• 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.

Digital Foundry: Starfield - Xbox Series X/ Xbox Series S - Performance & Graphics Breakdown

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?



The analysis you've been waiting for. We're planning to deliver a much more in-depth technical review for Starfield but we're kicking off with answers to some of the big questions: how solid is performance? What about bugs and polish? How does Xbox Series S shape up bearing in mind we've seen nothing of the S version pre-launch? You have questions, we have answers.


00:00 Overview
01:20 Overall Rundown
02:58 Series X/S Graphics Comparison
08:16 Series X/S Performance1
0:59 Analysis and Conclusion
 
Last edited:

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
Anticipation Popcorn GIF
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
- John's graphical breakdown and Alex's PC videos will follow later
- "Right out of the gate, very stable experience" "Graphics are excellent, high level of post processing and high quality art.
- "Exceeds Bethesda's previous work by a large margin"
- DF did not notice any obvious bugs in their 20 hours of testing.
- "Not always a stunner, but an accomplished effort considering the scope"
- Frequent small load screens and the worlds being segmented are noted as somewhat immersion breaking and annoying.

- Both Xbox machines target 30 FPS with no other option (no 40hz)
- Smooth / Stable / Detailed graphics

Visuals:
- Series X has higher draw distance for smaller geometry and foliage.
- Larger geometry renders the same distance, only incidental details separates the two.
- Texture details mostly the same. Series X seems to be using better mip-maps though. Oblique angle textures can also look better on SX.
- Series X has more detailed shadow maps, with S having a small reduction and degradation notable on foliage.
- Series S runs at quarter resolution on real-time cube maps. This is the biggest difference between the two.

- Series X: 2160p, Series S: 1440 after FSR2 up-sampling.
- Series X: Internal 1440p, Series S: Internal 900p before FSR2.
- FSR2 related aliasing can be noted on finer details but otherwise no obvious signs of reconstruction.
- In practice both look sharp and detailed on 4K displays with Series S looking a bit softer
- Series S has fewer cut-backs than we typically see.

Performance:
- "Surprisingly solid, locked 30 FPS for just about everything"
- Applies equally to both consoles.
- Two of the big cities are prone to small drops. New Atlantis is noted as the biggest city in the game where this happens mostly.
- Also noted couple of one second pauses in New Atlantis.
- Other than the two above locations, the game is practically locked 30 FPS everywhere.
- Motion blur can be disabled if needed but DF thinks it helps smooth out the experience. They would like to see some shutter speed changes as it can be a bit subtle.

Conclusion
- "The most polished RPG Bethesda has shipped".
- Oliver more of a fan of the single-map approach from Fallout and Skyrim, personally, but praises the polish of the game.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Last edited:

SomeGit

Member
ACG says his 4090 (assuming the has a good CPU but not sure) was getting well above 60fps and in the 80s and 90s depending on how aggressive the FSR was.

I think it's largely CPU-bound, still. He also said he tested it with some other GPUs and they performed well.

Oliver threw a hint in the video that the game has a heavy CPU profile on PC, don't know if that was from knowledge of their PC testing or just from looking at min specs though.
 
I'll never know if this is true behind the scenes, but I feel like I was right all along: Fallout 76 was a necessary sacrifice for their teams to iron out a massive amount of persistent issues and bugs in with their engine, because an online MMO-type of game can't be left as broken or buggy as a single player game.

Oh and that long delay most likely helped too.
 

Darsxx82

Member
In terms of graphics and performance, Bethesda seems to have met with a very good grade. With honors if we use their games released in the past as a reference.
 

Trogdor1123

Member
looks pretty great, even on the series s.

I still wish it came to ps5 though. I’ll have to wait till I build a computer I guess, my kid has monopolized my series s

Now get that fallout 4 patch out so I can do another run through… and then redo morrowind and oblivion and fallout 3 and nv!
 
Last edited:

SABRE220

Member
This might cause a shitstorm but honestly, fidelity seems pretty average. Inconsistent assets, low res textures, cubemaps, dissapointing animations, uneven lighting etc. The scope is very impressive but whats rendered at a set location is a bit underwhelming especially taking into account the clear liberties the game is taking with its streaming tech(oblivion style door loading). Its not a bad looking game but I expected a lot more from the biggest showstopper on the series x when running at 30fps.

That being said from what Im hearing the game is great so thats more important.
 
Last edited:

Neo_game

Member
Performance and resolution seems to have got good upgrade from the previous demo but apart from interior the gfx are below average.
 
I believe their testing was also done before the day 1 patch that will be out on release.
Edit: So they could address those 2 areas with the shitty fps
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom