Starfield - Low Vs. Medium Vs. High Vs. Ultra - Graphics and FPS Comparison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Starfield - Low Vs. Medium Vs. High Vs. Ultra - Graphics and FPS Comparison
Gameplay recorded at 1440p
Specs:
RTX 3070 ti
Ryzen 7600
32gb ram
installed on ssd
If you enjoyed this video or it helped you in any way a Like and Comment would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for watching, subscribe for more content like this
this game is more Greyfield than Starfield
low to medium adds more shadows and the game gets moodier, medium to high I could only notice a bit better smearing in the edge of the shadows and high to ultra only really focused on reflections.
overall very impressed at how sharp the textures look even on low (even on far away objects), the performance is very decent as well
The performance is garbage... what is wrong with you people saying that this game runs or looks good?? Tlou looks 10x better and still runs much better than this game. Oh and it is still an unoptimized game.
@@exon576 yes, and no, the requirements are way too high for this quality, cyberpunk looks 2 times better and works 2 time faster, but if you manage reasonable fps, the game runs super smooth, theres no stuttering, slowdowns and such, which is a miracle in 2023 on pc
@@exon576This game follows after cyberpunk and hogwartz legacy with the performance and settings isn't that strange? Is games running like garbage a trend to piss off gamers
@@artistshyanne Idk Why people tend to be so pissed off at game performance at launch
Go see performance on cyberpunk at launch day and compare it to the most recent patch.
Yes developers tend to have more and more pressure from sponsors to release an unfinished and unoptimized title these days but the real ones stick around to smoothen off the sharp edges that feel annoying at launch.
Also, the game will be just as enjoyable as it is now in 10 years. If you are so mad about performance right now wait until technology and software evolves and then come back to it, it’s not that big of a drama. I’d be pretty mad back in the day when my 2Gb 1050 could barely handle skyrim at medium settings. Fast forward some years and I can crank it up in a 30 series card and enjoy it as much as I wish I could in my old gpu
@@exon576 tlou doesn’t even come close to starfield in size and its launch was a pretty big mess as well when it came to performance. Yes it does look amazing but you have to consider the developers in tlou’s case are essentially remastering a 10+ year old title with their only focus being pc.
Starfield not only is a brand new title with a ridiculous scale, but also being released simultaneously on pc and console at the same time. These developers have to not only split resources into different build optimizations for pc and console but also pray to God everything holds together and is still presentable. And considering game launches of late I’d say start field did pretty smoothly. (Not that it can even be compared to tlou since they are essentially different in the way their engine and world work)
Nice video, wich programm do u use to see both temperatures at the same time?
Msi afterburner
AI looks stupid af, but that's a Brethesda game 4 you. They are infamous for that + for many bugs, visual glitches etc. As long as the story is good, I'm good. Skyrim was a shitfest, but the atmosphere, story and characters are legendary even 12 years later.
Performance aside as a RPG game there is alot to like about starfield especially if u enjoyed fallout and elder scrolls
Their games always have great art directions and visual composition and theory, but from a technical and graphical perspective they are always a little short of other games from their respective times.
@@spas6433 This is a much more centered comment than all the hate that is being thrown around in this comment section. Appreciate someone keeping it civil
My 5800X3D + Red Devil 6800XT 16GB OC will CRUSH this game easy. But nvidia wont..
Anyway, people are crying too much rn. Day 1 patch, week 1 + later patches will fix this
I have the exact build but with an xfx merc 6800xt, and this game fluctuates heavily, if youre inside you can reach plus 100 fps, in a major city or settlement, its a lot closer to 60. I play at 1440p High settings btw.
You talk a lot
@@NinjaKiller1233 no
Still not fixed. My 4070ti at high settings still dip under 60 at times and averages around 80. Without fsr it’s about the same 😅 I still don’t understand why it runs terribly for nvidia cards.
@@tosh2613 Well there is your first problem lol. You are using a upscaler that really isn't meant for Nivida cards. Not blaming it on you chief because that is what the game comes with but I do encourage looking into mod that swaps FSR with DLSS (Including DLSS-G which is frame generation) then I promise you the difference is like night and day dude. You will be able to hit those 80 frames with something consistent (maybe even more if you optimize your settings right). It sucks it is this performance heavy but thats why we got mods.
I would say the graphics stay the same throughout the whole entire game, the different settings only change lighting and particle effects
Medium looks really good, the difference from high and then ultra seems to be small. Low sucks lol
the only thing i notice was the contact shadows and shadows in general
Game looks ass on all modes 🤣
@@mrX666-s9p get a life
Played with a gtx 1650 laptop and a core i5 12Gb RAM on medium. 60fps !!!!
On high setting, fps drops to ~45 but it looks great.
WTF?? 1650 laptop medium 60fps? In 720p?
@@patriciombastidas1360p 50% resolution scaling 😂
Even a 4070ti can’t play high 1080 native 60fps without drops