Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,442
- Location
- West Sussex
Playing this now with the DLSS3 and frame generation mod and getting framerates of 150fps to 230fps. Game has been perfect so far and I'm really enjoying.
***The Official Starfield Thread*** (As endorsed by TNA)
- Thread starter Tek81
- Start date
Outside of as few items hovering in mid-air, mainly when outside it has been pretty bug-free. I may try the dlss stuff with my 3080 but sticking with the SX / sofa comfort for now. I am hopeful of a 120hz/40fps or VRR option patch for the SX; I can dream!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,554
FWIW I have a 4070 and get 90-110 fps at 1440p ultra with no dynamic resolution and with 70% scaling with the dlss2.0 mod, I'll try the dlss3.0 when I get a chance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 4,881
- Location
- Blackburn
If your using the Neutral Luts mod or another reshade how are you finding it? Not really playing a great deal yet, maybe an hour tops (upto where you fight the space bandits/pirates right at the start) but the overley greyness kind of put me off.
This is what i love about Starfield, the freedom to do whatever the hell i want. I have yet to explore being a full on murdering pirate being wanted in every solar system. I hope they release more content in the future to further improve the game mechanics and jank.
Bethesda games tend to be too slow paced for me, does this game have long trips just to talk to someone who tells you you need to go on another long trip. It just kills me and fells like they are wasting your time to stretch out the story
Last edited:
People like you is why we got a dumbed down space section of the game. You make me sick!
The CDPR approach to travelling distances is the best way. you have the option, fast travel, or haul arse across vast distances however you like.
Bethesda never got that memo. They're like the Apple iOS vs Android ecosystems, one will give you a bunch of stuff and you will use it how they present it, the other is Android
Bethesda never got that memo. They're like the Apple iOS vs Android ecosystems, one will give you a bunch of stuff and you will use it how they present it, the other is Android
All good here, no more vaseline.
Last edited:
Well, you can play it like that, but I've basically gathered a bunch of objectives by wandering around and ended up being able to finish multiple quests at a time by waiting until I visit a particular planet or system.
I've only had one mission so far that was timed and even that I had four days to complete so it's all been fairly leisurely really and the planets I've visited and the things I've done have largely been down to my own whims. YMMV of course
Does feel like that at times but at the same time they put in little things along the way to keep your trip a little more interesting. I've had a few instances now where i've had a random npc tell me something which adds a side quest automatically or i receive a distress call and it makes me want to go explore it. The last distress call i got in space i thought was a side quest ended up being a long 3 part mission that took nearly an hour lol.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
Ryzen 2700X and 7900XT here preformance is good (as expected and shown by numerous sources).
As for misinformation, well we can only go by what we see and what is reported and as it stands everything points towards good amd gpu performance, sub par nvidia performance and the only significant influence on performance is memory bandwidth.
Which is understandable if the game was developed for console first, the xbox series x has 500GB/s bandwidth.
A 7800X3D or Intel 13900k has about 90GB/s. With the AMD cpu hampered by infinity fabric that's stuck at about 64GB/s.
Last edited:
If the XBOX bandwidth is that much better then why does it still take 22s or more to load a new level/save etc when the PC version loads the same bit in 6 seconds? There's gotta be more to it than just memory bandwidth. The console version is also locked to 30fps with no option to use 60fps performance mode, and that's an upscaled 30fps too.
Last edited:
Exactly. But was probably too much work for them so was a nice excuse not to do it.
The game probably would have cost 500 mil and another year or more
Buildzoid's video sheds some light on this:
[SPECULATIVE RAMBLING] Starfield seems to be very RAM bandwidth limited.
PCGH article: https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Starfield-Spiel-61756/Specials/cpu-benchmark-requirements-anforderungen-1428119/My Patreon: https://www.patreon....
www.youtube.com
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
No idea, could be numerous reasons, but memory bandwidth has nothing to do with it's ability to load data off a ssd.
Also, when you're loading a saved game, Starfield has to reconstruct it's (persistent) universe in order for you to continue playing - that's gotta be a big CPU hit whilst doing the setup (i.e. a big % of the 'loading' may not be loading at all).
Last edited:
Unless I'm missing something here then that's what I mean, mentioned above is the XBOX memory bandwidth (500GB/sec) - But if the memory controller bandwidth on a PC CPU is much lower at 90GB/s/64GB/s as mentioned, then you'd expect the PC version to load slower as all the assets load off the SSD and into memory etc. But what we see is the opposite.
Edit* Ah if it's rebuilding the procedural generation content then that would make more sense in the load times. The console CPUs aren't as beefy as PC, which can do the proc content gen much faster regardless of memory bandwidth.
Watching the buildzoid video now!
Edit* Ah if it's rebuilding the procedural generation content then that would make more sense in the load times. The console CPUs aren't as beefy as PC, which can do the proc content gen much faster regardless of memory bandwidth.
Watching the buildzoid video now!
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 1,160
- Location
- leicester
My 3900x and 3070ti getting hammered, but really liking the game, only about 8 hours in, a mix of story/ quests, the mix is very interesting.