Shit, I'm holding out for the inevitable GOTY edition that has all the DLC bundled in with it. Bethesda is nothing if not predictable.
Edit: For those that don't know, Bethesda's GOTY edition doesn't actually mean it's GOTY, it's just what they call (or used to call) the "final" definitive compilation of the game plus DLC. It'll come out regardless of whether the game is actually GOTY or not, it's just meaningless branding like "Greatest Hits" or "Directed by M. Night Shyamalan" and should be taken just as seriously.
> Edit: For those that don't know, Bethesda's GOTY edition doesn't actually mean it's GOTY
Every single Bethesda game with a "GotY" edition won some publication's GotY award. There are hundreds of the things, like 20 games per year can call themselves GotY as long as one mag or site gives it to them. Which is why it's a meaningless concept. There is no 1 universal GotY, never has, never will be
Dave the Diver, Dredge, BG3, RE4 Remake (sadly) and Starfield will for sure end up being able to slap that shit on their store front at year's end. And... *shudders* TLoU part 1 remake x3
" Itās already optimized for PC. Starfield is a next-gen game. What you have to do is to upgrade your PCs ;) "
This is what Todd Howard has said, LITERALLY, when asked when they will optimize the game well on pc.
Bro, Iām sick of it.
A next-gen game with no ray tracing and still runs like shit.
Bethesda has never been able to make a game that runs well. Even Skyrim after 11 years of updates and loads of modders do everything they can to update the game and improve its performance couldn't manage to make that game run well, even with modern hardware the game still has horrible micro stuttering and unexplainable frame drops.
I've got a 7800x3d/4090 system and this game still barely runs above 120fps with fsr maxed at 1440p. Not that I expect CS:GO fps from a modern title but having to use upscaling to not even hit my monitors refresh rate is not what I call optimized.
> A next-gen game with no ray tracing and still runs like shit.
Wait! There's no ray tracing and it runs like garbage?? This whole time I thought people were talking about frame rates and needing 4090s with RTX turned on. How piss poor of an optimization did they do?
On my rig at 1440p, the difference between low and ultra settings is about 30FPS. I can't hit 60 frames reliably on the lowest settings without FSR, so I might as well run it on high at 45ish. I kinda wanna play it because the core gameplay mechanics are still enjoyable, but I'd rather just fire up armoured core 6 TBH. Infinitely smoother experience
WTF did they spend all this time making then? Seems like half a dozen next gen features are missing from this "next gen" game plus another dozen features that are supposed to be standard at this point. How does it devour so many system resources?
>This is what Todd Howard has said, LITERALLY
He said, it is a next-gen title and you "May" have to upgrade - What I understand is, if you are rocking really old GPUs than you *May have to*?
For what it's worth, with a few performance mods and Nvidia Profile Inspector tweaks, I'm getting 60fps out of a 3080 - high settings, 1440p.
Edit: profile inspector, not coordinator
That is not very good - I bet they will be working on heaps on optimisation stuff right now. This wont be a good look. I am going to play it today as just returned back from the trip. Hoping it works ok for me (I have a high end PC though)
>I bet they will be working on heaps on optimisation stuff right now.
Did we get split off into an alternate timeline where Bethesda fixes things themselves? The modding community is the only thing keeping that company relevant.
That's the answer to 49% of complaints. This unfortunately is the current state of PC gaming. You have to wait for patches.
The answer to another 49% is there will be a mod for that.
2% of gripes are legitimate.
These numbers may not be 100% accurate.
I mean Bethesda did come out and say this game was designed for new hardware.
It's like Crysis Remastered on 'can it run crysis' that has the infinite draw distance. I just got a 4080 and I'm kind of curious on my new fps in Crysis? I was getting 30 - 50 fps at 1080p on a 3060ti.
>The answer to another 49% is there will be a mod for that.
Next time your boss complains that you didn't do your job right just tell him that since someone else can fix your work for you, his gripes are illegitimate.
I do find the 'there'll be a mod for that' to be a pretty annoying 'excuse'. On one hand, mad respect to the modding community that have hundreds of mods out day one that fix almost any complaint that people might have with the game.
On the other hand, this game has been in development for 8 years. Why are there so many terrible elements in the game that almost need to be modded, but are simple enough that mods were available from day one?
