(you could literally see the game trying to load textures,etc),that I needed a new SSD to play it!

The worst thing is with a GTX960,RX470 and a GTX1080 I saw the same dips,and my GTX1080 utilisation goes down the sink. That is at both 1080p and qHD!

I then had an earlier playthough with exactly the same mods,but hardly any settlements(and the ones I made were small) and performance was just noticeably better throughout the whole game!!

So basically if you don't really do settlements,or mods which push more NPC spawns,its nowhere as bad.

MORE NPCs and/or MORE large settlements=needing to throw hardware at the game.

Edit!!

Another game which might also benefit from newer AMD/Intel CPUs might be Planetside2,but with that I can't say whether that is the servers crapping out during the larger battles(100~300 people).

Everything else,is perfectly fine on my CPU with a GTX1080 at qHD,and tends to be more GPU limited.
 
Last edited:
In my experience (gone from an 1800x to 8700k myself) if you play at only 60hz then stick with the ryzen as you will see no difference, but for me at higher framerates the 8700k has had a noticeable difference, i don't get stutters in my game anymore (sudden drops to 60fps here and there from 144fps suddenly) so i could say my games are now smoother but apart from that i havn't seen a difference. Average fps is around the same
 
a66as said:
In my experience (gone from an 1800x to 8700k myself) if you play at only 60hz then stick with the ryzen as you will see no difference, but for me at higher framerates the 8700k has had a noticeable difference, i don't get stutters in my game anymore (sudden drops to 60fps here and there from 144fps suddenly) so i could say my games are now smoother but apart from that i havn't seen a difference. Average fps is around the same
Click to expand...

Is that a 1080ti your using with a Freesync monitor? if so, your basically brute forcing the fps / mhz on your setup to keep it smooth, if you had an AMD Gpu you could have kept the Ryzen and noticed zero hitching etc, as the Freesync would have sorted that issue for you. Just wanted to point that out, i went from an R9 290 and 4770k with my Freesync screen to a 1070 and 1700 Ryzen, while im getting more FPS its still pretty fluid, but nothing nearly as good as if i was still using a Vega GPU, my brother has the same screen, same CPU and a Vega 64, and his PC is noticeably smoother than mine. Dont underestimate the impact of Adaptive Sync techs on game play, quite often they will iron out any hitching you associate with CPU performance.
 
SiDeards73 said:
Is that a 1080ti your using with a Freesync monitor? if so, your basically brute forcing the fps / mhz on your setup to keep it smooth, if you had an AMD Gpu you could have kept the Ryzen and noticed zero hitching etc, as the Freesync would have sorted that issue for you. Just wanted to point that out, i went from an R9 290 and 4770k with my Freesync screen to a 1070 and 1700 Ryzen, while im getting more FPS its still pretty fluid, but nothing nearly as good as if i was still using a Vega GPU, my brother has the same screen, same CPU and a Vega 64, and his PC is noticeably smoother than mine. Dont underestimate the impact of Adaptive Sync techs on game play, quite often they will iron out any hitching you associate with CPU performance.
Click to expand...

Nah I was using a gsync monitor
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I am running a Xeon E3 1230 V2/Core i7 3770 with 1600MHZ DDR3,so expect my system to perform worse.

Now,add multiple settlements,the mods which allow you to further increase settlement NPC numbers,number of NPC spawn points in game,and even enable you to add further production mechanics,and logic gates,you can literally see those one to two threads hit the ragged edge.

Minimums start going down even more.

Also,its one of the few games,which is noticeable better with SSDs in normal gameplay(it has massive loading times),but once you start settlement modding,adding improved image quality mods,etc,just wow,an HDD starts to become unplayable. My previous main SSD died(crap Sandisk) and I tried an HDD,and the game stuttered so much(you could literally see the game trying to load textures,etc),that I needed a new SSD to play it!

The worst thing is with a GTX960,RX470 and a GTX1080 I saw the same dips,and my GTX1080 utilisation goes down the sink. That is at both 1080p and qHD!
Click to expand...

