ChoosableOne
ChoosableAll
Perhaps if you hadn't placed a piece of paper we could interact with in every cupboard, this wouldn't have happened.
It's not performs that bad though.
It's not performs that bad though.
Todd Howard says Starfield is already optimized "You might need to upgrade your PC."
GHG
Gold Member
I'd say the only things out there comparable to Noita are Teardown and Instruments of Destruction:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
No, its a 'Get a next gen console' thing that we have been doing for the last 40 years every 5-7 years. This is literally the 9th generation. We have been here 8 times before.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
nowhat
Member
No, but there's a flashlight mod:
Let the light of Todd guide your way.
GymWolf
Member
Comparable but still way inferior, noita simulate every damn pixel on screen so everything is single-pixel precise, from destruction to gore to everything like getting a single pixel of blood on your robe, shit you don't even need that level of precision in a vg.
and on top of that, it has like 3x times the number of elements\materials interaction that zelda has.
But that instruments of destruction look super cool.
Last edited:
brian0057
Banned
The day minutiae like resolution and graphical fidelity make not wanna play a game is the day I quit the medium altogether.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
lol exactly. People bought $1649-2000 4090s then paired them up with cheap $300 CPUs that max out at 4.45 Ghz and 65 watts then wonder why their game is bottlenecked. Yes, the 5800x3d was great when they were running games designed on a 1.6 Ghz jaguar CPU from 2010. But everyone who shat on mid range intel CPUs maxing out at 5.0 to 5.1 Ghz consuming over 120 watts is now wondering why those CPUs are running the game better.
This is on those idiots who run PC review channels who continuously played up the AMD power consumption and low cooling requirements over actual performance. hell, it got so bad that i was able to buy intel CPUs at a $100 discount over the equivalent AMD products because everyone wanted the low tdp cooler CPU.
Well, now you are fucked. Still, if you can afford a $1,200 4080 or a $1,650 4090 you should be able to go out there and upgrade to a $400 Ryzen 7800x3d which should give you a massive 40% performance increase over the 5800x3d.
Hell, even AMDs latest $299 CPUs ensure that they dont bottleneck your GPU. I get 98% GPU utilization in every city, town, ship and outdoors and i have a $300 intel CPU from 3 years ago.
Mister Wolf
Member
Nvidia has already provided a way around CPU bottlenecks with Frame Generation. Worked for Potter's bottleneck, worked for Jedi Survivors' bottleneck, and works for this too.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
yeah, the problem is that jedi and this game dont have dlss at launch which renders that feature useless. Nvidia shouldve matched whatever the fuck AMD was offering to remove DLSS support from these games. Doubt it was more than a few million dollars. Nvidia makes billions in profit every quarter, they should be going out there and at least making sure that games ship with DLSS support.
Elysium44
Banned
Hi Todd.
Seriously are you unironically saying the 5800x3D isn't good enough any more. It isn't a 65w CPU either.
The game recommends an AMD Ryzen 5 3600X or Intel i5-10600K.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
i looked at several benchmarks of the game running on a 5800x3d. it stays in the 60 watt range. i saw it jump to 75 watt in one video but it is definitely not like the unlocked kf CPUs from intel that can hit up to 120 watts in cybperunk and starfield.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The reality is that every process costs memory space and bandwidth, so there's an almost "hidden" cost on top of what each process (be it on GPU or CPU) is doing. It'll definitely be interesting to see how Nintendo's engineers work around this, because make no mistake Zelda is extremely well built. I do think Nintendo's visual language helps, but I wonder whether they'll be satisfied with relatively small improvement in detail and complexity just with better frame-rates and resolutions.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
This dude is like the worst parts of John Romero, Ken Kutaragi, Don Mattrick and Peter Molyneux all rolled into one.
Elysium44
Banned
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D Review: 3D V-Cache Powers a New Gaming Champion
96MB of L3 cache goes Brrrr
This is not some budget CPU, nor is it very old.
