Starfield is the new Crysis... Minimum vs Recommended Specs / Performance

[@nemesisrtx]

Don't know if you'll see this, but this kind of series to test the minimum and recommended specs for popular releases is something I'd love to see more

[@47279J]

This was really interesting especially since it didn't really make a difference in performance.

[@dboy621444]

Agreed

[@marketsamuraijunkie]

Ditto!

[@deltasixgaming]

What doesn't make sense to me is Why they are acting like this because my System at 1440 is even Outperforming his Not 4090 at 1080 and I have a Ryzen 7 7700X with a RX 6800 XT and my Average is 120 FPS and I get dips down to like 70 in heavily Populated areas with a Lot going on

[@deltasixgaming]

And I'm running Native with no Upscaling

[@darryljack6612]

I'm so glad Phil unlocked telekinesis powers to now be on camera and continue filming.

[@arthurpendragon8192]

Let's name those powers....nick. sounds like a good name xD

[@brianschenkel2583]

AI robot Phil running the camera 😅

[@ZedZdeD462]

@@arthurpendragon8192 I agree!

[@andieg8615]

Aaah good to know Phil is a jedi (or maybe a sith?)

[@fordesponja]

The best thing Bethesda has given us recently is Todd being Todd in an interview telling that those claiming problems with the game need to upgrade their rigs because Starfield is so next gen. This man, after the Fallout 76 fiasco is still at it, no lessons learned, no humilty acquired, just a big hairy ballsack he sits on. It's so beautiful, never change Todd.

[@Danatar555]

Todd is gonna cry about it all the way to the bank, Starfield sold out like hot cakes 😂

[@Username_CC_]

He's right

[@Ayjay-wr6om]

Yeah. Or maybe it’s time for Todd to upgrade his engine 😂😂😂

[@fordesponja]

@@Ayjay-wr6om You don't understand, it's not and old shitty engine, it's an aged and rough one

[@zer00rdie]

@@fordesponja it was shitty when brand spanking new.

[@devoncanada2]

Todd literally said “for everyone having performance issues, maybe it’s time to upgrade your hardware” 🤣🤣

[@prashanttudu8788]

Yeah that sick man got issues with gamers , money grabbing sick man.

[@WindHaze10]

he should start with the company itself and move to unreal engine 5

[@koofdome]

Even a 4090 is barely hitting 90fps at 1080 ultra….. it’s insane

[@KroryykDB]

SIXTEEN TIMES THE PLANETS

[@jenrosejenrose7417]

I literally did, over-spec in most areas, and the game still suggests upscaling at 1440. It's silly and annoying.

[@Hawk7886]

Crysis was technically amazing and demanding because of its tech. Starfield is just horribly optimized. I nearly _doubled_ my framerate with the DLSS mod.

[@jqwright28]

That's because it's optmized and by reducing the strain on your cpu by cutting resolution down, your fps shot through the roof. Unoptmized games don't do that. Remnant 2 and Jedi Survivor are good examples of games that barely improve at all when you change resolution. The issue is the lack of Nvidia supported features by Bethesda.

[@sergiotech1323]

I'm so relieved I didn't buy it.

[@RavenCrank]

Same haha. I went from 48 fps to 65-70fps with dlss 3.5 installed. (Rtx 3060, ryzen 7 5800x)

[@Alvar666]

yuuuuuuup

[@mg7335]

Same here

[@InnocentiusLacrimosa]

One of the main thesis of software development is that one should NOT brute force through bad code. It would be great to remember that in reviews also.

[@Brent_P]

It actually took TWO GENERATIONS of GPUs to get the original Crysis under control.

[@hmello3250]

Crysis 3 at 4k@60 is quite hard to run even nowadays.

[@CakePrincessCelestia]

Well, MS FSX still runs at under 30fps on modern hardware... XD 2020 is a better benchmark though, and EXTREMELY taxing. Crysis is a joke compared to that.

[@Nebujin383]

It took way more...

[@AntiGrieferGames]

Game is 2007, a 2016 gpu called gtx 1060 can run crysis on avg 60fps highest 1080p... crysis remastered is a garbage version to original version which got it ran highest settings 60fps 1080p on my rtx 3070... But the grahpics justify back to 2007 extremly!

[@intermilan9731]

Cyrsis is like an anomaly. Like one special case. Other games didn't follow Crysis. Plus, Crysis graphics was actually justified.. I just hope other games don't follow Starfield and rely on FSR/DLSS for their laziness on optimization.

[@donny4405]

Todd: this game is optimized. Jay:No this game is poorly optimized

[@leonbarnes1402]

todd didnt say how well it was optimized. but shhh, it just works.

[@blarghmcblarghson1903]

Sixteen times the optimization!

[@SkankHunt007]

When he switched on upscaling he absolutely failed to change the render resolution down from 100%. Then he questions why his FPS stayed the same LOL

[@geefhotmail6311]

It is Optimized to NOT be Optimized!

[@zanhorvat15]

@@leonbarnes1402 Tod got asked in an interview "why did you not optimise this game for pc?" His response was "We did, it's running great. It is a next gen PC game, we realy push the technology so you may need to upgrade your pc for this game" Clearly it is not optimised

[@stygianxv2797]

Thank you for making this video, this needs to be stated more often even as a series! These developers have been dropping the ball on PC ports consistently, they literally don't care anymore. People just want to spend time enjoying their purchase not trying to figure out what's wrong with their hardware or game, and their "support" tries to tell you it's your fault. No, more videos need to be made like this to break this illusion so companies can't use this excuse anymore.

[@scalpingsnake]

Lets blame the publishers. I am sure the devs don't want their work to be poorly optimized, it's the people who make the decisions.

[@deef4ever]

It seems that it's not just poorly optimized for pc. Or the pc ports that suck. The xbox version ALSO hits a mere 30fps... They are dropping the ball on optimization for every platform i guess... very sad 😮😔

[@nunya3163]

The thing is, they know that the PC gamers will come up with mods, that are way better than their original game, and it makes them angry.

[@Subsandwich981]

When Todd Howard was asked why the game wasn't optimized for PC, he said that it was actually optimized and that they had pushed the game engine to its limits. What kind of excuse is that?? Even people with RTX 4090s are having problems getting a stable 60fps, what a joke.

[@martinxyz]

@@Subsandwich981 That is because you still believe this Todd, who was deceiving us so many times by now. 16 times the... ring a bell ? He is a professional l.

[@crazyguywatchnu]

This needs to be an occasional series. I like it

[@elemnt360z]

Ya this was a fun video!

[@CorwinYoutube]

I agree, great video!

[@Plagues138]

Crysis looked insane at the time though. It pushed graphics to a whole new level . Starfield is just pushing its ancient engine.

[@Sivalente1]

I hope this is a case of NMS, where the release is ganky AF, but we get something that just grows for years later.

[@robertmurphy2960]

It's a brand new engine, starfield is the engine premier... Not that's its good, just saying...

