• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Todd Howard says Starfield is already optimized "You might need to upgrade your PC."

Topher

Topher

Gold Member
ipukespiders said:
BRB, getting a second job.
Click to expand...
0351_4ij9t.gif
 
Del_X

Del_X

Member
It's really not as taxing on GPUs as people are acting.

It's way more limited by RAM and CPU because of all the objects it tracks between load screens.

EDIT: lmao "WHY DIDN'T YOU OPTIMIZE IT"
Holy shit this thing sings compared to the stuttering PC trash ports we've been getting.
 
Last edited:
existensmaximum

existensmaximum

Member
brian0057 said:
I see what Nintendo is capable of achieving on what amounts to 6 year old smarphone and suddenly everone bitching about "weak hardware" when it comes to both the Series S and this thread are full of shit.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. No. What kind of resolution and visual fidelity does the Switch offer in comparison?
 
ssringo

ssringo

Member
1440p, stable 60fps, high settings and no upscaling because it fucking crashes my PC in your game and ONLY your game. What do I need Todd? Huh?!?!

I'm not actually mad, performance is generally acceptable but the upscaling crashing is real. First BSOD I've seen in like a decade.
 
T

Three

Member
Del_X said:
It's really not as taxing on GPUs as people are acting.

It's way more limited by RAM and CPU because of all the objects it tracks between load screens.

EDIT: lmao "WHY DIDN'T YOU OPTIMIZE IT"
Holy shit this thing sings compared to the stuttering PC trash ports we've been getting.
Click to expand...
This game stutters worse
 
GHG

GHG

Member
Del_X said:
That screenshot literally shows a 10% difference which is not insignificant at 1080p.
Click to expand...

That 10% would not change the outcome in the videos you're responding to.

The argument that high speed DDR5 is required to get this game running well and that DDR4 is the cause of people's problems falls flat on it's face when you consider the fact that even the top CPU's on the market struggle to maintain lows above 60fps even when paired with said high speed DDR5.

It's just another one to add to the growing pile of poor PC releases we've had in the last couple of years.
 
SlimySnake

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
He's right. You cant be expecting these games to run on last gen GPUs when it was designed to run at 1440p 30 fps on a 12 tflops GPU.

Then you have the CPU requirement which are very high, but only for AMD CPUs and only last gen AMD CPUs. The current gen 7000 series lineup performs adequately so it was clearly optimized. The AMD 3000 and 5000 series CPUs have aged really poorly when the power hungry intel CPUs simply didnt. Thats on AMD, not on Bethesda.

My friend is currently playing this on a 2080 and a 7800x3d and he is able to get 60 fps on a GPU that is roughly equivalent to an xbox series x. Hes not a big graphics whore so he doesnt mind reducing resolution and using FSR. But the point is that if it was unoptimized like Gotham Knights and Star Wars then he would not be able to do it.

And finally, this IS a next gen game. It might look ugly at times especially in the open world but I am baffled by people looking at these interiors and think this game isnt pushing the GPUs and CPUs alike.

892M0Rs.gif


oTOj0r3.gif


FhZGVWw.gif
 
Hugare

Hugare

Member
I've locked it at 30 FPS, and it runs well enough considering its graphics and scope, imo

I'm running it with DLSS tho.
 
T

Three

Member
SlimySnake said:
My friend is currently playing this on a 2080 and a 7800x3d and he is able to get 60 fps on a GPU that is roughly equivalent to an xbox series x. Hes not a big graphics whore so he doesnt mind reducing resolution and using FSR. But the point is that if it was unoptimized like Gotham Knights and Star Wars then he would not be able to do it.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you can hit much greater than 60fps with a 7800x3d on Gotham Knights. You could probably hit near 200fps on high settings.
 
Last edited:
Wildebeest

Wildebeest

Member
I guess nobody is ever to blame other than the consumer for having any expectations and not running hardware from ten years in the future, which is the lifespan of a gamepass game. It all makes sense if you just start thinking like Todd.
 
Windom Earle

Windom Earle

Member
This guy is a meme and looks funny I get it. That being said he is an incompetent dumbass living off past achievements.
 
SlimySnake

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
GHG said:
It's just another one to add to the growing pile of poor PC releases we've had in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...
I couldnt disagree more. I have played 99% of these poor PC releases dating back to Gotham Knights last year, and this is by far the most polished and bug free release. It has its issues and they are as follows:

- No hdr support
- poor black levels - though this might be a creative choice due to filters.
- no dlss support
- no setting to upgrade geometry, level of detail and textures in PC. We are all essentially playing the series s version.

But thats it. Game performs well at 60 fps on high settings, with some turned up to ultra. Get a locked 60 fps indoors. 40s-50s in big CPU bound cities with lots of NPCs. 60 fps outdoors om empty planets.

Here are the issues I had playing games on PC, some not even on day 1.

- Gotham knights: 30 second stutters with 2 fps with ray tracing on. played a month after release when the insane day 1 shader compilation stutters had been sorted out.
- Hogwarts - drops from 80 fps to 25 fps when going from inside hogwarts to a fucking courtyard. unplayable in hogsmead. massive stutters. required redditors to fix this using config files.
- RE4 - instant crashes with RT on due to there being no fallback when your game went over your vram budget. every single time. patched a month later, but broke high res textures forcing me to downgrade to medium or crash every single time even with RT off. Did not happen before the patch.
- star wars - massive stutters in cities. still not fixed to this day. unplayable no matter what setting i choose. Would be the worst pc port ive ever played if it were not for the next game.
- tlou part 1 - massive 2 fps stutters. bullshit medium textures that look like ps2 quality textures. awful performance. constant crashes. 40 minute shader rebuilds. long loading times. all fixed within a month and became the best pc port ive seen in years. but the first month was awful and ruined my experience with the game.

I have not had ANY of these issues with skyrim. Yes, hdr support is disappointing and it is a bit too heavy even for the 3080 but RDR2 was the same way with poor HDR due to Rockstar's creative intent and really high GPU requirements to max it out and yet today its considered one of the best PC ports ever.

P.S I am using DDR4 3600 ram and my performance has been fine. The game is CPU bound in cities and GPU bound in every other area.
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
SlimySnake said:
He's right. You cant be expecting these games to run on last gen GPUs when it was designed to run at 1440p 30 fps on a 12 tflops GPU.

Then you have the CPU requirement which are very high, but only for AMD CPUs and only last gen AMD CPUs. The current gen 7000 series lineup performs adequately so it was clearly optimized. The AMD 3000 and 5000 series CPUs have aged really poorly when the power hungry intel CPUs simply didnt. Thats on AMD, not on Bethesda.

My friend is currently playing this on a 2080 and a 7800x3d and he is able to get 60 fps on a GPU that is roughly equivalent to an xbox series x. Hes not a big graphics whore so he doesnt mind reducing resolution and using FSR. But the point is that if it was unoptimized like Gotham Knights and Star Wars then he would not be able to do it.

And finally, this IS a next gen game. It might look ugly at times especially in the open world but I am baffled by people looking at these interiors and think this game isnt pushing the GPUs and CPUs alike.

892M0Rs.gif


oTOj0r3.gif


FhZGVWw.gif
Click to expand...
If you told me that was Alien: Isolation on the PC, I'd believe you.
 
Thaedolus

Thaedolus

Gold Member
I'm running it just fine on a nearly 7 year old CPU. It's not pushing 100FPS but it's still managing mid 40's even in demanding areas, above console performance. Todd's right, if you're having perf issues it's time to upgrade (I finally pulled the trigger myself)

DeepEnigma said:
If you told me that was Alien: Isolation on the PC, I'd believe you.
Click to expand...
Apples to oranges comparison considering how much is going on in the persistent world of Starfield tbh. Graphically it's not blowing me away at all, but I still understand how much is going on under the hood.
 
Last edited:
C

CuteFaceJay

Member
Fair enough, it's a luxury anyways playing around in virtual worlds the way we do.