Does the fact your are thrashing your HDD not suggest you perhaps have a bottleneck elsewhere like a memory issue causing paging and hitches, used to get this with my 290s as they were only 4Gb and I had three of them so when it was out of VRAM it was using system RAM for each of the 3 cards which meant when gaming I was using loads of System resourse making up for my bottleneck, switched to a 11Gb card and the game used no system RAM in comparison.
 
Last edited:
sandys said:
Does the fact your are thrashing your HDD not suggest you perhaps have a bottleneck elsewhere like a memory issue causing paging and hitches, used to get this with my 290s as they were only 4Gb and I had three of them so when it was out of VRAM it was using system RAM for each of the 3 cards which meant when gaming I was using loads of System resourse making up for my bottleneck, switched to a 11Gb card and the game used no system RAM in comparison.
Click to expand...

The card is 8GB and VRAM utilisation is under 7GB and the same dips happened whether you run the game at 1920X1080 or qHD,and system RAM utilisation is not that high. In the case of the modded playthough,its more the case,its the mods needing to load off the SSD.

Even with the non-modded game,an SSD cuts down on load times massively whether on PC or console- remember the save game files alone can easily get upto 100mb,if you have a playthough over 500 hours and have built up things a lot.

However,the same dips happened even when the game was not modded,as HardOCP showed that:
https://images.hardocp.com/images/articles/14958035970qy2jlakgl_5_2.png

qEba1Mx.png


That is an unmodded game with ONE settlement on the entire map. That kind of roughly fits what I saw too.

Its my same experience with the first playthrough I did,where I never modded the game,and never really bothered with doing more than the three settlements(in the entire map) you really need if you follow one storyline. Even then I didn't really push things.I have the same dips even now.

So that was at 1680X1050/1920X1080 with a GTX960 and RX470,or at qHD at a GTX1080.

You also need to consider,that anything over 60FPS to 70FPS means nothing with the game,as FPS and physics are linked due to the engine used. Minimums are what is important in FO4,and what most reviews do is give a good indication of relative performance which you can apply to your own system.

The settlement stutter,FPS dips are not something unusual as others have had the same issue too,as even another poster who sometimes posts in this section,who has a Core i7 4790K system on here(and a GTX1070 or GTX1080) has the same drops as me. Its down to the NPC density(then any sort of stuff like factories,etc) - even if you go into areas not near settlements,any places with dips tend to be areas with lots of NPCs,ie,the Boston Commons,etc.

Also,with a GTX960 4GB,RX470 4GB and GTX1080 8GB,even without mods,and not building settlements,even though FPS is higher,you see the dips in the same place and that is seen whether you use HDDs/SSDs. Modded,with more settlements(and more NPCs by extension) ends up making those dips worse.

The game is know to tax CPUs at times - if you look at CPU utilisation,one thread is more or less at 100%,the second at a much lower,etc and you can test this by increasing the amount of NPCs,or scripting your own fights in a settlement between factions.

At the same time you can see the GTX1080 utilisation and clockspeeds drop. In areas not so bound by NPC density,the utilisation picks up quite a bit.

Edit!!

Its a crap,old engine and realistically Bethesda really needs to use a new one. The problem is I think they might wheel it out for one last hurrah!
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The card is 8GB and VRAM utilisation is under 7GB and the same dips happened whether you run the game at 1920X1080 or qHD,and system RAM utilisation is not that high. In the case of the modded playthough,its more the case,its the mods needing to load off the SSD.

Even with the non-modded game,an SSD cuts down on load times massively whether on PC or console- remember the save game files alone can easily get upto 100mb,if you have a playthough over 500 hours and have built up things a lot.

However,the same dips happened even when the game was not modded,as HardOCP showed that:
https://images.hardocp.com/images/articles/14958035970qy2jlakgl_5_2.png

qEba1Mx.png


That is an unmodded game with ONE settlement on the entire map. That kind of roughly fits what I saw too.

Its my same experience with the first playthrough I did,where I never modded the game,and never really bothered with doing more than the three settlements(in the entire map) you really need if you follow one storyline. Even then I didn't really push things.I have the same dips even now.

So that was at 1680X1050/1920X1080 with a GTX960 and RX470,or at qHD at a GTX1080.