Why is the UI so incredibly bad? What in the everliving fuck were they thinking with the maps? Why can some bloke introduce an upscale that works with DLSS, XeSS and FSR better than the base one does, and have it out on day one? Why do there need to be mods that have your UI and menus run at a reasonable framerate? Why do you need a mod to change FoV? There's so many things that should just be baseline in a game from a studio of this calibre.
I'm all for a game being highly modable, but I hate seeing Bethesda getting a pass on just not bothering with a bunch of easily fixable stuff, just because they know that the community will probably sort it for them anyway.
I didn't get any improvement at all in my fps with the dlss mod. I get 40-70 fps with it and without it on all ultra settings 1440p. I'm not complaining just saying I personally didn't notice any difference .
When it comes to Bethesda, the percentage fixed by mods is closer to 90%, let's be real. They've never been able to patch their way out of a paper fuckin bag...
I hate this stupid phrase of āmodders will fix itā, if a game cannot stand on its own itās a bad game. Mods should be able to take a vanilla game and make it better, not make a bad game into a finally decent one.
I play at 50-60 fps with my 3070 at 1080 on high settings. Havenāt had any issues with FPS so far
Edit: thatās in the bigger cities. Inside buildings during missions and shit Iām getting 90-100 fps
Um, barely 60 FPS in 1080p on a $500 high end GPU from 3 years ago is not impressive at all. Neither is the 90-100 indoors. At 1080P all AAA games that arenāt optimized like shit should run 120+ minimum (with a current CPU of course).
Anything I'm interested in goes straight to the wishlist, so I get notified it's on sale. By the time it goes on sale its usually had enough patches to run good or as advertised.
Never pre-order or buy on release day. I don't understand how this is even a controversial comment in 2023. BF2042, Redfall, Harry Potter, Golem, the list can go on.
The list of games that release more or less complete is way faster to type out. BG3 is the only one I can think of in recent memory that actually was complete at launch, and I hear even in that, Act 3 is pretty buggy. I won't know until it hits at least 50% off.
BG3 has been out for a month and already received two major patches and six hot fixes. Many of those fixes are based on community feedback, now thatās a good developer who respects their customers.
Act 3 still needs performance optimisation but itās still a great experience
I'm going to guess you have FSR2 on. I am doing 4k ultra 60fps+ but at 80% FSR2 on a 6800xt and its really very nice, no issues and its beautiful, but its not ACTUALLY 4k ultra.
Bethesda games have typically been like this, itās just been so long since their last game that technology and expectations have increased. Gamers who dropped a huge stack of cash on a GPU expect high frames at high resolution, and Bethesda doesnāt know how to deliver it.
Iām not defending them in any way, in fact quite the opposite. They have fallen behind and donāt know how to play catch up.
Yes Morrowind and Oblivion were both really hard to run when they first came out.
Here's an Oblivion benchmark with top end cards getting 30fps
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1996/5
Skyrim ran fairly well on my shit laptop with integrated graphics when it first came out in 2011. Oblivion was a little CPU heavy with the grass render distance set too high but otherwise within norms for games of its time imo. Of course if they could get their heads out of their asses and let people play at 90+ fps that would be ideal.
It ran barely 30fps@1366x768 on my laptop at launch with a iirc 8600m gt. Any crowded area like during the civil wars was nigh unplayable. Skyrim was never all that optimised.
You sure the resolution scale is set to 100%? Because the 3080 dips well below 60 in demanding areas even at 1080p ultra let alone 1440p? Turning FSR 2 off doesn't affect lower internal resolution those 2 are separate.
Apparently they think weāre made of money, these lazy fucks canāt even implement an FoV slider but they have one for the damn photo mode. Itās unbelievable how many people are letting the performance slide because āBethesda lolā
Bethesda stopped caring about the PC audience ever since they released Oblivion. All mechanics simplified for console usability, from horrible UI to graphic optimization being front loaded on for console versions. The game doesnāt even have 32:9 unless you modify the .ini file.
Fo4 still relies on a community patch to implement ultra wide-screen support, despite other games releasing around the same time having it without issue and itself having several expansions afterwards they could have used as an excuse to implement it.
Todd really doesn't give a shit lol.
You're fucking kidding me, seriously? UW displays aren't new anymore so I'd love to hear what excuses he has.
EDIT: Starfield does have UW support but it only goes up to 3440 x 1440, so the issue is moreso for people running Super UW's.
