Bethesda has just announced that it will release a new official HD Texture Pack for the PC version of Fallout 4. In order to prepare PC gamers for this upcoming pack, Bethesda revealed the system requirements for it. And it appears that the big publisher has leaked the name and the amount of VRAM that AMD’s upcoming Vega10 GPU will feature.
First things first. According to Bethesda, these are the official requirements for Fallout 4’s upcoming High-Resolution Texture Pack.
Recommended PC Specs
-Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS required)
-Intel Core i7-5820K or better
-GTX 1080 8GB/AMD Radeon RX 490 8GB
-8GB+ Ram
What’s really interesting here is that NVIDIA’s GTX980Ti is not listed in there. The GTX980Ti is packed with 6GB of VRAM and from the looks of it, it won’t be able to offer an optimal experience with this high-resolution texture pack.
Moreover, and as we’ve already said, Bethesda revealed the name and the amount of VRAM that AMD’s upcoming GPU will feature. AMD’s Vega 10 GPU will be called AMD Radeon RX 490 and will come with 8GB of VRAM.
This High-Resolution Texture Pack for Fallout 4 will be made available next week!
UPDATE:
Bethesda was quick to react and removed the AMD Radeon RX490 from the specs, however you can find below an image we captured prior to that edit.
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Texture packs are VRAM hits. They might as well put a 390/RX 480 8GB and 1070 there since the previous recommended was a 290x. So basically this pack is gonna want 8 GB VRAM (or at least more than 6). That means it is probably pretty nice. Thanks Bethesda. Will enjoy it on my 1070.
just get mods, theyre better 99.99999% of the time.
um a 1080 or 490 to run a fcking texture pack??? what the actual hell? and a 5820k? are they on drugs? ill take mods over this garbage, no thanks a$$hats
I’m actually more amazed at those 58 GB for the texture pack. THAT’S f*cking insane.
RAGE would have been close to 130GB, needless to say they didn’t bother releasing them due to not having more information/clarity than forcing 16k textures. 58GB for these is way over the top. Should have hired some modders to get the size down for the same or better quality.
Totally. I’m not in this long enough but I’m seriously starting to doubt Bethesda’s competence as a true AAA studio. Subpar animations, subpar modelling (I mean, for studio that big, what they did in Skyrim is unforgivable), cluttered and messy UI for their games, sticking to a 10 year-old engine, taking ages to release patches and then leaving most of them for mods to fix it after releasing a modkit six months after release and when remastering a game not even bothering fixing the old version’s bugs. I mean, come on! And now, after overly compressing audio files so that they sounded like crap on Skyrim SE now they forget to compress the texture files AND ask for a high end machine to run a game already too-demaning-for-what-it-offers? I mean, there was a mod that improved the vanilla textures and actually made the game run better!
Sorry, I got carried away. Hell, I don’t even play FO4 anymore LOL. Rant over.
Remember how great that official Skyrim HD texture pack was? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2354399bd2963f34f1f2b51ac22c34db23136f6e3e009086e65e0f8e88b1efba.jpg
To be fair it is 58GB in size
I will believe what I want, so f*ck you.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1d6333bf5443b360f4143a4678adef85b27f2484777a1923aed507b530c05587.png
i hate this dude.
typical!!!
the skyrim hd pack was objectively not good, its not an opinion. mods did insanely better with less resource usage and some even added performance. also why do you support them for locking their games at 60 bc they stupidly tied game logic to frame rate?
The statement was made to emphasize the amusing nature of the photo and not what I think.
But to answer your question, I don’t “support” anyone locking anything with regards to framerate. As for Skyrim, the framerate can be unlocked by disabling V-Sync from the ini. However you’ll run the risk of the physics going haywire; it’s not Skyrim’s problem per se but rather a problem with the Havok middleware.
I find it more strange that Bethesda requires a 1080 for a texture pack.
this is fcking unreasonable honestly, like to the point of being insulting considering a fcking ps4 pro, that weak POS is getting the same thing….an i3 6300/960 beat the ps4 pro barely trying. theyre expecting us to believe pc needs an i7 5820k/1080 to run the same thing as a ps4 pro? they can shove this pack up their a$$es
GTX 1080 and 5820k will be required to run it on 4k 60 fps but for 1440p 60 fps my 2500k and gtx 970 will be more than enough.
where did they say this was for 4k/60?
Do you know what is in the PS4 Pro?
I believe it is a 4 core AMD APU with onboard graphics based on polaris.