But I'll be honest I don't see this game worthy enough to justify the platform upgrade.
 
nightmare-slain

nightmare-slain

Member
Maybe he's right. The game runs great for me. Max settings with 60+ fps. In fact I can get into 100-140fps a lot of the time.

but I do have a 7950x3d, 64gb ram, and a RTX 4080 so... 🤷‍♂️
 
GHG

GHG

Member
SlimySnake said:
I couldnt disagree more. I have played 99% of these poor PC releases dating back to Gotham Knights last year, and this is by far the most polished and bug free release. It has its issues and they are as follows:

- No hdr support
- poor black levels - though this might be a creative choice due to filters.
- no dlss support
- no setting to upgrade geometry, level of detail and textures in PC. We are all essentially playing the series s version.

But thats it. Game performs well at 60 fps on high settings, with some turned up to ultra. Get a locked 60 fps indoors. 40s-50s in big CPU bound cities with lots of NPCs. 60 fps outdoors om empty planets.

Here are the issues I had playing games on PC, some not even on day 1.

- Gotham knights: 30 second stutters with 2 fps with ray tracing on. played a month after release when the insane day 1 shader compilation stutters had been sorted out.
- Hogwarts - drops from 80 fps to 25 fps when going from inside hogwarts to a fucking courtyard. unplayable in hogsmead. massive stutters. required redditors to fix this using config files.
- RE4 - instant crashes with RT on due to there being no fallback when your game went over your vram budget. every single time. patched a month later, but broke high res textures forcing me to downgrade to medium or crash every single time even with RT off. Did not happen before the patch.
- star wars - massive stutters in cities. still not fixed to this day. unplayable no matter what setting i choose. Would be the worst pc port ive ever played if it were not for the next game.
- tlou part 1 - massive 2 fps stutters. bullshit medium textures that look like ps2 quality textures. awful performance. constant crashes. 40 minute shader rebuilds. long loading times. all fixed within a month and became the best pc port ive seen in years. but the first month was awful and ruined my experience with the game.

I have not had ANY of these issues with skyrim. Yes, hdr support is disappointing and it is a bit too heavy even for the 3080 but RDR2 was the same way with poor HDR due to Rockstar's creative intent and really high GPU requirements to max it out and yet today its considered one of the best PC ports ever.

P.S I am using DDR4 3600 ram and my performance has been fine. The game is CPU bound in cities and GPU bound in every other area.
Click to expand...

Add no FOV slider to your list as well.

The lack of DLSS really hurts this game. Yes, that can be solved with mods but as an out of the box experience this would be a worse experience for me on a 4090 than Hogwarts Legacy was.

I absolutely guarantee the discourse surrounding the performance of this game would be much better had it shipped with DLSS. When you have reports of your game running poorly on 4090+x3d rigs without any ray tracing then there's no coming back from that.
 
Last edited:
Spyxos

Spyxos

Member
Kevin Hart No GIF by Kevin Hart's Laugh Out Loud


I certainly won't upgarde at these prices. In addition, it doesn't even look that good to justify this extreme hardware hunger.
 
Last edited:
VN1X

VN1X

Banned
Whenever a dev comes out saying their game is already optimized: they are lying.

An optimized game speaks for itself (look at Warframe, DOOM/Eternal, Deep Rock Galactic, Resident Evil 7/8, Strange Brigade, Zombie Army 4, etc and these are just the ones from the top of my head).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Starfield is a better game because its exclusivity allowed more focus on quality, Todd Howard says
2 3 4
167
9K
SRTtoZ replied
Todd Howard says Bethesda is focused on finding ways to increase its output
38
2K
vaibhavpisal replied
Todd Howard says expectations for Starfield changed because everything is an RPG now
2 3
103
13K
Doctor Hades replied
Todd Howard says Starfield was "intentionally made to be played for a long time" and Bethesda's looking 5+ years ahead
Game Dev 2 3
106
8K
Roberts replied
Starfield planets got nerfed by Bethesda, Todd Howard explains why
2
62
5K
reinking replied
Top Bottom