KaiserBecks
Member
Ryzen 7 3700X, 32gb ram, 3080ti, installed on a regular ssd
3440x1440. ultra settings
Game looks amazing and runs like a charm
3440x1440. ultra settings
Game looks amazing and runs like a charm
Starfield PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter analog_future
- Start date
M1987
Member
What frames are you getting? I'm thinking about not even playing it on mine if it's as bad as the benchmarks
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Yep. People were mocking me when I said I was worried about how well it would run on PC
"Bethesda games run on a potato"
"My 1060 will get 60 fps"
Yeah…you mutherfuckers were dead wrong. I knew once it was limited to 30 fps on XSX that it would struggle on PC.
I have a 7800X3D/4090 and it performs fine with me, especially with the DLSS mod installed at 70% render resolution and I get around 70-90 fps, but I am not remotely close to most users and that sucks.
Last edited:
SF Kosmo
Banned
Yeah that feels a little strange to me, your CPU is on the older side but it's high end for that gen and should be able to keep up.
When you use the DLSS mod, what resolution scale are you using?
Makoto-Yuki
Banned
i guess upgrading to a 7950X3D, 64GB RAM, and a 4080 right before a new Bethesda game was a good choice 
I learned my lesson from Skyrim and Fallout 4. Bethesda games always run like shit. You gotta brute force it and/or mod the living daylights out of it.
I learned my lesson from Skyrim and Fallout 4. Bethesda games always run like shit. You gotta brute force it and/or mod the living daylights out of it.
SF Kosmo
Banned
Apparently not. While Starfield favors AMD GPUs, it seems to like the current gen Intel CPUs over the current Ryzen line up. Also memory speed seems to matter a lot with this one.
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
I thought I was getting crazy, but yeah, this game is stupid demanding for how it looks. I am getting with 2560x1440 through parsec around 60 FPS, maybe little bit more. I thought my HW 7950X3D and 4090 would smash this shit, but apparently not. Sucks because I have here Mac Pro and it allows 120FPS.
It is what it is. Shit engine.
KaiserBecks
Member
I haven't checked but it looks and plays much, much better than on Series X, that much I can say.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
Interesting, saw some early reports that larger cache makes a big difference. I guess you never damn know on PC these days, lol.
Stuart360
Member
I decided to lock it to 30fps with motion blur on medium (i feel like i'm back in my console days lol.
I honestly dont know how people prefer flucturating framerate over a consistent one, even if we are talking 30fps. I was getting anything from like 35-60 (with vsync), and a locked 30fps just looks and feels better to me.
I was also able to put resolution scale to 100, sharpening to 100, and settings to High with a few on Ultra by locking it to 30fps too. Def prefer the consistent framerate and extra graphical flair.
I honestly dont know how people prefer flucturating framerate over a consistent one, even if we are talking 30fps. I was getting anything from like 35-60 (with vsync), and a locked 30fps just looks and feels better to me.
I was also able to put resolution scale to 100, sharpening to 100, and settings to High with a few on Ultra by locking it to 30fps too. Def prefer the consistent framerate and extra graphical flair.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
Tested it on my 4070 with 5800x3d. It runs 90 fps in closed spaces and 50-60 on planet surface. First hour of a game.
High, 4k (default fsr upscaling).
Kenpachii
Member
Was playing on low on my steam deck and was honestly surprised how good looking it was. felt like the game could use a few lower settings still lol. So the change in visuals are absolute minimum from ultra it seems like, hope they add more lower settings into it.
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier
Member
LMAO Starfield doesn't even use RT and it is outperformed on an RDNA2 AMD card with poor RT support by all these games which have RT what is this version of Creation Engine doing??
Stuart360
Member
Best thing to do in these situations is just go to Youtube and search 'Starfield RTX2080'. You dont always get super accurate results as a lot of people dont know how to look after their pc's, but you will get an idea.
Topher
Identifies as young
Isn't it a bit odd to compare games that have been out for a while and have received numerous patches to a game in early access?
roosnam1980
Member
well they have to compare it to other demanding games .
you think the day 1 patch will improve performance for starfield?
Stuart360
Member
Well if you take something like The Last of Us on PC today compared to lauch, its practically like a different game in terms of performance.
