Fallout 4 Performance Thread

Discussion in 'Videocards - AMD Radeon Drivers Section' started by RexOmnipotentus, Nov 9, 2015.

  1. RexOmnipotentus

    RexOmnipotentus Master Guru

    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Vega 64
    What's your point? Who said that we should be fine with things like the compass bug? Maybe i missed something, but of course we shouldn't be fine with that. :p
     
  2. gx-x

    gx-x Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    156
    GPU:
    1070Ti Phoenix
    I am not ranting really. I just state the obvious. My point is that I am not fine with the newly introduced bug in the drivers. Just like I am not driving my VW to get it's ECU software changed to remove the emissions bug and remove 10kw while at it. I am not mental.
     
  3. RexOmnipotentus

    RexOmnipotentus Master Guru

    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Vega 64
    I know that you stated the obvious. That's why i didn't get the point of your post. By the way, i already edited my previous post. ;) :p
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2016
  4. gx-x

    gx-x Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    156
    GPU:
    1070Ti Phoenix
    all is well :) I will tell you my deal: I can't help but think that if more of us complained or ranted, instead of releasing another small update and getting WHQL, someone in AMD might have gotten upset a bit at their driver team and made them fix what they broke before getting WHQL and letting them go away for hollydays.
    That would have been a right thing to do, at least in my mind.
     

  5. sammarbella

    sammarbella Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,929
    Likes Received:
    178
    GPU:
    290X Lightning CFX (H2O)
    Since mid 2015 i started to have serious doubts that driver team goals are gaming performance and features.

    After Crimson mandatory power saving "feature", fancy red backgrounds and stripped down gaming performance and features i have no more doubts:

    AMD drivers team goals are defined exclusively by PR interests in new GPU sells to people who don't have a clue in gaming PC.

    It's the only logic conclusion i can extract from the current drivers nonsense who fail supporting games performance and related features for a hardware used to...

    ...PLAY GAMES!

    :infinity:
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2016
  6. gx-x

    gx-x Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    156
    GPU:
    1070Ti Phoenix
    +1

    that reduction in power consumption by limiting fps (a choice that is going to be removed by default in near future) is the goal of crimson. Well spotted, but lets not talk about it because we will be considered outcasts and crazy.
     
  7. sammarbella

    sammarbella Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,929
    Likes Received:
    178
    GPU:
    290X Lightning CFX (H2O)
    Nahhh, don't worry about that.

    You are free of any suspicious.

    Reading the bold text make you an average (to high) optimist in here!

    :D
     
  8. snip3r_3

    snip3r_3 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    1070
    I'm still enjoying the game, but I give up on AMD's drivers. Just have to put up with the FPS dips and somewhat broken compass (sometimes it works, just have to spin around a few more times for it to become not garbled). With some "optimized" (lower resolution) texture mods, it seems to have fixed some of the terrible texture streaming, or at least it doesn't happen as much anymore, along with some added FPS without too many noticeable differences.
     
  9. heroxoot

    heroxoot Master Guru

    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC2
    These power saving "features" only seem to be on R9 300 series cards. I have yet to experience this on my 290X. The only time my clock drops below max is if my GPU load is not very high. If the load is not high I use VSR and a higher res to make it higher. Usually helps greatly. I was playing FO4 @ 3800x1800 and it was good but the fps dipped too often. 2560x1440 is great though. Not always max load but very high, good fps, I accept this. But I don't think AMD is just not pushing gaming performance, I truly believe that are just goofing at maximum overgoof speeds.
     
  10. BuildeR2

    BuildeR2 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,910
    Likes Received:
    152
    GPU:
    MSI 2080 Ti GX Trio
    You could do like I did and drop Crimson for now. I went back to the Catalyst 15.11.1 beta and all of the games I currently play (Fallout 4, Shadow of Mordor, Witcher 3) perform better and don't have corruption or graphical anomalies like Crimson did. I see the potential in Crimson/Radeon settings, but for now I just could not put up with the compromises compared to the final and awesome Catalyst driver.

    The comparison that blew my mind was in FO4 at a place called Liberty something. With Crimson, there was all kinds of jaggies and FPS was pegged at about 35-40 with some strange flashing textures up top as well. Got fed up, ran DDU, installed Catalyst 15.11.1 beta and went back to Liberty something place. Not only does it look better and not have compass corruption or anomalies, it is pegged at 60 FPS! I have had the game on Ultra with TAA since day one and across all drivers.

