R7 5700X, Overclocked (2700MHz core. 2112 VRAM, fast timings Gigabyte RX 6700XT, 32 GB DDR4 3200 MHz. Game is on a 1TB NVMe, gen 3. SAM is enabled. I am 6.4 hours in the game. I cannot tell a difference between High (I use) and Ultra settings, other than frame rate. I turned off DSR and left FSR on at 75% which gives me 1080p upscaled to 1440. My results look like yours but not at 4K. But! AMD worked with Microsoft (Xbox) to optimize the game for the console. They have the same generation CPU/GPU that I use. I may be getting a benefit from that. Also remember that AMD / Intel push Resizable BAR and Nvidia does not. That has made a difference in games in the past.
@@ErockOnTech I changed my cooler to a Deep Freeze II 360 AIO and I'm able to get 80 frames now. But the game randomly crashes for me so I'm just waiting for a patch.
@@FutaCatto2 I’ve only had one crash. But yeah hopefully a patch will help. If you have an overclock enabled, that could be crashing it. Some games are sensitive to that.
I dont get why are games getting this demanding when they dont even look that amazing. I feel like games that look 20% better become 400% more demanding.
This game doesn't look 20% better than anything. 2020 games look better than this and run at hundreds of FPS with modern hardware. We live at a point where new games look worse than older ones.
The GPU is pulling around 225-280wats ... that is nowhere near full utilization of the graphics card even though it says 98 99%U ... that tells me the game isn't taking advantage of the GPU. I have seen similar behavior with Ratchet and clank when using low VRAM GPU compared to the a higher VRAM card with a similar GPU, like a 3080 vs 3080TI... but that is due to VRAM limitations. Seeing how efficient this game is in using VRAM..it almost seem that the GPU is bottlenecked by the CPU which is also not the case... this leads me to believe that the game isn't really that optimized as lots of us believed it is.
The render resolution scale (50-100%) in the settings menu adjusts the base resolution. At 50% its 1080p when at 4k (so FSR2 Performance if you enable FSR2), 66-67% is 1440p at 4k (FSR Quality).
@@HoangDucNuyen I guess or it might still try to do something, but won't get much performance and maybe worse visuals. It's a really weird implementation. But maybe it can help if you are just looking for that tiny bit more performance to hit stable 60fps lets say. Then putting it at 85% maybe get you there with minimal affect to the image. It would be ultra quality mode.
@@HoangDucNuyen It should replace the games TAA (if it uses a different AA method in native) and it also enables you to use the sharpening used with FSR2 (this is a matter of what you prefer).
@@MrMeanh - If FSR2 in this game is actually replacing TAA just like in Jedi:Survival (TAA in that game is a blurry mess), then it's better to leave FSR2 enable. Edit: FSR2 at 100% looks worse and will tank FPS comparing to Native (according to HUB)
Why should I even bother building a new PC, when the highest end components give you 60fps in titles that aren't even that visually impressive. What is the point?
I have no idea why this game needs so much GPU power. I mean, it does not have things like lumen, ray tracing etc Graphics are OK but not really next gen. Why doesn't it run faster?
The bit where you had ultra 4k with fsr and drs on can be explained in one of the videos by Daniel Owen. He tested numerous nvidia cards and apparently there is some data leak on the ultra setting only that absolutely kills performance compared to the AMD variant. I would imagine this will be fixed once the game is "released"
I agree. Yeah the way I see it is this performance is lack luster for sure. However, I know no one else is doing any better. So at least we are getting the best we can get.
I have a 4090 but I think I will hold off until they optimise this game a bit better as I really don't enjoy a sub 100 FPS experience. No DLSS or Frame Gen really sucks too
I buy Nvidia since it has better upscale like dlss. now it's not even support new games like starfield and resident evil 4 remake. Both Nvidia and amd/radeon are asshole
I just got a 4090 and just started the last of us all maxed out in 4K HDR and wauw just mind blown the quality is just insane. Idk just fyi wanted to share. Ok now imma watch the video.
They really needed to add a benchmark to the PC version. Also guess we'll need to wait a year or more for the game to have better performance... note DLSS2 was modded into the game within like an hour or two after release lol
@@ErockOnTechyea, didn't notice much of a difference between 75% render res on DLSS2 vs. FSR2 at the same. Image quality seems better tho (I'm only on a 2060 super so it's not going to work miracles lol).
And that's without even Ray Tracing... The performance in this game is just sad, my 3080 is crying with barely 60 fps on a 1440p 21:9 with FSR enabled. I'll probably wait for a Cyberpunk 2.0 which already looks and runs way better, and this will give me time for mods to come out for this to make it better.
I don't see how this game should be demanding at all, it only needs to load a small map at once just like other open world or even linear games, it doesn't need to load all the textures on an entire planet. The graphics has next to no improvement from Fallout 4. The characters still look stiff and awkward during dialogues like what we saw in Fallout and Elder scrolls. The water quality is just terrible, the ripples and reflections look so fake. There is absolutely no excuse that a 4090 cannot even achieve constant 60fps at 4k native settings, and it makes no sense at all for this game to be CPU bounded. Bethesda certainly fucked up the optimization this time, hope a patch can be released soon to fix this.
A lot of people talking about a card that practically nobody has. The real problem is that the game has a bad performance even in 1080p, in series RTX30.
the 4090 pulls below 250W even at 99% usage though, that doesn't seem normal. For example, running furmark and actually pushing my 3060ti to 99%, I'm pulling 90% + TDP, so over 200W. In Starfield, even though it says I'm at 99% usage, I'm pulling way below 140W, around 100-120W.
