Thats actually good that they allow the user to set the render resolution, so that people can use w/e render resolution/FPS they feel most comfortable with. Like say 3200x1800 compared to just forcing everybody to use 1440p. I hope its a setting thats put into more games in the future.
CPU performance is a lot smoother with my 5800x3D, where now I can target a somewhat smooth 60 FPS lock at Ultra. The loading stutter when crossing certain thresholds used to be really bad, and it still is at points, but it happens far less often. I also think raw frame rates are better. It’s reassuring, because this game doesn’t seem to care at *all* about the 3D v cache, the only game I know of where it doesn’t seem to have much of an effect. Good to know it can still turn in a good experience
Great news. My tuned 5600 can provide locked 60 now too. P. S. There is quite a wide range of games, which do not gain much out of 3D cache, for example, both recent Spider Man games and SWJS.
The 3D vcache is not as effective as in other games as Starfield game engine scales quite well with CPU Clockrate right up to 6Ghz, plus it scales with memory bandwidth up above 7200 MT/s. So with Ryzen CPU in general not able to clock up to mid 5Ghz and not supporting very fast high bandwidth memory is noticeable in this game title. The 3D vcache CPU being clocked at a lower frequency is a penalty this time.
@@stangamer1151Oh okay, I do remember being underwhelmed by Spider-Man’s CPU performance. Then I open Uncharted and the performance increase from my older 5600 was over 50% or something crazy like that. Depends on the game I guess
This is the main reason why i dont bother with games at launch anymore. All AAA releases are basically launching in Early Access. Better to pick it up half a year later at half the price for the better experience.
@@mleise8292 True, you should be wary of most game that releases without a early access phase nowadays. But alot of indies actually do a actual Early Access phase unlike AAA games and you can be fairly confident the game is in a pretty good state by the time it leaves early access to a full release. There are a few indies that didn't do a early access phase like No Man's Sky that would've needed one however.
@@joel3683 Yeah it makes no sense to spend 70 bucks on a game on release to have to either wait for devs to fix the game or power through a terrible experience when you can wait until they fix it and pick it up for 40 bucks or less in a couple of months.
I’ve got to say man, you’re a very busy body. You could make these videos short and limited to detail but you don’t. You do more than most RUclipsrs do who have more open schedules and I have to say that I respect that and respect you for putting in the work. All of your videos are full of detail and information with accurate benchmarking, and with a schedule like yours? Impressive and props. Thanks for your hard work.
I'm on the same cpu and a 7900xtx. My perf uplift in cities in this beta patch is more like +25% for the same settings at 1440p native. It finally got me to the point where I could at least set a hard fps cap is 72 to make the game run smooth on a 144hz monitor.
Imagine if MS had delayed Starfield and Forza Motorsport to launch mid-November. They would probably have a couple of, long-tail, blockbusters just before the holidays with most of the bad taste removed. Starfield was in development for 7 years and FM for, at least, 4. They could have waited a couple more months for both.
@@Jay.McCartythese companies are out of touch and set in their ways, they'd much rather launch a game in MVP(minimum viable product) state instead of polishing it up because the excel spreadsheet shows 2% more net profits
Stepping up the thumbnail game! Hilarious. Glad you dug into this because on the surface it feels like Bethesda is sitting back and saying “good enough”. But a 27% performance boost is insane.
Yeah, but they've still got way further to go of course. It still isn't up to the performance that AMD cards had at launch. I think it's just that it was SO poorly optimized for Nvidia that there were a lot of relatively easy cumulative fixes or adjustments that they hadn't applied.
Since you asked, my thoughts on Starfield -- The bad: not enough variation in random structures (this is a big one), not enough variety of flora and fauna (both types and names are repeated a lot), the nature of the game requiring a lot of fast travel breaks what many loved about past titles from Bethesda. The good: planetary terrain feels varied and natural, variation in theme from planet to planet and biome to biome is good, overall look of the worlds is quite good with some beautiful scenery, individual objects have pretty good detail. Some reviewers complain about walled gardens of the landing sites, but I dismiss that as I pretty much never run into zone edges in normal play even when exploring around a lot. Overall I feel the game is good but not great, should probably be about 20% cheaper to buy. Performance on 13600k with 7800 xt at 1440p native has been fine for me, not high refresh, but only got choppy on a couple of worlds; I don't watch it constantly, but frame rate tends to be about 60 fps.
Given the size of the maps, I'm suprised so many reviewers still complain about it. I feel like many of the people complaining just didn't like the concept before they even played the game, and refused to look at it objectively by the time they did. Or they are just bandwagoning for clicks because the game had so much hype. I was seriously suprised by the size of the playable map at any given landing site. It's almost big enough so that modders could mod in planets where the landing sites contain large chunks of TES and Fallout maps depending on where you land.
Great update/breakdown Daniel. I've been playing Starfield since launch on a 10900/3090 system(380hrs as of now). I am now using the beta patch at 3440x1440 and I can run on default high settings with DLSS on quality setting and I have my system locked at 60fps...I've played for about 10 hours on the beta and not seen it dip below the 60fps once, and my power supply is showing about 90 watts less usage in areas like Akila and New Atlantis.
Running through the same section as Daniel, I'm getting around 98 fps on a 7900xtx with 7700x running ultra settings with no fsr2 at 1440p. GPU utilization is around 99% and my cpu utilization is around 89%. Was getting only 80fps before the patch update with same settings so that's an improvement for me. Although CPU utilization seems rather high.
I'm getting 130fps in 4k, 8k shadows on a 7900xtx with the new FMF preview drivers in the same area Daniel tested at. The new preview drivers are no joke, image quality has been improved substantially there is no artifacting and very minimal screen tearing unlike Nvidia's frame gen. I only have a video in 4k 110% resolution scaling/8k shadows uploaded atm. I'll upload one at default settings to compare to Daniel's benchmark.