I have seen the Starfield benchmarks where AMD CPUs are underperforming where you'd expect them to be, versus Intel ones. But it doesn't seem to be the fault of the AMD CPUs, or certainly not that they are power limited I mean.
Last edited:
winjer
Member
Give me a break. Just because the 5800X3D runs not so well in the worst optimized game of the year, doesn't mean it's obsolete.
A game as poorly optimized as Starfield is not an example of the performance of any CPU or even GPU.
The reality is that the 5800X3D still performs very well, better than CPUs from the same generation.
BTW, the 5800X3D is not a 65W part.
Here is more benchmarks with CPUs.
Last edited:
Mister Wolf
Member
Now that Nvidia know we'll just patch it in ourselves they really won't spend the money. I'm not even fussed about it. As long as I get my desired outcome then it's all good. Survivor was a great experience with the unofficial DLSS and Frame Generation mod. They had it up and running for Starfield before the official release haha. Honestly the only game that ever pissed me off on PC is Elden RIng with its shit shader stutters and From's insistence on capping their games to 60fps with the logic of the game breaking if you forcefully unlock it.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Here you go. like i said i checked several videos before i made those comments.Give me a break. Just because the 5800X3D runs not so well in the worst optimized game of the year, doesn't mean it's obsolete.
A game as poorly optimized as Starfield is not an example of the performance of any CPU or even GPU.
The reality is that the 5800X3D still performs very well, better than CPUs from the same generation.
BTW, the 5800X3D is not a 65W part.
Here is more benchmarks with CPUs.
Maybe overclocking gets them to 70s and 80s whereas the kf models on intel cards just go above 100-120 watts no problems.
GymWolf
Member
It depends on how powerfull their next console is, if it's really better than a ps4 with better cpu they can't just release another dlc looking\feeling game.
They need a big step forward.
winjer
Member
And you insist that Starfield is a good example of CPU performance.
Well, here is another poorly optimized game, though not as bad as Starfield.
And look at that. The 5800X3D is the 3rd best CPU ever made. It even beats the 13900K by a good margin.
See, two can play that game.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Still mightily impressive game (visually).
The SSD is there to help brute force load times. Cannot imagine how this game runs off a platter drive.
The more I'm seeing, the less interested I am in giving it a try. And that's with me not paying out of pocket for it; my gaming time is limited these days and I'd rather put it towards surefire fun times. Quite plenty RPGs for me to still catch up with.
But, I'll still give it a shot, just to see some things (and maybe do some comparisons).
The game can look decent at times with some direct light sources like a sun, but without a light source and just using ambient lighting like atlantis at night it can look very flat and dull.
Basically the same problem as Halo Infinite.
Elysium44
Banned
The AMD CPUs are a lot more power efficient so they would rightly use less power to get the same sort of performance, I think that's a red herring here. Look at one of the comments from the first video:
(This page below shows the relative power efficiency of the 13700K versus the 5800X3D.)
Intel Core i7-13700K Review - Great at Gaming and Applications
With the Core i7-13700K, Intel has built a formidable jack-of-all-trades processor. Our review confirms that it offers fantastic application performance, beating the more expensive Ryzen 9 7900X, and in gaming it gets you higher FPS than any AMD processor ever released, delivering an experience...
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Completely different kind of game. Its a turn based top down game with a completely different workload compared to starfield.And you insist that Starfield is a good example of CPU performance.
Well, here is another poorly optimized game, though not as bad as Starfield.
And look at that. The 5800X3D is the 3rd best CPU ever made. It even beats the 13900K by a good margin.
See, two can play that game.
I view games performance with the same lens we have been all year. With games like star wars, gotham knights, immortals and hogwarts that have trash CPU usage. Awful multithreading which was a UE4 feature and somehow has managed to become a bottleneck in UE5 games 10 years later.
I am not seeing that here. Game is utilizing all 16 threads. CPU usage in CPU bound cities is almost 75% which is insane. not even cyberpunk which scales really well with cores and threads goes up that high. i was hitting 75 degrees in games. i hit that in CPU benchmarks. Hell, i honestly dont want it going over that because i dont want my cpu running at 80 degrees for hours.