I'm about to find out what it's like playing starfield on a 4090 at 1440p. Also, windowed fullscreen games require changing the desktop resolution to what you want to play the game at before starting the game.
@@ErockOnTech On the contrary, the game shouldn't be allowed to change monitor resolution in windowed fullscreen. Because windowed fullscreen is just that, creating a window without edges. When you press F11 in Firefox, you don't want it to have permissions to change resolution on your monitor, either, do you? It's an OS thing more than a game thing. If you want to give the game control of your monitor resolution, go for proper fullscreen mode.
From what ive heard theyre not so bad. There are some funny bugs here and there (which is typical for most bethesta games) but not game breaking or anything that would ruin the experience. Its certainly not cyberpunk situation.
Honestly I don't know why Bethesda didn't implement frame generation and dlss with this game, 4090 should be getting 150 + fps, I run cyberpunk frame generation and dlss max setting and I get over 150 fps, some areas I go over 200.
Probably the same reason a lot of AMD sponsored games don’t have it, however they have said Bethesda can implement it if they want, probably after the negative press, so maybe it will be added
Knowing bethesda it won't matter how many generations of hardware passes it still won't run very well. Skyrim still runs like shit despite 2 new releases and 11 years of updates to the game. Not to mention a community of modders doing everything they can to squeeze better performance out of it. Even on modern hardware that game still suffers from horrible stuttering. Making a smooth running game isn't really one of bethesdas strong suits
got the premium update to try the game and on a r7 5800x and rx7900xt with 2560x1080 resolution ultra settings i got 65-80fps and a crush every 2 minutes to the desktop so i did what i always do in such situations i asked for a refund
its a bug in the driver they are working on a fix it happens only on rx7000 series from what i know and with ultrawide resolution but it doesn't matter the game is boring for me
Well this is the game I finally built a PC for and left the consoles behind. Also the first game it can't run at a solid 4k native Ultra consistently above 60 fps lol. Hoping for some quick optimization updates.
The game is demanding, because it is running on an extremely inefficient graphic engine. Bethesda said it themselves during an interview that they did not develop a new graphic engine for Starfield. I'm pretty sure Starfield still runs on the same engine as Fallout 4, with a little bit of tweaks here and there. This is very similar to how someone does their jobs, there are many people at the office who spend a ton of time and energy doing their jobs, feeling exhausted at the end of the day, but end up not getting much done. So, Starfield is using 98% of a 4090's graphic computing power, but is the game utilizing that efficiently?
Wow that’s crazy only 75 fps on a 1600 dollar gpu in 4k something has to change other wise what’s the point of dropping all that money if no one is going to optimize the games
When a 3070ti on 1440p is an estimate of 30fps it makes me want to wait for pc updates for this game… and hate to say it… have a 1 month game pass specifically for Starfield
I play at 3440x1440 using a 7900X and a 7900XT with FSR on, 100% render resolution and sharpening at 70% because think FSR at native looks better than the TAA at native. I recommend turning off Dynamic Resolution Scaling because I have seen it cause ghosting across my 4 computers I have tested this game on. Overall FSR is decent in this game but you don't want to put the render resolution below 75% in my opinion. Any lower than that looks bad. Especially at 1080p.
The one area I'm at least glad it's doing well is that it's not a totally stuttering piece of crap like 90% of modern PC AAA releases have been recently. Just wish we could get a higher framerate out of it.
Building a PC with 7800x3d and 4090 these days. I wanted to wait until zen5 and the 5090 come out, but bought now because of the rumors of everything getting delayed because of AI... And that's the best for gaming one can buy today. And it's a bit disheartening to see how an engine that will be widely used in the future runs on such hardware.
@@viking9442 unless you have a 3090 o more don't wait, we don't even know what's going to happen in the future. a 3080 was at $3,000 when the cryptocurrency bull market . Imagine a 4090 in that time with 4 times more mining performance than the 3080. I don't think that a thing like that will happen again at the short time, but who knows?
Honestly, the medium preset on any game is the best preset. Just like how 1080p is the best resolution. Sure, 4K and Ultra preset look better, but it's unnecessary. They're like "nice-to-haves" but, they aren't the best for long, serious playing sessions. Starfield just needs to get the resolution scaling fixed. It shouldn't be forcing players into windowed mode.
Yeah Bethesda themselves released a statement saying that at least a 4070 ti, 3090, or Rx 6950xt is needed to achieve 60fps in 1440p. 1440p 60fps. "The game is optimized" -Todd
@esotericjahanism5251 It's totally pathetic that a 3090 or 6950 XT is needed to get 60+ FPS at native 1440p ultra. This game is clearly optimised like total shit. It's not like Starfield has any ray tracing. If it had tonnes of RT effects, then I can understand even the 4090 struggling. The 4090 is able to get 60+ FPS at native 4K max settings with RT in quite a few games, though. Even in demanding RT games such as Control.
So with my 7950x/64/4090 playing on my TV it will not get enough fps to never drop under 60. This is ridiculous. Folks, never preorder anything. Someone with a perfectly capable mid-range PC will not be able to get enjoyable fps on a 1440p monitor witout droppingto to low with jittery FSR. This is unacceptable fo a game that really doesn't push any boundries from a graphics standpoint.
I have a Gigabyte RTX4090 and just installed my i9-14900k from having a 12900k. Decent bump but nothing crazy. Starfield is really demanding. 80-90 on High Settings in heavily populated areas like New Atlantis. Wild to think this card can only manage that with this "basic" looking of a game. hahaha.
4090 13900kf Gskill 7200 I am fucking angry at how much bullshit I have to put up with to even get the game to run 10 mins without crashing. This is not acceptable. If you buy a game it SHOULD NOT CRASH. Tired of wasting my time messing with windows bullshit settings. God damnit. I hate that.
Starfield is great but the graphics are not great mainly because Bethesda focuses on gameplay, so the game is mainly CPU intensive as apposed to GPU intensive, that's probably why my 4090 GPU runs at about 40c while playing a game and 28c on idle, my CPU also runs at 40-45c while playing Starfield.
Optimization in this game is beyond unacceptable, a 3070 should be enough to push this at 1440p Ultra constant 60fps. Games technically and visually way more demanding than this one would be above 130fps at 4k Ultra with your build. Companies are getting mad lazy and it is going to be worse now with the standardization of FSR and DLSS
@@ErockOnTech It's probably comparable to FSR2 performance wise, but image quality is better with DLSS apparently it has less flickering from what I've read. It sounded like DLSS3 with frame gen is in the works and I wouldn't be surprise to see it finished before the standard release, but he might put it behind a patreon paywall.
Every time I think about making a sweet pc build, this crap happens. Thousands of dollars and we still see screen tearing and lower performance. Fiddling with damn screen settings for every single game. Ugh. I know they’re nowhere near pc power for most gaming, when something as gorgeous as HFW on ps5 exists and plays so smooth for $500? Yeah. Why cant they optimize pc game releases. To be fair, it took a while for hfw to look the way it is today.
The new cyberpunk 2077 gpu killer only with less pritty graphics and no mention of rtx yet maybe cos amd also hates ray tracing as much as DLSS Thankyou AMD/Bathesda studios🤣
This is what consoles should be running at with fsr rendering 4k. It’s insane to expect less. Pretty pathetic especially with the time it took for a tripple a studio to make game. I feel like they should have only make 100 planets and focus on more usable features Also noticed at native it’s only pulling ~250w and fsr only 175-200 ish. Really crazy how low the power is
3:40 well games become more demanding so yes, even the best card will become average with newer and newer games. But I have to say, starfield looks good, but not "75FPS on a 4090 Ultra settings" good.
I should not need to use upscaling tech in order to maintain above 60 fps at 4K ultra settings, in New Atlantis ON A 4090. Recent games run at low fps and don't look so great that this heavy impact in performance is justified. What's going on?
I'm playing with a ryzen 5 2600 + RTX 2080 , New Atlantis on low setting with fsr is not even 30 fps stable, when I go out of big citiees I turn on medium graphics and it averages 50 fps in inside areas and 40 ish in outdoors areas
I mean, 8 years ago, the Witcher 3 would have run at 40fps with a 980ti at 4k, so 75 fps on Starfield is pretty good. We knew this was gonna be rough from the 30fps lock on consoles 😪😪
Can anyone explain how this is superior comparing to homefront revolution graphics? I know that this one looks great with rtx4090 but why these games looks even worse than red dead redemption 2 and still need 2x sometimes 3x more hardware requirements? This is nuts. Why make games that are unplayable?
I'm running ultra with 1440 on a 3080 with an i7 8th gen and it looks good and runs sweet... ... Still need to install msi afterburner, so not sure what fr is Ok, back to my desk to live in New Atlantis lol
The more Band-Aid fixing Bethesda adds to the creation engine the worse the performance overhead becomes, its only increasing exponentially for slightly better visuals. I cannot imagine the requirements for ES6.
Look at the power consumption of gpu it’s “only” 250 watts i saw this problem on ratchet game with amd cards so we will need patches and gpu drives bcs I think that gpu in this game doesn’t go on full power/performance
confusing statements, the GPU being at 99% has nothing to do with it being optimized or not. then you say maybe it's CPU limited, which 99% GPU clearly shows it's not
I think it's sad that this game is making me consider upgrading from a 4070ti to a 4090 just to get 100+fps at medium settings. My first car didn't cost as much as a 4090. What is wrong with this picture? 😕
The only way I was able to get a decent frame rate was by turning down volumetric lighting, gtao shadow, and the other shadow option in the menu. Even then this options at best give me somewhere between 60 to 110 fps depending on were in the game I'm in.
GPU utilization cannot be used as an indicator for optimization. Optimization is doing things like making sure only what you see is being rendered, and not rendering it at a detail level higher than what is visible. Level of Detail is an important tool for developers to optimize their game, but its easy to be lazy about it and implement it poorly or not at all.
@@ErockOnTech I wonder if it's the global illumination lighting system that's contributing to the "heavyness" of SF and a lot of the newer UE5 titles. Maybe a future modder will figure out a way to disable the GI lighting in Starfield so we can see how much of an impact it's having. I remember in the old days the "God rays" feature heavily impacted fps on FO4 and Skyrim:SE.
if you are playing on a prerelease. 5 days before the game release. slow the fuck down and relax people. let the game fully release along with the updated drivers and shit, before you complain too much!
Not sure what my deal is but I have the same cpu, gpu, and even the same memory as u but can only get like 45 to 55fps at 4k ultra preset without drs and upscaling on, at new Atlantis area
I priced out a build with 4090 and no way am I spending that if games aren’t more than perfect for this generation. Is the screen tear just the capture card?
Installed dlss 3.5 mod. Running 85-100 fps in New Atlantis. Ruzen 7950x Gigabyte Gaming OC 4090 Gskill cl 32 6000mhz ram. Everything is maxed out and at Native Resolution 1440P
You can still have badly optimised games that have 99% GPU utilisation, case in point many games the last few years that have come out. This isn't a deciding factor for badly optimised games.
I understand that. But then when I call a game “poorly optimized”, the comments are “you’re getting 98-99% GPU usage. You’re good.” So I can’t win no matter what I say. I’ve seen way worse games this year on the optimization front. Hogwarts Legacy and The Last of Us are good examples.
OMG..no really Oh my God.😮 A 4090 almost on its knees.. This has to be a driver issue.. doesn't it? I mean it can't be that bad..can it? The game doesn't even look that good. And one last time OMG 😮😮😮.
@@ErockOnTechI am hoping to see DLSS too just like you, also FSR 3.0 will be much better for Starfield since FSR 3.0 available for many cards, not like DLSS 3.0 tech. Also seeing VRS technology in Starfield is cool for me.
the game is an AMD sponsored title i am not surprised the 4090 struggles on it i think people expect to much out of the hardware knowing its a single player game it does not need 144 fps im glad i went from a 165mhz monitor back to an hdr 60mhz tv it feels so much more cinema like nice video by the way
It shouldn't struggle that bad and it struggles on both amd ang nv cards so its more the game not being optimized. This isn't nothing new alot of games been coming out like this so its not shocking . They do this to make you want a new gpu in the future.
GET DISCORD ACCESS FOR ONLY $1: www.patreon.com/ErockOnTech
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/ErockOnTech
R7 5700X, Overclocked (2700MHz core. 2112 VRAM, fast timings Gigabyte RX 6700XT, 32 GB DDR4 3200 MHz. Game is on a 1TB NVMe, gen 3. SAM is enabled.
I am 6.4 hours in the game. I cannot tell a difference between High (I use) and Ultra settings, other than frame rate. I turned off DSR and left FSR on at 75% which gives me 1080p upscaled to 1440. My results look like yours but not at 4K.
But! AMD worked with Microsoft (Xbox) to optimize the game for the console. They have the same generation CPU/GPU that I use. I may be getting a benefit from that.
Also remember that AMD / Intel push Resizable BAR and Nvidia does not. That has made a difference in games in the past.
I'm barely getting 60 frames on my 4090 and 13900K. How are you getting over 70 frames?
@@FutaCatto2 Sorry for the late reply. What are your temperatures on CPU and GPU? What is your RAM speed?
@@ErockOnTech I changed my cooler to a Deep Freeze II 360 AIO and I'm able to get 80 frames now. But the game randomly crashes for me so I'm just waiting for a patch.
@@FutaCatto2 I’ve only had one crash. But yeah hopefully a patch will help. If you have an overclock enabled, that could be crashing it. Some games are sensitive to that.
I dont get why are games getting this demanding when they dont even look that amazing. I feel like games that look 20% better become 400% more demanding.
You’re completely correct! I have no idea either. I feel like a 4090 should be demolishing this game. Sadly, it’s not.
@@ErockOnTechI think this game is more demanding on cpus
@@ErockOnTech because its another poorly optimized game in 2023 duh
Bad optimized and unfinished.
This game doesn't look 20% better than anything. 2020 games look better than this and run at hundreds of FPS with modern hardware. We live at a point where new games look worse than older ones.
For a game that looks like what it does this is laughably bad performance for a flagship GPU
I agree.
The GPU is pulling around 225-280wats ... that is nowhere near full utilization of the graphics card even though it says 98 99%U ... that tells me the game isn't taking advantage of the GPU.
I have seen similar behavior with Ratchet and clank when using low VRAM GPU compared to the a higher VRAM card with a similar GPU, like a 3080 vs 3080TI... but that is due to VRAM limitations.
Seeing how efficient this game is in using VRAM..it almost seem that the GPU is bottlenecked by the CPU which is also not the case... this leads me to believe that the game isn't really that optimized as lots of us believed it is.
yea I've noticed that also hopfully they will release a patch for it .
The render resolution scale (50-100%) in the settings menu adjusts the base resolution. At 50% its 1080p when at 4k (so FSR2 Performance if you enable FSR2), 66-67% is 1440p at 4k (FSR Quality).
So at 100% resolution scale, even if enabling FSR2 option, it will do nothing, right?
@@HoangDucNuyen I guess or it might still try to do something, but won't get much performance and maybe worse visuals.
It's a really weird implementation.
But maybe it can help if you are just looking for that tiny bit more performance to hit stable 60fps lets say. Then putting it at 85% maybe get you there with minimal affect to the image. It would be ultra quality mode.
@@HoangDucNuyen It should replace the games TAA (if it uses a different AA method in native) and it also enables you to use the sharpening used with FSR2 (this is a matter of what you prefer).
@@MrMeanh - If FSR2 in this game is actually replacing TAA just like in Jedi:Survival (TAA in that game is a blurry mess), then it's better to leave FSR2 enable.
Edit: FSR2 at 100% looks worse and will tank FPS comparing to Native (according to HUB)
@@HoangDucNuyen it replaces TAA basically so you’ll get 2 or 3 less fps and better image.
This is super bad with a 4090 not hitting 100 fps is crazy
I agree.
Why should I even bother building a new PC, when the highest end components give you 60fps in titles that aren't even that visually impressive. What is the point?
I have no idea why this game needs so much GPU power. I mean, it does not have things like lumen, ray tracing etc Graphics are OK but not really next gen. Why doesn't it run faster?
