'Fallout 4' PC Specs And Release Dates Revealed; Can You Run It?

[mapesdhs]

Et____ writes:
> how about the minimum cpu with a good gpu.

That depends on the game, resolution, detail level, etc.


> i have a 2600k and i plan on buying an nvidia 950 soon-ish.

That should be ok, and you can oc to get some extra headroom. I've done a lot of tests with a 2700K, works nicely, handles 980 SLI no problem, so a single 950 should be a breeze with a 2600K.


> it's probably the best upgrade i can get for my money, ...

Could you stretch to a used 960? I'm not keen on the 950/960, the cross over the performance of older cards too much.

Obvious question: what's your existing GPU?


> but how does it scale ...

Not suitable for anything higher than HD, though for me even HD would be too high a res for a card like a 950 as I like to crank up the detail. Some though are happy to use reduced settings.


> ... and do i waste money by bottlenecking myself with the cpu ? ...

You won't bottleneck a 950 with a 2600K, especially not if you oc the CPU (plenty of potential there).


> ... how can i find answers on that topic ?? ty folks

I've done a range of CPU/GPU tests, but I'm looking for a newer title, something I can run on many different configs. GTA V maybe? Not sure yet.

However, my data does at least show that your 2600K will not bottleneck a 950, given that a 2700K can handle 980 SLI perfectly ok. Heck, even an i5 760 can use a couple of 980s a lot better than many might assume (full writeup underway), though of course there's a point beyond which it makes little sense to tread (testing old with new is partly the purpose of my site's PC section though).

Ian.

 

[surphninja]

now the real question is how buggy will it be on release and how long until its patched up well enough to play. doesn't seem like anyone can just launch a damn game that works. and they certainly never have enough server space for launch and you have to wait hours to login. I normally wait at least a month before I buy a new game.

Knowing Bethesda, any patch they do release will barely help, and you'll have to wait for the community to eventually release an unofficial patch for it to be playable.

Loaded up Oblivion on my ps3 the other day (the keyboard controls are too tough for my kid), and barely into the main quest I hit a game-breaking bug that required me to start a new character. Lesson learned: always buy Bethesda games on pc, because at least the community will actually do the work to fix it.

 

[Joel T Z]

My laptop is i7 / 8gb ram/ 745m I'm having trouble comparing cause of 2gb after the 550 I know it's good if just 550 but will my laptop run fallout 4

 

[CaptainShiro]

Mad Max has a minimum requirement of AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2 GB Memory or higher)

Yet it plays fine on my 6850 with 1 GB of Memory, but I had to reduce everything to minimum. I play at 1080p. The bottleneck is the memory, I get over 60 fps. I have like 3 mb free on my card.

So ,with my requirements I listed above, would it be safe for me to preorder it/buy it and be able to play it?

 

[Sakkura]

Mad Max has a minimum requirement of AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2 GB Memory or higher)

Yet it plays fine on my 6850 with 1 GB of Memory, but I had to reduce everything to minimum. I play at 1080p. The bottleneck is the memory, I get over 60 fps. I have like 3 mb free on my card.

So ,with my requirements I listed above, would it be safe for me to preorder it/buy it and be able to play it?

Never preorder. Look at benchmarks and reviews at release, buy if the game is good and runs decently on hardware comparable to yours.

 

[Et____]

i have 2x 6970. (plus, i'd drop amd. eff their drivers, really)
and i'd go for the 950 because what i've seen is that it can max GTA5 at 1080p with a stable 50fps. while the 960 for 1.8x the cost gets you 60fps
and under 200$ is probably best right now. don't want to spend more. if i can find a deal during cyber monday for a 950 closer to 150$ i'd take it.
a used card might work. didn't look for it.

and for the oc part. i did oc before with the automatic settings from my ASRock motherboard, and it doesn't do much. i'd have to follow a guide.

thank you for your advice

Et____ writes:
> how about the minimum cpu with a good gpu.

That depends on the game, resolution, detail level, etc.


> i have a 2600k and i plan on buying an nvidia 950 soon-ish.

That should be ok, and you can oc to get some extra headroom. I've done a lot of tests with a 2700K, works nicely, handles 980 SLI no problem, so a single 950 should be a breeze with a 2600K.


> it's probably the best upgrade i can get for my money, ...

Could you stretch to a used 960? I'm not keen on the 950/960, the cross over the performance of older cards too much.

Obvious question: what's your existing GPU?


> but how does it scale ...

Not suitable for anything higher than HD, though for me even HD would be too high a res for a card like a 950 as I like to crank up the detail. Some though are happy to use reduced settings.


> ... and do i waste money by bottlenecking myself with the cpu ? ...

You won't bottleneck a 950 with a 2600K, especially not if you oc the CPU (plenty of potential there).


> ... how can i find answers on that topic ?? ty folks

I've done a range of CPU/GPU tests, but I'm looking for a newer title, something I can run on many different configs. GTA V maybe? Not sure yet.

However, my data does at least show that your 2600K will not bottleneck a 950, given that a 2700K can handle 980 SLI perfectly ok. Heck, even an i5 760 can use a couple of 980s a lot better than many might assume (full writeup underway), though of course there's a point beyond which it makes little sense to tread (testing old with new is partly the purpose of my site's PC section though).

Ian.