Could it be improved? sure. but i can only look at the results. the results show properly scaling as you go from last gen intel CPUs to current gen. it shows properly scaling in current gen AMD CPUs. there is no cpu idle time we saw in gotham knights and star wars. the 5800x3d is performing better than every 5000 series CPU so its just an issue with AMDs cpus that were maxing out at 4.45 ghz and did not allow the tdp to go over 100 watts like intel CPUs do.
charles8771
Member
StereoVsn
Gold Member
And at least no Denuvo. So that's another plus.
That said, Todd has brass balls just to BS like that, lol.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
i didnt pay for the starfield dlss mod because fuck paying for mods and the dlss mod for starfield crashed my pc last night so no dice.
i blame this on Microsoft, Nvidia and Bethesda. These are trillion dollar companies begging each other for a few million while getting rich off of their userbase. But thats not on bethesda's engineers.
LordCBH
Member
Not good. Like the frame rate is good on my hardware, but the game hard freezes for seconds at a time every minute or so, and dialogue takes up to 30 seconds to play when you talk to NPCs. Sound jitters and cuts in and out too.
I'm convinced it runs like this on an HDD because they didn't have to bother optimizing it for HDD's since consoles have SSD's now. In terms of what's going on it really doesn't do anything FO4 didn't, and it still has to load when you go to any building or location.
Load times on the HDD aren't bad, except for the initial load.
DeaDPo0L84
Member
As much of a dick answer that it is, I laughed cause the guys pretty much saying "fuck off figure it out on your own". Also I have a 4090+13700k which runs the game great with DLSS 3.0. With that said the game itself has underlying issues, especially if you have too many things in your inventory and switch between weapons with a lot of mods, the fps will drop by 20-30 for a second, same with the scanner. This isn't a hardware issue on the users side, it's something limited by the game's own engine.
I did dump a ton of stuff last night out of my inventory and it *seemed* to fix it, but I didn't test it extensively.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
nah, the 13700k destroys the 5800x3d. 67 vs 99 fps. no idea what this guy is talking about.The AMD CPUs are a lot more power efficient so they would rightly use less power to get the same sort of performance, I think that's a red herring here. Look at one of the comments from the first video:
(This page below shows the relative power efficiency of the 13700K versus the 5800X3D.)
Intel Core i7-13700K Review - Great at Gaming and Applications
With the Core i7-13700K, Intel has built a formidable jack-of-all-trades processor. Our review confirms that it offers fantastic application performance, beating the more expensive Ryzen 9 7900X, and in gaming it gets you higher FPS than any AMD processor ever released, delivering an experience...www.techpowerup.com
GHG
Gold Member
winjer
Member
They are both rendering 3D environments. Just because they use different POVs doesn't mean they are so much different tech.
And being turn based, doesn't mean the game stops rendering 3D environments.
Being multithreaded is not the only way a game has to be optimized.
What does it matter if Starfield can spawn a lot of threads, if then it looks like a PS4 game and runs like a PS3 game.
You have got so much wrong about the 5800X3D, it's quite impressive.
The 5800X3D is a 105W part. And it can use that and a bit more if required.
In games, the 5800X3D is never limited by power constrains. Never.
Games do note require as much power usage as complex apps that hit all cores on a CPU.
That is why in games the 13900K "only" uses 100-120W". But in heavy applications it can go close to 300W.
The game isn't that complex, why are people acting like it is?
DeaDPo0L84
Member
Also, what is next-gen about this game? It's a big game, it has scale but so do a lot of other games. It also like others can look really good at times but then also like absolute dog shit during others. It has next to no AI implementation, no ray tracing, loading screens for nearly everything regardless if you're just leaving your ship, entering a building, etc, archaic NPC interaction where apparently the game can't fit more than one person on screen at a time, space is extremely limited and again requires loading screen transitions to land on planets.