    Also, with Crimson none of my settings other than the FPS limiter would persist after a reboot or shutdown. It may have been the shader cache or some other setting, but my FO4 load times were suuuuuuuuuuper long with Crimson on my 840 EVO SSD. Went back to Catalyst 15.11.1 beta and load times went back to being snappy. Sorry for text wall. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2016

  11. LocoDiceGR

    LocoDiceGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    839
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 3060 Ti
    I was thinking the other day, does Nvidia have problems like that in games, from driver's?

    Since i make the desicion 1 month ago to buy R9 380 4G, i have faith that all this problem's some day will be history.

    Do you guys report this problm's on amd?
     
  12. heroxoot

    heroxoot Master Guru

    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC2
    Nvidia has had similar problems plenty of times. The difference is Nvidia has a larger driver team and they get somethings fixed at a much faster rate. But even to this day my friend cannot use his 3 monitors in portrait with Nvidia surround over his dual 980. Either it glitches out games, or just doesn't even work on windows properly. But then you also get "Nvidia" games that use "nvidia" technology and still run like total butt on nvidia cards.

    Point is, both sides have issues and PC gaming never will be a perfect experience. If you want games to just play then buy a console. Enjoy the low frame rate, lack of possible mods, and free online multiplayer, but your games run stably.
     
  13. Agonist

    Agonist Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,359
    Likes Received:
    582
    GPU:
    6800XT 16GB
    Man oh boy can I attest to the horrible disaster of using 3 21:9 monitors on 2 gtx 970s.
    It was such a pain in the ass to even get halfway working.
    Popped in 2 R9 290s and I was playing 15 mins later with zero issues.
    The 290s @ 7680x1080 actually beat up on the gtx 970s at that res.

    The 3.5gb vram myth is not a stupid myth either. When I hit that limit, oh boy did those cards cripple down and cry.
     
  14. gx-x

    gx-x Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    156
    GPU:
    1070Ti Phoenix
    I did one system with 3 monitors for a friend, all I did was follow what it says here: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/surround/system-requirements and it worked right away.

    if you just want to plug cables randomly without any thought to it - sure AMD is better.

    3.5GB vram on gtx970 is not a myth because card has 3.5vram. When you go over that limit, or any vram limit on any card, things go to a crawl. It's not a myth that that is normal behavior.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2016
  15. Agonist

    Agonist Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,359
    Likes Received:
    582
    GPU:
    6800XT 16GB
    First off, do not come at me like I am some dumb ass.
    This was not my first 3 monitor setup.
    Secondly I used display port cables, display port to dvi adapters active that supported 2560x1600 res for the 2560x1080 monitors.
    Nvida surround has scaling issues on windows 10 when using 3x 2560x1080 monitors, especially when using any dvi output of the gpu.
    It is a well known fact that nvidias multi monitor setup is behind AMDs eyefinity.

    When I stated the 3.5gb myth I was referring to the myth that it was not an issue when it clearly is.

    3.5gb vram is not the max vram the gpu obviously has, but the card is sold as a 4gb card. But it is in fact a 3.5gb vram card with a 512mb slow as hell partition.

    The issue with the GTX 970 vram is not ********* normal behavior for any gpu.

    When I reach 3.5gb vram usuage on my 290s, they do not have this issue.
    Not even my gtx 670 4gbs I had were as impacted as the 970s were.
    And the gtx 670 had a very similar vram partition to the 970.

    Running many texture mods with Fallout 4 destroyed the 970s I had.
    Even my friend with a single 1080p and one of the 970s I sold him has ran into the issue with texture pack on Shadow of Mordor, and ofcourse a modded out FO4 when hits the 3.5gb vram and it starts using the 512mb partition.
     

  16. sammarbella

    sammarbella Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,929
    Likes Received:
    178
    GPU:
    290X Lightning CFX (H2O)
    The problem with 970 is it ACTUALLY has 4 GB of VRAM, this is the amount the OS "see" as a whole.

    OS and softwares expect to use this GPU VRAM amount but in reality only the first 3.5 GB portion can be used at normal speed and the last 0.5 GB portion can only be used at ultraslow speed.

    This lead to an inexpected memory crawl when a software like a game try to fully use the GPU VRAM accessing the last portion.

    OS and softwares are unaware of this "little" detail.

    No normal behavior at all for a GPU VRAM.

