Which Console Got The Biggest FPS Boost From Fallout 4's New Patch?

Fallout 4's 1.02 patch has arrived for the Xbox One and PS4 and the news is good if performance was your primary concern. Well, for PS4 users anyway, with Sony's console gaining the most in this regard. Xbox One owners however might be wondering why their console didn't get as much love from Bethesda.

Writing for Eurogamer's Thomas Digital Foundry, Thomas Morgan outlines the benefit's of the 1.02 update on Microsoft and Sony's hardware. Probably the best news is no performance regressions -- it's all bonus frames for everyone involved.

The PS4 appears the better for it, climbing out of the low-to-mid 20s and maintaining a constant 30fps (or close to it) in areas where it faltered previously:

...any combat that puts a strain on PS4's memory bandwidth -- via the usual flurry of effects-work -- now gets a marked boost on patch 1.02. The gains are remarkable in one early Deathclaw battle for example, going from lengthy lulls at 25fps and under when using the mini-gun on nearby sandbags, to a practically faultless 30fps with the update.

The Xbox One, sadly, didn't match the PS4's improvements:

Unfortunately, all signs point to Xbox One staying largely unmoved in its frame-rate delivery of Fallout 4, even with patch 1.02 installed. Tests between its launch day 1.01 and this update show few differences in the open world overall, many of which are lost within the margin of error.

Hopefully Bethesda can wring a few more frames out of the game -- especially for Xbox One owners -- before it moves on to DLC.

Fallout 4 patch 1.02: the good, the bad and the ugly [Eurogamer]


Comments

    Well, i've been playing on Xbox one and haven't noticed any perfomance issues really, sometimes saving takes a few extra seconds but that's about it =P

      Well the video already showed us with the fps numbers so clearly there is some performance issues. Your Xbox won't run better than theirs.

        So if I show a video of my console behaving differently that changes EVERY other console to behave the same? No. Just because one video shows something acting like this doesn't mean they all do.

          ..... Do you know why they are called consoles to begin with?

            <PCMasterRace>Because you have to console people that they have to play the game on a console rather than on a Real Man's gaming platform like a PC, of course.</PCMasterRace>

            I don't actually believe that, but sometimes when somebody gives you a hole you HAVE to drive a truck through it. Personally I use a mix of platforms.

            Side note: Kotaku strips fake HTML tags. Had to use to HTML shorthand for < and >...

            Last edited 14/12/15 9:21 am

              I have all the platforms so I just pick whichever performs better. Even fallout on pc had its issues and I won't go telling everyone it runs perfect on my PC when it is not. Thing with pc is even with the same hardware it can perform differently but consoles perform the same all the time.

                Yep, main advantage of the consoles is known hardware means the devs don't need to make any guesses about performance. I've certainly seen my share of bugs on the PC version of FO4: the stealth armour bug (wearing a piece of stealth-enhancing armour results in hiding your gun sights when crouching) for example, and some really weird graphical glitches.

                On the other hand, I played WItcher 3 on my PS4 even though I had preordered via GOG on PC because my PC at the time was 4 years old and I didn't trust the PC to handle it.

                In the last week I've played games on PC, PS4, PS Vita, PS3, XBox One and Android.

                I don't think you understand on a very basic level what you are replying to. Someone said that they observed performance that differed from the video. You're literally telling someone that an isolated incident which they observed did not happen because you watched a youtube video that in no way claimed to be representative of every situation - only in a general sense - and you mistakenly took it as hard evidence. What you are insinuating is asinine. I think you must have mistakenly thought the OP was attempting to disprove the video as opposed to offering an individual, anecdotal perspective. (which the conventions of English state they did)

                Unfortunately you offered a silly response that ignored the entire spectrum of evidence that highlights certain consoles being subject to individual performance issues and eccentricities - irrespective of their design. So if a 360 owner claimed they never experienced the Red Ring of Death, would you still apply 3rd grade logic and state that they must have because youtube? I owned two consoles, one got the RROD and the other didn't, am I lying because the statistics say a majority experienced issues?

                You seem to be stressing that due to the uniformity of consoles, it is impossible for there to be any dissonance or variables in their operation. This is not, nor has it ever been true in any situation. It's actually exceptionally ignorant and uneducated, also quite supportive of anti consumer tactics since it encourage people to never question anything when their observation dictates they should. Not sure why you believe no education, cognition or rational thinking is necessary to reach a level of certainty over this topic but it clearly hasn't worked out for you. I mean are you going to be yelling at the sun later on because the weather man said it would rain?