The bit where you had ultra 4k with fsr and drs on can be explained in one of the videos by Daniel Owen. He tested numerous nvidia cards and apparently there is some data leak on the ultra setting only that absolutely kills performance compared to the AMD variant. I would imagine this will be fixed once the game is "released"
60 fps on a 4090? engine problems for sure
I agree!
I agree this game should give you a lot more fps than it does. But honestly this is the reason i bought a 4090 to run these kinds of games.
I agree. Yeah the way I see it is this performance is lack luster for sure. However, I know no one else is doing any better. So at least we are getting the best we can get.
Just noticed this game puts a lot of load on the CPU, optimization is needed asap for most people @@ErockOnTech
I have a 4090 but I think I will hold off until they optimise this game a bit better as I really don't enjoy a sub 100 FPS experience. No DLSS or Frame Gen really sucks too
I buy Nvidia since it has better upscale like dlss. now it's not even support new games like starfield and resident evil 4 remake.
Both Nvidia and amd/radeon are asshole
Of course who would after buying a 4090. 😂
I just got a 4090 and just started the last of us all maxed out in 4K HDR and wauw just mind blown the quality is just insane. Idk just fyi wanted to share. Ok now imma watch the video.
Lazily optimized AAA games should have a 39.99 cap.
They really needed to add a benchmark to the PC version. Also guess we'll need to wait a year or more for the game to have better performance... note DLSS2 was modded into the game within like an hour or two after release lol
That’s really cool about the DLSS mod. I had no idea. Thanks for letting me know. Have you tried it yet?
@@ErockOnTechyea, didn't notice much of a difference between 75% render res on DLSS2 vs. FSR2 at the same. Image quality seems better tho (I'm only on a 2060 super so it's not going to work miracles lol).
was it by the same guy who did the DLSS for skyrim?
@@squirrelsinjacket1804 yeah obviously, DLSS runs the same as fsr, but it looks better.
@@squirrelsinjacket1804 lol I understand.
And that's without even Ray Tracing...
The performance in this game is just sad, my 3080 is crying with barely 60 fps on a 1440p 21:9 with FSR enabled.
I'll probably wait for a Cyberpunk 2.0 which already looks and runs way better, and this will give me time for mods to come out for this to make it better.
Cyberpunk 2077 honestly looks better than Starfield and runs WAY better. This game had no reason to be this intensive. Very poorly optimized.
I don't see how this game should be demanding at all, it only needs to load a small map at once just like other open world or even linear games, it doesn't need to load all the textures on an entire planet. The graphics has next to no improvement from Fallout 4. The characters still look stiff and awkward during dialogues like what we saw in Fallout and Elder scrolls. The water quality is just terrible, the ripples and reflections look so fake. There is absolutely no excuse that a 4090 cannot even achieve constant 60fps at 4k native settings, and it makes no sense at all for this game to be CPU bounded. Bethesda certainly fucked up the optimization this time, hope a patch can be released soon to fix this.
It's ridiculous. I'm getting around 60 fps in NA with my 4090 and 5900x on 1440p Ultra. DLSS FG would do well to improve frames in this game.
4090 , sounds like a nice 1440p card
Having to rely on upscaling just to make a mid looking game playable on a flagship card is the absolute state of modern gaming.
A lot of people talking about a card that practically nobody has. The real problem is that the game has a bad performance even in 1080p, in series RTX30.
Performance aside, the game itself doesn't do much for me. It's a shame, I was looking forward to having something new to play.
something must be very unoptimized with the game since the 4090 is using on average 250W on ultra @ 4k with no fsr
The 4090 is $2400 CDN. I'd be pretty pissed if I paid that much for this level of performance.
You do know its not because of the GPU but cause of poor optimization of the game 💀
@@ragnarok4241 I know that. I apologize if that wasn't made clear earlier.
Notice the abysmally low GPU power usage. Something is definitely broken, my 3060ti only pulls less than 60% of the TDP at 99% GPU usage.
No everything is working correctly, it runs on AMD perfectly.
the 4090 pulls below 250W even at 99% usage though, that doesn't seem normal. For example, running furmark and actually pushing my 3060ti to 99%, I'm pulling 90% + TDP, so over 200W. In Starfield, even though it says I'm at 99% usage, I'm pulling way below 140W, around 100-120W.
I'm about to find out what it's like playing starfield on a 4090 at 1440p. Also, windowed fullscreen games require changing the desktop resolution to what you want to play the game at before starting the game.
Oh wow really? Well, now that I think about it, that makes sense. But a user shouldn’t have to do that. This PC port needs work.
How many fps do you get at 1440p native with a 4090?
@@k9pxI’m using a 5800x3D and mine varies 75 in new Atlantis is hard hitting areas up to 90 and 100 plus depends on area
@@Th3Fly1ngCow Sweet, I guess you are one of the few people who can actually enjoy the game at a high frame rate. 😁
@@ErockOnTech On the contrary, the game shouldn't be allowed to change monitor resolution in windowed fullscreen. Because windowed fullscreen is just that, creating a window without edges. When you press F11 in Firefox, you don't want it to have permissions to change resolution on your monitor, either, do you? It's an OS thing more than a game thing. If you want to give the game control of your monitor resolution, go for proper fullscreen mode.
this is exactly the reason why even tho im getting the exact same GPU and CPU im sticking to 1440p. medium settings to get 100fps COME ON
Yeah I can’t believe the 4090 is getting hammered like this.
How are the bugs? Since it is single player I am trying not to rush getting the game… don’t want to walk into a cyberpunk situation.