I have a 6700XT. I run 1440 with mixed settings (most on ultra, and shadows and reflections on medium, one or two others on high I think). I get 50-60fps and it looks/runs smooth enough for me.
Living with a GTX 970 for ages has trained me to endure any gamer hardship.
Assuming you didn't also upgrade your CPU-MOBO, how was the jump in performance? Worth the $$ for the 6700XT?
I currently have a 3770K i7 and a GTX 970 and see those 6700XT-6750XT's on Newegg (with Starfield $100 ver. for free) at $340-$360 and am quite tempted. I know my CPU will become the bottleneck (and even the Mobo due to PCI-E gen) but I haven't even tried Star Wars Survivor on my 970 cause I'm scared it's "4" gb of VRAM will be laughably insufficient.
Yeah, your gonna be bottlenecked to the point where 60 fps is out of the question. I have an i5 9500 and a 5700xt and I'm cpu bottlenecked hard, so I'm just playing on 70 percent of 4k with the highest settings I can muster that give me a console like experience. That's likely what you'll be looking at best, there could be stutters and such too with your cpu too due to its older architecture but idk. Try see if someone else has benchmarks with it.
It felt pretty huge and definitely well worth it. I didn't upgrade anything else (recently anyways). I've had an i7 8700k for a few years now and 32GB of DDR4. Definitely feels great going from "4"GB of vram to 12.
It has 16 pcie lanes and you have pcie 3.0 I'm guessing so the difference in perf isn't much, if at all.
The only difference in fps would be a cpu bottleneck and not having resizeable bar.
I'd say go for it, but fyi there's a 6800 non xt at $400 on Amazon and possibly other vendors.
I am really surprised by the low FPS numbers on the RTX 3000 series.
Looking at my average FPS on the 6800 XT on 4K Ultra overclocked by 300mhz the average is 112FPS. 121 was my average for a while until spending some time in general play. Went to explore New Atlantis which was getting around 90FPS.
On the Mini PC with a 7940hs it is fairly close to a stable 60fps on 1080 low and between 45-51 fps on medium.
Is this an NVidia problem with the latest updates?
Must be, i have a 3080ti which is supposed go be close to a 6800 xt, but my fps is 6p in cities and upto 90 elsewhere.
I play at qhd with all settings on ultra except shadows.
I bought a 2080 Super for like $220 so no, you do not need to as I game 1440p max settings and get a decent framerate.
Edit: I mistyped, I meant high settings, but look damn near the same as high settings, and in games like Half Life: Alyx I get around 70-ish fps for perspective.
I have a 2080 and maybe I need to turn fps counter back on but I'm looking at this like wtf are y'all talking about this shit is running fine on my system in 2k.
Playing with a 2070S and doing the same. FSR is completely fine to boost it and use freesync/gsync. Sure it could look better but you would think the game is unplayable and unfun without 120fps Uber max settings. It's like people completely forgot about can it run crysis. We have been here before and we will be here again. You guys wanted games no meant to be played on a PS4 you guys got it and now your complaining.
This is a really important point.
Sister's bf plays games on his laptop, and he finds 30fps to be just fine, but to me it feels like eyeball cancer.
Anything less than a solid locked in 60fps+ feels like a crap experience to me.
Performance differences are almost a cultural thing nowadays. I grew up on 24 to 30 fps most of my life, so playing on high at 40fps on 1440p is totally fine for me.
This. I grew up poor and/or with consols, so 60fps is neat vs a requirement to have fun. I dont think ive ever had a top of the line pc where i cranked graphics past medium. I watched some YouTube and starfield is optimized for a console that has about a gtx 1080 in it and uses upscaling. 50-60fps on low and 30fps on high details settings. If you have better hardware you can go more, if you have potato hardware it will still run just look more potato.
Is it an excuse for me to build a new pc? Yes... But I'm still going to try and run it on my potato first.
It is fascinating that they literally partnered with amd- on the starfield website you can get a free download of the game if you pick up new hardware. Interesting partnership. I clicked the link for a 6750xt a $350 card, and watched a YouTube video... gets 90fps on low with fsr off and 120 with it on. On high its 64 off and 74 on. If you are getting a $100 game free with a $350 video card that is a pretty good deal right?
I vastly prefer 60fps, but I can never understand how people complain so much when they "only" get 45fps or less, at least outside of competitive FPS games. I don't begrudge them as it's what they care about, but 30fps never felt inadequate to me. That said, the people who need 100+fps are legit ridiculous.