                Genuinely frightened for how little information and education people seem to require before reaching a level of certainty.

                  I don't think you even understand what you are trying to say at all.

                  RROD is a hardware failure, how do you compare hardware failure to Fallout 4 performance? There is a limit how far a person go to defend their favourite product but what you said was literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

                  It has been clearly shown that Fallout 4 performs better on PS4 after patch 1.02, not just by a simple youtube video, it is a video by a group of people that actually worked hard to give you these statistics using multiple consoles to record a clear performance difference for people to see.

                  You should check out how digital foundry do to give the final verdict, it is a longer process than just loading 2 console up and just record and piss of fanboys like you.

                  I'm more frightened to how people seems to think everything is a conspiracy and nothing in the world is true except what they think it is.

                  I have more than enough knowledge in hardware manufacturing and performance to have this level certainty, are you perhaps frightened at how uneducated you are that you feel intimidated that I can speak with certainty of the issue?

              I commend you on your dedication to go back and actually place those brackets manually. Good work.

                Thanks. It takes real dedication to project the right level of being a dweeb in public.

          Some people are less prone to noticing frame rate drops, or so I've noticed.

          I play on PS4 and was having a terrible time within some of the indoor areas, where my friends (all on standard 500gb consoles) didn't notice any frame rate issues...

            The main area I experience it in is around Malden (sp?) and a few early indoor areas full of volumetric fog and smoke. I've got both XB1 and PS4 versions and these specific dips are pretty common all around on PS4 but very smooth on XB1 and I was playing them side by side. Not sure how stuff like progress, loading and combat affects it, this was just walking around and I'm MUCH later in the game on PS4 than XB1. (like lvl 44 to lvl 16)

        I winder though, mines been pretty fine but im playing on an external 7200rpm drive as opposed to the standard one. I wonder if data transfer can have a minimal effect?

          Apparently using a faster hard drive improves loading speed and eliminate the microstutter but the frame dips are unavoidable.

      XB, PS4 , PC aside, that engine Bethesda's been using needs to be overhauled anyway. It probably looks for floppy drives for few times a second while working on a single CPU for all we know.

      I get drops of below 5fps sometime that last about 10 seconds each, ever since I got the automatron dlc that is.

    My PC is starting to get a bit older so I've started to dip below 60 fps on many newer titles like Fallout 4, even after dropping the settings down quite a bit. Anything less than 30 FPS is completely unplayable for me in a game with any sort of action in it, and even hitting a steady 30 FPS feels like ass compared to 45-60. So hearing that this patch allows a "practically faultless 30fps" makes me cringe.

    A good frame rate is sooo important for game feel, consoles games should all implement something like Halo 5's dynamic resolution which allows it to maintain a pretty constant 60 FPS. FPS > Resolution. So this isn't a PC elitism thing - consoles can do it, they just need to prioritise it higher.

    I didn't used to feel this way, I played through Crysis 1 averaging 20 FPS and had a great time, but lately I can't stomach it.

    Last edited 13/12/15 3:32 pm

      It's just a console thing. You have to take the performance issues with these games. I'm the same though, PC gaming feels so much better with the higher frame rates. I've been playing Witcher 3 on my PS4 and the choppiness is pretty bad. 45fps + would make such a huge difference. I would rather worse gfx and a higher frame rate.

      I'm still not going back to pc gaming though. My couch is REALLY comfy.

        Should look at a pc in the living room. Best of both worlds (I highly recommend it!). Nothing quite like witcher 3 at 60fps on high/ultra (no nvidia hair), its glorious on the big screen.

          I HAVE thought about it!

          But I have other things I need to invest in right now. I have a decent PC but I've decided to use it only as a work machine and I have a PS4 on the TV. I'm gonna live with it.

          To be honest, It's pretty sweet and I can't complain. But yes, when money's no object I will be building or buying a rig just for the telly. Can't justity it at the moment now though with money being an object and all.

            Have you looked into any streaming options like the Steam link? I find myself in a similar situation of not wanting a loud computer in my tv room. Streaming seems like it will finally provide a way to avoid this.

              I have a NVIDIA Shield Android TV that includes GameStream. It's fine in some games that don't require very fast reflexes, but I couldn't use it for FPS due to the small amount of lag; that's even with gigabit ethernet wired through my house.