[@Eversor86]

@@Sivalente1 Thats not what bethesda is doing. They barely fix their games, modders are the ones who fix them. Also NMS team is leagues above Todd and his devs in terms of treating consumers/gamers. Just 20 different Skyrim editions sold each time for full price (with nearly no bugs fixed mind you) vs free DLCs/fixes for NMS should tell you all you need to know.

[@wayneallinson4925]

@@robertmurphy2960 Wrong

[@FUD1337]

@@robertmurphy2960that’s wrong, it’s creation engine 2.0. Same engine Bethesda has used just upgraded, yet still aged in many ways technically.

[@redhotocelot8169]

Great video! I do agree with several others that a Min VS Rec series would be very cool for these AAA games.

[@user-fn6gv1vf1y]

Triple a 😂

[@armoredsquirrel946]

i wouldn't called SF the new Crysis cause that games was astounding and a real groundbreaking visual experience in those years, Starfield today looks.. good.. pretty... most of the time... and that's all, but i see what Jayz means

[@nostalgically_nope9983]

I see what you mean but for a Bethesda game, it looks damn incredible

[@anusmcgee4150]

@@nostalgically_nope9983 "Damn incredible for a Bethesda game" is like saying Princess Diana looks incredible for a car accident victim.

[@nostalgically_nope9983]

@@anusmcgee4150 mmmm... No. Great reply tho. Super funny. You spend a lot of time in Reddit?

[@bruceplenderleith838]

Back in the day every generation had massive increases in visuals. You were younger and had never seen anything like it so it would seem to be more "astounding". This game is far more ground breaking in ways that are more subtle to appreciate. Your problem is with the subject matter not with the graphics. Space is mostly rocks and in reality it's all rocks. The difference say between Starfield and fallout 4 is vast.

[@squidwardo7074]

@@bruceplenderleith838 no its just moores law coming to an end. one year you'd be on 100 nm the next you'd be on 80 and after that 60. these days its mostly software that adds efficiency rather than the hardware

[@FilthEffect]

Todd: it's time to upgrade your pc Me at top spec: to what?

[@RomvnlyPlays]

Threadripper

[@CuzImAzz]

Upgrade to AMD, obviously.

[@intifadayuri]

kinda unrelated comment, something I really like about your channel is that your sponsors are always stuff we´re actually interesed in. I just recently build my pc but that Montech case looks very cool, I can see myself buying it

[@St4rky99]

It's a good thing, that Todd Howard stated they optimised the game properly and you just need to upgrade your PC if you run into poor performance O.o

[@CuzImAzz]

im running a 5800x and 7900XT and this game is running absolutely flawlessly. i use a -5% power drawn, -70mV undervolt on GPU, and 1.175v 4.45ghz clock on the cpu as i want fans on my loop to be 0. and this game runs at 100-110fps with no upscaling an max setting. With vsync pinned at 60fps 3440x1440. Maybe its survivors bias but no complaints on performance at a not top spec PC here.

[@ryanb.4920]

@@CuzImAzz You got a NASA PC, no shit it's running good.

[@CuzImAzz]

@@ryanb.4920 last gen CPU not top of the line. Current gen GPU also not top of the line. Not really NASA. But to your point, a very top end game will need very top end hardware, as has always been.

[@AntiGrieferGames]

Yeah, really a anti consumer move! Mihoyo did it way better than bethesda

[@smurr45]

​@CuzImAzz it's not a top end game 👍

[@johnpatz8395]

It would be very interesting to see a pair of video, with over testing the minimum specs with AMD cpu & gpu vs Intel & nvidia, and the second testing the recommended settings the same way

[@Drewtheelder]

Intel cpu and AMD gpu would produce the best results for now I think, this old game engine always liked Intel cpus.

[@lechickens6209]

Hardware Unboxed has benchmarked Starfield with 44 CPUs and 32 GPUs , I suggest watching those if you are curious to see performance of various components across generations.

[@MattSitton]

This game seems to be very memory bandwidth sensitive I would make a video on this!. I overclocked my ram from 3200 to 3800 and it seems to have helped a ton on frame drops overall

[@nathans3022]

Will second this. Running DDR4-3200 @ 14-14-14-14-28-42 1T, 4x8GB, Quad Channel- and getting about 82GB/s in memory bandwidth. Most dual channel systems are limited to 50GBish.. DDR5 systems can reach 70GBish if they have GOOD RAM.. but most likely don't have that so are in the 60GB/s range. What Jay is getting there on those systems is basically a step below what I got and my Vega64 XTX NEVER drops from 99% usage unless it hits the 60FPS frame cap I have.

[@theanglerfish]

@@nathans3022 Vega64 XTX? interesting 😆

[@nathans3022]

@@theanglerfish Still does all I need it to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Got it brand new from Best Buy in Sept 2017 for $525 so can't complain. Its a golden C0 chip with good, but not great HBM2. (HBM2 really doesn't like anything over 1100) GPU core holds at 1780-1800Mhz in-game after tweaking voltage and clock states. About 200Mhz faster than most reviewers get with their V64XTX reviews.

[@exemida]

Your fps got worse when you went to low lol what even.

[@nathans3022]

@ZaHandle yes.

[@denisruskin348]

It's not. Crisis pushed hardware to the limits but the visual presentation was justified. This looks like a 2018 game with constant loadings screens and some textures out of 2010.

[@LucasMp]

Having loading screens EVERY TIME you try to enter ANY AREA in 2023 is absolutely insane. Bethesda trying to cover their ass on that with just a "SSD required" is objectively lazy. Modders managed to eliminate the need for the constant loadings in Skyrim years and years ago. The actual developers still doing it today is absurd.

[@geekmechanic1473]

​@@LucasMpoh no it runs poorly on a hdd like it stutters and freezes and well as have issues with audio

[@classicdill121]

such a good video. I'm running a 3080 gpu with a ryzen 5 3600 at 1440p on a 27inch monitor. I typically play at between 70 to 100 fps on modern titles. With Starfield I get anywhere from 50 fps in less condense areas and 30 to 35 fps in the cities. Absolutely wild

[@nicholaswicks3077]

It sucks 30fps is almost unplayable imo

[@madskater5]

at what settings? I have a 3080 and 11700k and im maintaining 50-60fps with a mix of med/high/ultra settings at 4k.

[@BrownRice978]

@@madskater5similar with me at a mix of settings (chose night and then set some stuff to medium) on 3700x and a 5700xt my ranges in total are 40-55fps

[@sparky20100]

That's weird, maybe CPU bottleneck? I have a 3080 with a ryzen 5900 and running super smooth (definitely over 60 fps, didn't measure) at 1440p Edit: Also FSR is not activated, so no "crutches"

[@Altrop]

CPU bound. My 3600 used to bottleneck a 6700XT and you're running a 3080 lol.

[@kevindellatore]

The crazy thing is, Crisis was actually revolutionary for its time. Star field looks and plays like fallout 4, it’s just unoptimized

[@agrajeda98]

5950x and 3080TI ultra 1440P native for me. Still only get about 40-50 FPS in cities. Hoping for an update soon. In indoor or combat scenarios I do enjoy about 100 fps average

[@WickedRibbon]

Drop your settings and use the DLSS mod. Hardware Unboxed did a good video for optimized settings that should claw back at least 15% perf.

