Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah PC min vs max was a very poor description on my part. In my mind I'm thinking about lowest vs highest PC card within a particular generation (7600 vs 7900) or better yet console delta's we've seen this generation between Series S and PS5/XSX. Forza Horizon 5 quality mode comparison is a great example where Series X takes advantage of much larger RAM and GPU with higher textures, parallax occlusion, etc. MS Flight Sim had clear LOD difference in addition to resolution gap. These differences didn't stop Series S from having a great experience but the difference was still much more obvious.

I understand better what you're saying now. I think part of it is, as cwjs says, that some other games have more high end features to turn on. I think another part of it is that the game is CPU limited to 30 fps, so there's no 30fps/qualiity mode to drop down to. The game basically runs at quality mode - though being a Bethesda/Creation that largely amounts to resolution(s). I think the game looks mostly fantastic for what it is.

I would though like to have see RT reflections as an option for Series S, even though that would have required significant resolution drops to free up resources. My wishlist for updates would probably include RT reflections, faster loading times, and for console owners a 40 fps mode when using a 120hz display, perhaps with DRS. Don't know how much is likely to get shoehorned into Creation though.

Edit: Direct Storage would be nice too, though you'd want GDeflate tools to be available to the mod community. Long load areas are likely to be due to the engine initialising all kinds of stuff for that area, so DS might not end up helping all that much.

Also seems to me 3rd party is more willing to widen the gap than first party. Metro Exodus is a great example of this. You see wider image resolution difference, much more aggressive pop in and less asset density on Series S but it is a good compromise for maintaining full RT and 60fps on the smaller console. Still overall great experience on S because the focus is RT

Metro seems to pay a heavy price for its lighting, and whatever they're doing doesn't scale down to Series S well. There's no area where Series S is less than 1/4 the performance of the Series X, so there's got to be some kind of overhead that isn't directly represented by resolution.

Starfield in terms of performance is right were a game scaling well would be expected to be.
 
Definitely but I was hoping for something like fast loading or usage of directstorage. We already knew there would be no ray tracing or any modern rendering features.

The budget is reportedly astronomical so I'm not sure what's the reason there. Bethesda should be held to higher standards than "Well, it's Bethesda so whatever." They're a flagship studio from a tech giant.

The reasoning behind no RT is obvious. This is an AMD sponsored Microsoft game. There is every motivation to avoid an RT implementation which would put AMD GPU's and Microsoft consoles at a disadvantage.
 
Definitely but I was hoping for something like fast loading or usage of directstorage. We already knew there would be no ray tracing or any modern rendering features.

The budget is reportedly astronomical so I'm not sure what's the reason there. Bethesda should be held to higher standards than "Well, it's Bethesda so whatever." They're a flagship studio from a tech giant.

They do the opposite of most other AAA developers.

They spend the most of the budget on crafting a game where most AAA developers now spend most of the budget on the graphics. :p

Regards,
SB
 
I never understood the fascination around Skyrim. The gameplay in Starfield looks more promising to me.
But before I start the game I'll wait until it runs better on Nvidia GPUs. The current state is unacceptable for me. Without DLSS it won't be touched either.

To return to the Digital Foundry video. Once again, it's excellent. One can always rely on John Linneman. The graphical difference between Fallout 4 and Starfield is huge. Too bad that not all areas look as good as the interiors. I would have liked to see much more progress regarding the characters and the interaction with them. Cyberpunk 2077 has shown the way.
 
Last edited:
Looking at gpu utlilization alone can set a false expectation. You also need to look at the power draw relative to the max TDP of your card. You can have scenarios where gpu utilization shows 98% while TDP is 50% of max.
 
Back in the days of Skyrim, this was true. Starfielfd’s gameplay is nothing special and doesn’t seem to have evolved from 2011 and the writing is just as bad.
This statement is not true at all. The gameplay has evolved it hasn’t be revolutionary changed wich is fine since no one asked for it. I heard good things about story but I haven’t played game for myself yet.
People love Bethesda games for a reason I don’t understand how it is a bad thing suddenly.
 
The reasoning behind no RT is obvious. This is an AMD sponsored Microsoft game. There is every motivation to avoid an RT implementation which would put AMD GPU's and Microsoft consoles at a disadvantage.
I dont think being 'AMD sponsored' needs to be the explanation here. Making it run well on Xbox and not have it too far off PC is enough reason to avoid RT without any exchanging of money necessary.
 
Consider the 'Compute in flight' metric which is quite full and means it's waiting for compute dispatches to finish. Here's 3440x1440 for reference.

