This won’t hold true if your RAM gets to the limit, and you end up creeping into swap space. If you do, everything becomes a potentially streamed asset! While certainly not ideal, you’ll feel it harder on a HDD vs. SSD. Remember, you need at least 16GB of RAM for this monster, which these days is basically standard on most PCs (and about 70% of all Steam users as of August have no more than 16).
extremely, based on the testing by gamersnexus and hardware unboxed. even a 4090 can only get you 90-100 fps on ultra without upscaling (of which only fsr 2 is present, which is generally horrible in terms of image quality). performance drops off accordingly, if i’m not mistaken you have to drop to medium on a 3060 to get 60fps at a render resolution of 1080p.
based on the numbers we’ve seen, i wouldn’t recommend high settings on anything but a 40-series, on which you probably want both dlss and framegen (for which you’ll have to install a mod, thankfully those are already out). the combination of those two gives you a clean doubling in performance, although latency doesn’t improve compared to native rendering. on older nvidia cards, you’re stuck with regular dlss, and scaling down render resolution unfortunately doesn’t have anywhere near as pronounced of an effect on nvidia as it should be based on current testing.
amd cards have anomalously high performance in this game (which is kinda sus tbh), they generally perform on par with the nvidia gpu a tier above them (so an amd gpu that normally matches the 3060 would perform like the 3070 in starfield – or rather, given the lackluster visual quality, the 3070’s performance is currently pushed down to the 3060’s level, while amd is unaffected by this). there is also no raytracing in the game yet (even though we know they worked on it because they hired for that role, and because it’s 2023) so at the moment if you have an amd card you’ll have a great time in starfield, performance doesn’t suffer the same limitations, and the technologies you would miss out on aren’t implemented yet.
on the intel side, however, the game doesn’t run at all. most of the time you won’t even get to the menu, and if you do, rendering is completely borked. it is unclear yet if the issue is with bethesda or intel, but given that it’s an amd-sponsored game, the charitable interpretation is that they didn’t test on intel hardware at all or give intel any time to fix stuff, and the less charitable interpretation is that they’re intentionally locking out intel cards.
I’m on a 6700xt. I run the game at ultra and I’ve never had an unplayable dip at 1080p. worst i’ve had is like…40s in New Atlantis. Which is fine for ultra across the board for a non-combat area. N
yeah, that sounds like the amd performance thing. it doesn’t run anywhere as well on nvidia or intel, which, according to the steam hardware survey, is about 84% of gamers
really? so anti-competitive bullshit is okay now because it’s ✨the other side✨ doing it now. also let’s pay no mind to intel users who are completely locked out, there’s no reason amd would be highly incentivized to do that, right?
i despised gameworks while nvidia did it, and i despise the same bullshit when amd does it. this is not how you fix shit.
I saw a massive difference, had my original target drive set as an hdd, could barely open a menu without a hangup, dialog and character face movements suffered as well.
I moved the entire file over to my ssd and it was a night and day difference. No lag issues anymore.
Is the performance difference big if you play from HDD or SSD?
There should be no performance difference. The only difference should be in loading screens and possibly pop-in from streamed assets.
This won’t hold true if your RAM gets to the limit, and you end up creeping into swap space. If you do, everything becomes a potentially streamed asset! While certainly not ideal, you’ll feel it harder on a HDD vs. SSD. Remember, you need at least 16GB of RAM for this monster, which these days is basically standard on most PCs (and about 70% of all Steam users as of August have no more than 16).
Is the game generally demanding, though? Don’t exactly have a top of the line setup.
extremely, based on the testing by gamersnexus and hardware unboxed. even a 4090 can only get you 90-100 fps on ultra without upscaling (of which only fsr 2 is present, which is generally horrible in terms of image quality). performance drops off accordingly, if i’m not mistaken you have to drop to medium on a 3060 to get 60fps at a render resolution of 1080p.
based on the numbers we’ve seen, i wouldn’t recommend high settings on anything but a 40-series, on which you probably want both dlss and framegen (for which you’ll have to install a mod, thankfully those are already out). the combination of those two gives you a clean doubling in performance, although latency doesn’t improve compared to native rendering. on older nvidia cards, you’re stuck with regular dlss, and scaling down render resolution unfortunately doesn’t have anywhere near as pronounced of an effect on nvidia as it should be based on current testing.
amd cards have anomalously high performance in this game (which is kinda sus tbh), they generally perform on par with the nvidia gpu a tier above them (so an amd gpu that normally matches the 3060 would perform like the 3070 in starfield – or rather, given the lackluster visual quality, the 3070’s performance is currently pushed down to the 3060’s level, while amd is unaffected by this). there is also no raytracing in the game yet (even though we know they worked on it because they hired for that role, and because it’s 2023) so at the moment if you have an amd card you’ll have a great time in starfield, performance doesn’t suffer the same limitations, and the technologies you would miss out on aren’t implemented yet.
on the intel side, however, the game doesn’t run at all. most of the time you won’t even get to the menu, and if you do, rendering is completely borked. it is unclear yet if the issue is with bethesda or intel, but given that it’s an amd-sponsored game, the charitable interpretation is that they didn’t test on intel hardware at all or give intel any time to fix stuff, and the less charitable interpretation is that they’re intentionally locking out intel cards.
I’m on a 6700xt. I run the game at ultra and I’ve never had an unplayable dip at 1080p. worst i’ve had is like…40s in New Atlantis. Which is fine for ultra across the board for a non-combat area. N
yeah, that sounds like the amd performance thing. it doesn’t run anywhere as well on nvidia or intel, which, according to the steam hardware survey, is about 84% of gamers
Oh well. Sucks for nvidia card owners to finally experience what AMD card owners have had to deal with forever.
really? so anti-competitive bullshit is okay now because it’s ✨the other side✨ doing it now. also let’s pay no mind to intel users who are completely locked out, there’s no reason amd would be highly incentivized to do that, right?
i despised gameworks while nvidia did it, and i despise the same bullshit when amd does it. this is not how you fix shit.
Don’t let the fact that I said nothing of the sort stop you from continuing your little rage fest.
I have a 2070 Super and am running it well.
I saw a massive difference, had my original target drive set as an hdd, could barely open a menu without a hangup, dialog and character face movements suffered as well.
I moved the entire file over to my ssd and it was a night and day difference. No lag issues anymore.
I’ve seen posts elsewhere that say 5min+ loading screens on HDD that tried to install it to their HDDs. game does a LOT of asset streaming.