    Normally all the VRAM installed in GPUs can be accessed at the same speed no matter the size they are.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2016
  17. gx-x

    gx-x Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    156
    GPU:
    1070Ti Phoenix
    @Agonist:
    Well, what was easy for me is complicated for you. If you realized that what you want doesn't work properly on windows 10 - why didn't you roll back or why did you install win 10 spyware in the first place?

    nVidia has made the correction in the drivers (since the 512mb debacle happened) that would prevent the card to access those last 512mb of vram. Games can override that, unfortunately. One of the games that does that is shadow of mordor. It comes up every time when people start the 512MB argument. Generally people that have that problem installed the 4K texture pack - to use on their non 4K monitors. Smart move.
    My fallout 4 is modded and it hoovers around 2.4GB of vram. I wasn't smart enough to put bunch of unoptimized large textures on an engine that can barley run vanilla textures. How dumb of me right?

    Listen, all I can see from your posts is USER ERROR. You, on your own risk, mod the game and then complain. Wow. Does Vanilla FO4 work fine on 970? Yes it does. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean YOU SHOULD do it.

    "I am sorry you fell that way." - Bill Burr.

    @sammarbella:

    I know that is not normal behavior, but it's well know now so you know what to do and what not to do. Like I said earlier, nVidia since made changes to drivers to make that last block either inaccessible or the last to be used, idk, I forgot what they did exactly. Yes, it's a screw up but when you go and buy 970 you know you are getting 3.5GB card, don't make it use more than 3.5GB and you are fine. It's not meant for 4K gaming anyway.
    Besides, 290 is a faster (in almost all cases) card than 970, so him stating that it works better is redundant.

    here: tested example of "the fix" http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=396944

    And again: I am not saying that what nVidia did is cool at all! They did give people the option to return the cards or w/e but I'd take gtx 970 over r290 any time. It's still a good card if the price is right! :D

    And I am sorry if I offended anyone, I am d*ck, I know, I just speak my mind.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2016
  18. Agonist

    Agonist Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,359
    Likes Received:
    582
    GPU:
    6800XT 16GB

    Its user error on my part with nvidia not having something working correctly.
    Screw you.
    You can go ahead and block me. Piss right off.
    I am no way offended but I have zero tolerance for a**holes like you.
    You mention 4k, guess what idiot, I never ran 4k. 4k is still more demanding resolution than me running 7680x1080.
    Guess what clown, I was running FXAA or SMAA in alot of games because of the size of the res I was running.
    In fact, right now I run only 2x MSAA at most on alot of games @ 2560x1080 with SMAA.
    The fact that everyone sh*t talks amd drivers, yet nvidia fails to deliver the simple setup for triple monitors where amd almost just works that easily.

    Your statement about windows 10 clearly shows you are idiot and can not be taken seriously.

    "Well, what was easy for me is complicated for you. If you realized that what you want doesn't work properly on windows 10 - why didn't you roll back or why did you install win 10 spyware in the first place?"

    I used a setup that had maybe 5 people in the world that had tried that I had seen online.
    I knew I was taking a risk with it, but thats not what I was ever mad about.
    What I was mad about, that it didnt work.
    Thats why I sold the 970s, and switched to R9 290s.
    I had no issues when using Hd 7850s with 1 25inch monitor and 2 5:4 17 inch monitors with eyefinity.
    But I am no fanboy of any side, so I tried the green side for tripple monitors as I have never used them, and I was major let down.
    Judge my post as you will, I do not care. This is my last post on the matter.

    1 single R9 290 still handles FO4 modded out with an avg of 45fps on my freesync monitor, and still plays great.

    Just for fun, I tested my R9 280x with an i7 3820 clocked @ 3.2 with Hyper Threading on against my i5 4460 @ 3.2 to have similar specs even know the i 3820 ipc is 2600k ipc performance.

    The fps was almost identical, but the game was much smoother on the i7 ofcourse. The cpu load was balance more across due to 8 vs 4 threads.

    Even @ 2560x1080, FO4 still seems to be pretty cpu bound. I did this test on a non modded FO4 to get a clean based test done.
     
  19. gx-x

    gx-x Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,507
    Likes Received:
    156
    GPU:
    1070Ti Phoenix
    I am not going to block you, you have a an interesting way of presenting your problems as if they are not you own damn fault then go around and say how they are indeed your fault. I read every word you wrote and you gave me a good laugh. Thank you man. :)

    PS. I hope you are enjoying the plethora of unwanted internet traffic and all those directX 12 games on your brand new and improved windows 10! I heard it's all great. That new metro integration into start menu? Fantastic stuff! But an idiot like me disables metro on win 8.1 and uses start menu app because I don't know any better. Heck, I even gave my win 10 key away to a friend...

    Have a nice one buddy, and... watch your blood pressure ;)
    yea, we might just be done here right? (rhetorical question)
     
  20. niczerus

    niczerus Master Guru

    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    MSI GamingX 580 4GB
    the last beta patch fix a lot the fps issues .
     

Share This Page