Mitigate Posted December 10, 2016 Author Share Posted December 10, 2016 To my knowledge there shouldn't be a difference.The fps difference could be my cpu, but I also heared that some reported that ram speeds matter more in fo4 than in other games.Some websites claim that comparing values around 1300-1600Mhz with 2400Mhz they could get an improved around 20-25% (sometimes even more). Especially when the cpu is maxed out the ram could give some good improvements.I don't know how up to date this information are, but maybe would be good to know what ram you're using.16GB DDR3 1600MHz. Guess I'm up for another upgrade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3s7ing Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Not necessarily worth the upgrade... Even when giving a slight improvement, I don't know if the price would be worth it.Also you should take in mind, that your cpu officially only supports ram to up to 1600. In real life that shouldn't be a problem (my cpu supports up to 2133 and I'm using 2667), but the ram would probably not go full speed in stock and could require the use of an xmp profile over your motherboard (which would need to support it too). So... I wouldn't upgrade the ram, cause for me the benefit wouldn't out wage the price and an improvement isn't assured to 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirTwist Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 It's really your settings that matter. Did you let the game set them, and you go with that, or did you accept Geforce's basic settings, and go with that? I ran this game on a Phenom II processor, with a GTX 750, didn't have a major fps spike unless I was using a lot of mini nuke type explosions. Now I'm running on FX 8320, and the same gpu, and still no major FPS loss. Of course I have to double check somethings, but I also don't run from launcher every time, and I routinely set my Geforce Experience's settings myself. I set to performance over quality, and set my resolution to max. I've not noticed any major fps, unless there is a large amount of mods interacting with each other. And even then, somethings aren't as noticed. And, of course, I also use Mod Organizer 2, which may help, as well. So, here's my advice, go into Gefore experience, set your resolution, then hit apply for optimal settings. Get Mod Organizer 2, use One Tweak, set up your game inside of Mod Organizer 2, set windowed mode, and borderless, and make sure your resolution is set. You shouldn't have anymore major FPS loss. Minor, yes, but not major. If you have major drop, it's the game, and game engine, not your computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitigate Posted December 11, 2016 Author Share Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) It's really your settings that matter. Did you let the game set them, and you go with that, or did you accept Geforce's basic settings, and go with that? I ran this game on a Phenom II processor, with a GTX 750, didn't have a major fps spike unless I was using a lot of mini nuke type explosions. Now I'm running on FX 8320, and the same gpu, and still no major FPS loss. Of course I have to double check somethings, but I also don't run from launcher every time, and I routinely set my Geforce Experience's settings myself. I set to performance over quality, and set my resolution to max. I've not noticed any major fps, unless there is a large amount of mods interacting with each other. And even then, somethings aren't as noticed. And, of course, I also use Mod Organizer 2, which may help, as well. So, here's my advice, go into Gefore experience, set your resolution, then hit apply for optimal settings. Get Mod Organizer 2, use One Tweak, set up your game inside of Mod Organizer 2, set windowed mode, and borderless, and make sure your resolution is set. You shouldn't have anymore major FPS loss. Minor, yes, but not major. If you have major drop, it's the game, and game engine, not your computer.Base settings from launcher are Ultra. I have manually lowered them considerably since. No Geforce Experience settings, that crap's whack. No demanding mods, just the unofficial patches, texture optimisation and the odd interface fix.All these are things I have already tried. I'm a vet with Skyrim and it's not that different here. With your rig I don't believe you aren't getting major drops, especially in Boston. Perhaps you're just used to them? I'm very sensitive to framerate so what you call nothing major would perhaps be catastrophic for me. The drops I am getting are bad enough to not simply wave off. Edited December 11, 2016 by Mitigate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyRJump Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 To my knowledge there shouldn't be a difference.The fps difference could be my cpu, but I also heared that some reported that ram speeds matter more in fo4 than in other games.Some websites claim that comparing values around 1300-1600Mhz with 2400Mhz they could get an improved around 20-25% (sometimes even more). Especially when the cpu is maxed out the ram could give some good improvements.I don't know how up to date this information are, but maybe would be good to know what ram you're using.16GB DDR3 1600MHz. Guess I'm up for another upgrade... Don't believe all the hype around faster RAM modules. I could run my "old" 1300MHz RAM (Kingston HyperX, AsRock p67 Fatal1ty Pro mainboard, i7-2600k on air -Arctic Cooling Freezer Xtreme rev.2- @4.9GHz) at 1819MHz, stable, for days on end without a glitch. Performance-wise, the gain was neglectable. A couple of frames per second at the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3s7ing Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Well, maybe it's true that the hype is a bit too much and the gain is only minor and in specific games, but like showed here http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page6.html, it's there. Test is from 2015 ... so maybe not up to date anymore, but certainly worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyRJump Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Well, maybe it's true that the hype is a bit too much and the gain is only minor and in specific games, but like showed here http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page6.html, it's there. Test is from 2015 ... so maybe not up to date anymore, but certainly worth considering.Problem with that article is that it concerns RAM that was first under-clocked. The under-clocking was the reason for the poor performance, so, the "gain" was in fact the normal performance... Nevertheless, there's quite an improvement there. But, like you said earlier, is it worth cashing out for it? I wouldn't. But then again, I don't have the budget for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cossayos Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Chances are, you run into yet another bottleneck when upgrading. And so you keep upgrading and upgrading and still don't get optimal performance. Some ten years ago, I would have done it. But now I'm quite content with what I have, and if this isn't sufficient to run even the last particle effect on ultra without losing out on performance, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirTwist Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 The setting I use in Geforce Experience, with Fallout New Vegas, is set up the way it's supposed to be. But through Mod Organizer, and launching through there, Running Windowed mode, full resolution, and fairly high up. Maybe not fully ultra, but close to. There is a FPS loss in downtown Boston. I believe it's due to all the garbage, junk, dilapidated buildings, and fighting going on. However, I did hit between 30 and 40, on average, downtown. Sometimes dipped as low as one, but that's because of all the mods I am using, which are extensive. That, and the fact that they recycled Fallout 3's and Fallout New Vegas' game engine, with the upgrade to 64-bit for Fallout 4, it's surprising it even runs half way decent. Personally, 99.99999999999% (you can stretch that to infinity) of the time, I could care less about FPS, and care more about the story. And even in online gaming, I could frankly careless about FPS, and worry more about ping. Want a really fun, but what is considered now a really low res game? It's a very early game, too. I'm so glad they ported it to the PC from the TRS-80 Color Computer series. It's called Dungeons of Daggorath. Really fun game to play. And frankly you are less worried about frame rate, than you are about surviving. If you are so tied up in frame rate performance, and not about the game, or story itself, then either get into gaming yourself, or get a console. Then you won't have to worry about frame rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitigate Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 Chances are, you run into yet another bottleneck when upgrading. And so you keep upgrading and upgrading and still don't get optimal performance. Some ten years ago, I would have done it. But now I'm quite content with what I have, and if this isn't sufficient to run even the last particle effect on ultra without losing out on performance, so be it.Sure... Except my rig can't handle FO4 at medium without stuttering in places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts