Bad PC or BAD optimization? watch and decide...

[Sethioz]

here's proof that starfield is extremely badly optimized, it requires 4-6x more resources than well optimized games with similar or even better graphics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIc4QK6NpIk

[BEEP!]

Yea the game runs about at half the frame rate of any other game out there like Star Citizen at native resolutions and max settings runs better than Starfield at native resolutions and max settings with no upscaling hell Cyberpunk at max setting and RT on almost max setting runs better than Starfield with a AMD card the RX6800.

[PIT_DEFENDER]

I mean it runs on the Xbox series X, and Todd says change your PC, kill me

[jerrypocalypse]

Seems to run fine on my PC, and it's not even hugely updated (Ryzen 7 2700x and RTX 3070, on mostly high settings)

Few tips to get better performance:
-Make sure all your excess programs/apps aren't running in the background. This affects game performance more than people realize.
-Ensure drivers are updated
-Adjust settings to something sensible. Everything doesn't need to be on ultra, some settings, such as motion blur and ambient occlusion, can be turned off or down to give better fps and are either not noticable or actually make the game look better (motion blur off)
-Turn down resolution. Sure, 4k looks great, but sometimes knocking it down even a single step to 1440 gives a much better visual improvement (smoothness is better than detail) while giving a huge performance increase.
-Look at your CPU. More modern games are becoming CPU heavy, it isn't all about the GPU. For some users, their CPU can easily be bottlenecking their system. This is especially true for Bethesda games and the like. The CPU handles a lot of the scripting and positional data for all the little physics objects.

[Sethioz]

Originally posted by 1080puktra:

Yea the game runs about at half the frame rate of any other game out there like Star Citizen at native resolutions and max settings runs better than Starfield at native resolutions and max settings with no upscaling hell Cyberpunk at max setting and RT on almost max setting runs better than Starfield with a AMD card the RX6800.

ah yeah forgot Cyberpunk. i can run it in 60fps aswell with very acceptable settings (1440p with upscaling). no stuttering even on HDD, but has issues loading HD textures when driving fast for a while.

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

Seems to run fine on my PC.

Few tips to get better performance:
-Make sure all your excess programs/apps aren't running in the background. This affects game performance more than people realize.
-Ensure drivers are updated
-Adjust settings to something sensible. Everything doesn't need to be on ultra, some settings, such as motion blur and ambient occlusion, can be turned off or down to give better fps and are either not noticable or actually make the game look better (motion blur off)
-Turn down resolution. Sure, 4k looks great, but sometimes knocking it down even a single step to 1440 gives a much better visual improvement (smoothness is better than detail) while giving a huge performance increase.
-Look at your CPU. More modern games are becoming CPU heavy, it isn't all about the GPU. For some users, their CPU can easily be bottlenecking their system. This is especially true for Bethesda games and the like. The CPU handles a lot of the scripting and positional data for all the little physics objects.

did you even watch the video? .. you can literally see settings there... DUH. stop jumping the gun and judging if you are missing important facts.

[DtHouse]

Originally posted by Sethioz:

i'm tired of hearing "you have bad pc" when i say that starfield is laggy and extremely badly optimized, so i made side-by-side comparison between Starfield--Far Cry 6--Dying Light 2.
why FC6 and DL2? because they both have similar graphics and are open world with great view distances and similar environment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIc4QK6NpIk

as you can see, FC6 and DL2 have solid 60fps with much higher graphics settings, but that doesn't even matter! because FC6 and DL2 look much better to begin with, i don't know why, but Starfield has muxed it up with some odd color filters that makes it look hidious and washed out. i tried using ReShade, but fixing one thing, will break something else.

anyway you can argue over colors, but Starfield FPS is constantly below 60, always stuttering and lagging and then devs say it MUST be installed on SSD, WHY?
even on SSD it stutters and lags, while FC6 and DL2 run off of 5400rpm (it's slow) HDD without any stuttering.

also FC6 and DL2 haven't given me a single crash, i've played both for at least 150 hours, while Starfield crashes at least 2-3 times during my normal gaming session (3-8 hours).

@Bethesda there really is NO excuse, just stop blaming extremely bad performance on "bad pc" and fix your game.

also don't force people to use win11 or win10 22h2, there really is no reason for that, since operating system is not what renders graphics. if your OS supports DX12, then that's all that matters. in fact there are mods that can make winXP run DX12 aswell. i remember having DX11 on winXP and it ran DX11 games just fine.

oh btw, Starfield is not as "open" world as you think. Try landing in any place on planet and go about 2km+ in one direction (from ship), you will encounter invisible wall and you'll get teleported back with a message that you can't go any further. so you have to open map and "land" in new place.

so starfield is only able to load 4x4km map at once, without the ability to load more as you move forward .. how pathetic is that?

FC6 map is much bigger and it loads it on the fly without stuttering.
DL2 map is probably about same size, but it has MUCH more stuff than Starfield, there are zombies and action all over, yet it loads fine from 5400rpm HDD without stuttering and lag.

