Starfield discussion thread

[Flyordie]

Should I try to run Starfield with my Vega64 XTX? lol

 

[Dr. Dro]

Should I try to run Starfield with my Vega64 XTX? lol

It'll work

 

[oxrufiioxo]

On what do you base that claim though? If it's because the frame rate still scales, that's not it - it does for me too.

Looks like everyone who has anything less than the very latest generation super high end CPUs are getting terrible (sub-60) framerates even though the general consensus is that frame times are stable for mostly everyone. All accounts is that X3D doesn't help, if anything the result is actually worse due to the relative clock speed hit, it can't help due to the way the functions are implemented.

I was told that due to the force inline on large functions issue, the game is written in such a way that leads to the cache miss rate being extremely high, in such a scenario, there's no replacement for brute IPC - and with the king of high IPC CPUs in my PC, I can tell you that the game still suffers plenty. It is playable, of course, it couldn't not be with such insane specs, but this game will need some pretty serious patching to address performance on average to good gaming PCs. Anything socket AM4 for example, even the likes of 5800X3D and 5950X will have a rather vexing degree of trouble with a solid 60fps experience. They are not slow CPUs.



That's probably because it's a bogus reading. It's happened with a few games in the past. Using Special K for a global 72 fps (half refresh rate) synchronized experience, my RTX 4080's fans don't even turn on. Have heard a similar report from a friend that owns a 3090 on a Zen 2 platform (I believe he runs a 3900X), the frame rates hover between 30 and 40 for the average lows. The thing we have in common is that our GPUs are bored asleep.

It hasn't been bad on my 5950X the lowest I've seen is the low 70s so far... maybe it's the 3800 CL14 with tuned timings doing some work I guess. I haven't gotten to all the main cities but in New Atlantis it was mostly in the 80s with some drops in the low 70s. My guess is there are heavier spots though. The majority of time I'm gpu limited with a 4090 so far with DLSS set to a 70% scale I tried 65% but then I end up cpu limited frequently.

 

[WhiteNoise]

Best Bethesda game ever. Jesus this is the shit.

 

[Vayra86]

View attachment 311644

the game costs 100€ now. what "may" happen in the future or not is completely irrelevant and defending this scummy behaviour is the reason why these AAA corporate clowns get away with constantly spitting in the face of their customers.

How about not spending 100 then

 

[izy]

for nvidia, dlss indicator helps if your curious if you installed the mod correctly

Any noticeable improvements using DLSS ?

 

[Vayra86]

The space combat in this game is complete shit!!!

I found a bug, during combat, if you get away you still cant fast travel to another location until the target is destroyed or you are.

Overall the game is starting to get, its uh. I would wait a few months to buy it. Its very stable but the combat system is complete trash, esp space combat.

No way, a Fallout clone with shitty combat who woulda thunk it

I've noticed that also even when the game says 100% usage the gpu isn't consuming very much power.

The lack of scaling in FPS suggests there is just a whole lot of game logic in the way of higher framerates. Which has been typical of Creation as usual except now we have a lot more performance and the API isnt in the way either. But effectively we might just still be looking at another rendition of FO4 city center. Asset overload.

 

[seanmack]

Puredark has just released the DLSS3 Frame Generation mod - pretty much double FPS on RTX 4000 series cards.


https://www.patreon.com/PureDark

 

[OneMoar]

meh: 3 hours in its basically space fallout. except its got all of fallouts flaws and terrifyingly few of its goodness

graphicly it looks Ok as long as you don't look to close the texture quality is frankly garbage and looks a decade old
lighting is mostly good

models are typical uncanny valley fair standard for fallout which is really disapointing as it breaks immersion and they just look dated and bland

performance is ok: rightfully it should run better then it does I am not sure what they got the gpu doing but its sure as fuck not rendering textures blarg.