[@whasian1487]

@@zaiquiri1799 a lot of people already have gamepass and for them it's basically a free game. If they have an nvidia gpu and want it to run better, they can install a free mod. Seems reasonable. What do you propose to do about it? Boycott?

[@KillJD]

@@whasian1487 Yes. You keep putting up with shit like this, developers will continue to release broken and unoptimized games. Do better, bro.

[@whasian1487]

@@KillJD okay then organize one. Lol. Good luck

[@nickmanhota324]

Yo that sucks with some amazing hardware, im on a 5600x 32gb ram and a 4080 runs between 70 to 140.

[@web3twon]

Great job standing up for the community. Great job for not letting game companies tell the small guys we need better hardware! GREAT job backing up your comment with proof. Todd literally just stood there and said yep we optimized it. Where are the numbers Todd?!

[@raymonddean1442]

It does look like FSR2 is not doing anything for frame rates. I ran using it at 4k ultra and returned an average of just over 60fps in general, but down to 49/50 in built up areas and 45 when in conversation with NPCs. Taking FSR2 off resulted in identical frame rates, but to my mind a slightly less sharp picture. My GPU utilisation on an Nvidia 4080 was at 99% though so not sure why Jays were so much lower with AMD hardware. I am running an i7 13700KF with 32Gb of DDR5 RAM at 5600Mhz. I also tried the DLSS 3 mod and while it looks better I did not get frame rates for it and it was unstable so I deleted it. Seems Bethesda have some patching to do and I really hope they will support DLSS via a patch.

[@MagicManICT]

All I can say, Jay, is... OUCH! At least Crysis was running a high end, new graphics engine that, at its base, outperformed Unreal Engine 3.x and other 3D engines at the time. edit: I don't feel so bad about my bottom end ryzen 3rd gen cpu and 1650 4gb GPU.

[@LDFilmsMotorsport]

And you will go out to get 8800 GT for that game :D

[@MaddJakd]

BuT iT iS a NeW eNgInE!1!! As new as one could hope for from Bethesday anyway. I tried giving them the benefit of the doubt, but even I'm wondering if this is a COD situation. "It's a new engine: i.e.; our PS2 era engine with plug-ins to make it semi do the newer things!" Don't think we'll have a real Crysis moment until one of these studios outside of the big publishers really sits down and figures out the dark arts of UE 5 honesty.

[@MagicManICT]

@@MaddJakd It's "new" like my 2017 Ford POS. Definitely newer, but more like running on spare parts than a new, high performance turbocharged GT.

[@FatheredPuma81]

Crysis levels of performance with CoD levels of graphics.

[@ESKATEUK]

New CoD games look far better than this.. MW2019 and MW2022 are both graphically impressive.

[@FatheredPuma81]

@@ESKATEUK They'll both be unplayable in a few years so I don't think they count.

[@spacedreamer9055]

Thanks for helping me flip the coin. Definitely going to wait for a sale and implemented improvements before I give Starfield a go.

[@Forotosh]

Thank you so much for making this video! I can now send this to people insisting that the game runs "smooth as butter" and that I need to upgrade the midrange PC I built this year.

[@Subsandwich981]

They think 30fps is smooth

[@Ayjay-wr6om]

That’s because they can’t feel the difference between good and bad frames. Even with DLSS Mod and upscaling for the frames in this game. The input delay is atrocious

[@ScaerieTale]

Suddenly really glad I decided to wait for reviews. I'll pick up the GOTY edition in a year or two after either the developers or modders have fully fleshed out and fixed everything (more likely modders... Again)

[@GD-kv4ri]

glad i have gamepass...i can enjoy it now lol and the dlss mod makes it work with my 3080ti just fine...runs smooth and looks good

[@Yoshi278]

@@GD-kv4ri Im so glad most consumers are allowing game devs to just not fix and optimise their games and use FSR and DLSS as a crutch instead.

[@charliechan6892]

they will fix it, and then bethesda will finally release a patch that does nothing but break all the mods and then make the community go back to the lab again. I lowkey think this is a strategy they use to keep people coming back, it's weird but it happens way too often with these guys.

[@harrisonm65]

7900X and a 3090FE and Im getting around 45-50 FPS in 1440p. Thought my system was missing something, but this sort of allayed my fears. Still playable and enjoyable, but looking forward to some improvement patches coming out in the future.

[@rustler08]

Damn, that's rough. I have a 6900 XT with a 7600X and with 1440p (everything cranked to their max settings, minus shadows being on high), I get about 75 FPS in Atlantis (85 in some parts), 116-120 inside buildings, and 80-90 everywhere else. Granted, I am running an OC to about 2800 Mhz core and 2100 on the memory, but I should only be about 10-15% faster than a 3090 with my setup. If it makes you feel better, you should see better performance once they fix the terrible release programming.

[@sparhawk1228]

​@@rustler08AMD sponsored title. Plays better on AMD hardware.

[@sparhawk1228]

@@user-fb3wv1vc1x It still plays better on AMD. Significantly higher FPS. Even alll benchmarks convey this.

[@Anaerin]

I wonder if the settings changes don't fully apply until the game is restarted, which would explain some of why the changes didn't appear to make that much of a difference on the fly.

[@Smokinjoewhite]

That is the case sometimes and it is inconsistent, sometimes the changes do take and sometimes they don't even the same settings will work without a restart, then they won't. In this case though the CPU is the bottleneck, at least in cities. In the forests the GPU will be your limiting factor because there is less AI and more shadows, foliage etc.

[@3D-DOMO]

@@Smokinjoewhite but thats the thing, the cpu isnt the bottleneck if the gpu is at 100% usage and the cpu is at 40% that indicates a gpu bottleneck. its just horribly optimized, and especially for nvidia. the fact that the 7900xt which you can get for 750 bucks performs within 3 frames of a 4090 is outrageous. I mean I was able to play the game fine on ultra, but I have a 4090, to me that should kinda be expected, but the game looks like a game from 8 years ago, so I feel like I should be getting wayyy better framerates.

[@Pieteros21]

@@3D-DOMO tested today on GTX1080 , 32gb ram and R7 5800x3d - 1440p low 30-40fps most of the time and looks very bad [ worse than xbox series S with simmilar performance ] , 1080p not even 10fps more ... ram usage regularly exceed 16gb , cpu does practically nothing [ 10-12% max i seen for now ] and gpu is 100% all of the time ...Vram usage 60-70% so i could turn up the textures but tere are no texture quality setting ... There isn't even brightness and contrast settings !

[@3D-DOMO]

@@Pieteros21 oh trust me brother I know, I wish there was something I could do to help but unfortunately their optimization is horrible and appalling 😂, apparently there is an 8gb vram cap that the game can use, no texture settings, weird utilization of cpu, and yet somehow takes gpus that work great on other games that look better than starfield and brings them to there knees. I heard it being touted as the next crisis. And that pissed me off, because you actually have to look good to be the next crisis, can’t just be a shit optimized game with textures lookin like Skyrim and call yourself the next crisis 😂. Honestly hoping they fix this shit

[@adamdunne6645]

​@@Pieteros21cpu could be limited on one core. Check that

[@technocypher8923]

This is a great video, I thought I was crazy trying to get at least 60 FPS with my i5 13600k and my 3060Ti. Now I know it's the game not my hardware. Thank you Jay for the info!