Both resolutions scale almost linearly with GPU frequency though at a lower ~34fps vs ~42fps for the higher resolution. This would be atypical behavior if pixel shading or raster were the primary bottlenecks (especially at 720p) as those are more parallelizable than compute. Running at 720p would traditionally show the GPU idling and reducing the clock rate.

Can’t see the screenshot as it’s really low res. The compute in flight metric tells you something is in the compute queue not that the GPU is executing lots of compute. For that you need to look at unit / instruction throughputs. Does the SM throughput stat increase significantly at the higher resolution? In the first trace it stood at 16% for the frame and it was the most utilized unit. The entire GPU was idling for most of the frame.
 
I dont think being 'AMD sponsored' needs to be the explanation here. Making it run well on Xbox and not have it too far off PC is enough reason to avoid RT without any exchanging of money necessary.

I agree for the most part that it being a Microsoft published game is enough to make RT a low priority. But the AMD partnership certainly doesn't help. If it where Nvidia sponsored for example, you can be sure there would be some level of RT present.
 
I dont think being 'AMD sponsored' needs to be the explanation here. Making it run well on Xbox and not have it too far off PC is enough reason to avoid RT without any exchanging of money necessary.
Yeah. My read on this situation is Bethesda just wanted to take the path of least resistance which would benefit all gamers across console and PC, instead of integrating bespoke solutions which works on a fraction of overall compatible hardware. (Sorry, I know your post is about RT, but it applies to reconstruction tech as well)

This is why I want FSR to get just a little bit better.. all of my devices, from my Steam Deck up to my 4090 equipped PC will benefit... but at the moment.. DLSS is just objectively superior by quite a ways, and thus I like to see that it's supported.

Of course I still would prefer both (all 3 actually) to be supported in all games... but it's completely understandable why some studios will simply choose FSR alone. Nvidia will continue to work and push for their solutions to be supported in major games which push tech.. A lot of engines already have integrated both so in general support is broad.

While I agree that it's fair to criticize either company for attempting to exclude the other's solution from being supported when there is evidence which points to that... it's not fair to blame every instance of one being supported and not the other on some nefarious tactics to screw over gamers. Devs and Pubs will always prioritize and choose what's best for the most amount of gamers over the few.
 
I would have been very (positively) surprised if Starfield implemented RT. It’s just not expected that Bethesda RPGs would push rendering tech and given the vast scope of the game adding RT would have likely added tons of complexity. The FSR/DLSS thing is definitely not that though. If you support FSR2, adding DLSS and XeSS is trivial.
 
The reasoning behind no RT is obvious. This is an AMD sponsored Microsoft game. There is every motivation to avoid an RT implementation which would put AMD GPU's and Microsoft consoles at a disadvantage.
more likey they already had a very demanding game at hand even without raytracing - or do the current benchmarks make it look to you that any card out there has frames left to spend on raytracing?

but of course you typed that nonsense just to have the sentence ending with a stab at consoles..
Amazing how people actually never change and realy leave a trail of some sorts behind them .. amazing
 
but of course you typed that nonsense just to have the sentence ending with a stab at consoles..
Amazing how people actually never change and realy leave a trail of some sorts behind them .. amazing

You really should try not to take comments so personally. The statement that RT puts the Microsoft consoles and AMD GPU's at a disadvantage compared to Nvidia GPU's is a statement of fact and not something you should be getting wound up about.

My own opinion that the above fact could have played a part in the exclusion of RT from this game is obviously just an opinion and thus fair game to challenge. But the underlying fact of Nvidias RT performance advantage isn't.
 
I’d guess that adding ray tracing would be a very large task and considering RT performance on consoles is not great it wouldn’t be a priority. They’d pretty much have to go over lighting in the entire game another time to make sure it looked good and didn’t have issues. The game already cost a fortune to make.
 
The discussion at the timestamp here... could not have said it better myself. Thank you guys for touching on this. The cherry picking to support game/console/GPU/etc. wars is so tiresome and just makes me not want to engage at all.
This forum has become a microcosm of that. My X is better than your Y, let's demonstrate with Z mental gymnastics. It's not about enlightened debate about technology choices, it's about an individual's need for their argument to 'win'.
 
The loading times on Xbox are interesting. Playing on a PC equipped with a couple of 7Gb/s Firecuda NVMe drives (one for Windows, one for games), loading is at most ~2 seconds. Part of this is probably the 24Gb graphics card and I reckon Windows I/O is making good use of 32Gb RAM to cache data as jumping back and forth between zones is nearly instantaneous, suggesting good use of excess RAM for file I/O cache.

I think Alex said the PC analysis was coming this week, or was it next. :unsure:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top