REAL FO3 System Requirements?

[Ausdoerrt]

Off the official site:

Minimum System Requirements:
Windows XP/Vista
1GB System RAM (XP)/ 2GB System RAM (Vista)
2.4 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor
Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 256MB RAM (NVIDIA 6800 or better/ATI X850 or better)

I have:

Windows Vista
2GB System RAM
2.0 Ghz Core 2 Duo
NVidia 8400M

The game lags on minimal gfx settings, and forces me to run the game at 1024x768

I mean, seriously?

 

[superstartran]

I did a stress test with my laptop, which is a 2.4 GHZ Duo Core, 2GB Ram, and a Nvidia Geforce GO 7150M Integrated Graphics. It actually runs at the lowest settings at 800 x 600, much better then Oblivion.


Fallout 3 is far more optimized then you make it out to be. It was actually at playable speeds on that laptop.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Hmm, maybe I should try to run it on XP and see what happens. It's kind of frustrating though, I expected it to run at medium settings by looking at the minimum requirements.

 

[superstartran]

Hmm, maybe I should try to run it on XP and see what happens. It's kind of frustrating though, I expected it to run at medium settings by looking at the minimum requirements.

Your processor is the bottleneck. You actually have a video card superior to mine, yet are getting worse performance. I average around 40 FPS inside and about 20-30 outside depending on how many enemies, etc.



Of course, I also did some tweaking in the ini files, so that might have helped abit. Look up Oblivion graphic ini tweaks, it's essentially the same.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Thanks, I'll try that. It's really annoying, since I've had little issues running Witcher or DMC4 on this laptop.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

I did a stress test with my laptop, which is a 2.4 GHZ Duo Core, 2GB Ram, and a Nvidia Geforce GO 7150M Integrated Graphics. It actually runs at the lowest settings at 800 x 600, much better then Oblivion.


Fallout 3 is far more optimized then you make it out to be. It was actually at playable speeds on that laptop.

Hahaha, no.

Go run around in the metro station or any indoor area with heavy fog, then tell me it's optimized.

Your processor is the bottleneck. You actually have a video card superior to mine, yet are getting worse performance. I average around 40 FPS inside and about 20-30 outside depending on how many enemies, etc.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Gamebryo's multicore support is a joke, so swapping out a mid-range c2d for a higher end cpu isn't going to improve shit.

 

[superstartran]

I did a stress test with my laptop, which is a 2.4 GHZ Duo Core, 2GB Ram, and a Nvidia Geforce GO 7150M Integrated Graphics. It actually runs at the lowest settings at 800 x 600, much better then Oblivion.


Fallout 3 is far more optimized then you make it out to be. It was actually at playable speeds on that laptop.

Hahaha, no.

Go run around in the metro station or any indoor area with heavy fog, then tell me it's optimized.

Your processor is the bottleneck. You actually have a video card superior to mine, yet are getting worse performance. I average around 40 FPS inside and about 20-30 outside depending on how many enemies, etc.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Gamebryo's multicore support is a joke, so swapping out a mid-range c2d for a higher end cpu isn't going to improve shit.

That's why you disable fog in the ini. Or did you not know that?



His bottleneck IS the CPU. I'm getting much better performance then he is with a much worse video card that doesn't even meet the requirements. The only difference is that my processor is slightly faster and I did some extra tweaks in the ini file.



GameBryo's multicore support was a joke in Oblivion, not in Fallout 3. Fallout 3's dual core support is much better.



I did the stress test as I'm doing a write-up on Fallout 3's performance range. You can actually fall below the required video card requirements and still run it at playable speeds. Do tweaks and you're fine.


BTW, since you have a duo core, go into your ini file in the My Game \ Fallout 3 folder, and then wherever you see thread, change 0 to 1. This will increase your performance slightly to moderate, depending on your system. It allows the engine to make better use of the duo core system, rather then just act like crap.