I did perform some extensive testing. My system is as follows: Ryzen 9 5950x PBO = on 32GB 3733MT/s RX 7900XTX Nitro Plus with 1% under volt and 4% memory OC. I tested Akila City at 4K Ultra FSR= off Anti-Lag=on Enhanced Sync=on, Previous patch= 48fps, 1% lows 32 fps Beta patch: 61fps, 1% lows 45fps Bethesda is correct when they say higher end cards benefit more
Dude! 😂 When you're moving yourself around so you finger is pointing at the performance gain percentages on the 4060 Ti, looks like a Monty Python animation! Looked hilarious 🤣
Bro I didn’t even notice the thumbnail at first, I just immediately clicked on the video.. read the first comment, and then went back to see what the thumbnail looked like. It’s funny ash
you are very good at explaining things, context that some may understand isnt simply implied you explain everything very in depth. things i dont even think of having been following these things for awhile are explained with such clarity i literally could not have put it better myself, i love your content
Great video as usual. One thing I don't understand though...you say that the Game was initially CPU limited, but I never saw that. I doubt I ever had my CPU go beyond 5% load in this Game...🤔
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat I wouldn't argue with you on that. Still, my biggest problem is how horrible the main storyline was the further I got into it.
I'M SO HAPPY! I can finally play this game comfortably. I could hardly manage steady 40 fps in New Atlantis, which came with ALOT of stuttering and tearing, where as now I get 50 to 60 fps with little to no stuttering or tearing. I run a 3070 and i7-10700 CPU with settings at mostly high and was getting terrible performance in city type areas, where as now with the dlss update, I have almost no issues with almost a 60 fps constant. This is how the game should have ran from the start. I have restarted the game, I had previously logged almost 80 hours, even with the issues I wanted to play it so badly. I am so relieved I can fully immerse myself and enjoy this game.
in the PC market Steam has the majority share so it's a logical choice. since more people have steam instead of game pass on PC. also Game pass on PC isnt very friendly with Mods
I get what you mean but it doesnt matter. MS WILL get the Money regardless. So in their Mind… (Bethesda) it doesnt matter and in MS Mind… it doesnt either as long as it makes predictable Money. Thats my Guess at least. For now.
I have a 7900 xtx and 7700x and got around 20% improvement. It is an upgraded experience depending on the cards. I am aiming to buy a 7800x3d, but I suspect the margin will increase with a better cpu, since it seems cpu focus improvements.
I have a 3070 and r5 7600, I used to play on medium settings and got mid 70 fps. I now play on ultra settings, balanced dlss, and get mid 70s outside of cities and high 60s in cities
Never had any issues on a 4070ti (shocker) Stopped playing after about 50 hours because it feels like a regression in almost every aspect besides combat.
@@winslowpippleton7157 Is that so, because everyone else seems to think that "50 hours isn't enough time to know if you don't like it". No amount of time is every long enough / short enough for fanboys to accept negative opinions of their games.
@@winslowpippleton7157 it depends, it feels like 50 mediocre hours in which you were just mildly engaging with the game and it pads out a lot of downtime between actual quests with pointless travel, clunk and a fuckton of menus.
Stopped playing after 23 hours. Just gonna let it sit in my library until the mods fix some of the issues I have with the core design. I honestly think 1000 planets with most of them being cookie cutter cut and paste locations was the wrong direction to go. There's only so many times I'm willing to go through the exact same bases with the exact same enemies.
As somebody who's been playing and modding Bethesda Games Studios (not "Bethesda" there's a difference) games for longer than I can honestly remember there's one thing I've learned: never buy a BGS game at launch. It's not he fault of the engine, it's the studio. They simply don't do comprehensive testing, or they just don't listen to the testers. Considering that the games are so flexible in allowing a player to make them whatever the player wants I honestly don't mind this. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, and Fallout 4 are all games that I and countless people will still be playing for many, many years because they function as a platform for customization. Outside of Oblivion and FNV, none of those games have impressive stories. None of them have impressive graphics, even for the time they were released. They were ALL, essentially, broken at release. Starfeild, honestly, is the most optimized BGS game on release I've seen. I'll play the base game, but I care more about it being moddable and customizable. That's what will have people playing this game for the next fifteen to twenty years. Sorry console people :P
Great results on my rig with the 1.8.84 (!). 1.8.83 wasn't all that great and heated up my GPU ridiculously ! But now with the 1.8.84... wow ! The game looks great, runs great, and is waaaay less heavy on the GPU. Me = happy !! My rig: i7 12700k, Asus ROG Strix RTX 3090 OC, Asus Z690 -a WiFi DDR5, 32GB (2x16GB) @5600 OC, 980 Pro M2. 2TB, 1TB and 500GB
Nice. I downloaded this again after weeks, and fired it up. I previously played for about 30 hours using puredark's DLSS and frame gen mod. It was good, but would crash sometimes. My initial impressions on an RTX 4080, running around in new atlantis - the FPS gains are real! At least 10-15 for me. But it's also kinda weird. DLAA looks awesome, far superior to blurry FSR and even DLSS quality. But for some reason it seems to run BETTER than DLSS quality for me. I have never seen that before...and it makes no sense. I'm also liking the new contrast setting. It improves the visuals noticeably. Certain people walking by are still crazy and googley eyed though. So I'm not sure what they fixed about it. I force on vsync in nvidia control panel, because I can't stand tearing. Frame gen in this game seems to have a much more noticeable input delay than any other game I've tried it on. Even with low latency mode on ultra. UNLESS I use a trick I've learned - manually setting my max FPS to *3 below* my monitor's refresh rate, in nvidia control panel. So 117 for me. Instantly the input delay drops to like 40-50ms, very tolerable. Frame gen and DLAA feels and looks so good!
I got about 6fps extra (medium,2060 super) in my New Atlantis torture test spot & another 10fps from DLSS Quality. Might finally start playing for real now.
10900k & RTX 3080 TI now I get 4k60 locked at ultra. Crowd density was the setting that hit hardest before the patch. Before this patch I couldnt get 4k60 at high with crowd density at medium. DLSS is a big performance boost. FSR did little but hit the graphics quality hard. This game was tuned for console performance which is AMD hardware.
Game changer for me as I have a 3070 and always play at 4K DLSS Balance. I tested this with Digital Foundry optimized settings and it is much better. This is a good patch, significant improvements for sure. You could always say it should have lunched liked that but id did not and reality check: not all devs are able to fix their mess quickly when you look back at Cyberpunk, Jedi Survivor, The Last of Us Part 1, Gotham Knights, etc.
I'm glad you continue to review their updates. I'm holding off on buying the game until sometime in the summer of 2024, but if much of the reported gameplay doesn't improve by then I'll just get it on gamepass. Planning on a new PC build around that time, too, and your videos are very helpful.
Running around New Atlantis on a 4090 with 12700KF I get now on the beta: Starfield.exe benchmark completed, 15115 frames rendered in 158.344 s Average framerate : 95.4 FPS Minimum framerate : 75.5 FPS Maximum framerate : 126.8 FPS 1% low framerate : 65.8 FPS That's at 3440x1440, Ultra settings, DRS off, VRS off, Motion blur off, DLSS set to DLAA, so more demanding than native res. Previously I was using the integrated DLSS mod which gives frame gen etc and could only get around 85fps max in New Atlantis in the same area outside with the average being about 75fps. This is a massive improvement on high end GPUs. The CPU usage is still silly high at 74% utilised package with 3 P cores at 80% just moving around New Atlantis, but the fps is actually what it should be now so this is good. I am not using Frame Gen by the way. This is all just DLAA.
Now imagine they didn't launch the game with an upscaler crutch (and baked into the presets), and had to do these optimizations (and more) right out of the gate at launch.
It's in the contract with AMD to make Nvidia perform as poorly as possible for 3 months, after that Bethesda can do as they please, meaning optimize for Nvidia and add DLSS+FG
I think those other games you listed: Alan Wake 2, BG3, and Phantom Liberty are all better experiences than most of what you'd find on Starfield imo. So if I were you I would focus on those and leave Starfield for another decade.
So they called AMD in during development of this game because they were going from Vulkan to DirectX 12. Since AMD helped develop Mantle (precursor to Vulkan) and was familiar with DX12, they agreed to help convert the game over and get it working in DX12. This is why it is an "AMD sponsored" title, and why the game ran so poorly on Nvidia hardware at first. Sure, AMD likely helped get it running on Nvidia HW, but they probably spent more time focusing on their own hardware. This game was not ready, and calling in AMD was an act of desperation. An early build for Nvidia to make a driver update wasn't withheld until the last minute. It was legitimately not running for crap until that last minute. They polished what they had and kicked it out the door because it had already delayed the game at least once. That's why settings and basic optimizations are being added in after release. These would be things already in the game if it wasn't released before it was ready.
"Todd, why did you not optimize your game on PC?" “Uh, we did,” Howard said while Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer giggled. “It’s running great. It is a next-gen PC game. We really do push the technology, so you may need to upgrade your PC for this game. But it’s got a lot of great stuff going on in it, and the fans are responding awesome.” So if it was optimized, why does it run substantially better now? 🤔
I think what they meant by next gen is that sometime in the future this game will be fixed by modders. It certainly can't be refering to game play or graphics. Right ...?
He's partially right. Like the ultra shadows setting killing FPS. It isn't doing that for no reason. Standing on a rooftop in new atlantis, you can see that the shadow distance is insane. Even faint trees and people have shadows, which obviously takes tons of power
@@kuruptzZz if you check the new benchmarks on RUclips, it's mostly down to increases in CPU performance and MASSIVE GPU increase in performance (up to 55% on 7900XTX!!) - which means the game was, for the lack of a better term, unoptimized at launch and is better optimized now. And can be even better... Which means 40fps and perhaps even 60fps with adjusted settings on XSX could be possible, if those clowns at Bethesda and that smirky lying turd weren't bullshitting his loyal fan base that the "game is next gen and is optimized". There is nothing in that game that is next-gen, absolutely nothing at all. If it was released in 2016, it could have been compared to DOOM and no one would argue. I'd say even DOOM has better lighting and more geometric detail than that game. They are just lazy complacent developers lead by a spineless shrewd businessman who lost touch with reality. You'd have to be blind to call that game beautiful or worthy to be compared to the contemporary truly next-gen games of 2023. I'm not saying you are saying that, but there are people like that.
Do you think optimized is just a switch that they forgot to flip when compiling the game or something? It's a process that never ends, you can always optimize a game more.
That suck for Intel owners. I have a system with an A770 16gb that runs every other graphically demanding game (that i have tried) at 1440p, 60fps, high/ultra settings. It couldnt even do 30fps in starfield at 1080p. Something weird is definitely going on.
Nice about the beta for Starfield, gives me something to play with today on the Intel Arc A 770, the mods had XeSS and Starfield needs to add that also, as sometimes XeSS looks better than FSR on even AMD.
At the start of Starfield sales, I suspected that the game was intentionally optimized by developers exclusively for AMD cards, and now there is evidence to support this claim. The patch practically did not increase FPS for the red cards, but for the green ones, it provided a significant performance boost of +20%. Without a doubt, AMD paid developers to intentionally slow down Nvidia cards in this game at launch to showcase their own cards in a better light.
A small stretch to say they were paid to kneecap Nvidia (though it does seem like they paid for no DLSS support on launch) but team green definitely got shafted on this game
its great to see your face jumping from left to right and back in your video. why should i be interested in whats going on on the screen when i can have a look at your face.
This isn't full DLSS implementation, so we shouldn't review it like it is. I'll wait until it's out of beta, and has the invidia driver update that will come with its full implementation.
Looks like there was typical marketing "handshakes"w/Bethesda and AMD given how nerfed the nvidia cards were at launch. Also considering how many variations of AMD cards were throwing Starfield at u in bundles😂. Good old pusha man moves to sell products that need to sell
Idk why, but I went down like 10fps on my 4070Ti. I was using the DLSS mod beforehand. I kinda wonder if the DLSS mod ran better than the official implementation lol
yeah on my ryzen 5500 and rx 6650xt with this beta its a lot smoother still got problems like the games in alpha but otherwise i can comfortably play this game that's so big yet not dense. BTW they just released another patch 1.8.84 so might have to check that out.
I love when people use percent as a thing like it's super crazy because I guess big number means something. What I get is on average you get with Nvidia 10-13 more fps which should have been a normal thing if they cared to do this at launch. That isn't that crazy.
the is a mod that fixes the freaky face issue with the random NPC's for me running a r7 3700x and 6700xt with 32gb ram i've seen very minimal impact in FPS and a massive reduction in nightmares from the old NPC's lol
quick answer. No. Long answer. No. From - Person who has an "average person"pc, not an "internet average person" pc....an actual "average person" pc. Games have looked far better, with far more things going on, whilist running far better. I mean i was playing no mans sky the other day, you know what revolutionary thing i did? I got in my ship, took off, flew into space and just flew around. Meanwhile, over on the starfield side of depression, I had to jump to the quest objective, loading screen, then figure out why it put me in space, instead of just putting me at the quest objective, at which point the only option is to literally open the same menu (because the actual space part of the game is just some wierd mid jounrney waiting room with a couple random ships flying around), click the same quest, click "jump to objective" again, sit in a loading screen, and now im finally on the planet, after another quick loading screen out of my ship. So i can walk in 40fps through a completely washed out image quality despite being as dark as hell to try and figure out some half decent gamma/brightness that actually fixes how the game looks. I'm done waiting for this $200 million game to actually be finished and playable. I dont mean "playable" like "that" i mean playable as in "i actually want to play it". All the downsides of this steaming pile of junk absolutely swamp any positives (iv yet to find any yet, but ill give them the benifit of the doubt and say there must be some somewhere)
I can say I used AMDs Fluid motion Frame on this game in the beta drivers. When I went to newer official drivers that didn't include it I missed the Frame gen parts. It does work well for a single player slow paced game like thisi was going from min 57 fps to 70fps fps. With FMF was 80 to 120 fps avg 100 fps So Frame Gen will be great for Nvidia users in this game I bet
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The thumbnail really NAILed it.
fantom ass 24 arms
@@adastra6747 you got me
Who?
@@JSmooove98 you know who.
I loled at it
the fucking thumbnail lol, actually nailed the impression hahaha
Imagine being one of his students and seeing that, lol. That picture would be saved for later use.
You are my favorite tech channel. You're genuine, humble, and straight to the point.
Thats actually good that they allow the user to set the render resolution, so that people can use w/e render resolution/FPS they feel most comfortable with. Like say 3200x1800 compared to just forcing everybody to use 1440p. I hope its a setting thats put into more games in the future.
How can anyone play this boring, unsatisfying game. I don't get it. haha
Great for VR too using something like Vorpx or Depth3d to turn it into a VR game!
@@hughmanwhoThat's why FSR/DLSS are a good thing and a future.
Just devs need to stop being lazy
You can use DLSS Tweaks to do this in any non-anticheat-protected video game that has DLSS 2.0+
Enjoy
@@AdrianMuslim Because its a Bethesda game. Bethesda games are meant to be really boring because it has a FUN gameplay loop (starfield doesnt)
CPU performance is a lot smoother with my 5800x3D, where now I can target a somewhat smooth 60 FPS lock at Ultra. The loading stutter when crossing certain thresholds used to be really bad, and it still is at points, but it happens far less often. I also think raw frame rates are better.
It’s reassuring, because this game doesn’t seem to care at *all* about the 3D v cache, the only game I know of where it doesn’t seem to have much of an effect. Good to know it can still turn in a good experience
Gamebryo/Creation have always been RAM-heavy
It certainly makes a difference in FPS lows over the standard 5800X.
Great news. My tuned 5600 can provide locked 60 now too.
P. S. There is quite a wide range of games, which do not gain much out of 3D cache, for example, both recent Spider Man games and SWJS.
The 3D vcache is not as effective as in other games as Starfield game engine scales quite well with CPU Clockrate right up to 6Ghz, plus it scales with memory bandwidth up above 7200 MT/s. So with Ryzen CPU in general not able to clock up to mid 5Ghz and not supporting very fast high bandwidth memory is noticeable in this game title. The 3D vcache CPU being clocked at a lower frequency is a penalty this time.
@@stangamer1151Oh okay, I do remember being underwhelmed by Spider-Man’s CPU performance. Then I open Uncharted and the performance increase from my older 5600 was over 50% or something crazy like that. Depends on the game I guess
This is the main reason why i dont bother with games at launch anymore. All AAA releases are basically launching in Early Access. Better to pick it up half a year later at half the price for the better experience.
Firmament was also quite buggy at release. It’s not AAA vs. AA/Indy 😢
@@mleise8292 True, you should be wary of most game that releases without a early access phase nowadays. But alot of indies actually do a actual Early Access phase unlike AAA games and you can be fairly confident the game is in a pretty good state by the time it leaves early access to a full release. There are a few indies that didn't do a early access phase like No Man's Sky that would've needed one however.
Haha yeah I came to that conclusion myself about 5 years ago and it still holds true, glad to see some like minded individuals 😎👍
@@joel3683 Yeah it makes no sense to spend 70 bucks on a game on release to have to either wait for devs to fix the game or power through a terrible experience when you can wait until they fix it and pick it up for 40 bucks or less in a couple of months.
Good morning thing it's in gamepass.
I’ve got to say man, you’re a very busy body. You could make these videos short and limited to detail but you don’t.
You do more than most RUclipsrs do who have more open schedules and I have to say that I respect that and respect you for putting in the work.
All of your videos are full of detail and information with accurate benchmarking, and with a schedule like yours? Impressive and props.
Thanks for your hard work.
I'm on the same cpu and a 7900xtx. My perf uplift in cities in this beta patch is more like +25% for the same settings at 1440p native. It finally got me to the point where I could at least set a hard fps cap is 72 to make the game run smooth on a 144hz monitor.
Not gonna lie, my personal mantra of "waiting one year for a PC game to be fixed before getting it" seems to be paying off more than ever recently
Imagine if MS had delayed Starfield and Forza Motorsport to launch mid-November. They would probably have a couple of, long-tail, blockbusters just before the holidays with most of the bad taste removed. Starfield was in development for 7 years and FM for, at least, 4. They could have waited a couple more months for both.
Yup, team late purchase, we never lose 😁
@@Jay.McCartythese companies are out of touch and set in their ways, they'd much rather launch a game in MVP(minimum viable product) state instead of polishing it up because the excel spreadsheet shows 2% more net profits
r/patientgamers
yes very true I also do this and bonus is you can get game on sale
Stepping up the thumbnail game!
Hilarious.
Glad you dug into this because on the surface it feels like Bethesda is sitting back and saying “good enough”. But a 27% performance boost is insane.
Yeah, but they've still got way further to go of course. It still isn't up to the performance that AMD cards had at launch. I think it's just that it was SO poorly optimized for Nvidia that there were a lot of relatively easy cumulative fixes or adjustments that they hadn't applied.
Todd at Launch: "it's not running bad, you may just need to upgrade your PC"
Well, he was half right and that's not bad for Todd.
I thought Todd said they already optimized their game 😅
Since you asked, my thoughts on Starfield -- The bad: not enough variation in random structures (this is a big one), not enough variety of flora and fauna (both types and names are repeated a lot), the nature of the game requiring a lot of fast travel breaks what many loved about past titles from Bethesda. The good: planetary terrain feels varied and natural, variation in theme from planet to planet and biome to biome is good, overall look of the worlds is quite good with some beautiful scenery, individual objects have pretty good detail. Some reviewers complain about walled gardens of the landing sites, but I dismiss that as I pretty much never run into zone edges in normal play even when exploring around a lot. Overall I feel the game is good but not great, should probably be about 20% cheaper to buy. Performance on 13600k with 7800 xt at 1440p native has been fine for me, not high refresh, but only got choppy on a couple of worlds; I don't watch it constantly, but frame rate tends to be about 60 fps.
Given the size of the maps, I'm suprised so many reviewers still complain about it. I feel like many of the people complaining just didn't like the concept before they even played the game, and refused to look at it objectively by the time they did. Or they are just bandwagoning for clicks because the game had so much hype. I was seriously suprised by the size of the playable map at any given landing site. It's almost big enough so that modders could mod in planets where the landing sites contain large chunks of TES and Fallout maps depending on where you land.
Nice work here! I always lol at you flying around the screen as a mouse pointer 🤣🤣
"We did optimize the game!" - Todd
Great update/breakdown Daniel. I've been playing Starfield since launch on a 10900/3090 system(380hrs as of now). I am now using the beta patch at 3440x1440 and I can run on default high settings with DLSS on quality setting and I have my system locked at 60fps...I've played for about 10 hours on the beta and not seen it dip below the 60fps once, and my power supply is showing about 90 watts less usage in areas like Akila and New Atlantis.
Fellow ultrawide user
Upgrade to play this shat old @ss engine with no fcking reason to be so heavy, except for help duopoly to sell gpu and cpus. M0r0n.
Running through the same section as Daniel, I'm getting around 98 fps on a 7900xtx with 7700x running ultra settings with no fsr2 at 1440p. GPU utilization is around 99% and my cpu utilization is around 89%. Was getting only 80fps before the patch update with same settings so that's an improvement for me. Although CPU utilization seems rather high.
Imagine playing at 1440p rofl
@@winslowpippleton7157 imagine caring so much about what resolution other people play at.
I'm getting 130fps in 4k, 8k shadows on a 7900xtx with the new FMF preview drivers in the same area Daniel tested at. The new preview drivers are no joke, image quality has been improved substantially there is no artifacting and very minimal screen tearing unlike Nvidia's frame gen. I only have a video in 4k 110% resolution scaling/8k shadows uploaded atm. I'll upload one at default settings to compare to Daniel's benchmark.
Love The Video The Style of Moving yourself aroud the screen to explain things is really helpful and i wished more youtubers did this
double the daniel flying around?!? Is this the future??
Maybe it's those "fake frames" people keep talking about? 🤔
Nvidia: gaining performance that should have been at launch
AMD: slight performance bump
Intel: it launches
Kinda weird to me how a AMD sponsored title gets DLSS with FG support before FSR 3.
Because FSR3 wasn't even available from AMD until the end of September. FSR2 is all they had to work with. DLSS with FG has been around for a while.
I did perform some extensive testing.
My system is as follows:
Ryzen 9 5950x PBO = on
32GB 3733MT/s
RX 7900XTX Nitro Plus with 1% under volt and 4% memory OC.
