Todd Howard is a silly guy. "you might need to upgrade your PC"

[Grill]

Today on Bloomsberg Technology, The audience asked Todd Howard "why isn't Starfield optimized for the PC. The silly guy that Todd Howard is says this - "uuhh we did, its 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." I can't believe he had the audacity to say this when the 3000 series cards are barely hitting 60fps on all resolutions and the 4000 cards can't get above 90-100fps. This probably means no patch or optimization any time soon bc you know, it runs soooo well.

Here is the clip of him saying this: https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1699703814209548630?s=19

after seeing these comments It's insane to me that people cannot grasp the idea that just bc it runs great on your rig doesn't mean its running well for every one else. Like its really not that hard to understand and then you guys will also sit there and defend Bethesda for releasing a poorly optimized game that took 8+ years to make. like i truly don't get it man.

[Kofina]

Originally posted by cookie!:

Is this your first Bethesda game? lol

Oh wait you don't own starfield

Imagine thinking you need Steam to own a game.

[RedStarSingularity]

Originally posted by enderbeta:

Originally posted by Ultrabot:

Are you being serious?
He's trying to play a game, not land on the real-life moon, mate. Lol.

The game advertised min/recommend hardware.
The guy in charge says "upgrade your pc".

So we drop 5k on a pc, and we'll be getting "next gen graphics", right?

Rdr2 from near six years ago looks better, plays better.

If he wanted simple then he shouldn't have bought a 5900X. The easy low hassle solution would be to sell the 5900X and buy a 5800X3D. It's only one ccd and with the cache it hardly has to access memory.

A i9-10900K and the i9-11900K both of which paired with a RX 6900XT or RX 6950 XT would run circles around his computer right now. So it isn't because the 5900X is too old. It's because the processor has always had issues. 9 out of 10 times someone on steam complains that a game isn't optimized and running poorly it's someone with a 5900X.

My i9-10900K is doing max ultra no fsr and even in New Atlantis maintaining 90+ average frame rates. The lows are in the 60s.

My 5950X with process lasso (it's an issue with the 5950X too because of the way the scheduler works even with 1900MHz per channel and the fabric at a 1:1 at 50ns latency) will do an average of 130 FPS with a RX 6950 XT and it dips in the 90 FPS range. The 5900X would get close to that if he uses the process lasso program and if he figures out how to tune memory.

But you can always also buy an Xbox Series X and accept 30 FPS. There is no tuning or anything. You just download it and play.

from hardwareunboxed a 5800x3d has hardly any benefit in starfield compared to the non x3d chips.
oh and by the why i have an i9 (10850k so almost 10900k). and i cant get this game stable in certain locations (apart from the whole weapon lag thing)

[Ultrabot]

Originally posted by PuddingGlitch:

Originally posted by enderbeta:

If he wanted simple then he shouldn't have bought a 5900X. The easy low hassle solution would be to sell the 5900X and buy a 5800X3D. It's only one ccd and with the cache it hardly has to access memory.

A i9-10900K and the i9-11900K both of which paired with a RX 6900XT or RX 6950 XT would run circles around his computer right now. So it isn't because the 5900X is too old. It's because the processor has always had issues. 9 out of 10 times someone on steam complains that a game isn't optimized and running poorly it's someone with a 5900X.

My i9-10900K is doing max ultra no fsr and even in New Atlantis maintaining 90+ average frame rates. The lows are in the 60s.

My 5950X with process lasso (it's an issue with the 5950X too because of the way the scheduler works even with 1900MHz per channel and the fabric at a 1:1 at 50ns latency) will do an average of 130 FPS with a RX 6950 XT and it dips in the 90 FPS range. The 5900X would get close to that if he uses the process lasso program and if he figures out how to tune memory.

