-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fallout 4: PS4 Pro & PC High-Res support detailed
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
7DollarHagane
Banned
It's hard to say of any effect will be seen on frame rate. On PC the game is extremely CPU dependent for frame rate. But maybe there's some optimizations they did as part of this patch?
Also faster RAM helps a lot and the ps4 pro does have some memory speed improvements.
SlaughterX
Banned
Goddam, 58 gigs just in textures? My 1TB SSD am cry. 
Velocity:Design:Comfort
Banned
Have they said anything about this leading to a fix/reimplementation of the removed fog effects in Far Harbor?
I'm also wondering how much of an improvement this will actually be because of Bethesda's track record...the 58GB sounds great but I'll hold back my joy until I see it for myself...
StereoVsn
Member
It depends if they meant speed or number of cores. 5820 is a 6-core chip vs 4 on 6700k.
The whole game, right now, with all the DLC, is just under 35GB.
Is there a folder for textures?
What's an RX 490?
Yeah, 58 gb sounds about right for me. Textures take up alot of space on disc, so like someone said, if you have 15 gb textures (which isnt crazy at all for an open world game) and then just take one step up (512*512 textures into 1024*1024 etc) you are sitting at 60 gb. Cant ask for highres textures and variation in the world, and then not be prepared to store all that data somewhere
You may be forgetting where you are...
Yeah, 58 gb sounds about right for me. Textures take up alot of space on disc, so like someone said, if you have 15 gb textures (which isnt crazy at all for an open world game) and then just take one step up (512*512 textures into 1024*1024 etc) you are sitting at 60 gb. Cant ask for highres textures and variation in the world, and then not be prepared to store all that data somewhere
Easton Dark
Member
What makes no sense? There are a lot of textures.
Synless
Member
Yeah... I'm not sure where I read it but in hindsight it probably wasn't a credible source.
I don't really get why the CPU and GPU recommendation is so high just for a texture pack. Texture resolution has very little impact on performance as long as you have enough video memory. There are much less powerful cards than the 1080 with 8 gbs of VRAM that can still run FO4 really well.
As for the CPU, this game has always had awful issues with draw-calls bogging down performance. With my 5820K at 4.4 ghz the game drops into the 40 fps range in some areas regardless of resolution.
As for the CPU, this game has always had awful issues with draw-calls bogging down performance. With my 5820K at 4.4 ghz the game drops into the 40 fps range in some areas regardless of resolution.
Liabe Brave
Member
Overall, communication about Pro benefits has been very short on details, so I can see you missing info that's out there. But in this case, logic should've told you it didn't make sense. Until patched, old games run exactly the same on Pro as on standard PS4. So Fallout 4 couldn't run worse unless it was patched...but this thread is about an announcement of that very patch coming in the future.
thelastword
Banned
My thoughts exactly.
Who knows, maybe when the texture pack is released and people can run it on their 1060's, 1070's and RX 480's then perhaps we can make some noise about making it available to the PS4 PRO, but for now, it's a nice upgrade for the Pro. Wish it was 1800p-2160p checkerboarded instead, but I appreciate the rez bump alongside many graphical enhancements. I realize they could upgrade the rez even higher at the expense of these graphical enhancements and that would have been swell for an extra mode, but oh well, they did do some good work on the pro upgrade includiing these PC extras as it is.
Bonfires Down
Member
I have two theories about the CPU:
- One is the 5820K HEDT has good memory bandwidth due to quad channel, as FO4 scales unusually well with memory speed.
- Second one is they simply wanted an i7 model number between 4770K and 6700K, and 5820K fits the bill regardless of core count.
You're probably fine. I'm less well-versed than some other people, but I feel like games have only recently been able to utilize 2/4 cores correctly, let alone requiring 6. But maybe those of us on 4 cores will see worse performance who knows.
Copper
Member
Yeah, 58 gb sounds about right for me. Textures take up alot of space on disc, so like someone said, if you have 15 gb textures (which isnt crazy at all for an open world game) and then just take one step up (512*512 textures into 1024*1024 etc) you are sitting at 60 gb. Cant ask for highres textures and variation in the world, and then not be prepared to store all that data somewhere
Someone will make a compressed version that will look just as good at a quarter the size and run better.
Wouldn't surprise me.
The thing is, if that screenshot is any indication of what it will look like it doesn't seem to be very good at all. A lot of those textures are still really low quality.
I have a stock i5 2500k and had very little problems. The draw-call issue comes from the shadows mostly. There's a mod that fixes that.
http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/1822/?
Jakartalado
Member
Doing stupid maths that don't work
1440p is 80% higher than 1080p
The GPU is 2.25 times stronger...
So.... There's extra power enough to make it more stable. If it was a CPU bottle neck, we also have 30% increase in the clocks.
Am I doing right guys? Sure not... But I guess we can hope for it (I played last month and the game was great, much better despite the Vanilla shitstorm performance)
FairXchange
Member
I don't think so, not with 3.5GB of GDDR5. I think sticking with the standard high textures would make most sense, but I'm interested to hear how it goes nonetheless.
MadJackChurchill
Banned
Why in the hell is a 5820k needed to run something an overclocked AMD Jaguar can?
Methinks are inflated.
Methinks are inflated.
VlaudTheImpaler
tl;dr
F
i
f
t
y
e
i
g
h
t
G
B
'
s
?
!
?
i
f
t
y
e
i
g
h
t
G
B
'
s
?
!
?
That's a lot of space.
They are already really, reaaaally compressed. And no, the whole point with the higher resolution pack is that they are just that. If you scale them down just one step its the same as before (assuming 15 vs 60 gb as in my example before)
paperspace
Member
Last edited:
The_Spaniard
Netmarble
Just look at the upper left quadrant of the screenshot.
Wow, nice! I'll be installing that for sure. I usually don't have any issues holding 60 fps, but there are certainly some areas where that would help out a lot.
Next week. Exact date TBA.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Said next week.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Does cosmetic surgery replace spinal cords?
if you try hard enough
Copper
Member
How do you know they are compressed? 58GB doesn't sound like they are compressed.
those look like they were taken from a PS2 game.