8-core jaguar cpu which is weak as hell and an AMD Radeon polaris based engine within the single-chip processing unit. its a weak device
Potatoes?
I wasn’t asking for my own sake, you can work that out if you aren’t thick.
The high-resolution texture pack is coming only to the PC, not to PS4 Pro.
youre right, the ps4 pro version is just getting lighting effects and slightly increased visual fidelity, i stand corrected
Well this game is buggy anyways i love this game but it is. I can be getting 72FPS and then drop to 38 and that is with a 1080 and 4790K and its on a SSD to i also have plenty of ram. This game already uses 4GB of Vram on my 1080 and my PC is close to using 8GB of ram when playing this game(i have 16).
Game uses a lot of resources this isn’t the best game when it comes to optimization.
Broadly speaking, true. However, it’s not solely the time taken to load games that a SSD can benefit because texture streaming can, in a minority of games, also be improved. For example, Trials Fusion can suffer very noticeable texture pop-in when running off a HDD but the issue is remedied when using a SSD.
Its only about 10x faster and those arent even real world tests. The short answer is yes it would help gaming performance, but not on any game today. In the same way that an ssd won’t offer much advantage on a game made 10 years ago, this wont offer any advantage until games require it.
Locked at 72FPS i think but i get your point
When it comes to system requirements, most of the time it’s made up by the marketing department, they put the minimum as low as possible (to get people with weaker PC to buy it also) and the recommended as high as possible to make sure they cover up any optimization issues (if it runs badly they can say you dont meet the recommended requirements). Always take “official” system requirements with a huge grain of salt (rock salt will do nicely).
Note: To utilize the High-Resolution Texture Pack, make sure you have an additional 58 GB of available(…)
*and a ISP with good speeds and no data caps.
And lets not forget the GTX 1080 and rx490.
Yup, this just for “enthusiast master race”.
Check, check, and check. I’m ready for it, only to uninstall and stick with the HD mods I have now.
As with the Skyrim HD pack, this becomes the base games textures.
Also like Skyrim, modders will optimize, and repack all the games original + HD textures, and that should replace the Bethesda ones, as the base game.
Which becomes your starting point, for further modding, not the end result.
It’s hard to take any master race seriously unless they’re stoic and subdued. Acting like a spastic fancy pants is a good way to denounce anyone’s mastery.
That’s why I’ve used quotation marks.
“I use quotation marks when they’re not warranted; semi-colons incorrectly and CAPS LOCK UNNECESSARILY.”
Ok.
their textures were weird, if i remember correctly, didnt somebody make one with a smaller mem size. they got better quality and little better preformance.
you would be correct, on average gave an extra 3-5fps but still. extra performance AND appearance…mods are a beautiful thing
Unless these textures are 32K I cannot see how a 6GB 980Ti would choke on them, oh wait this is Bethesda we are talking about here, never mind!
UPGRADE YOUR NOT SO OLD 600 € GRAPHICS TO SEE 5 % SHARPER TEXTURES TODAY FOR FREE*
* MAY INCLUDE DLCS
I was going to suggest that perhaps it was a typo on the part of whoever at Bethesda wrote up the press release, and that it should have been a 480 instead of a 490. I would have accepted this because I would have assumed that the relevant requirement is more about VRAM capacity than it is processing power.
BUT. Bethesda updated the page. And simply removed the AMD card from the requirements entirely.
Had it been a typo, they could have just fixed it.
They instead hid it. Which tells me it wasn’t a typo. This is interesting.
CPU? When is the new cpu coming?
5820k or better
i will get ryzen 8 core so it will be much better than 5820k
sure it will.
The unreleased CPU I’m going to get will be faster than a CPU that’s end of life, smh. Ryzen fanboys are pathetic.
Honestly man, why would you want a HD texture pack for muddy brown and grey environments?
“accidentally”
Who’s to say RX490 won’t be a bigger much more souped up version of Polaris? Tweaked and improved it is obviously capable, especially if they doubled the processors on board to match the 1080.
But to reply to myself, I am fully aware it is too late for a 490 variant based on Polaris, or at least that’s how it appears. Releasing 490 based on Polaris “could” cannibalize it when Vega releases. I was hoping the 500 series would be released with Vega architecture, but it looks like they don’t want to use Vega for the affordable lines of GPU’s, not yet anyway.
what you on about…. lol. 1 finished on the 280x series. 290/x gcn 1.1, tonga 1.2, (well tech 390x was same but power improvements) fiji 1.3, Polaris 1.4, Vega should be GCN 2 becaus eits completely different
crimson was awesome. i had a 280x then and got really good boosts for all games. relive drivers is more for the RX series really i.e. polaris and above but i dont think AMD want to be perceived as going down the nvidia route but GCN1 released 2011 was it? you need cut it off at some point
Nice new textures
since when a texture pack need such a beefy cpu?! and 58gb!?
and a 8gb vram gpu…my 980ti is just barely a year old and already im being left in the dust?
and i heard the ps4 pro is getting this texture pack WTF!?!