But you can always also buy an Xbox Series X and accept 30 FPS. There is no tuning or anything. You just download it and play.

from hardwareunboxed a 5800x3d has hardly any benefit in starfield compared to the non x3d chips.
oh and by the why i have an i9 (10850k so almost 10900k). and i cant get this game stable in certain locations (apart from the whole weapon lag thing)

He's suggesting the x3d as it would effectively ignore most mem timing.
This is all irrelevant and unnecessary though, dudes trying to play the game on this setup

Ryzen 9 5900X
Nvidia 3080 ti
RAM 64 GB
All Ultra setting with FSR 2 at
2560x1440.

Above rec specs. He shouldnt need to do much of anything other than run a cleaner and shut down any background tasks, which we'll assume he has considering the volume of poor performance reported.

Also, @1440 the gains of x3d should diminish, but this game is heavy on CPU.
All points to Dev end issue, not user.

[enderbeta]

Originally posted by PuddingGlitch:

Originally posted by enderbeta:

If he wanted simple then he shouldn't have bought a 5900X. The easy low hassle solution would be to sell the 5900X and buy a 5800X3D. It's only one ccd and with the cache it hardly has to access memory.

A i9-10900K and the i9-11900K both of which paired with a RX 6900XT or RX 6950 XT would run circles around his computer right now. So it isn't because the 5900X is too old. It's because the processor has always had issues. 9 out of 10 times someone on steam complains that a game isn't optimized and running poorly it's someone with a 5900X.

My i9-10900K is doing max ultra no fsr and even in New Atlantis maintaining 90+ average frame rates. The lows are in the 60s.

My 5950X with process lasso (it's an issue with the 5950X too because of the way the scheduler works even with 1900MHz per channel and the fabric at a 1:1 at 50ns latency) will do an average of 130 FPS with a RX 6950 XT and it dips in the 90 FPS range. The 5900X would get close to that if he uses the process lasso program and if he figures out how to tune memory.

But you can always also buy an Xbox Series X and accept 30 FPS. There is no tuning or anything. You just download it and play.

from hardwareunboxed a 5800x3d has hardly any benefit in starfield compared to the non x3d chips.
oh and by the why i have an i9 (10850k so almost 10900k). and i cant get this game stable in certain locations (apart from the whole weapon lag thing)

My i9 is perfectly stable. If your having stability issues you should check your event log for hardware error messages to find out what is causing the issue. If you're overclocked you might have to lower your settings because it isn't as stable as you might have thought.

[nicks husband coach]

Originally posted by Grill:

Today on Bloomsberg Technology, The audience asked Todd Howard "why isn't Starfield optimized for the PC. The silly guy that Todd Howard is says this - "uuhh we did, its 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." I can't believe he had the audacity to say this when the 3000 series cards are barely hitting 60fps on all resolutions and the 4000 cards can't get above 90-100fps. This probably means no patch or optimization any time soon bc you know, it runs soooo well.

Here is the clip of him saying this: https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1699703814209548630?s=19

after seeing these comments It's insane to me that people cannot grasp the idea that just bc it runs great on your rig doesn't mean its running well for every one else. Like its really not that hard to understand and then you guys will also sit there and defend Bethesda for releasing a poorly optimized game that took 8+ years to make. like i truly don't get it man.

"how do you throw a party in space, you planet" noam from starfield

[enderbeta]

Originally posted by Ultrabot:

Originally posted by PuddingGlitch:

from hardwareunboxed a 5800x3d has hardly any benefit in starfield compared to the non x3d chips.
oh and by the why i have an i9 (10850k so almost 10900k). and i cant get this game stable in certain locations (apart from the whole weapon lag thing)

He's suggesting the x3d as it would effectively ignore most mem timing.
This is all irrelevant and unnecessary though, dudes trying to play the game on this setup

Ryzen 9 5900X
Nvidia 3080 ti
RAM 64 GB
All Ultra setting with FSR 2 at
2560x1440.

Above rec specs. He shouldnt need to do much of anything other than run a cleaner and shut down any background tasks, which we'll assume he has considering the volume of poor performance reported.

Also, @1440 the gains of x3d should diminish, but this game is heavy on CPU.
All points to Dev end issue, not user.

In the world of building computers sometimes you have to troubleshoot. Having to do so isn't an indictment on the software.