Having said that i wouldnt expect any major performance patches for Starfield, i think the engine is just been flogged to its max.
Topher
Identifies as young
Fair enough. Yeah....I really don't know. Would be nice to get a little boost at least, but if not then I'll go ahead and install the DLSS 2 mod. A travesty that DLSS 3 is not there.
Denton
Member
Was watching the HW Unboxed benchmark, in 1080p ultra preset they get 48fps with my 3080 Ti.
Fired up Cyberpunk 2077 to see how it performs in comparison, in most demanding downtown area of Night City:
1080p ultra no RT - 110fps - yes, over twice as fast than Starfield
1080P ultra RT Ultra - 65fps - still 20 fps over Starfield, with RT Ultra!
1080p ultra RT Pathtracing - 35fps - just 13 fps less than Starfield
This is hilarious. And of course Cyberpunk looks much better graphically, even without RT, and takes place in city that's what, 20 times the size of New Atlantis in Starfield?
Since everything in Starfield is segmented into cells separated by loading screens, how the fuck and why the fuck is it so demanding? Keeping count of dropped sandwiches can't be that difficult.
Fired up Cyberpunk 2077 to see how it performs in comparison, in most demanding downtown area of Night City:
1080p ultra no RT - 110fps - yes, over twice as fast than Starfield
1080P ultra RT Ultra - 65fps - still 20 fps over Starfield, with RT Ultra!
1080p ultra RT Pathtracing - 35fps - just 13 fps less than Starfield
This is hilarious. And of course Cyberpunk looks much better graphically, even without RT, and takes place in city that's what, 20 times the size of New Atlantis in Starfield?
Since everything in Starfield is segmented into cells separated by loading screens, how the fuck and why the fuck is it so demanding? Keeping count of dropped sandwiches can't be that difficult.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
I doubt it will be much more than 40fps, so I would suggest 30 or 40fps lock (dependig on screen refresh rate).
you might want to double check it's actually running at the advertised speed because a lot of the time unless you configure an XMP profile in the BIOS it will run at the default non XMP speed.
in my cases with my past 2 asus motherboards i ran into issues with XMP where it would blue screen windows when i tried to run the ram at full speed even with an XMP profile enabled. iirc i had to manually configure XMP profiles with the voltage and clock speeds instead of using the presets.
"wmic memorychip getspeed" is a handy command you can use to have windows report the actual speed your ram is running. i actually forgot i fixed my XMP issue and was running 5600Mhz but checked the other day and I'm actually running 6400Mhz.
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
Thanks for the heads up but yes, XMP (actually for me it's EXPO as I'm running an AMD chip) is enabled and the RAM is running at full speed.
It's important to check your motherboard model's QVL to see a list of officially supported RAM for XMP/EXPO usage before buying RAM. I'm guessing that's why you ran into issues with XMP in the past; the memory you purchased probably wasn't on your motherboard model's QVL.
Last edited:
it was supported as it's pretty generic (g skill trident rgb 6400) and a widely used motherboard (rog z790-f) but the default motherboard ram profile didn't work and either blue screened windows or did work, but wasn't running the speed it was supposed to. only when i manually edited the voltage and clock speed values to match those listed n the ram sticks did it work.
the reason i bring it up is the situation where it didn't blue screen and was running a slower speed unbeknownst to me. it's possible that just being listed as compatible isn't enough and you can verify that with the wmic command
Last edited:
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
I'll definitely run the command to verify, thanks for the suggestion
SF Kosmo
Banned
VRR/G-Sync helps a lot. That way frame dips don't look as stuttery. The game swings between 60 and 100 fps for me and the difference between those is noticeable but both are smooth and those swings aren't abrupt, it's more like the difference between open and indoor areas.
If you're on a 60Hz screen then yeah a lot of swings in that 30-60 range are gonna look pretty bad, of course (and anything over 60 would be moot).
M1987
Member
That is really bad
SunlitSword
Neo Member
Any chance I can run this at 60fps? I have an
i7 4790k
2070 super
32gb ddr3
and an SSD.
I play at 1080p. Hoping there's no CPU bottleneck
i7 4790k
2070 super
32gb ddr3
and an SSD.
