• 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.

Fallout 4 to feature Nvidia Gameworks

humbug said:
The next argument would be how much of a performance cost are such things? that can go on all day but IMO when Nvidia do it it seems to cost far more than others doing it.
Click to expand...

Imo NVIDIA have realised that taking a console game then tacking on severely performance crippling features allows them to sell more expensive cards. It's all whether the consumers catch on to this or not after it happens time and time again to console ports with Gameworks added.
 
RanxZy said:
Imo NVIDIA have realised that taking a console game then tacking on severely performance crippling features allows them to sell more expensive cards. It's all whether the consumers catch on to this or not after it happens time and time again to console ports with Gameworks added.
Click to expand...
This isn't a console game/port. Bethesda have always been PC-led developers.
 
Got SLI working thanks to a Reddit post. Both cards are now being utilised.

Launch Nvidia Control Panel--> Manage 3D Settings --> Program Settings --> Select Fallout 4 (Fallout4.exe)-->change SLI Rendering Mode to: Force Alternate Frame Rendering 2. it will warn you against changing this setting, just hit okey and save.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fo4/comments/3s5ldy/how_to_get_sli_working_in_fallout_4/

Confirmed it works great, few times with everything maxed before dipped into the 50s on a single Titan X at 3440 x 1440, now rock solid 60 fps.
 
Seanspeed said:
I should have said 'correlates 1:1'.

Just semantics. He knows what he was saying and I'm sure you do, too. You're not actually disagreeing.
Click to expand...

hehe... fine :)

RanxZy said:
Imo NVIDIA have realised that taking a console game then tacking on severely performance crippling features allows them to sell more expensive cards. It's all whether the consumers catch on to this or not after it happens time and time again to console ports with Gameworks added.
Click to expand...

IE: lower performance than your used to for your card, force the upgrade.... good insight. its a similar argument once had about Kepler falling so far behind Maxwell.

I didn't think that was deliberate and i don't think this is, if it is bad, we don't know that yet.

I don't know why these effects are so expensive in Nvidia sponsored games, i think perhaps because of the copy and paste universal use of all this stuff ultimately means its not very efficient. there is a huge latency cost with it.
 
humbug said:
I don't know why these effects are so expensive in Nvidia sponsored games, i think perhaps because of the copy and paste universal use of all this stuff ultimately means its not very efficient. there is a huge latency cost with it.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's just crap they use to try and sell cards?
 
ALXAndy said:
Or maybe it's just crap they use to try and sell cards?
Click to expand...
I mean, they definitely use the advantages of their cards to extremes in some of these effects. But I also dont think it's horrible to have these things. They're optional, after all. For people with the power to spare, why not?

That said, they almost assuredly know that there will be benchmarks used on these maxed out settings that make it seem like certain cards aren't good enough, or at least look better against AMD. So yea, it's hard to doubt that they're using these to push people into upgrades or buying Nvidia. But I'm also fine with having these options available.

As always, learn how benchmarks work and dont think that 'max' benchmarks mean everything. Consumer responsibility.
 
Seanspeed said:
That's with everything cranked up to the max.

From what I've seen, a GTX970 should be able to do 1440p/60fps with some settings turned down.

As is often the case with PC gaming, some of the most demanding settings often have the highest diminishing returns in terms of actual visible difference, so these settings people have to turn down probably wouldn't even make much of an overall difference.

I know some people have this psychological issue of needing to 'max' a game out, but seriously, some of the options developers give you aren't always worth using. Nvidia posted a very useful guide here(as they do with many of the bigger games) that shows what the settings do and the cost associated with it. In most games, it's almost always the case there's settings provided that hardly provide any sort of visual boost but cost a fair amount to use. As people have mentioned, god rays is a good example here. Turn them down to Low and you'll save big. Shadow quality also doesn't seem to be worth it. I'd stick it on Medium unless you've got performance to spare.
Click to expand...

Can you post the link please.
 
bI3XrR8.png


eoSJ5SQ.png


vq3FZ7f.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom