Bethesda Adds High Resolution Pack To PC, PS4 Pro Support For 'Fallout 4'

[heirdeux]

You'll need some powerful hardware to get the visual upgrades.

Bethesda Adds High Resolution Pack To PC, PS4 Pro Support For 'Fallout 4' : Read more

 

[FunSurfer]

They forgot the SSD requirement, my HDD can barely keep up with the normal resolution loadings...

 

[araczynski]

lol, they're really fighting to milk it as much as they can before the 'complete' edition shows up.

 

[rantoc]

Most fan's bought the game+dlc's anyway and a free gfx update is really thx! I suspect however that some with weak gpu's will cry about that their weak gpu's won't be able to run it and somehow think its the developers fought they have a poor gpu....

 

[Elysian890]

I wonder if my 290x2 toaster will handle it...

 

[jcchiefsfan]

This makes me wonder if I pissed away $720 on my gtx 980ti hybrid? Makes me feel like I should have waited another year and a half for the 1080 which would have saved me some money too!

 

[falchard]

Naw, you don't want a 1080. They are a in between step in nVidia's architecture, so you will definitely wish you waited for Volta when it comes out. I'll try it out on my Fury X machine to see if it was really necessary.

 

[manleysteele]

Anyone else choking on the i7 5820k. I have a 1080, but my CPU is an i5 3750k? I may have to forgo the HD texture pack unless that's some more bet hedging.

 

[mmaatt747]

Any one know it's ok to install this texture pack on top of any mods I already have?

 

[jwl3]

I lost interest in this game - did so many hundreds of side missions including that worthless settlement building mini-game that ate up hundreds of hours of time. By the time I got to the "Institute", I was burned out and just gave up. Haven't picked it up in 9 months.

 

[coolitic]

AI and physics still glitch a bit at over 60 fps. Wondering if the next Bethesda game will finally get with the times.

 

[BulkZerker]

i7 reccomended. That mean it'll properly use up 8 threads after the update?

 

[manleysteele]

Any one know it's ok to install this texture pack on top of any mods I already have?

If it's like the usual Bethesda High Texture Packs, one puts it after the last DLC and then your mods should overwrite it with anything that they add.

 

[falchard]

Actually, with archive invalidation anything in the data folder that shares the same file name and type will overwrite it. If you installed 4k textures and decide to go back to the High Res Texture Pack, I doubt you will notice any difference. Maybe a degradation in quality.

 

[mmaatt747]

Any one know it's ok to install this texture pack on top of any mods I already have?

If it's like the usual Bethesda High Texture Packs, one puts it after the last DLC and then your mods should overwrite it with anything that they add.

Thanks for the response! I'll just reapply the mods then.

 

[manleysteele]

Any one know it's ok to install this texture pack on top of any mods I already have?

If it's like the usual Bethesda High Texture Packs, one puts it after the last DLC and then your mods should overwrite it with anything that they add.

Thanks for the response! I'll just reapply the mods then.

You shouldn't need to do that. The meshes and textures in The High Res Texture packs should be contained in a BA2 file. Your texture packs in the load order after the HRTP will load over those in the packs. After that, the loader will overwrite with all the loose files in your data directory mesh and texture directories. You should be able to get any advantages of the HRTP without disturbing your present setup.

 

[alidan]

and I can't wait till a mod comes around, trimming a massive amount of crap data from the textures again, because bethesda if anything else, is an incompetent dev that relies on fans to fix the crap they put out.

 

[nerdbrd]

I just made a video showing this running very well at 1080p on i5 6400, GTX 1060 6g.
Youtube.com/nerdberd

 

[10tacle]

Naw, you don't want a 1080. They are a in between step in nVidia's architecture, so you will definitely wish you waited for Volta when it comes out. I'll try it out on my Fury X machine to see if it was really necessary.

I'd hardly consider the fact that the 1080 beats the 980Ti by an average of 25% as an "in between step" in advancement. And regarding the Fury X, it was supposed to be a 980Ti killer and wound up being 5-10% behind it on average in most games when released in summer 2015...and that didn't include when taking into account 980Ti overclocking, because the Fury X couldn't be overclocked anymore as it was maxed out from the factory when shipped. Yeah I remember all the fanboy comments on both Tom's and Anandtech claiming that the Fury X would destroy the 980Ti. In fact, they are still out there for amusement.