Story typical fallout slow burn: not my cup of tea endless hours of dialog seems to exist simply for bragging rights for game with the most dialog.

but painfully little is accually said that matters conversions get repeative about 2 hours in same objective in the end different words used to get.
there go here do this help me with this BTDUBS gonna kill you now ....
same as fallout disapointing fluff

Gunplay and ship to ship Combat is uninspired and feels mostly dead
the inclusion of SPACE-V.A.T.S is really dishearting I hated V.A.T.S in fallout and I hate it even more in this it takes away from what should be a fun space shootem up and turns it into shooting space fish in a barrel as its required to complete many encouters

and the final nail is
Loading screens ... Loading screens everyware ..... you take a procedureally generated world then you double tap it in the knees by putting most of the access behind either a Loading screen or a cut screen or that god aweful map ui .... (seriously fire your UX team they suck)

so far 7/10
does not live up to the hype didn't expect it to either

bethesada you keep releasing games that are overly ambious in scope and then failing to deliver on them you are going to end up like void.

 

[Frick]

bethesada you keep releasing games that are overly ambious in scope and then failing to deliver on them you are going to end up like void.

It hasn't happened yet, and it never will. People love this stuff.

 

[Dragam1337]

On what do you base that claim though? If it's because the frame rate still scales, that's not it - it does for me too.

Looks like everyone who has anything less than the very latest generation super high end CPUs are getting terrible (sub-60) framerates even though the general consensus is that frame times are stable for mostly everyone. All accounts is that X3D doesn't help, if anything the result is actually worse due to the relative clock speed hit, it can't help due to the way the functions are implemented.

I was told that due to the force inline on large functions issue, the game is written in such a way that leads to the cache miss rate being extremely high, in such a scenario, there's no replacement for brute IPC - and with the king of high IPC CPUs in my PC, I can tell you that the game still suffers plenty. It is playable, of course, it couldn't not be with such insane specs, but this game will need some pretty serious patching to address performance on average to good gaming PCs. Anything socket AM4 for example, even the likes of 5800X3D and 5950X will have a rather vexing degree of trouble with a solid 60fps experience. They are not slow CPUs.



That's probably because it's a bogus reading. It's happened with a few games in the past. Using Special K for a global 72 fps (half refresh rate) synchronized experience, my RTX 4080's fans don't even turn on. Have heard a similar report from a friend that owns a 3090 on a Zen 2 platform (I believe he runs a 3900X), the frame rates hover between 30 and 40 for the average lows. The thing we have in common is that our GPUs are bored asleep.

/facepalm

If you get higher fps by lowering resolution, then you are not cpu limited, as resolution only impacts gpu load - it is pretty facking simple.

As i have shown in this thread (which you evidently haven't bothered to read through), i get 130+ fps in the most cpu demanding area of the game when lowering the resolution.

 

[Octopuss]

I watched a few streams and noticed this fucked up ugly tint, similar to how Battlefield 3 was completely covered with some stupid blue filter.
Is that configurable in any way? I don't understand why do they have to do this, what's wrong with realistic colours?

 

[Dragam1337]

It hasn't been bad on my 5950X the lowest I've seen is the low 70s so far... maybe it's the 3800 CL14 with tuned timings doing some work I guess. I haven't gotten to all the main cities but in New Atlantis it was mostly in the 80s with some drops in the low 70s. My guess is there are heavier spots though. The majority of time I'm gpu limited with a 4090 so far with DLSS set to a 70% scale I tried 65% but then I end up cpu limited frequently.

Ofc you aren't gonna see numbers like what that german site claims, and what some individuals apparently believe to be true - their numbers are way off for anything other than 13900k. Smells alot !

The game is gonna run just fine on any somewhat decent hardware.

 

[JustBenching]

Ofc you aren't gonna see numbers like what that german site claims, and what some individuals apparently believe to be true - their numbers are way off for anything other than 13900k. Smells alot !

The game is gonna run just fine on any somewhat decent hardware.

Im pretty sure the 13900k also gets more fps than they are showing too, lol.

They are just using mediocre ram on everything and that's that.

 

[Deleted member 6693]

Played it for 4 hours now, no hickups, running smooth, and so far, I like the game!