You also need to consider,that anything over 60FPS to 70FPS means nothing with the game,as FPS and physics are linked due to the engine used. Minimums are what is important in FO4,and what most reviews do is give a good indication of relative performance which you can apply to your own system.

The settlement stutter,FPS dips are not something unusual as others have had the same issue too,as even another poster who sometimes posts in this section,who has a Core i7 4790K system on here(and a GTX1070 or GTX1080) has the same drops as me. Its down to the NPC density(then any sort of stuff like factories,etc) - even if you go into areas not near settlements,any places with dips tend to be areas with lots of NPCs,ie,the Boston Commons,etc.

Also,with a GTX960 4GB,RX470 4GB and GTX1080 8GB,even without mods,and not building settlements,even though FPS is higher,you see the dips in the same place and that is seen whether you use HDDs/SSDs. Modded,with more settlements(and more NPCs by extension) ends up making those dips worse.

The game is know to tax CPUs at times - if you look at CPU utilisation,one thread is more or less at 100%,the second at a much lower,etc and you can test this by increasing the amount of NPCs,or scripting your own fights in a settlement between factions.

At the same time you can see the GTX1080 utilisation and clockspeeds drop. In areas not so bound by NPC density,the utilisation picks up quite a bit.

Edit!!

Its a crap,old engine and realistically Bethesda really needs to use a new one. The problem is I think they might wheel it out for one last hurrah!
Click to expand...



I just hope they do not try that with the next version of the Elder Scrolls. Fallout 4 is first Bethesda game I could not be bothered to finish.
 
shamus21 said:
I just hope they do not try that with the next version of the Elder Scrolls. Fallout 4 is first Bethesda game I could not be bothered to finish.
Click to expand...

You either like or not from the reaction I see to the game. It is pretty much more an exploration game,with some RPG elements and the ability to build settlements. From all the noise Bethesda made before release I suspected as much.

For instance even after a few 100 hours,I still found new things I missed!! It also has a huge amount of mods(nearly 24000 so far) and nearly 400 million downloads.

Its definitely not as good as Fallout:New Vegas in the RPG elements.

I would say looking at the fact that even things like the BOS ending had voice lines recorded which were never used(and would have made it more interesting), it seems Bethesda rushed the game out.

Fallout:New Vegas level of story telling and the map Fallout 4 was in,would have been awesome.

You can see that with Far Harbour,which for me was closer to what the RPG aspects of what the main game should have been like.

However,it is also the only game Bethesda is involved with in the top 20 on Steam for example,so it still has a dedicated following which is probably mostly around the modding aspects of the game.

Like with Skyrim,there are some new area mods coming - the two most promising are Fallout 4:New Vegas(basically a fan made port of Fallout:New Vegas into the newer engine) and Fallout:Cascadia,and these should be closer to the earlier Fallout games like Fallout 3 and Fallout:New Vegas in feel.

Some of the building mods are impressive though:

https://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/21872/
https://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/28599?tab=files

Basically you can build your own cities,and follow them as they start from a small dwelling to something much more complex. Its hard to believe that one modder could do something so impressive - Bethesda really could learn from its own community.

Then you have the custom radio stations,etc and their NPCs which are as impressive as anything Bethesda could do themselves:

https://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/8704/

The fan made Grognak ones are ridiculous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7znN-WPjxaA

Regarding,the next games - looking at what Juicehead said on his channel,it looks like Bethesda Game Studios is unveiling a new game soon,but its most likely going to be using the Creation Engine,but it might be the last time they use it.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Regarding,the next games - looking at what Juicehead said on his channel,it looks like Bethesda Game Studios is unveiling a new game soon,but its most likely going to be using the Creation Engine,but it might be the last time they use it.
Click to expand...

Starfield reveal should be at E3.
 
Aye, though.... apparently there MAY be something about it being in a similar universe to ES.
Going the other way though with "space elves" "forgetting" their cosmic origins long before tamriel... :p we'll see :)
 
Mercutio said:
Aye, though.... apparently there MAY be something about it being in a similar universe to ES.
Going the other way though with "space elves" "forgetting" their cosmic origins long before tamriel... :p we'll see :)
Click to expand...

Maybe the Enclave did escape Earth and 1000s of years later ended up in a galaxy,far,far away??
:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom