I'm chomping at the bit here.
Does anyone wanna take a wager atwhat it would take to get fallout 4 running at 4k at high or max?
I'm going to spend $1100 on my credit on ether gpu
Or total system overhaul mobo cpu ram m.2 sata 2500MB/s read
1 Like
don't bank on it playing well with either crossfire or sli
and you say 'total system overhaul' and mention one of the crazy fast new m.2 sata drives... that part alone would chew up a lot of your $1100 budget
What do you currently have?
I think it would take AMDs 2nd gen HBM card because 4gb isint going to to cut it for a modded fallout 4 at 4k. SLI Crossfire dont play well with skyrim or bethesda games i think like flazza said.
Basically, with HBM, the size doesn't really matters... In many games the FuryX beats TitanX at 4K with only 4gig Vram at 1000MHz if i'm not mistaken...
Well, since it's Nvidia gameworks title AND a Bethesda game, i would say, 6 months after it comes out, there finally will not be that many issues with it. Remember Skyrim? Bugs and glitches was fighting over each other for prime time... Now - it's fine... But then it was really glitchy and buggy...
So for now - i don't believe FuryX nor TitanX will carry it 4K 60fps...
1 Like
Gtx 970
Intel i5-2500k
Samsung840evo 256gb
The new m.2 is like 299 for a size I'd use
I'm pretty sure i read somewhere someone tried to take the furys 4gb HBM to the limit and it did indeed suffer from performance when it ran out of vram. Isint the HBM just faster? as it can call in and out things into memory faster? but when you have tons of mods that require to be in vram all the time it will reach it's limit.
It would be nice to see a heavily modded skyrim that uses more than 4gb try to run on a Fury.
I had no clue fallout 4 had nvidias gameworks. in that case go with whatever nvidia puts out next. i'd stick to amd as a matter of principal though, but that is just me.
Actually, most games, using gameworks, like Witcher, Unity, etc are running better on AMD at 4k...
So the 4 gig of Vram, having that huge bandwith is not really an issue... The main problem with FuryX is the craphics core itself... This Vram, the HBM, can fill up and empty itself before GDDR5 realizes what's going on. Basically, 1,024-bit wide memory bus for one chip of HBM, and FuryX have 4 of them... So it has 4Mbit wide bus...GDDR5 have 256 bits...
Here's what I would do, overclock the bajeebus out of your cpu to see if you can get around 4.5ghz -5ghz. sell the 970 if you can if its not in your waterloop to get a Titan X or a 980ti. I would not suggest you getting a M.2 Sata drive.
I am going to do you favour, go look at the latest PCper benchmarks on the new samsung m.2. drives, and the latest 2.5" drive, I am starting to feel like we are hitting a brick wall in terms of loading times, and that we are suffering some serious diminishing returns here.
You will be better off by just getting a regular SSD at half the price per GB, and either get the same capacity and spend that on GFX, or get double the capacity for the same money. Also the GFX cards are going to a smaller node sometime early-mid 2016, performance improvements should be significant, so you might not want to overdoo it now on the GFX department with 2 high-end cards.
Seriously, there will be a completely new architecture from NVIDIA, because of the way they gained performance for Maxwell is not well suited to DX 12, so I am talking about a brand new arch, not a micro-arch. And AMD probably isn't holding back either, would expect performance of >30% improvement.
Otherwise your going to need at least 1 980Ti (custom board) and OC it, to get the sort of performance you want at 4K... I would get one 980Ti now, if you are really impatient, and then get two of whatever else comes out in 2016, and hold onto that for at least one refresh cycle (which seem to be 1-2 years).
Ask yourself, where does the texture files come from? and what speed is that device.
I wasnt suggesting he get a 980TI or a Fury X, as those benchmarks show both of those cards still cant game at 4k.
When nvidia release their next card i'm sure it'll be better than the Fury X at 4k at any time. Also were those benchmarks using the gameworks features?
Also does it matter how fast HBM is when it needs to have 5gb of data in vram at all times?
That is exactly what i said earlier... No single GPU is capable of 4K gaming...
Using Nvidia features on AMD card is pointless. It only proves the point, that Nvidia features work best on Nvidia cards...
Nice we don't have console exclusivity on PC... We have hardware manufacturers exclusivity...
However...
F4 have fairly low system requirements... May be even 390X/980 could be able... We just don't know... Let the game come out first. I hate to mention those, but people build machines for Unity... Then they build machines for Arkham knight...
Don't build machine for a game, that is not out yet... Just wait. The hardware will be here in 2 months as well...
1 Like
Actually 980ti can OC quiet well, you will maybe get upto 20% more from that 980ti Lightening, and witcher 3 is pretty demanding, you could probably turn a few settings down slightly to get from ~40 ->60 FPS.
I think two 980Tis would get you too 60FPS, but again I think its not a good time to get two high-end cards considering that the first node shrink in like half a decade is just around the corner!
So yeah, compromise would be one 980Ti (or a fury x which will have much lower FPS OCd, but can use adaptive synch), wait for the next-gen cards, sell the 980ti, and buy two of those, they should push well, well over 60FPS, even on a heavily modified game.
Sure but since fallout 4 will have gamewerxs features i suggested getting w/e card nvidia releases eventually, which if AMD continues the way they have been, will outperform the AMD card and he'll be able to take advantage of the gamewrxs features. I hope AMD release something that destroys Nvidia or at least matches it though. AMD may beat nvidia on gameworx titles with gameworxs turned off at 4k by 1-4fps and priced about the same as the Nvidia cards, but that's still 25-33fps @4k which doesnt really equate to a win for AMD or Nvidia.
so what does it take to run fallout 4 max @4k? either Nvidias next card or AMDs next card, if you want to take advantage of the gameworks then your best bet is Nvidia. I will stick to AMD because i refuse to support Nvidia and their shady practices. sucks there is hardware exclusivity but at least we still have the ability to run the games unlike consoles. Fanboyism whether for consoles or PC manufacturers is a bad thing though, it allows exclusivity and shady business practices and when you got a bunch of idiots praising you for it why improve the quality of your product or do things any different? Fanboyism just means good marketing.
now should he actually wait for the release of fallout 4 and benchmarks? definitely, prices will go down, new technology might come out, who knows! but i think he just wants to speculate until then, kill some time until 11-10-2015.
Actually, I think AMD might be slightly better to get next-gen, because of adaptive-synch support, so it will look a bit smoother with something like the UHD420. Its a shame to be locked down to a vendor because of an industry standard display specification but hey... It is how it is...
Samsung 950 PRO -Series 512GB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal SSD 2-Inch MZ-V5P512BW $349.99
Samsung 950 PRO -Series 256GB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal SSD 2-Inch MZ-V5P256BW $199
i was thiiiinking
ASUS ROG MAXIMUS VIII HERO LGA1151 DDR4 M.2 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 Type A Type C Intel Z170 ATX Motherboard
Intel Boxed Core I7-6700K 4.00 GHz 8M Processor Cache 4 LGA 1151 BX80662I76700K
the cpu is cheaper at newegg 369.99
and at microcenter its 319...
i wonder if frys will price match that
the ram is low on the egg too...
what is the best value to performance MOBO for the cash ?
at least an m.2 slot and at least good vrm cooling
or maybe one that had that watercooling ready vrm heatsinks, you kno... just because
my gtx970 IS on an ek waterblock.... in my loop
but IF it came down to it. i would fork it up
my psu is only a raidmax rx 850ae tho
199 dont seem that much for 2200MB/s of nvme (did they ever come out with win7 drivers for maxxing out that ? or do i still NEED win 10 ?)
i can get UP to 5.1 but thats at the 1.5volt max limit, Scary voltage for my standards
it cenebenches like at 634
day to day, i set it at 4.2 and forget it, but i can hotkey it up to 4.4 and 4.7
one thing is, im worried fallout 4 might be optimized for 8 threads
i can 4k skyrim MAINLY ok, but getting into certain areas TANKS my fps down to like 12...
Any word on the new chips?
Leaked spec or whatnot?
I was totally trying to have my pc upgraded by the time the game was released,
But I suppose that would be needlessly jumping the gun....
But still.... I'm on a z68 chipset with a first generation Intel core i5 sandybridge
I guess I'm too hyped
Anytime armored core
Megaman
Metroid
Elder scrolls
Or fallout comes out, I must have it.
If nvidias new cards are indeed a February ish prospect, then yea I can wait for that.
I havnt yet actually encountered a game that I could tell the difference between 1080p and 2160p visually anyways
My cpu doesn't meet the recommendation on cpu power, or threads.
So that troubles me a bit
All the consoles are 8 thread devices sent they?
Semirelated note, anyone want an EVGA gtx970 with an ek fc670 waterblock in February?
Console CPUs are hardly as strong as a pentium G358whatever anniversary edition with a minor OC.
Imagine a bulldozer clocked at 1.8ghz.
I think its really odd that CPU requirements for PC are doubled more or less compared to what consoles run at, as a bare minimum.
considering that thayare implementing nivida 'games dosent works' in to fallout 4 probably 4way 980ti's lol
Wait for it to come out its allso a bethesda game so it will be broken to all hell on release
1 Like