[@bradyfereday6483]

Same here I have a i7 12700k with a 3060ti on 1440p. Other new titles released this year I am on high or ultra settings getting 80+ fps.

[@Kmaitland89]

I mean... a 3060 TI is a bottom tier card. 60fps is about all you should expect.

[@technocypher8923]

@Kmaitland89 it is, but I still get around 120fps in Cyberpunk on High settings at 1440p.

[@trappeddarkhd1707]

​@@Kmaitland89Don't be waving around daddy's money before he finds out.

[@kevindellatore]

@@Kmaitland89it’s a bottom tier card that’s still like 2x as powerful as the Series X, for a game that looks like an Xbox One game, it should be getting 100+ fps

[@CarkBurningMoo]

Two of my friends (with just above min Starfield spec PC's) installed onto a HDD. Both experienced stuttering and Audio (speech) sync issues, as well as loading times. Both corrected these issues by moving the game to an SSD. An SSD is an absolute requirement.

[@Henkezd]

Agreed, I first installed it on a SSHD and it was unplayable.

[@whasian1487]

SSD is in the minimum requirements list. Not sure why they bothered trying to install it on a HDD.

[@CarkBurningMoo]

@@whasian1487 i don't expect you to be sure of the reason my friends installed it onto a HDD 😂 The day the game came out, both had run out of space on their SSD and didn't realise. One of them had to buy and install a new SSD, and the other had to work out what to delete to free up space on his SSD. They both wanted to download the game (and any updates/patches) and play asap in the meantime.. i can forgive that!

[@whasian1487]

@@CarkBurningMoo not enough space?

[@CarkBurningMoo]

@@whasian1487 sorry i edited my comment, but exactly yeah. I'm pretty sure they both have smallish boot SSD's and used a larger HDD for game storage. I build PC's and tbh with how cheap SSD's are now as well as new game requirements (some other games like Rust also do much better on an SSD), i won't even bother adding HDD's to new builds

[@DinGuSco]

Great video and backs up what I noticed on my 10700k / 3090 build. I have little faith in Bethesday improving it though... fingers crossed

[@eternalbeing3339]

Mods. Performance fix, going to try it.

[@TimJay]

that's weird. Runs great on my 11700k/3070ti system. I'm using high settings 1440p and stay above 60 fps with 99% GPU utilization.

[@curthollon2043]

bethesda already said it was optimized for pc in an interview but it was a big tech mag

[@advvo9880]

@@eternalbeing3339we shouldn’t have to rely on fans to fix a new game tho

[@Gerder1]

So glad this video confirms its not my PC. I recently updated my system to a 7800x3d and a 4070. I play on a 3440x1440 ultrawide so I get it runs a tad worse than on a regular 1440p. But even with optimised settings recommended by hardware unboxed my fps is all over the place. 30 to 34fps outside in New Atlantis to 60-70fps in most 'dungeon' areas. This game still needs a lot of work. I love the gameplay so far, so I really hope Bethesda fixes things in the near future.

[@__Generic]

I have an issue with my 4090, and I've seen similar reports, but even when the GPU is "maxed" it's only using about 250w of power where other games will pull the normal 350-450w+ depending on under/overclock settings. With my power and voltage settings, Returnal will use 350-375w on 98-99% GPU usage. With Starfield, it's about 250w with occasional spikes. Something is not right.

[@TheNeelonRokk]

Todd: The game is optimized. Upgrade your hardware. Todd can go eat a bag of d%ks. Such a SHAME my game money went to Larian.

[@DragonT4]

That's a thing with the 4090s and them not using all of the power

[@OxKing]

I found an okay running setting for my old I7-4790k with 16GB Ram and an GTX1070. I am getting between 30-40 fps and it runs good enough for me on 1080p. At least it doesn't lag too much and does not stutter and it is looking fairly crisp. (You really have to set rendering up to 75-80% otherwise everything is just a blurry mess.)

[@MrSherhi]

4790k is still rocking, mine is with 16GB RAM as well, standard SATA SSD but I have 6700xt and on 1440p high I have 45fps on average, with heavy upscaling its like 48fps on average...GPU is supposedly utilized at 98-99% eve though VRAM usage is like 6-8 GBs...CPU is usually at 50% and during loading screens it goes to 90-95%. RAM is usually like 8-10 GBs used.....I saw some benchmarks of 6700xt on 12400f for example with 32GB RAM and that system used even 15GBs of RAM and could pull out almost +50% fps on same settings so modern hardware does work better but still the game is not using all that is on the table - just like any other game.

[@chinster84]

Great info! I thought something was wrong with my 3080 only getting ~40 fps.

[@Ladioz]

The game runs smoother on AMD cards

[@lambiedan]

I've got a 3080 & 13600k running 1440p all ultra, scaling and blur off. Average FPS is 57 in alantis city, dips to 45 on occasions.

[@JasonSmall]

Turn shadows all the way down to low. My go to trick for games like this. I'm on a 3090. Everything Ultra, native 4K with 160hrz monitors, gsync is on. Turned shadows down to medium. Steady 60 FPS, some drops in the city, but not in combat. Even with a 4090 and upscaling, Jay's topping out at 70 FPS. Engine's just old. Some version of it has been around since Morrowind.

[@johnperish]

I recommend using Hardware Unboxed settings and the DLSS mod.

[@christopherarista8437]

Your not the only one I thought that too but once I played with the settings it got better

[@Cleric314]

I'm running an rtx 3070 and an r9 5900x with 64gb of ram. And in order to hit 60-70fps at 1440p, (something achievable in every other game with my hardware) I had to use the performance optimization mod combined with a dlss 2.5.1 mod. All things considered I have been having a great experience plus I haven't seen any bugs during my play through (yet).

[@Sam_Miller]

I get anywhere between 50-80fps running an i7-10700k and a 3090 with 32gb at high settings and a g9 neo with the ultrawide mo enabled no dlss mod but i never noticed a difference between using FSR and native. It felt like there was no rhyme or reason to the frame rate. The only place it was a constant 50 was in New Atlantis.

[@Jolsn]

The difference is that Crisis looked cutting edge for its time while Starfield looks worse than some games released 5 years ago

[@emeraldskull]

I did an upgrade prior to the official launch from 3700X/3070 to 5800X3D/3090ti. My game runs pretty smoothly with occasional frame drops into the upper 50s, but for the most part, my average is probably around 70ish FPS with highs in the 110s, running everything on ultra except for shadows on high at 1080p. I'm well aware that these are above recommended specs, I just wish it was optimized better for older hardware. I was considering selling my 3070 and 3700X to a friend specifically to play this game, but now I'm not so sure how well it will run on my old hardware and if it will even be worth it for him.

