Meeting F4 minimum system requirements and out-performing consoles

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

jasonm03

Reputable
Nov 10, 2015
5
0
4,510
This is my current mobo:http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=N82E16813130290

If i put in the max compatible processor, 8GB of new matched RAM, and spend $100-$150 on a video card, will I noticeably out-perform the consoles?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
clutchc

clutchc

Titan
Ambassador
Apr 22, 2009
43,150
411
131,790


Better, thanks. Yes, if you do it right, even that old AM3 system can out-perform a late model console. With a good gfx card, of course. But the problem is, there are no new CPUs for that socket anymore. You'll have to wander the pages of ebay to find a high-end Phenom II X4 or X6. Plus I have no idea what CPU you have now. Or what make/model of PSU you have to support a good GFX card.

According to the CPU support list for that board; http://us.msi.com/support/mb/870G45.html#support-cpu
...the Ph II X4 970/975/980 would be the best quad core it will accept. The best hexacore would be the Phenom II X6 1075T/1090T. All obsolete. And you would have to update to the latest BIOS for the board to be sure it recognizes those processors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015
Fallout 4 on console is max 30FPS for starters, so if comparing you would MATCH the performance if getting about 30FPS at comparable visual quality.

I personally would go for an Intel rig. Not sure of budget but I'm guessing an H97 motherboard plus i3-4160 might be optimal. I've done a LOT of comparisons between CPU's.

If budget allows go for an i5-4590 CPU instead, though the i3-4160 plus better GPU like a GTX950/960 would likely be a better combination of parts.

(When I recommend parts I need the TOTAL BUDGET or it's hard to balance everything properly... again, for the most part I can't recommend AMD CPU's)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015
Example (core components only): http://pcpartpicker.com/p/CxNNt6
i3-4160
H97 Asrock
8GB (2x4GB)
Asus GTX950

(other: 500W quality PSU, W10 64-bit, case etc)

That's quite good and should get 60FPS at fairly high settings... hard to recommend the GTX750Ti when for about $40 more you get much higher performance with a GTX950 (roughly 40% higher). I know AMD GPU's are an alternative but I'm a bit nervous recommending them due to poor DX11 drivers and a few other issues.

(The Asus Strix is just $10 more and it's better, but I'm trying to keep the price down... again, don't know the budget but estimated based on you saying wanted max CPU which is FX-8350 plus motherboard and 750Ti)

Here's a GPU performance comparison (probably pretty close with the i3-4160, though some AMD CPU's will be a bottleneck... in fact the i3-4160 beats the FX-8350 in most games but not all)
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_950_SSC/30.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chilly2468

chilly2468

Reputable
Oct 27, 2015
408
0
4,960
Going to have to agree with photonboy, cpu's seem to have little effect on the fps people are getting in fallout 4. And a intel build would serve you much better than an AMD build at this point in time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jasonm03

Reputable
Nov 10, 2015
5
0
4,510
Thanks for the feedback so far.

If I was starting a build from scratch, I'd definitely do an Intel. However in the interest of saving money, I figured if I could just find a better CPU cheap and pick up GPU/RAM, I'd be good to go for a while.

Then if I wanted to get Intel mobo/CPU I can always do that later.

But I hear what you're saying photonboy. By just upgrading what I have, it looks like I'm only saving maybe a bit over $100.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chilly2468

chilly2468

Reputable
Oct 27, 2015
408
0
4,960
gtx 960 seems to actually perform rather well in fallout 4 benchmarks. If you can't afford it then the 950 also performs decently at low-mid level graphics at 1080p.

benchmarks:http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2177-fallout-4-pc-video-card-fps-benchmark-all-resolutions
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clutchc

clutchc

Titan
Ambassador
Apr 22, 2009
43,150
411
131,790


I agree with the GTX 960 choice. I got this one in my other rig: http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=02G-P4-2968-KR
At the time I got it, the FTW was the fastest clocked GTX 960 out-of-the-box. Might still be. And Evga has the best warranty in the business. Using Evga Precision, I easily got it to a stable 1508 MHz using nothing but a core clock bump. No change to voltage was necessary.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jasonm03

Reputable
Nov 10, 2015
5
0
4,510
If anyone was interested in the outcome, I ended up spending right around $200. I haven't gotten F4 yet, but at least I am running F:NV on ultra high settings with everything turned on/up.

I have a Phenom II 945, 3 Ghzx4; 8 MB of new RAM; and I opted for a lower-end card than you all recommended to stay in my price range, with a R9 270.

So at the very least, I should out-perform the consoles for less than the price of a console, which was my objective.

As an aside, I assume I can expect NV to look at least as good as 4 looks right now?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clutchc

clutchc

Titan
Ambassador
Apr 22, 2009
43,150
411
131,790


That's still a well-balanced system. If you game at 1080p, F4 should look about as good as F:NV does. Maybe a tad better. The game still uses the same old Oblivion engine. But it has some enhancements to improve visuals... a bit. I would expect that at 30 FPS avg. it should be able to look better than on a last gen console.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom