Fallout 4 Benchmarked

A great many Tom's Hardware readers are already immersed in the world of Fallout 4. We're here to show you how the game runs across a wide range of graphics cards, resolutions and detail settings.

Fallout 4 does a good job setting a post-apocalyptic mood. It's not the best-looking game, but it is certainly solid. So, how do Fallout 4's graphics scale? Before we get to the numbers, it's worth talking about some of the game's more unique aspects.

The first of these, which has us shaking our heads, is the game's loader. Fallout 4’s graphics settings can only be changed via a Windows 98-style configuration panel before entering the game, but not while you're in it.

Next, there's the fact that Fallout 4 offers only two aspect ratios for full-screen display: 16:9 and 16:10. This is outdated, to say the least, and it was what drove us back to modifying the INI file (Fallout4Prefs.ini, which can be found both in the Steam game [.../steamapps/common/Fallout 4/Fallout4] folder and the documents folder [.../My Games/Fallout4]). Both need to be changed and saved before starting the game.

Using a borderless window that always stays on top as a workaround, any aspect ratio can be set manually. GameWorks effects and other graphics options can be modified or turned off manually this way as well.

Fallout 4 uses an updated proprietary Creation Engine, which is why it doesn't look much different than the older Fallout and The Elder Scrolls titles. One leftover from a bygone area of game engines is the fact that the game's speed is bound to its frame rate. Consequently, the frame rates are fixed, which is to say that v-sync is forced on. Those who've been around for a while know that this can be changed manually in the INI file by setting iPresentInterval=0. To be on the safe side, the file should be marked read-only afterwards.

This change has a noticeable effect on gameplay, especially if you're using a fast graphics card. So, if you take a look at our performance charts and find that your card is under 60 FPS somewhere in the middle of the field, then it might be a good idea to try this out. Dropping to 30 FPS just doesn't make for a great gaming experience; Fallout 4 feels sluggish this way.

Test Scene Selection

We're using two separate save points for our benchmarks. The first features a panoramic view into the distance, and we perform a 360-degree turn via a macro. The second has us walk in a straight line down a city street. It also uses a macro for controlling the movement.

There's a trick to getting reproducible results: we activate god-mode and invisibility (no interaction with the AI) through the game's console so that we can move around undisturbed and without being attacked.

The results for both scenes are pretty reliable; performance in the cities usually results in the lowest frame rates. You'll spend a lot of time exploring the landscape though, so averaging the two outcomes makes sense. Another consideration when comparing numbers from different test platforms is that Fallout 4 demonstrates good CPU scaling (number of threads and clock rates). It needs at least four threads for a stutter-free experience, and clearly doesn't fare as well with only two.

Quality Settings And GameWorks

Nothing in Fallout 4 is modeled with enough detail to really make this a performance consideration. There was really no progress made compared to the game's predecessors. Even distant objects pop in and out of existence like they always have.

Similarly, many items in Fallout 4 still look like plastic. This might not be great for realism, but seems to be deliberate. If TAA (Temporal Anti-Aliasing) is used, then the game becomes smooth and seems more balanced. It's a welcome effect, complementing the lighting responsible for setting the mood.

Nvidia's GameWorks is responsible for Fallout 4's godrays, which punish performance. Even the game's programmers seem to have gotten cold feet; they only enable the High setting for godrays when you select the Ultra detail preset. Manually pushing godrays to Ultra illustrates why, as a double-digit percentage of your frame rate evaporates.

The GameWorks functions can't be completely disabled in the option menu, even though it appears that they can. If you own lower-end hardware, open Fallout4_Default.ini (.../steamapps/common/Fallout 4) and set bNvGodraysEnable=0. Then, three more of the file's entries need to be changed, since volumetric lighting has to be disabled completely to truly deactivate the god rays: bVolumetricLightingEnable=0, iVolumetricLightingQuality=0 and bVolumetricLightingForceCasters=0. We disable all GameWorks functions for the lowest-end test configuration, and set this feature to High for all resolutions above Full HD. Otherwise, Fallout 4 becomes unplayable.

Differences between the individual quality settings are often subtler than you might think. Consequently, we're using specifically chosen scenes to showcase the graphics options. These examples wouldn't necessarily make for a good benchmark, though.

Sun Low In The Sky, Vegetation, Surfaces And Shadows

Noon, Full Illumination, Shadows

Test System and Benchmark Settings
Test Systems
Intel Core i7-5930K at 4.2GHz + Alphacool water cooler
Crucial Ballistix Sport, 4 x 4GB DDR4-2400
MSI X99S XPower AC
Crucial MX200 500GB SSD (system), Corsair LS 960 960GB (applications + data, storage)
be quiet! Dark Power Pro 850W

AMD FX-8350, be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
8GB Kingston HyperX DDR3-1600
MSI 970 Gaming
Corsair LS 960 960GB
be quiet! Dark Power Pro 550W

Windows 10 Pro (All Updates)
AMD: Catalyst 15.11 Beta
Nvidia: ForceWare 358.91 (Game Ready)
Intel: (15.40.10)
3840x2160, Ultra Preset, Godrays High
2560x1440, Ultra Preset, Godrays High
1920x1080, Ultra Preset, Godrays Ultra
1920x1080, Ultra Preset, Godrays High
1920x1080, Medium
1920x1080, Low (Godrays Completely Deactivated via INI File)

Again, we're using the same saved game files for each benchmark run, since Fallout 4's world is dynamic and ever-changing. We’re also reporting full average FPS numbers, since fractions can’t be reproduced reliably between tests. The numbers in our charts are the result of three benchmark passes averaged together, rounded down to an integer figure.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards For The Money
MORE: All Graphics Content

This thread is closed for comments
    Your comment
  • NightAntilli
    "AMD’s Radeon R9 Fury X is probably hamstrung by an unoptimized driver"

    More likely it's hamstrung by GameWorks BS.
  • toddybody
    I wanted to fall in love with this game...so much.

    The game runs horribly, I get dips into the high 40's with GodRays set to low (1440P). It confounds me why I get better performance from Crysis 3, Witcher 3, Metro LL...all of which make this 2015 title look like a re-skinned Skyrim.

    Their decision to use the creation engine was horrendous, and highlighted by their poor GameWorks implementation (but I blame team green for that forceful marketing).

    If low frames, $hit textures and models werent bad enough...the game is boring as Sunday Night Church. 7 hours into it, I had a wonderful variance of "clear the raiders" missions to enjoy...and too many hours played for a Steam refund.

    If I sound butthurt, it's because I am...Fallout 3 was one of my favorite games, and Fallout New Vegas was an incredible addition to the franchise.
  • billybobser
    Can we bench the Ultra presets with gameworks features disabled? Same for higher resolutions.
  • Gillerer
    You should *never* disable V-Sync in Creation Engine games. The game logic and physics are tied to the FPS. After playing a while with faster or slower framerate the NPC's schedules shift out of place.
  • stoned_ritual
    I have a vanilla 780 3gb vram. and i5 4670k, and 16gb ram. I play with ultra everything, godrays on LOW and shadow distance is set to MEDIUM. Changing the shadow distance all but eliminated the huge frame drops I was getting while exploring downtown.
  • Biscuit42
    My experience (about a 100 hours in): I5-6600k @ 4.3 GHz and a 2GB R7 265 @ 1920x1080 lets me get 40 - 45 FPS, with no stuttering, with everything on 'high'. Changing the shadow setting seems to have the biggest impact on frame rates. Oh, and my CPU utilization is consistently under 50%.
  • lilcinw
    Why did you change CPUs across test sets? What happened to the old methodology of using one CPU for all tests sets and then doing a separate run using multiple CPUs with the same GPU?

    The way this was done you cannot compare results from the same GPU between, for example, Ultra and Medium.
  • Chris Droste
    hey guys @ Toms; there's an HD texture package/project ongoing for Fallout4. i would be VERY curious to see how, or if it affects system performance. most early reports say NO, and it looks AMAZINGLY BETTER
  • clonazepam
    You should *never* disable V-Sync in Creation Engine games. The game logic and physics are tied to the FPS. After playing a while with faster or slower framerate the NPC's schedules shift out of place.

    I'm with you on the vsync. I thought it would be cool to run around at over 200 fps and then I saw what happens lol. It's reminiscent of those comedy skits that play in fast forward with some benny hill theme playing.

    Anyway, the most relevant information for these benchmarks is the minimum fps, and that's not included.

    The performance of the game also is dynamic just like the game world. Early in the Main Quest, the world isn't as dynamic as later. There's a lot more going on later. Areas that were previously empty now have NPCs, etc. Enabling Invisibility in the console might also remove CPU calculations for the NPCs like pathing and collision, which would certainly have some impact on performance.

    I heard a rumor that Bethesda's Creation Engine license expires with this title. They could certainly license it again for the next titles, if that's the case. Who knows?

    As far as Gameworks goes, I'd get used to it. Nvidia has something like 80% of the AIB market, and it seems like a lot developers don't want to hire more people to code their own solutions, so it might be around for awhile. Let's hope it gets better. ;)
  • JackNaylorPE
    My sons are playing F4 ....

    4690K (4.5 Ghz) / Twin 970's @ 18% OC
    4770K (4.6 GHz) / Twin 780's @ 26% OC
    2600K (4.8GHz) / Twin 560 Ti @ 28% OC

    Trying to diagnose problems, the following have been attempted

    1. Played as above
    2. Played w/ SLI disabled
    3. Played w/ GFX cards at stock
    4. Payed w/ both CPU and GFX cards at stock

    The problem is that they will be sailing along quite nicely and then performance drops to single digit fps. Right now, they've stopped playing in the hope that patches will resolve the problem.
  • kewlbootz
    Why is minimum fps not measured here? FO4 is full of fps drops across all GPUs relative to shadow distance and god rays settings. Seems like it would be an incredibly pertinent metric.
  • cst1992
    I, for once, expected a bit better visuals for a game that gets a 970 to the high 60s in 1080p. I hope there is a texture pack, and it makes a difference. The game looks like it's carved out of stone and colored with paint.

    **Braces for downvotes**
  • kewlbootz
    1472755 said:
    I, for once, expected a bit better visuals for a game that gets a 970 to the high 60s in 1080p. I hope there is a texture pack, and it makes a difference. The game looks like it's carved out of stone and colored with paint. **Braces for downvotes**

    I agree. Some of the textures are fine (e.g. Maxson's (sp?) Battlecoat), but they're wildly inconsistent, especially if you go off the beaten path or take a look at unimportant NPCs clothing. It's especially evident in architecture, the rubble, and the super mutants.

    I've got about 40 texture and model mods and Reshade/ENB running and it looks pretty solid now. Hell, some of the texture mods are less performance heavy than the defaults . Vivid Landscapes, Rock On, and some WIP Commonwealth retexture pack I can't quite recall the name of are really great.
  • mamasan2000
    Did Toms also turn on multithreading?
    Could be interesting. You type these in console in the game. Or make a batch-file.
    //enable CPU multithreading
    tMta ON
    tMtrdfl ON
    tMtr ppld
    thighprocess on //multi AI
    SAM 1 //multi audio

    Could also be interesting to compare Intel vs AMD
    And as said, turn off Godrays. Loose 1/3 of the FPS for something that is barely noticable = bad idea.

    For those having problems with stutter and shadows, I recommend Shadowboost over at
    Not too easy to search on the site so heres the page for shadowboost: http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/1822/?

    Theres tons of visual detail updates out there as well (at nexusmods) if you want higher detail textures etc in the game, usually with no FPS penalty. Just increased VRAM usage.

    I'm running tons of mods as well, just as above poster.
    Enhanced Wasteland, for better colors.
    Realistic Lights
    True Storms
    Vivid Fallout - Landscapes
    Texture optimization project

    To name a few
  • iam2thecrowe
    It would have been nice to see more variation in CPU's being tested to see where any potential bottlenecks may be. At least an i5 4690 or similar which is probably the most popular cpu for gamers. Throw in an fx 6300, i3 and athlonx4 for good measure. Most people gaming are using one of the fore-mentioned cpu's. Or even simulate the cpu's so you dont have to physically change them, disable cores/ht etc.
  • DKL
    I wish it was written in the articles what the Fallout 4 settings and FPS are on the console versions! Would be nice to know.
  • blppt
    .all of which make this 2015 title look like a re-skinned Skyrim.

    Call me crazy, but I think Skyrim (with the HD texture pack) looks much better than FO4. Maybe it isnt as technically impressive, but there is an awful lot of blatant ugly textures and bad LoD in FO4. Skyrim, despite being really outdated, is still very pleasing looking to the eye.
  • blppt
    "Could also be interesting to compare Intel vs AMD"

    It wouldnt go well for AMD's cpus. The creation engine is notorious for only fully utilizing a couple of cores, and we know Intel slaps AMD silly in those poorly optimized game engines.

    I can tell you firsthand that my 9590 oc'd to 5ghz constant is still noticably jittery vs my new 4790K at stock speed, using a 290x. But that wasnt a shock given the creation engine's known shortfalls. Now, a game like GTA5, which is about as good as it gets for mainstream multi-core optimization, its nearly identical in everyday gaming between that 9590 and the 4790K.
  • Cryio
    No CPU and/or frequency scaling charts? Disappointed.
  • nebun
    wow....the titan X kicks arse...impressive little card...love that the card is a dual purpose card....gaming and business oriented software
  • Sakkura
    I wish you'd looked into memory scaling. Apparently Fallout 4 benefits significantly from faster memory, unlike most other games.
  • thor220
    wow....the titan X kicks arse...impressive little card...love that the card is a dual purpose card....gaming and business oriented software

    Just a heads up, only the original Titan had good dual precision performance. The Titan X does not and was only released to milk Nvidia fanboys.
  • cst1992
    BTW, in 4K it seems Fallout 4 is one of the games that benefits from the extra memory on the 980Ti and Titan X. Otherwise, why is the Fury X falling behind? It showed comparable performance in benchmarks to the 980Ti in 4K resolution.
  • maxalge
    Override tessellation, set to 8x enjoy.