I tested Akila City at 4K Ultra FSR= off Anti-Lag=on Enhanced Sync=on,
Previous patch= 48fps, 1% lows 32 fps
Beta patch: 61fps, 1% lows 45fps
Bethesda is correct when they say higher end cards benefit more
Yeah I have the same cpu I have 7900 xtx tuf gaming and in 1440 FSR 66% I get up to 100 and my lows were in the 70s it’s pretty crazy
Dude! 😂 When you're moving yourself around so you finger is pointing at the performance gain percentages on the 4060 Ti, looks like a Monty Python animation! Looked hilarious 🤣
Bro I didn’t even notice the thumbnail at first, I just immediately clicked on the video.. read the first comment, and then went back to see what the thumbnail looked like. It’s funny ash
Lol that thumbnail is definitely RUclips thumbnail of the year winner
you are very good at explaining things, context that some may understand isnt simply implied you explain everything very in depth. things i dont even think of having been following these things for awhile are explained with such clarity i literally could not have put it better myself, i love your content
i can't differentiate who is real in thumbnail 😂😂
Great video as usual. One thing I don't understand though...you say that the Game was initially CPU limited, but I never saw that. I doubt I ever had my CPU go beyond 5% load in this Game...🤔
Thanks Daniel. I was looking for this video from you.
Now this man is having too much fun making videos!! Lol
i love your content. youre rly refreshing in the hardware/software community
That thumbnail 😂. Phenomenal stuff 👏. A fine video also.
It looks so much better now with HDR and DLSS has really smoothed it out.
still not even close to real next gen titles.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat I wouldn't argue with you on that. Still, my biggest problem is how horrible the main storyline was the further I got into it.
I'M SO HAPPY!
I can finally play this game comfortably. I could hardly manage steady 40 fps in New Atlantis, which came with ALOT of stuttering and tearing, where as now I get 50 to 60 fps with little to no stuttering or tearing.
I run a 3070 and i7-10700 CPU with settings at mostly high and was getting terrible performance in city type areas, where as now with the dlss update, I have almost no issues with almost a 60 fps constant. This is how the game should have ran from the start.
I have restarted the game, I had previously logged almost 80 hours, even with the issues I wanted to play it so badly. I am so relieved I can fully immerse myself and enjoy this game.
All time best RUclips thumbnail
I love how this is a Microsoft first-party game, yet Steam gets access to "beta" updates before M$ does.
It's almost as if no one plays it on the xbox app on PC or something
Still running mostly on Windows PC's
in the PC market Steam has the majority share so it's a logical choice. since more people have steam instead of game pass on PC. also Game pass on PC isnt very friendly with Mods
I get what you mean but it doesnt matter. MS WILL get the Money regardless. So in their Mind… (Bethesda) it doesnt matter and in MS Mind… it doesnt either as long as it makes predictable Money.
Thats my Guess at least. For now.
Because the MS Store is garbage and no one would play on it if they could ?
the thumbnail is just lit 🔥😂
The BEST video thumbnail on RUclips.
I have a 7900 xtx and 7700x and got around 20% improvement. It is an upgraded experience depending on the cards. I am aiming to buy a 7800x3d, but I suspect the margin will increase with a better cpu, since it seems cpu focus improvements.
Maybe wait for zen 5. 7700x will hold you over
I have a 3070 and r5 7600, I used to play on medium settings and got mid 70 fps. I now play on ultra settings, balanced dlss, and get mid 70s outside of cities and high 60s in cities
I would watch this video for the thumbnail if I didn't know this channel. (I'm commenting before watching, so I hope it's good news.)
Never had any issues on a 4070ti (shocker)
Stopped playing after about 50 hours because it feels like a regression in almost every aspect besides combat.
50 hrs is a lot of time
@@winslowpippleton7157 Is that so, because everyone else seems to think that "50 hours isn't enough time to know if you don't like it".
No amount of time is every long enough / short enough for fanboys to accept negative opinions of their games.
@@winslowpippleton7157 it's called 'hoping you'll find the magic.' Beth games are huge, so you keep playing in hopes you'll find something worthwhile.
@@winslowpippleton7157 it depends, it feels like 50 mediocre hours in which you were just mildly engaging with the game and it pads out a lot of downtime between actual quests with pointless travel, clunk and a fuckton of menus.
Stopped playing after 23 hours. Just gonna let it sit in my library until the mods fix some of the issues I have with the core design. I honestly think 1000 planets with most of them being cookie cutter cut and paste locations was the wrong direction to go. There's only so many times I'm willing to go through the exact same bases with the exact same enemies.
As somebody who's been playing and modding Bethesda Games Studios (not "Bethesda" there's a difference) games for longer than I can honestly remember there's one thing I've learned: never buy a BGS game at launch. It's not he fault of the engine, it's the studio. They simply don't do comprehensive testing, or they just don't listen to the testers. Considering that the games are so flexible in allowing a player to make them whatever the player wants I honestly don't mind this. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, and Fallout 4 are all games that I and countless people will still be playing for many, many years because they function as a platform for customization. Outside of Oblivion and FNV, none of those games have impressive stories. None of them have impressive graphics, even for the time they were released. They were ALL, essentially, broken at release. Starfeild, honestly, is the most optimized BGS game on release I've seen.
I'll play the base game, but I care more about it being moddable and customizable. That's what will have people playing this game for the next fifteen to twenty years. Sorry console people :P
Great results on my rig with the 1.8.84 (!).
1.8.83 wasn't all that great and heated up my GPU ridiculously !
But now with the 1.8.84... wow ! The game looks great, runs great, and is waaaay less heavy on the GPU. Me = happy !!
My rig:
i7 12700k, Asus ROG Strix RTX 3090 OC, Asus Z690 -a WiFi DDR5, 32GB (2x16GB) @5600 OC, 980 Pro M2. 2TB, 1TB and 500GB
Intel Arc results confirm that Creation Engine engine internally runs DX9.
Nice. I downloaded this again after weeks, and fired it up. I previously played for about 30 hours using puredark's DLSS and frame gen mod. It was good, but would crash sometimes.
My initial impressions on an RTX 4080, running around in new atlantis - the FPS gains are real! At least 10-15 for me. But it's also kinda weird. DLAA looks awesome, far superior to blurry FSR and even DLSS quality. But for some reason it seems to run BETTER than DLSS quality for me. I have never seen that before...and it makes no sense. I'm also liking the new contrast setting. It improves the visuals noticeably. Certain people walking by are still crazy and googley eyed though. So I'm not sure what they fixed about it.