[@juliandiaz9339]

You get at least 60 fps on high settings at 1440p on your old setup.

[@joshuacurtis7621]

I play in 3440x1440 with a 3700x and 6700xt pretty much medium across the board with fsr 2 and about a 75% resolution scale and get around 45-50fps in the large cities but upwards of 90-100 inside of buildings it is very playable even for an fps whore like myself 😂 also remember there are dlss mods already out that apparently really help out Nvidia gpus

[@joshuacurtis7621]

​@juliandiaz9339 that's only with some decent resolution scaling tbh

[@juliandiaz9339]

@@joshuacurtis7621 true, but the game runs and it looks ok. Much better than my steam deck and the series s, I think your friend will have nothing to complain about those PC parts.

[@NoFailer]

@@joshuacurtis7621 You mean the DLSS mod that you have to pay for to actually use it forever?

[@DrMantisToboggan69]

Oh baby, despite my rig being 8 years old and middling when I got it, it's still able to play Starfield on the lowest of low settings. Launching the game off a HDD because my SSD is too small, and playing on a 1060 3gb, it hasn't been the greatest of experiences for sure but hey, it works!

[@HondEpic]

Legend 😁🙌

[@ccricc]

What am I missing when Jay says: "Unless you're running really high end hardware you're not going to get a comfortable gaming experience"? Im running Starfield on a R7 3700X and a 3080 10GB in 3440x1440p and Im having a blast. Sure below 60fps in New Atlantis (around 45 maybe) but easy around 60fps in most other places. I set render resolution to 75%, FSR on and used Hardware Unboxed recomended settings for GPU. I dont know, may be 3700X and 3080 is considered "really high end hardware"? I would say I'm having a very comfortabe gaming experience so far.

[@krisrobitzsch]

Jay this was an amazing video to show what’s really going on. Apparently it doesn’t matter what your specs are, we all get the same crappy fps. Lol

[@NotSoFast71]

Runs buttery smooth for me. 11900k, 3080, 32GB RAM. 1440p at 120+fps. All setting set to their highest.

[@nikoj34]

@@NotSoFast71 Just like Jay, Im running a 13900k, ROG Strix OC 4090 with 64 gigs of RAM @ 1440 and barely maintaining 90fps on max settings. What are you doing different that we arent, with lower specs? I'm not accusing, I really want to know so that I can make the same changes.

[@osky92]

Other than New Atlantis, game runs pretty smooth for me too at 2k with a 9700k and 3080

[@PottsieVol]

@@nikoj34what type of drive do you have the game loaded on? It specifically recommends an SSD. I ended up going with an M.2 since I run a 10700 and a 2070 super. Between 35-50 fps at 1440p high (but low shadow quality) depending on the scene.

[@nikoj34]

@PottsieVol I have a samsung 990 Pro. I just have to agree with Jay that this game is just not optimized, and it'll be a few updates before they get it right.. and that's "if" they get it right.

[@LeoVirtanen]

It's running great. It is a next gen PC game, we really do push the technology, so you may need to upgrade your PC for this game, but it's got a lot of great stuff going on in it and the fans are responding awesome. -Todd Howard

[@TakumisBizarreRacingAdventure]

You had me in the first half😂😂😂😂

[@carpelunam]

I think he meant the PC fans

[@tomo9992]

Next gen PC game on a 20 year old engine 😂

[@toadintheh0le]

@@tomo9992unreal engine is 25 years old, what’s your point?

[@wayneallinson4925]

@@toadintheh0le His point is unreal is alot better than the crap updated creation engine, same issues every game, crap engine.

[@Patchow]

The fact a 4070ti struggles with 1080p is really embarrassing on Bethesda’s part.

[@LC_NOoSE_IV]

They made absolutely no changes to the creation engine from 2015 in fallout 4, if anything made it worse.

[@audiogarden21]

It's not so much the frame rate that bothers me on my 5800X3D + 6800 XT system, it's the flickering caused by what I would assume is poor frame times in cities when utilizing FreeSync.

[@rjt135]

Have you tried turning off FSR? I had that issue with my 7600X + 6950 XT and solved most of the issue with FSR turned off.

[@audiogarden21]

@@rjt135 100%. Definitely not my problem.

[@vincer7824]

This channel helped me tremendously. Didn’t have a desktop for about a decade (before that was hand me down Macs). Saved up a bunch of money and decided to build the best PC I could. Binged watched this channel along with Linus and Gamers Nexus before work, on the train to work, during my lunch break, along with staying up late nearly every night learning. Did that for 2ish months and built the beast. That was about a year and a half ago. I’ve been enjoying Starfield and even with it’s crap optimization it’s been running fine. Thanks Jay, you da man.

[@RarestAce]

According to Todd Howard they did optimize Starfield for PC. It was an article from PC Gamer I read last night. If they actually "optimized" this game for PC I really hate to see what it would of been like if they didn't optimize it. I really want to play this game but I think I'll hold off for a few weeks to see what happens.

[@smugtomato5972]

You should take everything that comes out of Todd's mouth with an ocean full of salt

[@RarestAce]

@@smugtomato5972 Oh I do. Him talking about Starfield the past few days has been hysterical. Best comedy act I've seen in a while

[@InvalidationX145]

Cyberpunk was flagged as "the new Crysis" not just because of optimization but because it had a myriad of visual features that _still_ push most hardware to this day if you want to get max graphical settings, much like Crysis did, and has some serious eye candy to go with that tech despite some of its other problems. Starfield just... runs weird. Think this is less of a "new Crysis" situation and more of, like Jay said repeatedly throughout the video, just a really weirdly optimized game. (I'd say poorly but there's clearly _some_ optimization going on if GPU and CPU load changes with settings, but the frames don't seem to - almost like there's a target FPS the game engine determines based on hardware performance up front, and then continues to shoot for regardless of the setting changes and hardware power available. Another shitty port moment?)

[@Grievous-]

I'm running a 7900 XT with fans at 100% for 80°c and a 7700X CPU which is also at 80°C for an FPS of between 90 and 114. I don't know why I am capped at 114, but I cannot go above that limit. I'm loving Starfield and it's running very smoothly on my hardware.

[@tipetiptop]

I got the same gpu (sapphire nitro+) but with 7600x. And im getting an average of 125fps 🤔

[@aaronhopkins7354]

6:15 I think New Atlantis area may hit the CPU harder. I am typically 99-100% on GPU with 7950X3D, 7900 XT, 1440p Ultra, FSR off. I typically get 80-100 FPS, depending on what's going on. Earlier today I was in the same spot you guys were (ramp coming out of the NAT below MAST) and noticed the GPU usage was dropping to like 90%. I have to think that there was just a lot of CPU intensive things going on (crowds?).

[@darylcheshire1618]

In WoW that was in the city of Ironforge, called LagForge.

[@seizonsha]

I ordered a 7800x3d because i got tired of cpu intensive areas not utilizing my 3080ti properly.

[@melcorchancla9431]

@@LTNetjak junk get unloaded as soon as you load into a different area, shouldn’t affect it too much. Star citizen for example added persistent entity streaming, and with 40k items loaded on a server it doesn’t change cpu performance that much.