 

[Dragam1337]

Im pretty sure the 13900k also gets more fps than they are showing too, lol.

They are just using mediocre ram on everything and that's that.

Ram doesnt explain the difference between 87 fps (which they claim they get) and 132 fps (which i get in my testing) for the 7800x3d, which isn't a very ram sensitive cpu due to the 3d cache.

 

[ViperXTR]

Any noticeable improvements using DLSS ?

Mostly image stability (less flickering)

Also:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1697686035285582051

HUB optimization guide

 

[Frick]

Also:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1697686035285582051

You see that's what I've been saying for years: The bugs are features!

 

[A&P211]

meh: 3 hours in its basically space fallout. except its got all of fallouts flaws and terrifyingly few of its g

graphicly it looks Ok as long as you don't look to close the texture quality is frankly garbage and looks a decade old
lighting is mostly good

models are typical suncanny valley fair standard for fallout which is really disapointing as it breaks immersion and they just look dated and bland

performance is ok: rightfully it should run better then it does I am not sure what they got the gpu doing but its sure as fuck not rendering textures blarg.

Story typical fallout slow burn: not my cup of tea endless hours of dialog seems to exist simply for bragging rights for game with the most dialog.

but painfully little is accually said that matters conversions get repeative about 2 hours in same objective in the end different words used to get.
there go here do this help me with this BTDUBS gonna kill you now ....
same as fallout disapointing fluff

Gunplay and ship to ship Combat is uninspired and feels mostly dead
the inclusion of SPACE-V.A.T.S is really dishearting I hated V.A.T.S in fallout and I hate it even more in this it takes away from what should be a fun space shootem up and turns it into shooting space fish in a barrel as its required to complete many encouters

and the final nail is
Loading screens ... Loading screens everyware ..... you take a procedureally generated world then you double tap it in the knees by putting most of the access behind either a Loading screen or a cut screen or that god aweful map ui .... (seriously fire your UX team they suck)

so far 7/10
does not live up to the hype didn't expect it to either

bethesada you keep releasing games that are overly ambious in scope and then failing to deliver on them you are going to end up like void.

I would give it more of a 6/10, for once they made a stable game at launch, that get 1 point from me.
I'm 10 hrs in, I think I'm done. I will delete the game and put it to rest for some months. I paid $30 for it so I cant complain.

 

[droopyRO]

Starfield is by far the worst performing game i've ever seen in my 20+ years...
a ~3GHz 4090 runs at two digit framerates at 1440p... fully GPU bound.

CPU bound, your 4090 is not above 250W, right ?

 

[Dragam1337]

CPU bound, your 4090 is not above 250W, right ?

You can't gauge gpu load by watt usage -_-

First of all it varies wildly from game to game, and starfield is very lightweight in terms of watt usage. Aside of that lower render res will drastically lower watt usage...

To see whether or not it's a gpu bottleneck you go by... gpu load !!!

 

[droopyRO]

If the card dose not pull it's maximum wattage then it's not being utilized at it's maximum capacity. So it is either CPU bound or the game dose not know how to use the GPU hardware.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Game crashed 2 more times. So that is 3 times in less than 4 hours of play time. I have tried lowering the rendering percentage but that doesn't help.

Edit: These are complete PC shutdowns. Not crash to desktop. Looks like I am not alone...

Starfield :: Steam Community

steamcommunity.com

 

[P4-630]

Game crashed 2 more times. So that is 3 times in less than 4 hours of play time.

Is it an AMD thing or does it affect systems with Nvidia/Intel GPU's as well.

 

[Dragam1337]

If the card dose not pull it's maximum wattage then it's not being utilized at it's maximum capacity. So it is either CPU bound or the game dose not know how to use the GPU hardware.

If the gpu is at max usage, then the game aint freaking cpu bottlenecked... jeez some of the ppl on this site...

Is the nvidia driver currently badly optimized for this game ? Yes ! But that does in no way equal a cpu bottleneck...