 

[frosty_theaussie]

Off the official site:

Minimum System Requirements:
Windows XP/Vista
1GB System RAM (XP)/ 2GB System RAM (Vista)
2.4 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor
Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 256MB RAM (NVIDIA 6800 or better/ATI X850 or better)

I have:

Windows Vista
2GB System RAM
2.0 Ghz Core 2 Duo
NVidia 8400M

The game lags on minimal gfx settings, and forces me to run the game at 1024x768

I mean, seriously?

So if you're struggling with that setup, how will I fare with a Athlon XP 3200+ and X800XT?

DAANG

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

That's why you disable fog in the ini. Or did you not know that?

You proved my point. The engine is NOT optimized if you need to cut out features to get it running at a playable framerate on a system that exceeds the recommended requirements, and absolutely crushes games with non terrible engines (Far Cry 2) that look worlds better.

His bottleneck IS the CPU. I'm getting much better performance then he is with a much worse video card that doesn't even meet the requirements. The only difference is that my processor is slightly faster and I did some extra tweaks in the ini file.

And you're absolutely sure of this?

I can lock Fallout to a single core, and not lose a single frame (This is with every threaded variable enabled). This is telling me that it isn't making very good use of my CPU (x2 6000+), which was the same case with oblivion.

GameBryo's multicore support was a joke in Oblivion, not in Fallout 3. Fallout 3's dual core support is much better.

No. It's broken, and it always has been. The only thing they improved with the engine was how much shit they could squeeze on-screen in the exterior cells.

 

[ByX]

So if you're struggling with that setup, how will I fare with a Athlon XP 3200+ and X800XT?

DAANG

i got an barthon 3000+ with a 6600GT & 2GO mem and it works perfectly in low.

i'm impressed, i wanted to buy an xbox but in fact no

 

[beverageleverage]

NVidia 8400M

This is your problem. Look from the hundreds place downwards when comparing nvidia video cards from different generations. AMD now adds in 50 and 70 to make it a little trickier for you.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ You kidding me? The system reqs say it's supposed to run on the video cards two generations below.

I think it IS probably the multicore support fail, the ini tweaks improved it to reasonable speeds, but the inside of buildings still lags quite often.

 

[Buxbaum666]

The 8400M (what kind, GS, I guess?) is a notebook video card. A low-end notebook video card. It is not capable of handling more than minimum settings in current games. It does run, doesn't it?

 

[Lexx]

I have a GeForce 8800GT, Intel Dual Core (6400), 2GB ram and use Windows XP with SP2 - on maximum graphic settings the game lags often when I change the view/ look into the wide wastelands and so on.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

The 8400M (what kind, GS, I guess?) is a notebook video card. A low-end notebook video card. It is not capable of handling more than minimum settings in current games. It does run, doesn't it?

Mhm, yes, but I suppose "minimum system requirements" means that game runs without lag at minimal settings. And the 8400M can handle more than minimum settings for Unreal 3 or DMC 4 without much trouble.

I'm just ranting at the system requirements description. I got the game to run fine with the ini tweaks for multi-thread processing.

 

[Pope Viper]

I'm running it on a Intel 8400, 4Gb RAM, and NVIDIA 280.

Runs pretty decent, but I also have noticed a few lags.

 

[thedarkhorse]

seriously?
an 8400 is a lower range gpu, and it's a mobile version so it's even less powerful than the desktop 8400.
I wouldn't expect better than 1024x768.

And there's a reason they call it minimum requirements, because you'll be playing at minimum settings at minimum resolution.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

And there's a reason they call it minimum requirements, because you'll be playing at minimum settings at minimum resolution.

...yes, expecting good performance for those settings, right? Not to mention that my system is ABOVE minimum requirements, yet I have to ini-tweak it to get it working properly.

 

[Riptides99]

Intel Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz
4GB DDR1066
ATi HD4870
Vista64

All video settings set as high as they will go @ 1280x1024
No problems with lag/stuttering of any sort

Current price of this rig is around $700 (if you already have a compatible case, psu, SataII hdd, monitor) which almost makes it a budget build these days.

 

[felis]

My system is:

Intel c2d 8500@3.1GHz
4Gb 1066 RAM
ATI 4850 512M
XP

It runs wonderfully with Ultra High@1620x1050, smoke, fog, whatever.