BOTTOM LINE: i think FC6 looks much better than Starfield to begin with, flora and animals look much better. animals in Starfield look like cartoon characters, yet it LAGS so bad. so please save your excuses and blame and fix the game. thank you.

This only prove that you don't understand nothing. This game use creation engine 2 (owned and made by bethesda if i remember well) meanwhile the other 2 title use C-Engine and Dunia game engine. You can say whatever you want, but this 3 game will never work the same on same pc. Isn't bad optimizations when you compare 3 different engine on 3 different game, but year of stupidity of "youtubers expert" made this mess. I could say to you that was unoptimized if you used as paragon Fallout 4 or Skyrim that use the old creation engine, but this it's out of the world. No sense at 100%. It's like compare a box of dinamity with a nuclear bomb and say that the box it's was too small.

[EzRyder]

comparing different games is pointless
different games require different tech and specs

then with all that 'comparison' of performance you Neglect to give any specs for a base line comparison so i wont bother watching some rando's video,
i dont care how your pc handles random games when i dont even know what pc you have

this game does have some trouble with certain gpu cards and they may well need to optimize, but hey im getting 40-60fps with an SEVEN YEAR old gtx1070 thats just Under Minimum Spec

so to me optimization seems pretty good, what im getting at is 'optimization' may be connected to what gear you have and they may not be able to make it run perfectly with all systems
cheers and good luck

[Mightylink]

Originally posted by PIT_DEFENDER:

I mean it runs on the Xbox series S, and Todd says change your PC, kill me.

It's cloud only on the Series S, they where never able to get it to run locally.

[RiChuF]

wrong games to do a comparison with

[PIT_DEFENDER]

Originally posted by Mightylink:

Originally posted by PIT_DEFENDER:

I mean it runs on the Xbox series S, and Todd says change your PC, kill me.

It's cloud only on the Series S, they where never able to get it to run locally.

Still series X is a joke of a system like any other console the only reason it runs is because its optimised xD

Let me change that real quick anyways ;p

[Sethioz]

Originally posted by DtHouse:

Originally posted by Sethioz:

i'm tired of hearing "you have bad pc" when i say that starfield is laggy and extremely badly optimized, so i made side-by-side comparison between Starfield--Far Cry 6--Dying Light 2.
why FC6 and DL2? because they both have similar graphics and are open world with great view distances and similar environment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIc4QK6NpIk

as you can see, FC6 and DL2 have solid 60fps with much higher graphics settings, but that doesn't even matter! because FC6 and DL2 look much better to begin with, i don't know why, but Starfield has muxed it up with some odd color filters that makes it look hidious and washed out. i tried using ReShade, but fixing one thing, will break something else.

anyway you can argue over colors, but Starfield FPS is constantly below 60, always stuttering and lagging and then devs say it MUST be installed on SSD, WHY?
even on SSD it stutters and lags, while FC6 and DL2 run off of 5400rpm (it's slow) HDD without any stuttering.

also FC6 and DL2 haven't given me a single crash, i've played both for at least 150 hours, while Starfield crashes at least 2-3 times during my normal gaming session (3-8 hours).

@Bethesda there really is NO excuse, just stop blaming extremely bad performance on "bad pc" and fix your game.

also don't force people to use win11 or win10 22h2, there really is no reason for that, since operating system is not what renders graphics. if your OS supports DX12, then that's all that matters. in fact there are mods that can make winXP run DX12 aswell. i remember having DX11 on winXP and it ran DX11 games just fine.

oh btw, Starfield is not as "open" world as you think. Try landing in any place on planet and go about 2km+ in one direction (from ship), you will encounter invisible wall and you'll get teleported back with a message that you can't go any further. so you have to open map and "land" in new place.

so starfield is only able to load 4x4km map at once, without the ability to load more as you move forward .. how pathetic is that?

FC6 map is much bigger and it loads it on the fly without stuttering.
DL2 map is probably about same size, but it has MUCH more stuff than Starfield, there are zombies and action all over, yet it loads fine from 5400rpm HDD without stuttering and lag.

BOTTOM LINE: i think FC6 looks much better than Starfield to begin with, flora and animals look much better. animals in Starfield look like cartoon characters, yet it LAGS so bad. so please save your excuses and blame and fix the game. thank you.

This only prove that you don't understand nothing. This game use creation engine 2 (owned and made by bethesda if i remember well) meanwhile the other 2 title use C-Engine and Dunia game engine. You can say whatever you want, but this 3 game will never work the same on same pc. Isn't bad optimizations when you compare 3 different engine on 3 different game, but year of stupidity of "youtubers expert" made this mess. I could say to you that was unoptimized if you used as paragon Fallout 4 or Skyrim that use the old creation engine, but this it's out of the world. No sense at 100%. It's like compare a box of dinamity with a nuclear bomb and say that the box it's was too small.

bla bla bla .. typical insulter who doesn't know how computers work.
SO WHAT IS THE POINT of game engine that runs like a donkey?

just jog on ...why do you think it's a good idea to re-invent a wheel?
why don't you put square wheels on your car ;) and then say "but i made it! it's new!"

nobody cares who made it, players want a game that looks nice and runs smooth! nobody cares about who made the game engine or how old/new it is ... all this is irrelevant!

developer's job is to choose proper tools for the job. you're not going to cut a log with a screwdriver, are you? .. or well judging from what you said, you'd do exactly that.

you'd use fork as spoon and spoon as knife

[Sethioz]

Originally posted by Mightylink:

Originally posted by PIT_DEFENDER:

I mean it runs on the Xbox series S, and Todd says change your PC, kill me.