First 64GB is a lot for the memory controller to manage. If he is using all four slots he is going to have a hard time getting the memory up to speed. If it isn't up to speed the fabric is gong to be slow. If the fabric is slow the games are going to be a stuttery mess. That isn't the developers fault. That is his fault.

To make that machine play as expected he needs to put in some work. He needs to get the speed up to 3000MHz with as low of latency as possible with a 1:1 ratio. If he can get faster so much the better.

Then he needs to keep the game running on the first ccu because it is the better of the two. That will minimize running into hardware related slow down.

Then and only then can he complain that the software isn't running well with any legs to stand on.

If he moves to a 5800X3D the memory speed won't matter nearly as much and there will be no need for process lasso. There is less effort in eliminating the issues without needing a whole new machine.

[kyro]

Originally posted by IronSquid501:

My 4090 runs it literally perfectly on max graphics

Yes, but in 4k it only runs at around 80-100fps with the dlss 3 mod... the scripts and ♥♥♥♥ that runs on the cpu are the problem i think. This game will only use 4 cores or so i think. I've got a 5900x with 12Cores/24threads... and its not running that nice. And the dlss 3 mod causes crashes for me too. Its definetly not optimized and its NOT a next Gen game... the graphics is not bad, but next gen is more like that unreal engine 5 stuff.

[tonechild]

Originally posted by kyro:

Originally posted by IronSquid501:

My 4090 runs it literally perfectly on max graphics

Yes, but in 4k it only runs at around 80-100fps with the dlss 3 mod... the scripts and ♥♥♥♥ that runs on the cpu are the problem i think. This game will only use 4 cores or so i think. I've got a 5900x with 12Cores/24threads... and its not running that nice. And the dlss 3 mod causes crashes for me too. Its definetly not optimized and its NOT a next Gen game... the graphics is not bad, but next gen is more like that unreal engine 5 stuff.

with 1440p, I have a 4090, i9 13k, and game runs ~100 fps with some dips here and there. cp2077 I get like 170fps most of the time.

I haven't tried the mod yet, was concerned it might cause crashes - do you still use it or did you uninstall? How frequent are the crashes?

[Langkard]

Originally posted by Grill:

Today on Bloomsberg Technology, The audience asked Todd Howard "why isn't Starfield optimized for the PC. The silly guy that Todd Howard is says this - "uuhh we did, its 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." I can't believe he had the audacity to say this when the 3000 series cards are barely hitting 60fps on all resolutions and the 4000 cards can't get above 90-100fps. This probably means no patch or optimization any time soon bc you know, it runs soooo well.

Here is the clip of him saying this: https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1699703814209548630?s=19

after seeing these comments It's insane to me that people cannot grasp the idea that just bc it runs great on your rig doesn't mean its running well for every one else. Like its really not that hard to understand and then you guys will also sit there and defend Bethesda for releasing a poorly optimized game that took 8+ years to make. like i truly don't get it man.

I know, right? I am deeply annoyed that Todd and Bethesda don't respect my right to play all of the newest games on my Commodore PET. It's outrageous!

[Avy]

Yea NEXT GEN ai targeting only your ship middle loading screen flying 7 hours to planet and find out it don't exist simulator

[Beelzebob]

It's optimized just fine, please ♥♥♥♥ off now it is getting old.

[Grill]

Originally posted by BobbyD:

It's optimized just fine, please ♥♥♥♥ off now it is getting old.

It's literally not keep coping tho

[SpiraTech]

Originally posted by BobbyD:

It's optimized just fine, please ♥♥♥♥ off now it is getting old.

ahahahaha

[cdarklock]

Originally posted by Grill:

I can't believe he had the audacity to say this

What, "We really do push the technology?"

That's what it looks like when you push the technology of a graphics card, you get low framerates.

[enderbeta]

Originally posted by Grill:

Originally posted by BobbyD:

It's optimized just fine, please ♥♥♥♥ off now it is getting old.

It's literally not keep coping tho

It's running adequately on a machine with a four year old CPU/memory and a nearly three year old GPU. No need to cope on my end as the game plays great.