[@MBSteinNL]

@@melcorchancla9431Shouldn’t compare to SC. Most of the work of SC gets done serverside, and server chips are generally more focused on persistent stable output, instead of the peaking approach of consumer chips. Server chips also have more data verification so you get less ‘thrash’ output.

[@Noganite]

I play it with 5800X3D and 2070 Super at 1080. Yeah I noticed it was the game. The animations look smooth at 35-40 fps and when the fps is higher, I can see it being slower in the animation so I suspect that they designed the game and animations to be really for the 40 fps mark. If you get more, cool. I find it very playable. Very much like Crysis back in the days.

[@dekanoss]

turning off shadows does pretty much nothing to the look of the game but greatly increases fps.

[@itsShineboxx]

I can already tell you Jay, I am running on a i9-9900K, 2080 Ti, 64GB ram and I am averaging 30-40fps with constant lock up and crashes, all settings low and on 720p on a 1080p monitor. It sucks for a game to come out in 2023 with ETREMLEY poor optimization.

[@neonraytracer8846]

That's odd, I'm running 3060 with an AMD 7700x on 16gb slow RAM, and I avg. 45-60fps on ultra with a 4k widescreen, without lockups or crashes. Are you using a normal hard drive or ssd? Because I have an NVME.2, and I think loading might be causing some of the lockups. Besides that, I think the minimum for ultra settings should probably a 30 series card.

[@itsShineboxx]

@@neonraytracer8846 I am using an SSD as my motherboard only has one nvme slot which is housing my main drive, a 1tb samsung nvme. I am hearing everyone is having different experiences with Starfield. People with lower teir hardware are having a better experience than I am yet some people with lets say a 4080 is having worse issues than I am. The optimization on Starfield is insanely odd. They need to release a patch soon to rectify the problem and at least add DLSS support. Why they did not launch with that is beyond me. For such a hyped up game, the performance is such a huge let down. I can't even stream on Twitch while playing Starfield as the game is utilizing 92-98% of my 2080 Ti. I've never seen a game be this badly optimized before. It is sad.

[@evlkenevl2721]

6700xt and 5600x here. The initial settings had me over 100 fps @ 1440p in the city and looked like an old game. Tried HUB's "quality" settings and frames dropped to 55-60 but looked way better. Still need to tweak a little.

[@ceilyurie856]

Hey, those are my specs

[@Hawk7886]

lmao, calling bull on that. My specs are about the same and the game can't maintain 40fps during even light duty parts on the High preset. Large cities or heavy combat makes it drop into the mid 30s at best.

[@evlkenevl2721]

No bull. It ran over 100 with the settings the game chose, but looked like ass. I might be off a little on the fps of the tweaked settings, but it's mid 50s at least, in New Whatever.

[@Hawk7886]

@@evlkenevl2721 ok, can you link a twitch vod or yt clip showing it? I'd love to get my settings even close to yours, I'm so sick of the game running like total dogshit.

[@BlizzTheOneAndOnly]

​@@Hawk7886use the mod. It's just an .ini file for each preset you download and paste in the game's folder. You'll run it at 70-80 most times with drops to 50.

[@vladm801]

Thank you for the video. I'd suggest to try to achieve better sync between what viewers SEE and HEAR. Sometimes, talking is done about one configuration but camera shows another one. Maybe, just replace camera-man by tripod that shows both displays at the same time?

[@jambononi]

I have a 1080ti and it's the first game that is awful on it. I was a bit confused because although it's an old card now, it always plays a game at decent settings in 1080p. This was straining to play it. Yeah it's got to be the optimisation because other games are fine on the 1080ti

[@TheDeadlyCarnage]

I have the FE 1080ti. As soon as it was released. I know for sure it could handle for a long while. Starfield has been the ONLY game to this date, that has bogged it so much. I usually run every game at max graphics or mostly high, with few things that significantly lower fps, like water reflection or shadows. You said it 100% accurately, that Starfield was straining it to play. (tho I can still play it, and will continue)

[@jambononi]

@@TheDeadlyCarnage me too! It's the first game I've even half thought of getting a better system. Literally every other game is capable. Clearly Starfield is just poorly optimised.

[@TheDeadlyCarnage]

@@jambononi I spent like few days designing a new pc, because I kept thinking maybe, just maybe upgrading would make it all worth it. However, some of the mods are doing justice, but it isn't enough really. Still holding out on upgrading because im broker than the government's ideals.

[@davidcole2337]

Starfield needs to do a patch and add DLSS as option for Nvidia Card Owners.. Having Ryzen 7 3700X with RTX 4070TI I should be able to get 60 FPS with Medium Quality. yes I know there is some bottleneck with older Ryzen CPU, but shouldn't be more than 15% since running 1440P. DLSS would allow me to hit that threshold.

[@Standoffmuffin]

It's an easy mod just Google it.

[@jesh879]

There is a patch available for dlss. It does not add performance. This game just sucks.

[@buddymac1]

There is a mod you can get to used DLSS

[@mg7335]

That is untrue i installed the dlss mod today and bumped up from 35fps to 50-80 2070 super @@jesh879

[@EXOWill]

A third party dlss is not the point. It should come with the game along with xess.

[@jonathanward3633]

Fascinating. This isn't a criticism of Jay, I'm sure he's spot on, but I'm finding it fascinating the massive differences people are getting. I'm running the game on a 2070 Super 32gb ram and a 4 year old i5 (I forget which one) at 2560x1440 with a mix of medium and high settings and getting 60 - 80 FPS in most indoor locations, 40 - 80 in most outdoor locations and consistently 40 FPS in New Atlanta. It's bizarre how differently this game behaves on different hardware.

[@fzmracerx]

After Selecting FSR you need to manually select the resolution scale you want FSR to upscale from.

[@MBSteinNL]

That’s not the normal way FSR operates is it? I thought it always attempts to upscale via a linked resolution vs output.

[@fzmracerx]

​@@MBSteinNLit's not this game doesn't have preset options like other games. This game gives more user control over the resolution you want to upscale from.

[@rockdem0n]

Jay, what is your take on why the disparity exists between those AMD and competitive specs, or the fact that Intel Arc was just declared to be "below minimums" even with their fastest card.

[@DeadCat-42]

The sad part is ,it runs better with my arc than my friends 3080.. Guess the 3080 doesn't have the capability to run starfail?

[@DeadCat-42]

More likely, they are lazy and don't want to fix poorly written code.

[@CommonSenseOpinions]

When is Phil going to do an editing video? His stuff is so clean!

[@aeskellion]

I have a 1080 Ti FE, and this is the first game that literally dumps on my graphics card even at 1080P. I don’t know how much of that has to do with optimization but damn that game turns my PC into a nuclear plant, maybe it’s time for me to get a new CPU (I’m using a 35W 9th Gen Intel I5 I got for free)

[@SFearox]

R.I.P. 1080 Ti, I'm going to upgrade to a 2080 Ti or 6800 XT. Only i want to play the Half Life 2 RTX remake.

