In terms of CPU/GPU use which of the newer games is most smilar to Fallout 4?

[South8028]

4 hours ago, RoNin1971 said:

That might be right. I'm pretty sure the 3D models they use are way more complex as the FO4 ones, so don't worry about that. My 2070Super could handle FO4 on ultra without breaking a sweat. It's when you load it up with 4K textures and an ENB where it will fall short.

I'm sure a 4080super will have no trouble with that AND a bunch of 8K textures, just like my 4090.

Yes, in Starfield the box, which does not deserve more than 80 polygons, has 27k polygons, someone wrote that a toothbrush has 5k polygons. Models are not optimized. I did not find information on how many polygons the scene renderer can process. But I think a lot. 2-3 billion? fo4 300 million. For its time, the picture in fo4 is good. hi-poly models with 4k textures look no worse than Starfield. This is because the shaders in Starfield are exactly the same. These are bsLightingFx and bsEffectFx. I call them plastic shaders. The main difference. CK2 is capable of using 12 physical cores (I don’t know how many threads). fo4 - 4 physical cores.

[geala]

That's interesting. I have Starfield on my laptop which has a 4070 GPU. I only played it on a 1920 x 1080 however, had never a problem on highest settings. I don't see the need for better textures in Starfield, they look good enough for me in vanilla. Would be nice to test it on a 3840 x 2160, but I lost any incentive in the game after I noticed that you can play most of the DLC only when joining the cult of some religious jerks.

[South8028]

2 hours ago, geala said:

That's interesting. I have Starfield on my laptop which has a 4070 GPU. I only played it on a 1920 x 1080 however, had never a problem on highest settings. I don't see the need for better textures in Starfield, they look good enough for me in vanilla. Would be nice to test it on a 3840 x 2160, but I lost any incentive in the game after I noticed that you can play most of the DLC only when joining the cult of some religious jerks.

If you have 10+ gigabytes, then there is no problem playing in 4k. Resolution does not depend on anything other than the amount of video memory. The 2080ti pushes Starfield to the max. 6 gigabytes are declared - full hd, 8 gigabytes - 2k, 10 gigabytes - 4k. In my opinion, there is no visual difference between 2k and 4k unless your monitor is the size of the entire wall.

[363rdChemicalCompany]

Great Discussion , I am learning

[fraquar]

So you'd play 4k with an Intel ARC 770 (16Gb of memory)?    Hehe....

It's not just resolution - it's that resolution at good frame rates.

Not all GPU chipsets are created equal - you want a certain level to get both.

Edited Wednesday at 11:28 PM by fraquar

[RoNin1971]

On 1/29/2025 at 10:48 PM, 363rdChemicalCompany said:

Great Discussion , I am learning

instead of trying to find a modern game which is similar in performance (that's going to be very hard), I believe it would be better to look at what FO4 actually needs, and more importantly, uses.

A modern game will utilize my i9 14900K's 24 cores, FO4 will only use 4 out of those (afaik). So, a CPU with less but faster cores, will do better, but also makes any comparison moot.

FO4 loads a lot faster from a good ol' harddrive instead of (much faster) SSD's.

On the GPU front anything higher as the 'recommended' will do, unless you want to play around with 4K or even 8K textures. Your GPU's memory should be the decisive factor in that case.

For using all kinds of shaders and/or ENB's you don't really have to look at anything, after fulfilling the above. Unless you wish to turn on "Godrays" (don't )

 

You really need to buy something very cheap, not to be able to play a 10 years old 3D game in ultra settings.