It's cloud only on the Series S, they where never able to get it to run locally.

.. no surprise there. it will only get worse thanks to cloud gaming. devs will soon only make games that only run on super computers, so you're pretty much stuck playing on cloud

[jerrypocalypse]

Originally posted by Sethioz:

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

Seems to run fine on my PC.

Few tips to get better performance:
-Make sure all your excess programs/apps aren't running in the background. This affects game performance more than people realize.
-Ensure drivers are updated
-Adjust settings to something sensible. Everything doesn't need to be on ultra, some settings, such as motion blur and ambient occlusion, can be turned off or down to give better fps and are either not noticable or actually make the game look better (motion blur off)
-Turn down resolution. Sure, 4k looks great, but sometimes knocking it down even a single step to 1440 gives a much better visual improvement (smoothness is better than detail) while giving a huge performance increase.
-Look at your CPU. More modern games are becoming CPU heavy, it isn't all about the GPU. For some users, their CPU can easily be bottlenecking their system. This is especially true for Bethesda games and the like. The CPU handles a lot of the scripting and positional data for all the little physics objects.

did you even watch the video? .. you can literally see settings there... DUH. stop jumping the gun and judging if you are missing important facts.

I'm not judging anything, I was just giving my experience, and some general tips to get better performance.

Perhaps you should stop "jumping the gun"

[DtHouse]

Originally posted by Sethioz:

Originally posted by DtHouse:

This only prove that you don't understand nothing. This game use creation engine 2 (owned and made by bethesda if i remember well) meanwhile the other 2 title use C-Engine and Dunia game engine. You can say whatever you want, but this 3 game will never work the same on same pc. Isn't bad optimizations when you compare 3 different engine on 3 different game, but year of stupidity of "youtubers expert" made this mess. I could say to you that was unoptimized if you used as paragon Fallout 4 or Skyrim that use the old creation engine, but this it's out of the world. No sense at 100%. It's like compare a box of dinamity with a nuclear bomb and say that the box it's was too small.

bla bla bla .. typical insulting child who doesn't know how computers work.
SO WHAT IS THE POINT of game engine that runs like a donkey?

just jog on ...why do you think it's a good idea to re-invent a wheel?
why don't you put square wheels on your car ;) and then say "but i made it! it's new!"

nobody cares who made it, players want a game that looks nice and runs smooth! nobody cares about who made the game engine or how old/new it is ... all this is irrelevant!

developer's job is to choose proper tools for the job. you're not going to cut a log with a screwdriver, are you? .. or well judging from what you said, you'd do exactly that.

you'd use fork as spoon and spoon as knife

And i am the chield? I know how a pc work, probably you aren't. But whatever, you have your opinion and i have mine. Have fun, i don't care whatever you can add. No time to waste with guy that don't want to listen.
Also because i've blocked you, so i can't see anymore xD

[wtiger27]

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

Seems to run fine on my PC, and it's not even hugely updated (Ryzen 7 2700x and RTX 3070, on mostly high settings)

Few tips to get better performance:
-Make sure all your excess programs/apps aren't running in the background. This affects game performance more than people realize.
-Ensure drivers are updated
-Adjust settings to something sensible. Everything doesn't need to be on ultra, some settings, such as motion blur and ambient occlusion, can be turned off or down to give better fps and are either not noticable or actually make the game look better (motion blur off)
-Turn down resolution. Sure, 4k looks great, but sometimes knocking it down even a single step to 1440 gives a much better visual improvement (smoothness is better than detail) while giving a huge performance increase.
-Look at your CPU. More modern games are becoming CPU heavy, it isn't all about the GPU. For some users, their CPU can easily be bottlenecking their system. This is especially true for Bethesda games and the like. The CPU handles a lot of the scripting and positional data for all the little physics objects.

Some good suggestions. I run the game fine at 1080p and the fps capped at 60, like I do for all my games. It is very stable and zones load in like 3 secs. Only one crash in over 160 hrs playing it. Why some would ♥♥♥♥♥ over 3 secs load times is beyond me.

And actually, the npc graphics are better than I originally thought they would be. Esp. the main ones. Very well done with the facial animations. The only exceptions is the static npc's not tied to any quests. They need to improve those. The bugged out eyes esp.

But the game's attention to details when it comes to the world environments and things like the ships, weapons and clothing, is really good. But some people can not see the trees because of the forest. :P

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by Sethioz:

i'm tired of hearing "you have bad pc" when i say that starfield is laggy and extremely badly optimized...

Starfield runs perfectly well on the Steam Deck, so, yeah, "you have bad pc". Sorry.