I force on vsync in nvidia control panel, because I can't stand tearing. Frame gen in this game seems to have a much more noticeable input delay than any other game I've tried it on. Even with low latency mode on ultra. UNLESS I use a trick I've learned - manually setting my max FPS to *3 below* my monitor's refresh rate, in nvidia control panel. So 117 for me. Instantly the input delay drops to like 40-50ms, very tolerable. Frame gen and DLAA feels and looks so good!
Best thumbnail in all of time!
I got about 6fps extra (medium,2060 super) in my New Atlantis torture test spot & another 10fps from DLSS Quality. Might finally start playing for real now.
DLAA + Frame gen with an rtx 4070. I have never seen new atlantis look so crisp. Really happy with the progress
10900k & RTX 3080 TI now I get 4k60 locked at ultra. Crowd density was the setting that hit hardest before the patch. Before this patch I couldnt get 4k60 at high with crowd density at medium. DLSS is a big performance boost. FSR did little but hit the graphics quality hard. This game was tuned for console performance which is AMD hardware.
Game changer for me as I have a 3070 and always play at 4K DLSS Balance. I tested this with Digital Foundry optimized settings and it is much better.
This is a good patch, significant improvements for sure. You could always say it should have lunched liked that but id did not and reality check: not all devs are able to fix their mess quickly when you look back at Cyberpunk, Jedi Survivor, The Last of Us Part 1, Gotham Knights, etc.
That thumbnail was amazing
I'm glad you continue to review their updates. I'm holding off on buying the game until sometime in the summer of 2024, but if much of the reported gameplay doesn't improve by then I'll just get it on gamepass. Planning on a new PC build around that time, too, and your videos are very helpful.
Darn no testing the eyes? 😂 Just kidding great video as always.
Thanks for the info Daniel.
Running around New Atlantis on a 4090 with 12700KF I get now on the beta:
Starfield.exe benchmark completed, 15115 frames rendered in 158.344 s
Average framerate : 95.4 FPS
Minimum framerate : 75.5 FPS
Maximum framerate : 126.8 FPS
1% low framerate : 65.8 FPS
That's at 3440x1440, Ultra settings, DRS off, VRS off, Motion blur off, DLSS set to DLAA, so more demanding than native res.
Previously I was using the integrated DLSS mod which gives frame gen etc and could only get around 85fps max in New Atlantis in the same area outside with the average being about 75fps. This is a massive improvement on high end GPUs. The CPU usage is still silly high at 74% utilised package with 3 P cores at 80% just moving around New Atlantis, but the fps is actually what it should be now so this is good.
I am not using Frame Gen by the way. This is all just DLAA.
That thumbnail has to in the conversation of mans greatest achievements
😂😂😂
Now imagine they didn't launch the game with an upscaler crutch (and baked into the presets), and had to do these optimizations (and more) right out of the gate at launch.
It's quite what you should have expected though. I think they knew from start why NVIDIA was underperforming but just intentionally didn't touch it.
It's in the contract with AMD to make Nvidia perform as poorly as possible for 3 months, after that Bethesda can do as they please, meaning optimize for Nvidia and add DLSS+FG
I just wanna get 60+ FPS on my pc on minimum settings outdoors on my 1000 euro pc, that's all
Seems like Todd just upgraded our PC!
daniel you are working too hard thanks for the all the effort
Thoughts on the game... All games need better testing before release.
I think those other games you listed: Alan Wake 2, BG3, and Phantom Liberty are all better experiences than most of what you'd find on Starfield imo. So if I were you I would focus on those and leave Starfield for another decade.
Great vid, i just wished you tested more cpus since it might be a bigger problem for most people imo
Still mostly waiting for the FSR3 update
FSR 3 Wont be here until a few weeks and i don't expect it to boost performance by that much maybe if you use their Frame Gen on a 6000 series card
@@Outlawproductions582 starfield is very cpu limited so yeah actually expect to boost performance by that much
Perfect thumbnail!!!
Look at the memory usage difference on the intel cards between patches. I'm glad starfield is performing better and using DLSS. I might buy it now.
So they called AMD in during development of this game because they were going from Vulkan to DirectX 12. Since AMD helped develop Mantle (precursor to Vulkan) and was familiar with DX12, they agreed to help convert the game over and get it working in DX12.
This is why it is an "AMD sponsored" title, and why the game ran so poorly on Nvidia hardware at first. Sure, AMD likely helped get it running on Nvidia HW, but they probably spent more time focusing on their own hardware.
This game was not ready, and calling in AMD was an act of desperation. An early build for Nvidia to make a driver update wasn't withheld until the last minute. It was legitimately not running for crap until that last minute.
They polished what they had and kicked it out the door because it had already delayed the game at least once. That's why settings and basic optimizations are being added in after release. These would be things already in the game if it wasn't released before it was ready.
Nice improvements, I wonder if in the desert there is any difference
best thumbnail so far
"Todd, why did you not optimize your game on PC?"
“Uh, we did,” Howard said while Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer giggled. “It’s running great. It is a next-gen PC game. We really do push the technology, so you may need to upgrade your PC for this game. But it’s got a lot of great stuff going on in it, and the fans are responding awesome.”
So if it was optimized, why does it run substantially better now? 🤔
I think what they meant by next gen is that sometime in the future this game will be fixed by modders.
It certainly can't be refering to game play or graphics. Right ...?
He's partially right. Like the ultra shadows setting killing FPS. It isn't doing that for no reason. Standing on a rooftop in new atlantis, you can see that the shadow distance is insane. Even faint trees and people have shadows, which obviously takes tons of power
@@randomguy-Real talk, what does "next gen gameplay" even mean?