              Last edited 14/12/15 11:17 am

      Hmm... I would've loved to see a console/customer experiment where PS4 strives for 1080p 30fps, and Xbox One strives for 720p, 60fps.

      What the sales figures would say, what gaming reviews would say, what the general preference of console gamers would be like, etc.

      Yer but when your running the witcher 3 at a faultless 60fps it's nigh impossible to go backwards in terms of graphics fidelity... Really its a matter of developers getting their shit together instead of consent "upgrades" on a very dated engine (gamebryo). Having said that fallout 4 has it's moments tho (top of corvega factory is pretty awesome). Ohh this is entirely from a pc perspective nfi how iether title actually runs on consoles.

      You should look at how much a new pc would cost ya, even a modest pc would get you a better play experience than any console (most of that cost is the graphics card tbh). Personally i justify the extra cost of a pc every 4 years as games are generally a heck of a lot cheaper especially during sales. I've picked up so many titles for $10 - $20 and i feel this balances it out paying more for the computer. Although i did get a ps4 for bloodbourne and the uncharted series (love both of them).

        My PC is pretty up to spec in all areas except for the GPU, which is only a 580 GTX. If I put a 980 ti in there I'd be able to max out all the games again at 1440, but that's a $1k card, and the cost combined with Pascal being on the horizon causes me hesitation. I'd hate to drop a grand on a new card only to see it trounced in a few months (60fps at 1440 in the Witcher 3 WITH hairworks perhaps???).

          Check the price on a 970 i think they're literally half that. They'd be able to run most if not all games close to max at 1080p 60fps. Ssd drive are also a good investment - going from pc to console makes loading times feel like an eternity.

          But your probably best off waiting for a budget pascal model if you can they have pretty insane stats.

          1440p Witcher 3 ultra settings with hairworks on max on dual 970s - pretty sweet experience!

      Your average console player doesn't notice or care, which is a shame cause I'd rather graphics and effects take a hit to improve fps. Anything lower than constant 30 is unplayable, I agree.

      I'm surprised consoles don't implement some graphics options like has been the norm on pc. I bet more than a few people would be willing to sacrifice AA, drop the res or lower textures in order to get 40-60 fps range on a console.

      I think for me it is a PC thing, I'm way more accepting of a lower frame rate if I'm on my couch than if I'm staring at it intently from a foot away. If my PC games dropped below 60, I'd start doing anything I could to maintain consistency but it's much more of an issue on a monitor than a console. Unless your playing a console on monitor, then it's roughly the worst thing ever to exist in the world.

    Further to Puck's point about dynamic resolution allowing for a steady smooth frame rate on consoles: I wish wish wish that console owners could tweak settings to find a balance between resolution/details/FPS in the same way PC users can.

    Different people have different priorities so it'd be nice to have the option to tailor it to our preferences. I don't actually understand why this has never been a thing on consoles, but then again I don't know anything much about the technical side of things.

    Does anyone know the answer to that?

      Thats a damm good question. My assumption is that it kind of contradicts the whole plug and play mentality that having a closed system offers.

        Yeah I have wondered if there's a technical reason or if it's just a case of console makers not wanting to admit that their machines can't handle games well.

        It's annoying though because they always go for best looking rather than best performance. I like my PS4 but Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 both suffer from frame rate drops which are sometimes pretty nasty and it does affect the gameplay.

        We should have a choice!!

          "Console makers not wanting to admit that their machines can't handle games well."

          I think it's obvious that consoles can handle games ok, but devs need to take the time to actually optimise for each platform, be it Xbox, PlayStation or PC. Good devs can do it; hell, look at the fact that Rockstar managed to get GTA5 running on last generation hardware, but Arkham Knight struggles on PC. And the fact these performance improvements for Fallout 4 have come from a software update, not a hardware update. It's all about the quality of the work by the developers; it's why Nintendo can make great looking games on under-powered consoles, but other developers demand people upgrade their PCs just to get a reasonable frame rate.

      Just Cause 3 badly needs this, it's like watching a slide show on the ps4 if you get enough explosions going on screen.

        I'm just not buying games like this for console anymore. Fallout 4 was the same for me, just too janky to enjoy and Witcher 3, well I bought it digital so I'm stuck with it but I regularly have moments where I'm wishing it was smoother. Combat would be soooooo much better with higher frames.

          Yeah I got into the Rainbow Six beta on PC and PS4 and it just didn't run right at all for me on ps4, at least with my PC I can drop everything down to get it running fine.

          After Just Cause 3 running so badly I've decided to get myself a new PC.