From what ive heard theyre not so bad. There are some funny bugs here and there (which is typical for most bethesta games) but not game breaking or anything that would ruin the experience. Its certainly not cyberpunk situation.
It’s way better than Cyberpunk was at launch. The bugs are very minimal. It’s one of Bethesda’s more polished games.
Honestly I don't know why Bethesda didn't implement frame generation and dlss with this game, 4090 should be getting 150 + fps, I run cyberpunk frame generation and dlss max setting and I get over 150 fps, some areas I go over 200.
Probably the same reason a lot of AMD sponsored games don’t have it, however they have said Bethesda can implement it if they want, probably after the negative press, so maybe it will be added
I feel like this is one of those games which won't really perform well until a generation or two of gpus later.
Knowing bethesda it won't matter how many generations of hardware passes it still won't run very well. Skyrim still runs like shit despite 2 new releases and 11 years of updates to the game. Not to mention a community of modders doing everything they can to squeeze better performance out of it. Even on modern hardware that game still suffers from horrible stuttering. Making a smooth running game isn't really one of bethesdas strong suits
got the premium update to try the game and on a r7 5800x and rx7900xt with 2560x1080 resolution ultra settings i got 65-80fps and a crush every 2 minutes to the desktop so i did what i always do in such situations i asked for a refund
Oh man I’m sorry to hear that. I haven’t crashed once yet. Thanks for letting me know.
its a bug in the driver they are working on a fix it happens only on rx7000 series from what i know and with ultrawide resolution but it doesn't matter the game is boring for me
@@przemeksz8203 I understand. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
Demanding töo much power for some mediocre graphics. Hope they optimize it to a reasonable point and add DLSS support soon.
Well this is the game I finally built a PC for and left the consoles behind. Also the first game it can't run at a solid 4k native Ultra consistently above 60 fps lol. Hoping for some quick optimization updates.
Run faster ddr5, I heard it's a 10%ish increase
😂 Was this game made for 5090 and was released 3yrs early?
The game is demanding, because it is running on an extremely inefficient graphic engine. Bethesda said it themselves during an interview that they did not develop a new graphic engine for Starfield. I'm pretty sure Starfield still runs on the same engine as Fallout 4, with a little bit of tweaks here and there. This is very similar to how someone does their jobs, there are many people at the office who spend a ton of time and energy doing their jobs, feeling exhausted at the end of the day, but end up not getting much done. So, Starfield is using 98% of a 4090's graphic computing power, but is the game utilizing that efficiently?
Jesus. What a rob job. Do console manufacture's make backroom deals with game developers to hobble frames on PC? Sure looks like it to me.
I think AMD paid for preferential treatment. But even still, it’s a bad PC port.
Wow that’s crazy only 75 fps on a 1600 dollar gpu in 4k something has to change other wise what’s the point of dropping all that money if no one is going to optimize the games
When a 3070ti on 1440p is an estimate of 30fps it makes me want to wait for pc updates for this game… and hate to say it… have a 1 month game pass specifically for Starfield
I play at 3440x1440 using a 7900X and a 7900XT with FSR on, 100% render resolution and sharpening at 70% because think FSR at native looks better than the TAA at native. I recommend turning off Dynamic Resolution Scaling because I have seen it cause ghosting across my 4 computers I have tested this game on. Overall FSR is decent in this game but you don't want to put the render resolution below 75% in my opinion. Any lower than that looks bad. Especially at 1080p.
Sounds good. Thank you for the advice.
@@ErockOnTech thanks for the video.
The one area I'm at least glad it's doing well is that it's not a totally stuttering piece of crap like 90% of modern PC AAA releases have been recently. Just wish we could get a higher framerate out of it.
ugly, poorly optimised game
Going from Ultra to Low showing a tiny performance uplift = poor optimization
I agree.
Building a PC with 7800x3d and 4090 these days. I wanted to wait until zen5 and the 5090 come out, but bought now because of the rumors of everything getting delayed because of AI... And that's the best for gaming one can buy today. And it's a bit disheartening to see how an engine that will be widely used in the future runs on such hardware.
I agree completely. Well said. Thank you.
Yo I am also trying to wait for 50 series 😢
@@viking9442 unless you have a 3090 o more don't wait, we don't even know what's going to happen in the future. a 3080 was at $3,000 when the cryptocurrency bull market . Imagine a 4090 in that time with 4 times more mining performance than the 3080. I don't think that a thing like that will happen again at the short time, but who knows?
@@Kahunaseb Yea really worried about gpu prices with the AI buzz. The prices are already too high for many
@@viking9442 yeah the prices are unreal
I have a 7900XTX but daaamn on 4K ultra "FSR" on and it runs sooo bad
Same here. Apparently, the 7900XTX and 4090 are similar at 4K.
Another crappy pc port what a suprise
If your framerate is above 60 fps at 4k no one should complain lol
It’s a 1600 dollar GPU
Atomic heart looks better and I played it with a rtx 2060 2K
Atomic Heart is insanely well optimized.
Honestly, the medium preset on any game is the best preset. Just like how 1080p is the best resolution. Sure, 4K and Ultra preset look better, but it's unnecessary. They're like "nice-to-haves" but, they aren't the best for long, serious playing sessions. Starfield just needs to get the resolution scaling fixed. It shouldn't be forcing players into windowed mode.
It seems like the 4090 and 7900 XTX, and possibly the 4080, are the only GPUs that are able to average 60+ FPS at native 4K Ultra settings.
Yeah Bethesda themselves released a statement saying that at least a 4070 ti, 3090, or Rx 6950xt is needed to achieve 60fps in 1440p. 1440p 60fps.
"The game is optimized" -Todd
@esotericjahanism5251 It's totally pathetic that a 3090 or 6950 XT is needed to get 60+ FPS at native 1440p ultra. This game is clearly optimised like total shit. It's not like Starfield has any ray tracing. If it had tonnes of RT effects, then I can understand even the 4090 struggling. The 4090 is able to get 60+ FPS at native 4K max settings with RT in quite a few games, though. Even in demanding RT games such as Control.
Crap dude it’s eating that 7800x3D usage
Yes it is.
Come on we talking about setup that could cost around 5000/6000 $……and u tellin me you are getting barely +60 fps ? 💀💀💀
So with my 7950x/64/4090 playing on my TV it will not get enough fps to never drop under 60. This is ridiculous. Folks, never preorder anything. Someone with a perfectly capable mid-range PC will not be able to get enjoyable fps on a 1440p monitor witout droppingto to low with jittery FSR. This is unacceptable fo a game that really doesn't push any boundries from a graphics standpoint.
I have a Gigabyte RTX4090 and just installed my i9-14900k from having a 12900k. Decent bump but nothing crazy. Starfield is really demanding. 80-90 on High Settings in heavily populated areas like New Atlantis. Wild to think this card can only manage that with this "basic" looking of a game. hahaha.
4090
13900kf
Gskill 7200
I am fucking angry at how much bullshit I have to put up with to even get the game to run 10 mins without crashing. This is not acceptable. If you buy a game it SHOULD NOT CRASH. Tired of wasting my time messing with windows bullshit settings. God damnit. I hate that.
doesn't the resolution scale determine the FSR mode? Like 50% is Performance, 67% is Quality, etc.
it does
Starfield is great but the graphics are not great mainly because Bethesda focuses on gameplay, so the game is mainly CPU intensive as apposed to GPU intensive, that's probably why my 4090 GPU runs at about 40c while playing a game and 28c on idle, my CPU also runs at 40-45c while playing Starfield.
Optimization in this game is beyond unacceptable, a 3070 should be enough to push this at 1440p Ultra constant 60fps. Games technically and visually way more demanding than this one would be above 130fps at 4k Ultra with your build. Companies are getting mad lazy and it is going to be worse now with the standardization of FSR and DLSS
DLSS when?..
It was already available within like 1 or 2 hours of release (modded in).
Apparently there is a mod for it now. I haven’t tried it. No idea how good it works.
@@squirrelsinjacket1804Have you tried it yet? Is it any good?
@@ErockOnTech It's probably comparable to FSR2 performance wise, but image quality is better with DLSS apparently it has less flickering from what I've read. It sounded like DLSS3 with frame gen is in the works and I wouldn't be surprise to see it finished before the standard release, but he might put it behind a patreon paywall.
@@squirrelsinjacket1804 Good to know. Thanks for sharing this information with me. I really appreciate it.
do you think that the 4060 ti 16gb at 450 is a good deal?
No.
Every time I think about making a sweet pc build, this crap happens. Thousands of dollars and we still see screen tearing and lower performance. Fiddling with damn screen settings for every single game. Ugh. I know they’re nowhere near pc power for most gaming, when something as gorgeous as HFW on ps5 exists and plays so smooth for $500? Yeah. Why cant they optimize pc game releases. To be fair, it took a while for hfw to look the way it is today.
The new cyberpunk 2077 gpu killer only with less pritty graphics and no mention of rtx yet maybe cos amd also hates ray tracing as much as DLSS Thankyou AMD/Bathesda studios🤣
This is what consoles should be running at with fsr rendering 4k. It’s insane to expect less. Pretty pathetic especially with the time it took for a tripple a studio to make game. I feel like they should have only make 100 planets and focus on more usable features
Also noticed at native it’s only pulling ~250w and fsr only 175-200 ish. Really crazy how low the power is
3:40 well games become more demanding so yes, even the best card will become average with newer and newer games. But I have to say, starfield looks good, but not "75FPS on a 4090 Ultra settings" good.
Game isn’t optimized and NVidia drivers will drop to help bump the fps little more. I have the same RTX 4090 AND AMD PROCESSOR setup
I should not need to use upscaling tech in order to maintain above 60 fps at 4K ultra settings, in New Atlantis ON A 4090. Recent games run at low fps and don't look so great that this heavy impact in performance is justified. What's going on?
I'm playing with a ryzen 5 2600 + RTX 2080 , New Atlantis on low setting with fsr is not even 30 fps stable, when I go out of big citiees I turn on medium graphics and it averages 50 fps in inside areas and 40 ish in outdoors areas
I mean, 8 years ago, the Witcher 3 would have run at 40fps with a 980ti at 4k, so 75 fps on Starfield is pretty good. We knew this was gonna be rough from the 30fps lock on consoles 😪😪
Can anyone explain how this is superior comparing to homefront revolution graphics? I know that this one looks great with rtx4090 but why these games looks even worse than red dead redemption 2 and still need 2x sometimes 3x more hardware requirements?
This is nuts. Why make games that are unplayable?
I'm running ultra with 1440 on a 3080 with an i7 8th gen and it looks good and runs sweet...
... Still need to install msi afterburner, so not sure what fr is
Ok, back to my desk to live in New Atlantis lol
The more Band-Aid fixing Bethesda adds to the creation engine the worse the performance overhead becomes, its only increasing exponentially for slightly better visuals. I cannot imagine the requirements for ES6.
Look at the power consumption of gpu it’s “only” 250 watts i saw this problem on ratchet game with amd cards so we will need patches and gpu drives bcs I think that gpu in this game doesn’t go on full power/performance
confusing statements, the GPU being at 99% has nothing to do with it being optimized or not. then you say maybe it's CPU limited, which 99% GPU clearly shows it's not
I think it's sad that this game is making me consider upgrading from a 4070ti to a 4090 just to get 100+fps at medium settings. My first car didn't cost as much as a 4090. What is wrong with this picture? 😕
50% is FSR Performance , 60 % = Balanced . 66/67% = FSR Quality , using Preset Ultra sets FSR automaically to Quality ( 66% ) if i remember right
The only way I was able to get a decent frame rate was by turning down volumetric lighting, gtao shadow, and the other shadow option in the menu. Even then this options at best give me somewhere between 60 to 110 fps depending on were in the game I'm in.
Terrible optimization same as skyrim
Bethesda strikes again.
I have a 4090 with a i9 13900f i get 55 or less in some new Atlantic areas ..why 😢?? Oh and at 1440p resolution.
GPU utilization cannot be used as an indicator for optimization.
Optimization is doing things like making sure only what you see is being rendered, and not rendering it at a detail level higher than what is visible.
Level of Detail is an important tool for developers to optimize their game, but its easy to be lazy about it and implement it poorly or not at all.
The game could be super fun, but graphics are like 10 years old and are super demanding though. They should consider using UE for their next release.
Native 4K Ultra 4090 just run below 300W... look like need some patch & driver updated soon.
Thanks man! Single player RPG don't really need more than 90fps so we good!
You’re right. 90 is fine. I’m just shocked that it’s 90.. you know? Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@ErockOnTech I wonder if it's the global illumination lighting system that's contributing to the "heavyness" of SF and a lot of the newer UE5 titles. Maybe a future modder will figure out a way to disable the GI lighting in Starfield so we can see how much of an impact it's having. I remember in the old days the "God rays" feature heavily impacted fps on FO4 and Skyrim:SE.
@@tronam That’s a very good point!
if you are playing on a prerelease. 5 days before the game release. slow the fuck down and relax people. let the game fully release along with the updated drivers and shit, before you complain too much!
I’m on a 4080 at 1440p medium-high setting with fsr and I’m barely reaching 100fps 😭😭
Not sure what my deal is but I have the same cpu, gpu, and even the same memory as u but can only get like 45 to 55fps at 4k ultra preset without drs and upscaling on, at new Atlantis area
I priced out a build with 4090 and no way am I spending that if games aren’t more than perfect for this generation. Is the screen tear just the capture card?
Installed dlss 3.5 mod. Running 85-100 fps in New Atlantis. Ruzen 7950x Gigabyte Gaming OC 4090 Gskill cl 32 6000mhz ram. Everything is maxed out and at Native Resolution 1440P
Only thing not working is Frame Gen which i'm fine with
If Id software did this than it would be so well optimized,doom eternal looks better and gets hundreds of fps on max settings on a 4090
Bethesda needs to move on from their Creation Engine, it's old. You can dress up a pig and put lick stick on it but under all that it's still a pig.
You can still have badly optimised games that have 99% GPU utilisation, case in point many games the last few years that have come out. This isn't a deciding factor for badly optimised games.
I understand that. But then when I call a game “poorly optimized”, the comments are “you’re getting 98-99% GPU usage. You’re good.” So I can’t win no matter what I say. I’ve seen way worse games this year on the optimization front. Hogwarts Legacy and The Last of Us are good examples.
Default DRS graphics presets sound like a bad console v pcmr joke from before the pandemic.
OMG..no really Oh my God.😮 A 4090 almost on its knees.. This has to be a driver issue.. doesn't it? I mean it can't be that bad..can it? The game doesn't even look that good.
And one last time OMG 😮😮😮.
Yeah I have no idea what the problem is here. It must be the game engine. Bethesda isn’t exactly known for their high FPS games.
POORLY OPTIMIZED. Something going on under the hood of this game that is not good.
It is very odd that there is no FSR in settings. No DLSS + this stiuation is big L unfortunately.
Yeah I’m hoping DLSS gets added in officially later.
@@ErockOnTechI am hoping to see DLSS too just like you, also FSR 3.0 will be much better for Starfield since FSR 3.0 available for many cards, not like DLSS 3.0 tech. Also seeing VRS technology in Starfield is cool for me.
@@mertdag7099 DLSS official support is coming now confirmed by Bethesda. Not sure on FSR 3 yet.
@@ErockOnTech Great news! Thank you for respod 🙌
The 7900 XTX outperforms the 4090 in this title. AMD playing games here
the game is an AMD sponsored title i am not surprised the 4090 struggles on it i think people expect to much out of the hardware knowing its a single player game it does not need 144 fps im glad i went from a 165mhz monitor back to an hdr 60mhz tv it feels so much more cinema like nice video by the way
It shouldn't struggle that bad and it struggles on both amd ang nv cards so its more the game not being optimized. This isn't nothing new alot of games been coming out like this so its not shocking . They do this to make you want a new gpu in the future.
I just think this game is ugly?🤔😁it's not pretty, it's certainly not even in full 4k
bruh getting barerly 70 fps with the best graphic card
- I don't see a problem with that.
i ran everything on low and im still getting freezing and audio lag. wtf.
You can switch your resolution to 1440p on the nvidia control panel, and then you can run it in full screen mode.
just test 1440p, change the windows resolution to 1440p too so you play in fullscreen