@@kuruptzZz if you check the new benchmarks on RUclips, it's mostly down to increases in CPU performance and MASSIVE GPU increase in performance (up to 55% on 7900XTX!!) - which means the game was, for the lack of a better term, unoptimized at launch and is better optimized now. And can be even better... Which means 40fps and perhaps even 60fps with adjusted settings on XSX could be possible, if those clowns at Bethesda and that smirky lying turd weren't bullshitting his loyal fan base that the "game is next gen and is optimized". There is nothing in that game that is next-gen, absolutely nothing at all. If it was released in 2016, it could have been compared to DOOM and no one would argue. I'd say even DOOM has better lighting and more geometric detail than that game. They are just lazy complacent developers lead by a spineless shrewd businessman who lost touch with reality. You'd have to be blind to call that game beautiful or worthy to be compared to the contemporary truly next-gen games of 2023. I'm not saying you are saying that, but there are people like that.
Do you think optimized is just a switch that they forgot to flip when compiling the game or something? It's a process that never ends, you can always optimize a game more.
That suck for Intel owners. I have a system with an A770 16gb that runs every other graphically demanding game (that i have tried) at 1440p, 60fps, high/ultra settings. It couldnt even do 30fps in starfield at 1080p. Something weird is definitely going on.
Thumbs up for the content!... Too soon?!
great for those who havent played but for those who already completed it, this is BS. we need dlss on day one.
Nice about the beta for Starfield, gives me something to play with today on the Intel Arc A 770, the mods had XeSS and Starfield needs to add that also, as sometimes XeSS looks better than FSR on even AMD.
Love the thumbnail! LOL
Happy about that. Will wait for the normal patch.
At the start of Starfield sales, I suspected that the game was intentionally optimized by developers exclusively for AMD cards, and now there is evidence to support this claim. The patch practically did not increase FPS for the red cards, but for the green ones, it provided a significant performance boost of +20%. Without a doubt, AMD paid developers to intentionally slow down Nvidia cards in this game at launch to showcase their own cards in a better light.
A small stretch to say they were paid to kneecap Nvidia (though it does seem like they paid for no DLSS support on launch) but team green definitely got shafted on this game
I bet they got AMD to help fix their code so the game could be released on console. Then just released it on PC.
its great to see your face jumping from left to right and back in your video.
why should i be interested in whats going on on the screen when i can have a look at your face.
This isn't full DLSS implementation, so we shouldn't review it like it is. I'll wait until it's out of beta, and has the invidia driver update that will come with its full implementation.
It was quite obvious that this beta patch breaks something with Intel's frame pacing. The graph was notably more jagged.
Looks like there was typical marketing "handshakes"w/Bethesda and AMD given how nerfed the nvidia cards were at launch. Also considering how many variations of AMD cards were throwing Starfield at u in bundles😂. Good old pusha man moves to sell products that need to sell
I definitely had a perf boost on my 7900xtx and stopped having(mostly) the driver timeout issue.
Love the thumbnail
Please do RTX 3070 old/new patch comparison. It seems that the improvement is just for 40 gen cards.
It's pretty clear now that early buyers are "beta-testers" for unfinished games...
Been that way for years tbh.
There's a new update on the beta patch, and it seems like performance seems to be better. So, it's not just my imagination?
Idk why, but I went down like 10fps on my 4070Ti. I was using the DLSS mod beforehand. I kinda wonder if the DLSS mod ran better than the official implementation lol
yeah on my ryzen 5500 and rx 6650xt with this beta its a lot smoother still got problems like the games in alpha but otherwise i can comfortably play this game that's so big yet not dense. BTW they just released another patch 1.8.84 so might have to check that out.
That thumbnail is a Menace.
AMD 5600, Sapphire RX7600oc 8GB, Corsair 64GB DDR4 3200MHz, Gigabyte B550 gmaing X v2. Starfield 145.5 FPS AVG 1080p. Hyper RX on, V sync on, FSR on 75% upscale. Base game. Ultra settings i have easy 60 fps. Oh beta driver.
RIP to he death stares the NPCs used to give you
Starfield is great 2012 game xD
3070 Ti and 4060 Ti same price tag here. which one should i grab?
your thumbnail is Alan Wake 2! lulz
I love when people use percent as a thing like it's super crazy because I guess big number means something.
What I get is on average you get with Nvidia 10-13 more fps which should have been a normal thing if they cared to do this at launch. That isn't that crazy.
the is a mod that fixes the freaky face issue with the random NPC's for me running a r7 3700x and 6700xt with 32gb ram i've seen very minimal impact in FPS and a massive reduction in nightmares from the old NPC's lol
quick answer. No. Long answer. No. From - Person who has an "average person"pc, not an "internet average person" pc....an actual "average person" pc. Games have looked far better, with far more things going on, whilist running far better. I mean i was playing no mans sky the other day, you know what revolutionary thing i did? I got in my ship, took off, flew into space and just flew around. Meanwhile, over on the starfield side of depression, I had to jump to the quest objective, loading screen, then figure out why it put me in space, instead of just putting me at the quest objective, at which point the only option is to literally open the same menu (because the actual space part of the game is just some wierd mid jounrney waiting room with a couple random ships flying around), click the same quest, click "jump to objective" again, sit in a loading screen, and now im finally on the planet, after another quick loading screen out of my ship. So i can walk in 40fps through a completely washed out image quality despite being as dark as hell to try and figure out some half decent gamma/brightness that actually fixes how the game looks. I'm done waiting for this $200 million game to actually be finished and playable. I dont mean "playable" like "that" i mean playable as in "i actually want to play it". All the downsides of this steaming pile of junk absolutely swamp any positives (iv yet to find any yet, but ill give them the benifit of the doubt and say there must be some somewhere)
I can say I used AMDs Fluid motion Frame on this game in the beta drivers. When I went to newer official drivers that didn't include it I missed the Frame gen parts. It does work well for a single player slow paced game like thisi was going from min 57 fps to 70fps fps. With FMF was 80 to 120 fps avg 100 fps So Frame Gen will be great for Nvidia users in this game I bet