    How long do we need to be told the ps4 has better hardware capabilities than the xbox?

    In another year when developers are beginning to really get the most out of the hardware I think this stuff will matter but now its clearly just fanboy bait.

      It's just the facts though. If I was shopping for a console I'd want to know.

        I can understand that and it would be reasonable info. If it wasnt the exact same info each time ever since the consoles released.

          So... you just don't like hearing it? I love my XB1 but I seriously couldn't care less if it has better performance or not, very low on my list of considerations when playing games.

            For people with both consoles, knowing which version of the game performs better is extremely useful info.

          If it's any consolation (lol), this year I switched from PC gaming to console, and my PS4 regularly has pretty terrible framerates. So even though it's 'technically' better than the xbox, it's not THAT much better. You can have a great time with either console. And ps4 owners don't get to play Halo. I am still yet to play a Halo :(

      In another year when developers are beginning to really get the most out of the hardware I think this stuff will matter but now its clearly just fanboy bait.

      Mmm its a little different from last generation. The PS3 was actually faster than the x360 on paper but harder to code for due to less memory in the gpu and the cell architecture of the CPU - but when effort was put in and an engine developed around it you could really see it shine (uncharted series shows the evolution of this). This generation the PS4 is faster on paper and easier to code for. It's somewhat ironic that both companies showed a huge amount of hubris in each generation and the one that came at the table with a simpler solution has reaped the rewards.

    "a practically faultless 30fps"

    I am SO sorry!

    They just released an update to fix frames. So, this tells me they can get more out of games if they are made correctly...... a man can dream

    Last edited 13/12/15 6:43 pm

    Performance on xbone is considerably worse for me, since the update never had any noticable issues before the update, now in some areas I'm probably down to 10 fps and got cars and two headed Brahmin dropping from the sky.

    Wait a minute, there's a sewer section for corvega? I've always just gone through the front door...

    hopefully I can now leave an elevator

    Well the Xb1 has DX12, my guess is that they focused on one API which is what runs on both consoles vs just doing DX12 which would have seen larger boosts in performance on XB1 since PS4 can't do DX12 (its proprietary MS tech and limited to Windows 10, which is what XB1 runs btw).

    One would hope that eventually after Vulkan API comes out, that console gamers can enjoy really good improvements in performance on BOTH platforms, since Vulkan doesn't discriminate on platform (and less on hardware also).

      I've always been under the impression that consoles have always had low-level hardware access and so DX12/Vulkan will do little to change how games are developed for consoles but could prove rather beneficial for porting or developing for the PC.

      Fallout 4 most likely performs better on the PS4 because the PS4 is the better selling console this generation and so gets more resources made available to it. I actually wish Microsoft would just bow out of the console market because games were made better when the Xbox (360 and later in particular) was not a factor. When you think about it games used to have funding to be developed for PS and PC (and sometimes Nintendo) and then came the Xbox which meant the funding which was used for two platforms now has to be stretched to a third.

      Time and time again it has been shown that the "third" platform (usually the PC for the past number of years) has always suffered.

    Hopefully they can release even more patches so performance improves further. I think it's bs that they can charge full price for a game and then have it running in the 20s. 30 fps should be the absolute minimum.

    It doesnt fix the stutters towards the end of the game when a new quest (main story) is activated. The game seems to dip to 15-20 for about 2-3 seconds during this period and is consistent with every new quest in any location (happened while flying the vertibird, or deep in the institute, or even at Railroad HQ)

    Never had issues Pre patch, on xbone.
    Now ive had a couple times where theres stutter in open wasteland, the pip boy takes 10- 15 seconds to come up with the whole game freezing, loading screens have stutters, the interaction camera having no idea what its doing, pretty annoyed with this patch, seeing as i never had frame rate drops or issues.
    kicking myself for leaving my pre order to the last minute and missing out on the pc copy of the nuke pack.

    tl;dr

    I am thankful i have something to play Fallout 4 on and i will leave it at that =P

    Anyone who wants to optimise their experience, please feel free to do so! Also FYI most of my gaming is done on PC, it just so happened to come with it bundled and would have struggled on my laptop... so yeah =)

    Why would anyone even limit themselves to playing this on console?!

      Because it is fun and they don't like dicking with their PC.

      I have it on PC, and it kept crashing and losing progress, then there was a problem when I updated the drivers, and then oh fuck it, I went and got it on PS4 and play in the loungeroom and am having a great time.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now