Why has the Fallout 3 world worse performance than New Vegas? [WITH TTW!]

Computer Build · Post by **Fruckert** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:55 pm

Fallout 4's volumetric lighting is going to be pretty rough on the system, I can tell you that right now.

My FX 6300 and R9 280 seem to be working well. I don't really care about running things on ultra or whatever, I just want a playable framerate. I guess that's what happens when you're used to a 2.2ghz dual core and an HD 4670?

Post by **TrickyVein** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:03 pm

The R9 series have some great cards. I've been really pleased with the performance of my 270 even with recent, big titles: Wolfenstein, GTAV, The Witcher 3; I doubt I'll absolutely need to upgrade to play Fallout 4, and I wouldn't be surprised if one could run it on ultra with something like an FX 6300.

Post by **anstand** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:41 pm

Is there even a slighty noticeable difference in image quality with 3.0?

Post by **RoyBatty** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 5:13 am

Yes, water not being completely broken, non-transparent in some cases and fugly with seams you can see is the main thing I notice. The performance gain is the major one for me tho.

Post by **Zhunter5000** » Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:08 pm

I just think it's ttw in general. Having two different worlds, really stresses the computer more, and when I did some tests to compare vanilla Fallout 3 against the TTW version, I found that the vanilla ran 60fps always outdoors, and 45-50 in combat, against 45-60 outdoors, and 35-40 in combat.