Starfield bad optimized? yes or no?

[GMCasper]

ok I run the game on an rtx 3060 and I can run it at 40-50 fps on low graphics which is ok but how can it run so bad I can run cyberpunk 2077 better than this game? and even if I use mod, it just doesn't give that much more fps bost?

I myself love the game with a good story and ok graphics, but I really hope there will be an update that can fix the game

Anyone else having the same problems?

[Padds]

Originally posted by Quill:

It's not bad

Game is just not built for Nvidia

Starfield was built from the ground up with AMD tech as AMD made a deal with Bethesda to have AMD tech like FSR2 in Starfield and not any Nvidia tech

And gamers of today aren't used to that

If you use an AMD card you'll see a performance boost

the creation engine is a is a forked branch of the gamebryo engine that was initially laid down in 1997, id has incorporated the mantle API which of course was originally AMD tech, and from what i have read and heard on podcasts, it sounds like AMD working on the engine is the only reason anyone is able to run this nightmare. sure they have added. revised and modified this heavily ,

But there is no getting away from the fact this Game engine dates back to the last century. the ceilings on its performance are going to be compromised.


it is poorly optimised for NVidia purely because of nvidia, they have not done the drivers yet.

the game ready drivers fixed a few stability issues and featured NO performance improvements.

they also did not get DLSS incorporated into it as the request for budget to do so was refused. i think people need to be very interested on what level of support Nvidia is going to give the graphics department moving forward as it appears to me that they are very heavily divesting towards becoming AI . and if you look at the money generated, graphics is definitely the third leg.

Nvidia drivers will be updated and be at least as good as AMD's in time and dlss will eventually be officially supported , it is very worrying that for a release of this size it was considered not worth it to have them done at launch.
they let this game launch in a state where the 7900xtx comfortably beat the 4090 that has to be a warning bell for anyone with nvidia cards or considering purchasing one.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by Will:

Runs great on my GTX 1660 on medium settings. I lock the frame rate to 30 (it never goes under) and just get on with playing the game.

Yea, same experience here, can even turn some settings to high and still have stable 30 fps without any dipping.

Honestly, I don't notice much of a difference between 30 or 60 fps anyway, but what you do notice is weird fluctuations.

[GrandTickler]

yes, worst pc optimization in the last decade

[⎛⎝Duckers McQuack⎠⎞]

Originally posted by Quill:

It's not bad

Game is just not built for Nvidia

Starfield was built from the ground up with AMD tech as AMD made a deal with Bethesda to have AMD tech like FSR2 in Starfield and not any Nvidia tech

And gamers of today aren't used to that

If you use an AMD card you'll see a performance boost

Nor for amd, as amd cpu's performs quite bad in this game vs intel. And i have a 5900x and game doesn't properly utilize that cpu.

[patrick68794]

Originally posted by Padds:

Originally posted by Quill:

It's not bad

Game is just not built for Nvidia

Starfield was built from the ground up with AMD tech as AMD made a deal with Bethesda to have AMD tech like FSR2 in Starfield and not any Nvidia tech

And gamers of today aren't used to that

If you use an AMD card you'll see a performance boost

the creation engine is a is a forked branch of the gamebryo engine that was initially laid down in 1997, id has incorporated the mantle API which of course was originally AMD tech, and from what i have read and heard on podcasts, it sounds like AMD working on the engine is the only reason anyone is able to run this nightmare. sure they have added. revised and modified this heavily ,

But there is no getting away from the fact this Game engine dates back to the last century. the ceilings on its performance are going to be compromised.


it is poorly optimised for NVidia purely because of nvidia, they have not done the drivers yet.

the game ready drivers fixed a few stability issues and featured NO performance improvements.

they also did not get DLSS incorporated into it as the request for budget to do so was refused. i think people need to be very interested on what level of support Nvidia is going to give the graphics department moving forward as it appears to me that they are very heavily divesting towards becoming AI . and if you look at the money generated, graphics is definitely the third leg.

Nvidia drivers will be updated and be at least as good as AMD's in time and dlss will eventually be officially supported , it is very worrying that for a release of this size it was considered not worth it to have them done at launch.
they let this game launch in a state where the 7900xtx comfortably beat the 4090 that has to be a warning bell for anyone with nvidia cards or considering purchasing one.

Almost every engine in use today is 20+ years old. Don't talk about things you don't know anything about and don't spread false information.

[patrick68794]

Originally posted by GrandTickler:

yes, worst pc optimization in the last decade

Lol absolutely not. Both Remnant 2 and Immortals of Aveum are far worse and both released this year.

[Cyg]

The game is badly optimised but many people are also ignorant because they use outdated low budget hardware such as an RTX 3060 or even worse.

[GrandTickler]

Originally posted by patrick68794:

Originally posted by GrandTickler:

yes, worst pc optimization in the last decade

Lol absolutely not. Both Remnant 2 and Immortals of Aveum are far worse and both released this year.

looks like remnant 2 hits around 55 fps with 1440p medium DLSS P on rtx3060. thats still better than starfield which hits 40fps in some locations at 50% renderscale like akila city on LOW

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by Padds:

they also did not get DLSS incorporated into it as the request for budget to do so was refused. i think people need to be very interested on what level of support Nvidia is going to give the graophics department moving forward as it appears to me that they are very heavily divesting towards becoming AI . and if you look at the money generated, graphics is definitely the third leg.

Nvidia drivers will be updated and be at least as good as AMD's in time and dlss will eventually p be officially supported , it is very worrying that for a release of this size it was considered not worth it to have them done at launch.
they let this game launch in a state where the 7900xtx comfortably beat the 4090 that has to be a warning bell for anyone with nvidia cards or considering purchasing one.

Nvidia tends to bank on the idea that studios have to support their hardware regardless of them chipping in.

Pea counters at the studios figure out that the console market is large enough to just ignore Nvidia if they are being stubborn, and AMD laughs.

All that in addition to Nvidia clearly sleeping instead of getting their drivers ready for the release.

Next GPU is going to be AMD for sure, after more than 2 decades of Nvidia.

[Mush]

could be better, not the worst but far from optimized.

[wtiger27]

It plays well on my RTX 3060ti and I7 11700kf at 1080p, Medium settings. Dynamic Resolution, Motion Blur and Depth of field off. FPS are capped at 60. FRS on and Up-scaling resolution set to 80%. Over 80 hrs and not a single crash yet.

[GrandTickler]

Originally posted by Cyg:

The game is badly optimised but many people are also ignorant because they use outdated low budget hardware such as an RTX 3060 or even worse.

the rtx3060 is not outdated lol, just the gtx1060 alone was the most used card on the market for 6 years after its release date. meanwhile the rtx3060 is barely 2 years old. looks like poorly optimized games brainwashed u into thinking the 30 series is outdated now

[Poot]

Runs absolutely fine on my 2070 super with 32gb 3200 and I5 9600k with DLSS 3.5 mod on medium preset. I have the scaling set to 66% which i read somewhere replicates quality. It runs in my monitor native of 1440 (don't know what DLSS makes that) and with Gsync it really runs super smooth. I still cant eat anything though :)

[BRAN]

RTX4080+10900X combo. No DLSS, no raytracing, not even a body in FPV, running maxed in 5k...55-60FPS...99%gpu usage, so I would say "YES".

[⛥ Binli die Schreckliche ⛥]

I can't speak for other folks but it runs like a charm on my system. No stuttering, high fps, low temps and fast loading times (1-2 secs). But my rig is above the average Gaming PC: running on a 13700K, 32 GB DDR5, RTX 4070 Ti, installed on a Samsung 980 Pro.