[@aeskellion]

@@SFearox why not look into 3070's

[@SFearox]

Coming from 11GB vram, 8GB feels like a downgrade for me.@@aeskellion

[@aeskellion]

@@justinastelksnys Yikes...

[@raze4789]

The visual difference between high and ultra is not much. And theres some settings that can be set to medium for very little visual impact. After i played with the settings a bit i ended up turning FSR off and set render resolution to 80% and the game smoothed out quite a bit.

[@joshuacurtis7621]

Fsr is the render resolution is it not? If you turn it off the resolution slider goes away

[@sparhawk1228]

FSR uses that render resolution. If you turn off FSR that render resolution is not applicable.

[@stephandolby]

Looking at the CPU benchmarks on various sites, it's obvious that there are a few issues. Things that could possibly help performance: keep E Cores enabled, disable HT/SMT, and run with the fastest memory you can afford (1:1 IF ratio on AMD). Also, it seems to run better in Windows 11.

[@Ztygs]

But the results in this video is from Win11

[@arech1778]

Looks like the "60fps limit because of physics tied to frametimes is a good idea" fix is working as intended. You won't have problems with physics as long as everything is limited to physics simulation rate

[@Cosmycal]

Exactly, and now people complaining their CPU's can't do all those simulations at 144fps.

[@craigbomer8962]

I wondered if it was an optimization problem after watching multiple videos on this. I have a 6700xt running a 1080 panel and I can usually crank everything to max and have a decent experience.

[@BladeCrew]

Most people dont have a 6700xt the average gamer has between a gtx 1650 or rx 580 to a rtx 3060 or rx 6600 xt.

[@LORKASWE]

It is not a new Crysys because Crysis was a revolution in graphics.

[@NuminorTheFool]

Its really nice to see exactly what Bethesda had in mind when they say 'Minimum and Recommended' because there was barely any difference between the two. Which in of itself should be massively telling to how unoptimized the game is. Also thanks to GN for showing that its nothing to do with the GPU being bad the game is literally being bottlenecked hard by the CPU. Like its honestly astonishing that a bottleneck that big could be missed by developers to the point it almost looks like malicious negligence.

[@chrisk3127]

making people upgrade to next gen Ryzen for that 20% IPC improvement lol

[@dangerwr]

This is Bethesda we're talking about. They always half-ass it and leave it to modders to fix, then apply those fixes later.

[@ChrisKoups]

Sometimes you have to reset the game to apply all the features. It has to do with preloading memory tables etc.

[@justinseans]

This may be.

[@matthewkeller9271]

Here i was thinking my 3080 would be able to keep 60fps ultra 1440p... Bethesda laughed at me

[@RichardDuncan-ju1xk]

Why do I need a better computer to play a Fallout 4 clone?

[@EnlightMC]

First time in a few years I've seriously considered upgrading from a 2080Ti. Currently medium setting @ 56FPS 1440p.

[@raven80wolfx2]

Is that with or without fsr?

[@gokublack8342]

​@raven80wolfx2 If he's got a 2080ti he should get the mod to enable DLSS I'm an AMD guy but DLSS is just better than FSR

[@lordshitpost31]

Your hardware is fine, game needs to be optimized.

[@EnlightMC]

@@gokublack8342 Just got all the files required. Tried it on my Legion 7 laptop first and it's gone up to 62FPS on High preset. Excellent mods and thanks for the info.

[@gokublack8342]

@@EnlightMC Np 😁

[@ibangladeshi1161]

CRYSIS WAS GROUND BREAKING IN TERMS OF GRAPHICS AND STARFIELD DID NOTHING SORTS

[@kenotek252]

8:21 Starfield seems to handle upscaling differently for some reason. FSR upscales to your desktop resolution from the percentage you set in the resolution scaling option. Just turning on FSR seems to do nothing on its own. In my case, I play in 4k and have FSR on, then I set render resolution to 67%, which is about 1440p. Only then does my framerate go from the high 60's to the mid 90's in the same scene. Weird that it works like this, but there you go.

[@ErikRedbeard]

This yeah. But it's not weird, just the more advanced way and prob the way you'll see more games start doing it. Normally you got things like Performance, Quality and such. Which is just percentages in the background. Iirc 67% resolution scale is about the same as Quality mode for both FSR2 and DLSS.

[@Cletus_Van_Damme]

SSD is required not just for loading times. I was curious and installed on my HDD and the audio was always lagging when you started a conversation with and NPC. Evem music and ambient sounds would cause gameplay to stutter. All that went away when I moved it to and SSD.

[@distorteduzi]

Interesting

[@DrMantisToboggan69]

Yup, I'm playing on a HDD in the meantime while I build a new rig, but every one-on-one conversation lags at the start (NPCs face animation shows them speaking, but no audio) and audio doesn't kick in for a few seconds. Haven't really had the issue with music and ambient sounds, but the game does stutter at times and the loading screens are long, as expected

[@MumeiGami]

On a i7-12700k, 32gb ram, RTX 3070 I hit about 45 fps in New Atlantis at 1440p High No FSR. This game should not be anywhere near that bad in performance. Some people found that the games coding sent instructions that somehow made the GPU restart it tasks a few times per instruction set. This is likely a huge part of the performance issues as it is likely almost doubling the load on the GPU.

[@NoverianSnowCone]

I'm waiting on DF's (Alex's) take. I do find it bizarre how little the presets affect fps. I'm running a 4080 and 12700K and the only reason I'm getting great perf. is due to the DLSS + FG mod. I would highly recommend that and removing the filters if you're on OLED.

[@TheSlayerV1]

I'm very curios to see what Alex has to say about the game too. I'm on a 5600x and 4070 Ti and get pretty good performance at 4k with the DLSS mod. Real shame Bethesda didnt just add native DLSS and FG support.

[@andystuman]

I’m running a 13700k/4080 at 1440p. Have everything on ultra w no upscaling just for mediocre graphics. It does stay above 60fps.

[@jimmyfuchstein2274]

The game itself is a lot of fun and i think its good personally. But at 4k with my 2080 ive managed to tweak games and get at least a smooth 55fps or 60 in practically every other title. Starfield reminds me of when fallout 4 came out and i thought if i upgraded from my 390x i would get better frames. Turns out the creation engine is just too old and they should have put more work into it. I wish microsoft would have allowed them more time to work on Starfield too. It feels like some things were just cut to save time for release.

[@WitchPilled]

Yeah this tracks with my memory too. I had a stinkin’ 980ti build when Fallout 4 launched at it ran like absolute dog water. I think it took like a year or two of updates for the game to run alright.

[@eternalbeing3339]

4k with a 2080 lol yeah right. Maybe you mean 3080. Fallout 4 has some graphics settings in the launcher that literally broke the game. It would crash if you tried to enable them. Different case.

[@jimmyfuchstein2274]

@@WitchPilled same here, even with the 2080.