I say all that and I'm still enjoying the game, even look forward to doing so when I'm at work, but nothing I am doing in Starfield has come across as "holy shit I've never seen this or been able to do this before in a videogame!".
I say all that and I'm still enjoying the game, even look forward to doing so when I'm at work, but nothing I am doing in Starfield has come across as "holy shit I've never seen this or been able to do this before in a videogame!".
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Come on dude. the GOW PS3 games were top down games and were a completely different beast from PS4 era games because they could just choose what to load and what not to. i know BG3 lets you go into over the shoulder cam at times but its not even remotely close to what starfield is doing.
And I am sorry but this doesnt look like a PS4 game to me. Yes, its ugly outdoors but indoors its the best looking graphics ive seen all gen.
I stand corrected on the 5800x3d wattage but i did look at benchmarks which show it essentially running like a 65 watt CPU. So i guess this particular CPU isnt hitting its full potential. But if you look at the benchmarks, its the case for all 3000 and 5000 series CPUs so its probably the engine simply preferring higher clocked CPUs and whatever AMD is doing with their 7000 series lineup.
existensmaximum
Member
That wasn't the point.
twilo99
Member
Hopefully Microsoft and Sony get the hint when designing future hardware..
Mister Wolf
Member
They wont. For $500 - 600, you get what you pay for.
winjer
Member
Just because a game is top down view, doesn't mean it stops rendering 3D stuff.
Both games are rendering 3D worlds. With the big diference that open areas in DG3 look good, while Starfield looks like crap, while running like crap.
Yes, Starfield indoors in pretty, but indoors is doesn't hammer the CPU.
No, the 5800X3D it is not power limited in games. It never is.
The limit it hits in games is the clock speed of 4.45 Ghz. Always.
Even in heavy plications it never is power limited. It sooner becomes temperature limited, than power limited.
I know that. I tested it extensively with y-cruncher and Prime95 small FFTs, and with undervolting.
Guess what. I can get higher performance in y-cruncher if I power limit the 5800X3D, tweaking EDC, PPT and TDC.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
For the game to have some of the technical issues and it being a next generation exclusive, minus the gift Series S version, it shows how Bethesda is nowhere near the top studios on a technical or game level. I don't think he may even be lying even in his own eyes but what you see is what you get so be glad that it isn't a complete mess.
Morrie’s wig shop
Banned
I love when Todd rest's his finger on everyone's triggers lol, holy shit.
Ovech-King
Member
There is enough proof in new atlantis that they can do better . Just for one example I found one specific spot (and there is probably many) where i can stand and get 52fps stable (to play around with the resolution scale and make sure i get 60 fps EVERYWHERE ) while everywhere else around or close that spot and the rest of fhe city is between 58-60 on average (limited at 60fps in nvidia control panel )
I'm not eating this statement Todd , no sir!
I'm not eating this statement Todd , no sir!
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Watch Fallout 4 then Starfield. Its a massive upgrade.
Bethesda engines have always been heavy on CPUs. This time around they upgraded their lighting model to be realtime GI so basically what RT and Lumen does but without using RT cores. But a clear step above last gen games. Not a single game i know of used realtime GI. I think some racing games like driveClub and GT7 but thats about it. UE4 had support for it but was pulled after launch.
they need to ditch that engine but there is stuff here that is way beyond what they did last gen and a clear upgrade over games this gen. it just doesnt show all the time because they downgraded the shit out of the open world. probably because they were worried about the backlash even higher performance requirements would cause.
charles8771
Member
Fallout 76 looked very outdated in 2018
Bethesda was never good in technical aspects
alucard0712_rus
Banned
And this is not wrong.
Every open world game runs like shit in cities. It was always like that.
Every open world game runs like shit in cities. It was always like that.
twilo99
Member
Very true, but using such archaic architecture is not ideal for gaming in general.
Microsoft used the same old CPU in a $300 and a $500 console so there is some margin there. I know the GPU is different but that can't be worth $200. Also, get rid of that disk drive!
Sony could've spent that extra margin from the cd drive version on slightly better CPU.