Starfield [XBSX|S, PC, XGP]

starfield-benchmarks.jpg


 
I just recently swapped my Dell Ultrasharp 2711 (2560x1440 @ 60Hz) for a Monoprice 35" Zero-G (3440x1440 @ 100Hz with Freesync) which means my 3080Ti is pushing more pixels than "regular" 1440p but only about half of 4k. Looks like I should be in pretty solid shape...

Edit: I found this tidbit interesting:
... even the highest graphics preset defaults to FSR 2 running at 75% of the native resolution.

So all the bench results above are actually using FSR already... Interesting.

Edit 2: Ah hevermind, the guy running the benches overrode that FSR setting in his testing.
Before digging in, it’s important to point out that I created a worst-case scenario to test graphics cards in Starfield. That meant ignoring FSR 2 and running my benchmarks in the New Atlantis city in the game, where dozens of characters are on-screen. Performance goes up a lot when you enable FSR 2, as I’ll get into later in this section.
 
Last edited:
There are no anti-aliasing options from what I could tell... only FSR2 upscaling. So upscaling off I assume must include TAA by default?
 
There are no anti-aliasing options from what I could tell... only FSR2 upscaling. So upscaling off I assume must include TAA by default?
Yeah, I thought maybe it was just me missing it. I'm guessing you're right? Bethesda has supported both FXAA and TAA in FO4 and Skyrim so I would expect at least one of those to show up again.
 
Uh-oh. Someone is using VRS. Burn them at the stake!

Finally, I want to highlight VRS, or Variable Rate Shading. This setting is on by default, and you should leave it that way. You may not see it at work depending on how powerful your system is, but it can boost performance a lot on older, less powerful systems.
 
Not a fan of what I've seen. I think I'm just maybe done with their game design. Having been a fan of what I've seen from the writing either. The biggest miss for me is the art direction, because in an exploration game I'll at least enjoy going around to see what things look like.
 

Exploration quite limitted
Yea, this game is going to have a slightly similar problem to some other space games in that the imagination of some folks will have gone a bit wild in what will be possible, leading to disappointment. Bethesda have said 1000 planets will be traversable, and they've also shown that space flight isn't like completely freeform from surface to space and whatnot. Limitations were gonna exist. They weren't trying to shoehorn a Bethesda RPG into Elite Dangerous.
 
Well technically you're below system requirements for GPU and CPU, VRAM especially might be an issue. Likely it will run ok at 1080p?
yeah i know, it will be interesting. :) i do have 32 GB regular DDR4 ram though maybe that will help a tiny bit? and a pretty good m2 ssd: samsung 960 evo
 
Having read a number of reviews now, I get the impression that this is gonna be much like Fallout 4 where 'gamers' are gonna act very disappointed over it, all while I ultimately end up quite loving it cuz I dont seem to play and love these games for the same reasons they do.

Like, so many people seem to judge RPG's based on how much choice they have in quests, while I really just dont care that much. My first and main exposure to RPG's when young was JRPG's where there was basically *never* choice in terms of quest design. And I was cool with that. I'm happy to just be along for the ride. I also have never played a game where I thought dialogue choices were some exciting feature. You usually either have a super simplistic system where it's like 'good/bad', or you have a system where you basically cant actually anticipate the outcome because it's too nuanced, and often end up puzzled or frustrated that you couldn't say something else or more specific to try and get a specific outcome.

That said, I am expecting Starfield to lack in 'sense of exploration' to a degree, though I was expecting this before I ever read any reviews. Different planets rather than a single large map that you can traverse on foot made this seem inevitable.

Still, as long as there's lots of stuff to find and do and the general combat and progression are half decent, I think I'll have a good time with it.
 

Looks to be the best release performance wise from bethesda on consoles in a long time. The city centers esp new atalantis are the only places with frame rate issues and its still in the higher 20s.

The great news is that they can continue working on performance since the game is in really good shape as is.

I am assuming that a lot of the loading screens is due to the old engine. I wonder if they will be able to reduce them or get rid of some of them over time.
 
I am assuming that a lot of the loading screens is due to the old engine. I wonder if they will be able to reduce them or get rid of some of them over time.

I'm not sure if it's that straight forward. How BGS games subdivide their world does seem to benefit the content creation side in terms of modularity and has an immense impact on the modding scene. I for one would prefer that trade off stay in place.
 

Some more preliminary performance impressions - will have to be real careful evaluating the settings that performance testers use on PC, given that the game's built in presets, even on ultra are rendering at less than 100% resolution scale.

From the above link:

"I tested the game on an RTX 3060, 3070, 3080 and 3090, and the 3090 was only able to reach between 45-55 FPS in my testing while rendering at 3440×1440 (Ultra, with 100% resolution scaling)."

"Even at Ultra settings, the game presents itself at 75% of native resolution, with High presenting at 62% native resolution, and Medium/Low presenting at 50% of native resolution."
 
  • Like
Reactions: snc
Back
Top