Eh, I’ll wait. My 980Ti will suffice for awhile.
Thrilling stuff. Tell me more.
What do you want me to tell you?
doesnt matter cus the games memeory maangement sucks
I wish I could be as delusional as you then I would not feel like I needed an upgrade either…
You say that because you dont know that i upgraded two times in 2016! First was on June when i get 1440p monitor DELLP2416D. Then on November when i got new PSU CORSAIR 750M because the one that i had till then burned! And on February or march iam going to buy AMD Ryzen 8 core with 16 GB DDR 4 3600 MHZ after 5,5 years with a core i5 2500k and 12 gb ddr 3 1600 mhz!
Wow, these specs are so inflated they include hardware that doesn’t even exist yet. That’s a new low (high?).
Pro and scorpio are weak crap! They are outdated long before their release. They will not have so high resolution textures as pc can. A strong pc can have 4k or even 5k trextures right now as we speak. Scorpio cant do even 2k textures .
4k is over rated. First, u need a screen size of at least 32″ for 4k to actually see a difference. I don’t know about any of u, but I don’t sit in front of a 32″ monitor. 24 – 27″ should suffice for any pc gamer. Second, you’ll need 2 1080’s to run 4k at max settings to keep 120fps. 60fps on any resolution looks like garbage compared to 120fps. 1440p seems to be the sweet spot for now. This is all taken into consideration of the average pc gamers finances. If you can afford it, personally I think its a waste of money, but if you can waste money, this isn’t a concern. Probably another 5 – 10 years before 4k becomes the standard.
I agree with you. I have a 24” 1440p monitor and game look great already anyway on max settings. Not much difference compared to 4k. For now only a monster pc can run 4k so it is not worth it yet i agree. However next week a friend of mine who wants to have the best graphics will get a gtx 1080 with 4k monitor.
I’d say more like 4 years or so before 4K takes over, but 5 years before it’s really standard for gaming. AMD Navi and the NVIDIA generation after Volta are both targeting only 4K and VR performance. I’m keeping my 100Hz 1440p for the foreseeable future, which simply means until a GPU can maintain 100 FPS @4K all games max settings. I think both NVIDIA and AMD will have that by 2020 easily. Hell Vega might be doing that by the end of this year with driver and firmware updates.
I might just bypass 4K display gaming altogether and jump to 3rd generation VR, when ever that is. My guess is around 2020-2021 before VR is truly acceptable. We’ll see…
Hmm, then you must not understand the fundamentals of what gaming is and why gamer’s continue to upgrade their hardware, including their display tech. People who game want realism, we want immersive worlds that take us away from the harsh realities of life itself and propel us into an imaginary world. The more “real” the imaginary world appears the more we want it to be even more realistic. If gamer’s did not want more realism and less fake we would still be using 1990’s hardware. The whole and ONLY concept behind Virtual “Reality” is to give us gamer’s a more realistic and immersive gaming environment. It is nothing more then the Next-Generation of Display Technology “Gaming Display 2.0” if you will, and if you think displaying games is going to suddenly quit advancing, you would be mistaken. People want a realistic three dimension gaming world. Shy of story telling, I can’t think of anything else more important.
VR is what comes after 4K and every last expert on Earth, including everyone at all the Game developers see’s it that way. Reality is reality and that’s what 99.99% of gamer’s want. If I thought for a moment that games weren’t going to considerably improve in immersive 3D realism, how the human eyes and brain were designed to see and interpret visual data in the first place, I would dump the waste of time today and never look back. In 10 years I see less then 5% of Gamer’s playing on a 2D display panel, no matter how good they get. It’s the next obvious step in gaming technology evolution, or else it dies.
Andddddd I have 2 980ti cards so BRING IT ON!
In the first ReLive drivers, 16.12.1, WattMan did not play nicely with my Gigabyte R9-290. It was fixed in the 16.12.2 release for me.
Crimson was a little bit awkward for me at first, but I figured it out pretty quickly. I can’t think of anything that Crimson ReLive doesn’t have that Catalyst did – at least, nothing that I use(d). What in particular are you missing?
Probably just a typo dude