[@jimmyfuchstein2274]

@@eternalbeing3339 Be as arrogant as you like bud, I run games at 4k just fine with my 5900x and 2080. DLSS is obviously always on when needed. However i've only ever needed it in Starfield, BF2042, COD and Cyberpunk. The huge list of games I get over 100fps dwarfs the tiny ego of a man who thinks he can just say "nuh uh!" without any proof what-so-ever. That aside, I don't think I remember a setting that made FO4 break, perhaps you should install it again and try finding it for me? I'm comparing the launch with FO4 and Starfield expressing a familiar feeling I had while playing both games. My GPU is falling behind. However it's shown here that it seems to be more of a limitation to the engine, so I don't really care.

[@scorpiodelirium]

I'm running a 3070TI, under voltage due to heat, with a memory OC to 10501 Mhz, a Ryzen 9 5900x, no OC and 32 GB RAM. 62 hours in game and the only place I get really low FPS is Jemison, especially around the MAST building, high 40s--mid 50s on high settings with motion blur and film grain off. 2560x1440. Everywhere else I'm getting between 58 all the way up to mid 90s, usually around 74. I've only CTD once. This is pretty low FPS for my system. Still need to try out the DLSS mod. That being said, I'm having a blast with this game.

[@-Rizecek-]

Just with the difference that Crysis was next gen. This is like a PS4 game.

[@MrCreepjo]

Even older the engine is from since their oblivion days.

[@iyziejane]

In some ways it looks better than any PS4 game. In other ways (like frequent loading screens) it's like a PS2 game.

[@Hawk7886]

​@@iyziejanedude don't hate on the PS2 by comparing it to Starfield. Twisted Metal Black was _amazing_

[@wilppuse]

Yeaaah, fuck that game. Hard skip.

[@Slaegar]

This issue popped up all the way back in Morrowind where the game bogs down in busy areas even when you have plenty of power to run the game.

[@ShanePlaysTV]

I am really THANKFUL someone is transparent on performance. It’s a similar issue with Starwars Jedi survivor, the game wasn’t utilising the gpus, cpus, or cores as it should of done. I sat at 45 fps on medium, 2 months later I’m over 60 fps on high settings. But they was clear from the start they haven’t optimised the game completely for all gpus and cpus, only a select bunch on-release. Yet Bethesda haven’t been, yeah the games good, I like it but it’s a hate love relationship. The games performance is just everywhere. No matter what I change it doesn’t effect fps, the visuals don’t change much from medium to ultra. And from my testing my cores and gpu utilisation isn’t being utilised as it should be. Away from cities isn’t so bad, but in cities it’s just so bad. I use to play at 30fps on ps4, but Iv okayed at least 60 fps or more on pc, with the recommend specs for this game, it still struggles to keep a solid 60, the advertisement is false. They won’t wanna admit it, of course not, bad for publicity. I’m creating videos since I’m enjoying playing it to an extent, but I won’t be able to enjoy it fully on my own off camera until a couple months after fixes. Someone said (upgrade to a 4080) like why? When I have the recommended specs, just above it. Plus? That gpu even struggles to reach a constant high fps without mods

[@TheKroppDuster]

I'm late to the party with this comment, but I appreciate you making this video. I'm running an i7-13700k with a RTX 4070 Ti and 64gb of DDR4-3200 ram. I've been tweaking the heck out of the settings and racking my brain trying to understand why I can't push past ~75 fps @ 1080p. Sounds like that's the best I can hope for (for now) due to the game engine. Glad to know it's not my hardware. Thanks again!

[@LackingHistory]

who is running the camera? Nick! because we love him!

[@merixstyle5694]

Wow dude I get around 120 FPS on my 7900xtx, it makes me happy to see my GPU is better than the 4090 LOL. All my specs are at max 4k, but I was getting random game crashes until I boosted my RAM speeds and all that went away. Thanks for showing us some insight with the low tier specs bro.

[@ScreaminSeahawk]

The only time I have seen a significant change in frame rate, is when I dropped shadows from ultra to high. It went up 20fps! I’m using a 6900XT at 3440x1440. Also, using FSR2 makes no change in the frame rate. I’m enjoying the game though!

[@Cueil]

did you drop your percentage because if you just leave it at 100 I don't think it actually does anything

[@cars291]

Excellent video - congratulations. Sometimes hype is overshadowing what you are actually getting. Well most times not sometimes

[@pixelperfecttv1162]

I am running under the minimum requirements for CPU (6700k, a four core). The GPU is a 1080 and 16gb of ram. At high (default, FSR on) at 1080p I get between 30-50 fps. Absolutely total playable and enjoyable. No issues.

[@johnnybagofdoughnuts4193]

Just discovered this channel. This video illustrates why you have the subscriber base you do.

[@derikyeager2127]

I play starfield on a $900 pc I custom built (though I got a Radeon RX 6700 XT for $200, everything else was retail). I am thoroughly satisfied with the performance I'm getting IN 4K SETTINGS MAXED WITH FSR 2.0 ON. It's smooth as butter. The only time it looks choppy is when an npc is real close. People want insane framerates nowadays. When you are playing Starfield competitively in a million dollar tournament, only then can you reasonably complain, assuming you're getting at least 20 fps. Movies used to be 24 fps so...

[@Andrewmichaud14]

A big thing with Starfield right now is the Ultra / High / Medium settings on most presets are barely noticeable graphics wise but still affect the gpu quite a bit, feels like the game is not well optimized at the moment. Couple updates should fix that but for initial launch it looks gorgeous and can only go up from there.

[@hajkie]

Yea i have to play on medium with no dlss mod, 3440x1440 downscaling with i5-10600k/3060/16, but when i pumped preset to ultra i didnt see a difference, atleast not in new atlantis.

[@vincentclark8386]

Have to say, using digital foundry recommended settings with some tweaks like modding DLSS (which keeps trophies active) and changing FOV my 3060ti runs pretty good at 70fps roughly

[@maggi0388]

I have 50fps on low settings and 720p with a rtx 3060

[@thetrailographer]

With my i5-13600K and 6700XT in 1080P with everything set to ULTRA and FSR on never drops below 80FPS (tested in NEON city) and in most locations like the MAST District, it averages 120+ FPS. I'm amazed to see such high-end cards struggling.

[@dotJata]

Dont do Crysis dirty with a title like that. It pushed graphical fidelity to new heights. Starfield is pretty mid.

[@michaelmanning9028]

The intro had me nervous, I just finished my 1st build 6 months ago with a Ryzen 7 5700G, 32 gb, and an Rtx 3080 REALLY glad I didn't go with the 3060 like I had planned, it'd play it but not very well..😬

[@bigblue729]

Weird. It’s been running on my steam deck fine. Only problem I’ve encountered was a missing eyeball on Sarah, but that went away once I loaded to a new area.

[@Damonadjinn]

I just built a new system (in June) Ryzen 7900x / XFX RX 6800XT / Corsair Vengeance DDR5 64GB 6000MHz. I'm getting 152fps @1440p every thing maxed, motion blur off (cause F that) and FSR on. I got the game free with the Amazon deal on the graphic card, and have been playing it for a week. Never expected "Poor Performance" and "Not Optimized." A few bugs but 0 crashes.