FO4 system specs are BS

[jet4571]

I am running Ultra settings(what Bethesda claims is ultra in the launcher) with an I7 920 and a GTX 750 TI(2 GB VRAM) with 32 GB system RAM. According to the min and max specs I shouldn't be able to run the game with the very first I7 processor model sold. And ultra settings on a GTX 750 TI? dafuq? Was well over 30 FPS until I found some rain and then a solid 30.

 

Anyone else with a mid range rig try ultra settings?

Edited November 11, 2015 by jet4571

[Dhegonus]

Well, the game was built on a modified version of the engine used for Skyrim, so it would be understandable that rather outdated low end machines can run FO4 relatively well. Though i wouldn't try any of the HD texture mods that will be coming out soon.

[Ozisl]

I dunno about ultra (I forget exactly what autodetect did, I think it was very high or somesuch), but the game runs perfectly smooth on my mid-range system (i5 3.4 GHz processor, 8 GB of RAM, GeForce 760)

[mutieblaster]

I'm finding the same thing, i7 920 with a 660TI and 12gb system ram and I'm running at ultra no problem.

Only got 2gb Vram so I'm on the minimum, doesn't seem to matter though.

Edited November 11, 2015 by mutieblaster

[Ozisl]

I don't really care about the performance at launch. The engine is really quite old.

 

What I will be gauging is performance with the inevitable high-res textures and models our dear content creators provide us with. In that event, a 4 GB video card will be far more useful than 2 GB models.

[mutieblaster]

I'd planned to upgrade just before launch, but the cash flow didn't quite allow it. I'm just glad it turns out I don't need it just yet.

[Boombro]

It smooth with few dips on my r9 290x, with no drivers for fallout 4.

[jet4571]

I know the engine is old, they've been using it and modding it since Morrowind, I was just happily surprised by how far off the specs were. recommended is usually for Ultra and if you have something thats between recommended and min you would have a slideshow with ultra set. minimum is always BS and higher than the real minimum but that's so they get less complaints about the game not running or is a slideshow because the user doesn't keep a clean system, outdated drivers, spyware, other things that will downgrade performance.

[Merovign]

The rumor was that it was more RAM/GPU dependent than CPU dependent, but that may not be quite true.

 

See a lot of i7's here, I have a lowly 860k with a 750Ti(2Gb), and I need to try it on Ultra. On high I had microstuttering, especially with fog or radstorm effects, turning Godrays down mostly removed that (only when moving sideways in the fog, it seems, now).

[Nofsdad]

I don't really care about the performance at launch. The engine is really quite old.

 

What I will be gauging is performance with the inevitable high-res textures and models our dear content creators provide us with. In that event, a 4 GB video card will be far more useful than 2 GB models.

I have a 4Gb card (GeForce GTX 630) but it only has 96 shader cores (fine for watching Netflix, not so much for high end games) and chokes badly on anything above medium settings (although I suspect I'll manage at least a tad better as time goes on and mods are forthcoming). This is what I get for being blinded by the 4 gigs of ram. :D Saving my pennies now for an upgrade. In the meantime I spent my entire first day tweaking and installing other people's tweaks just to get the game playable.