I play at 1080p. Hoping there's no CPU bottleneck
Last edited:
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
4090
13700k
32 gig DDRM5
Haven't seen it drop under 60 fps yet at native 4k
13700k
32 gig DDRM5
Haven't seen it drop under 60 fps yet at native 4k
StereoVsn
Gold Member
Maybe at Medium settings? Watch that Hardware Unboxed video. You will have dips under 60 for sure.
RadioactiveLobster
Member
Running at 67% resolution scale and I think Profile C.
I did change some settings to the Hardware Unboxed Quality settings and it has gotten a bit better for no noticable (to me at least) quality loss.
bbeach123
Member
60fps in some "dungeon" or barren planet maybe , outside of new atlantis 40-50fps at low crowd density . Yea , cpu and ram bottleneck .
Last edited:
SunlitSword
Neo Member
Thanks! I'll hold off until my next upgrade(s).
Bojji
Member
All of those games are without RT here.
No chance, this CPU will keep you around 30fps in npc intensive places (or lower).
SF Kosmo
Banned
Hard CPU bottleneck. You will not get a stable 60, if you can get a stable 30 you you should lock your framerate and count it as a win, since you are way below min spec CPU.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
yamaci17
Member
you will most likely have <30 FPS drops in cities. but most of the time it should to okay with a 30 or 40 FPS lock. practically like Steam Deck (deck users falsely thinks game runs fine in empty regions or spaceship)
winjer
Member
Bethesda lists a 6800K as a minimum. But consider that the 6800K is a Broadwell CPU. This is basically a Haswell architecture with a 14nm process node. Yours is a Skylake.
That CPU has 2 more cores and 4 more threads than yours. But yours has higher clock speed and better IPC.
On a negative side, yours uses slower DDR4, unless you OC.
Your CPU is probably the bare minimum to get around 30 fps.
Elysium44
Banned
The i5-6600K only has four threads, no hyperthreading which at the time was restricted to i7. The 6800K is 6C/12T.
winjer
Member
I forgot the 6600K was just an i5. So 8 thread fewer on the 6600K.
Still, it's probably good enough for 30 fps.
Last edited:
Low Moral Fibre
Member
Tried the DLSS 3 injector and wow that guy deserves his $5. Using DLAA so much better than native quality and hitting 120fps minimum and mostly maxed at the 138fps Reflex caps you at.
Fake frames or not I can't tell thanks to the injected Nvidia Reflex.
Maybe there are some horrible issues in other parts of the game but been playing for hours and had no problems.
Toggling between FSR and DLAA in real time and seeing how much better DLAA looks is honestly embarrassing for AMD.
Fake frames or not I can't tell thanks to the injected Nvidia Reflex.
Maybe there are some horrible issues in other parts of the game but been playing for hours and had no problems.
Toggling between FSR and DLAA in real time and seeing how much better DLAA looks is honestly embarrassing for AMD.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
I played about 5hrs and it worked fine for a few hours, but the more I started fast traveling and going in between loading screens it started to freeze the game and require me to crash out to desktop. I had a 5 freezes and crashes. Disabling the mod either in the menu or using the '*' key allowed me to proceed past those parts, but I can't keep playing like that. DLSS3 also causes issues with distance star clusters you can see from a planet's surface. Especially if they a lot of space gas around the cluster/galaxy. It will flicker a black stencil, maybe from an alpha mask the code is seeing and having trouble dealing with it. I don't know. Unfortunately, I had to give up on the mod. In it's current state it's broken.
Last edited:
Low Moral Fibre
Member
Oh bother. Well that sucks.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
It was great for me up until that started happening. When I used it at first I wasn't doing a bunch of gravity jumps and fast travels all over the place. I would say to keep using it until it crashes. It's possible it will work fine for you. I'm not the only person to experience it. There's a bunch of other users on the Patreon reporting it. It just came out like 24hrs ago, to be fair, but to be fair I also paid 24hrs ago. Maybe on my next playthrough it will be stable. It would be even better if Bethesda implemented it natively, but I don't believe that will ever happen.
Good luck, man! I didn't mean to crap on it. It's awesome when it works.