Regarding Volta, I'm hoping AMD brings some real competition to Nvidia...Nvidia needs it. However, their past several high end releases have not been Nvidia destroyers which is very disappointing. AMD is well known for lasting longer in gaming over time than Nvidia, which is why I always recommend AMD over Nvidia for mid-range GPUs. But the Fury X was nothing but a $650 fail. Just a year and a half later, it's only roughly equal to a reference $380 GTX 1070 in DX12 games, and gets destroyed by it in DX11 games.

Sources:

[Fallout 4 bench test from Dec. 2015]
http://media.bestofmicro.com/S/N/538871/gallery/03-QHD-Extreme_w_646.png

[Other games]
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_1080_aorus_xtreme_review,17.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_1080_aorus_xtreme_review,18.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_1080_aorus_xtreme_review,21.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_1080_aorus_xtreme_review,22.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_1080_aorus_xtreme_review,25.html

 

[Krusher]

FWIW, as NERDBRD says above I also am at 1080p on an i7-3770k, EVGA GTX 1060OC (6GB) and most of the time with adaptive sync on I was right around 60FPS with this mod as expected. Once, I saw 47FPS. GPU-Z showed a maximum of 5.6GB of VRAM used; I would expect the better (and SLI) setups are required for 2560x1440 and 4K. I'm also running 32GB of RAM but that shouldn't matter as much. I am also waiting for high-end Volta eventually and the 1060 has worked surprising well so far...

 

[chicofehr]

so people with a 4k monitor or multi monitor would need a Titan XP as the 8GB of ram is recommended for 1080P only.

 

[daglesj]

Installed on my 5820k at 4GHz with a 8GB RX 480 and 16GB of DDR4 3000. You see a 10-15% image improvement IF you look for it. Otherwise in the heat of gaming its not really noticeable. No performance issues. Runs just as smooth as before. Probably not worth the effort for most.

 

[ledhead11]

Decided to take the plunge for it last night. Held off on the DLC as there are many bad reviews but mostly good reviews for the texture pack. Bummer is that it was still $60 on Amazon and Steam, oh well. Probably be on sale by the weekend . . .lol

For those wondering, I read many reviews stating that it ran pretty good on 1070's and some 1060's also in 1080p. As I dive into this weekend with 1440p & 4k I'll update on how it looks with my system.

 

[yronnen]

Works pretty smoothly on GTX 1070, i7-4770, 32GB, running 1080P.

 

[falchard]

Naw, you don't want a 1080. They are a in between step in nVidia's architecture, so you will definitely wish you waited for Volta when it comes out. I'll try it out on my Fury X machine to see if it was really necessary.

I'd hardly consider the fact that the 1080 beats the 980Ti by an average of 25% as an "in between step" in advancement. And regarding the Fury X, it was supposed to be a 980Ti killer and wound up being 5-10% behind it on average in most games when released in summer 2015...and that didn't include when taking into account 980Ti overclocking, because the Fury X couldn't be overclocked anymore as it was maxed out from the factory when shipped. Yeah I remember all the fanboy comments on both Tom's and Anandtech claiming that the Fury X would destroy the 980Ti. In fact, they are still out there for amusement.

Regarding Volta, I'm hoping AMD brings some real competition to Nvidia...Nvidia needs it. However, their past several high end releases have not been Nvidia destroyers which is very disappointing. AMD is well known for lasting longer in gaming over time than Nvidia, which is why I always recommend AMD over Nvidia for mid-range GPUs. But the Fury X was nothing but a $650 fail. Just a year and a half later, it's only roughly equal to a reference $380 GTX 1070 in DX12 games, and gets destroyed by it in DX11 games.

Right now in my opinion, the best buy is the Fury X. It's why I just bought one for around $300. I did consider the Fury X roughly equal to the 1070. I do agree, the Fury X was not worth it on release at $650.

I don't consider the current NVidia cards because of how they perform in DX12. Their performance in DX12 should improve with Volta. The question is if you think DX12 performance will be important in the next 3~5 years? If it isn't than the 1080 is fine. I feel it is going to be important and the only thing barrier to good DX12 performance is waiting a year.

BTW, just tested the pack and... You definitely want 6-8 GB VRAM. Reviews so far has it showing about 6 GB VRAM used with the pack. HBM memory does not make up the difference here. You get microstutter, microstutter, microstutter. The textures themselves don't look that good as well. I was surprised to still see pixelation of the texture. I feel the base games textures made poor use of the pixel budget. Mods look best here.