 

[mrmike_49]

Sakkura nailed it, although I would add, wait for the 2nd patch

 

[JogTheJewels]

I run all the latest games maxed out in 1080p with no frame drops just fine with an FX-6300 and 290X with no OC. I want to know why this says you'll need an FX-9590. I hope they patch this game up, or if this is just Can You Run This? and it's BS specs again.

 

[mortsmi7]

I'll have to catch this on steam after I'm done with GW2: heart of thorns that comes out in two weeks.

 

[blazorthon]

I run all the latest games maxed out in 1080p with no frame drops just fine with an FX-6300 and 290X with no OC. I want to know why this says you'll need an FX-9590. I hope they patch this game up, or if this is just Can You Run This? and it's BS specs again.

It says that an FX-9590 is recommended, not that it is needed. The FX-6300 is decently ahead of the minimum recommended Phenom II X4 940.

 

[blazorthon]

My laptop is i7 / 8gb ram/ 745m I'm having trouble comparing cause of 2gb after the 550 I know it's good if just 550 but will my laptop run fallout 4

The 2GB is the memory of the graphics card. How much VRAM does your GT 745 have and is it a GDDR5 or a DDR3 model? A GDDR5 2GB model would be fairly similar to the GTX 550 Ti 2GB (which is a fairly rare card since the GTX 550 Ti almost always had 1GB) whereas a DDR3 model would be much weaker. You could download GPU-Z to find this information. Either way, take these specs with a grain of salt. Don't buy the game based on them, wait for benchmarks.

 

[TNT27]

So would a i3 4170 with 4 threads work?

 

[TNT27]

I mean i5 2300 has only 10-15% more multi thread performance than i3 4170, but the i3 has 30% faster performance in single thread. So will it work?

And what kind of settings should I expect with a ftw 750ti?

 

[genmischief]

I emailed them a while back about EyeFinity support and got a very polite "We aint sayin".

Does anyone know if this game will support eyefinity?

 

[InvalidError]

Does anyone know if this game will support eyefinity?

Any game that supports arbitrary aspect ratios will work with eyefinity even without official developer support, though some of them may require more manual tweaking than others. From the software's point of view, eyefinity simply looks like a single custom resolution display.

 

[alidan]

i want to know what minimum and recommended are, what makes the cpu jump up for recommended?

 

[cats_Paw]

Guys, since when required specs are remotely close to reality?
Are they seriously expecting me to believe they coded Fallout 4 to take advantage of 4 core cpus?
Well, we will see.

 

[blazorthon]

Guys, since when required specs are remotely close to reality?
Are they seriously expecting me to believe they coded Fallout 4 to take advantage of 4 core cpus?
Well, we will see.

Why is that surprising? There are plenty of games that already can.

 

[Sakkura]

I mean i5 2300 has only 10-15% more multi thread performance than i3 4170, but the i3 has 30% faster performance in single thread. So will it work?

And what kind of settings should I expect with a ftw 750ti?

Official hardware requirements are not accurate enough for us to predict that. Wait for benchmarks.

 

[Wisecracker]

Are they seriously expecting me to believe they coded Fallout 4 to take advantage of 4 core cpus?

Why is that surprising? There are plenty of games that already can.

Well ...

It's a legitimate question because many titles simply don't spawn parallel threads across multiple cores, but the titles do take advantage of the load-balancing improvements in the OS.

 

[Amet Monegro]

... stupid requeriments...
if uses an Phenom II x4 you can run it on any core i3, even in lastest Core 2 Quad processors 7000/8000 series with SSE4.1 enabled, and if runs in a GTX550 you can run it on an HD5770, HD6770, HD7750 or better card, this games stills DirectX 11, even i think is´nt DirectX 11.1/11.2 capable, maybe will have a lot of performance bugs lol

 

[MisterZ]

Recommended: i7? Rubbish. Benchmarks show that the difference in performance between an i5 and i7 is insignificant (less than 2%), and in many cases, the i7 actually scores a few fps *less* than the equivalent speed i5.

 

[Sakkura]

Recommended: i7? Rubbish. Benchmarks show that the difference in performance between an i5 and i7 is insignificant (less than 2%), and in many cases, the i7 actually scores a few fps *less* than the equivalent speed i5.

Depends on the game. Crysis 3, for example, sees plenty of improvement from a Core i5 to a Core i7. Even up to a 6-core CPU.

 

[MisterZ]

Recommended: i7? Rubbish. Benchmarks show that the difference in performance between an i5 and i7 is insignificant (less than 2%), and in many cases, the i7 actually scores a few fps *less* than the equivalent speed i5.

Depends on the game. Crysis 3, for example, sees plenty of improvement from a Core i5 to a Core i7. Even up to a 6-core CPU.

In a benchmark of a Core i5 3.5 vs a Core i7 4.0, the i7 showed an increase of 12% fps when not limited by GPU performance. However, the CPU speed itself is 12% higher (at max turbo speed), meaning that if a core i5 were clocked at 4.4, it would likely perform the same as the i7. So I'm not buying that there's any significant difference.

 

[InvalidError]

Benchmarks show that the difference in performance between an i5 and i7 is insignificant (less than 2%)

That depends on how well the benchmark actually scales with extra hardware thread, assuming the benchmark even supports that much threading. Most games rely heavily on single-threaded performance and this tends to bottleneck the main thread, which is why they show little to no scaling with extra cores or hardware threads.

If you look at heavily threaded benchmarks like 7zip, rendering, FEA and other embarrassingly parallel algorithms, HT can provide ~30% extra performance.