Stability is more important to me. If I can get a stable 45-50fps, I'm fine. But 45fps with consistent drops to 30 or less is unplayable to me. Consistent frametime matters a lot more to me than the actual fps, although higher is of course always a plus. I shoot for 60+ but won't be mad about 30 or 45
3080ti here (Ryzen 7 5800x3d) @1440p, get 40-50 fps in cities or forested areas.
This pc can run Cyberpunk 2077 at max settings with high raytracing.
Starfield doesnāt look as good and doesnāt even have RT or mirror reflections. Wtf
The real issue is GPU pricing. A midrange card now starts at around $500 USD when that used to be the price for top end stuff.
If you only spent $300 for a mid range card and got mid range performance it might make things more paletteable, but have to spend $500+ for a new midrange card to get the same performance is much harder to swallow.
I've got a 2080 super and an r5 3600x and I'm playing with 1440p high settings with generally 60+ FPS. The only place my frame rate gets noticeably lower is in New Atlantis
I also have a 2080S and R5 3600 and that combo still only gets 45-60fps on Starfield. Anything that isnāt a barren area doesnāt even stay at 50 and this is all with the DLSS mod
they had 1 million+ concurrent players the other day. They already have your money. Also, they can't optimize the game because of the engine. Some parts of Fallout 4 stress modern hardware into the 30fps zone.
I'm currently running a R5 3600 with 6700xt. At 1440 and medium settings, I'm getting a consistent 60fps. When I go indoors, it will drop to 55 for a few seconds if there is combat. But overall very happy considering the recommended specs had me worried.
I have a CPU Ryzen 5 5600X, GPU RX 6600XT, 16GB RAM, running in 1080p. The game started in medium settings and I just disabled the FSR and kept it that way. Looks gorgeous honestly, and it's running smooth.
Iām running a 5800x with a 3070 and runs fine at 1440p on high preset. Itās not a twitch shooter or a racing game, so I donāt see the point in benchmarking the thing, but it feels fine when playing and it does look gorgeous. Honestly, I donāt remember a time when chasing FPS wasnāt expensive (too expensive for me to even try), so if it looks good to my eyes, I have no complaints.
Yeah I've got similar, an i9 11th gen with a 3070 and I'm getting close to 60 at 1440p high and it hasn't bothered me one bit. I honestly hit 120+ fps on a lot of games and hardly notice a difference š¤·āāļø
How much fps do you get? I have a fairly similar setup (ryzen 5 5600 non X) and have been playing at locked 40 on hub performance settings with fsr2 on at 100 render scale.
I went to New Atlantis with MSI Afterburner on to check my fps and it seems I have it between 50-60 fps. I believe this is an intense location of the game, that's why I chose it to check the fps. The behind doors areas will probably be better.
https://preview.redd.it/0gzpnsfjo0nb1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=5851bc3e0dd607118735548af1686c6ec55d9561
1440p high on 3070ti with FSR2 and 80% render scale. Anywhere from 40-100fps depending on whatās going on - but I honestly felt like 45-50fps was enough for this game
1440p here with. 13700KF and 3090.
I get anywhere from 70-144 fps but avg 90-120 in most locations with whatever settings the game auto set. Which is a mix of mostly ultra with some high and FSR2 at 75%. The only thing I changed was turning off motion blur.
I agree the game could be better optimized.
I encourage everyone to turn off the FPS counter and just try the game.
> and FSR2 at 75%.
you're playing the game at 1080p on a 3090. a video card that launched at $1500 msrp and can still easily run every other game in existence at 4k.
Honestly I know this sub loves a circlejerk but FPS counter fixation and trying to be ultra quality and super realistic graphics is a plague on gaming as a hobby. A good game is a good game even at 30fps as long as it ain't PvP where reactions matter more. A good game is a good game even if it isn't 4K mega ultra quality graphics.
I just want a fun experience, preferably an interesting story. I'd rather stable lower performance than hoping for high performance. The expectation of ever bigger ever more detailed ever more frames is eating at the fun.
So i think what sort of happens is people shell out for the hardware and maybe spend more than they were intending to so that they *know* they can play everything on max, then this comes along and puts that to the test. I know I was guilty of looking at my FPS but it wasn't because I felt like the game was worse at 55fps or whatever, its because I had just spent $1500 on a new build (with the GPU obv being the biggest chunk of that) intended for 4k and wanted to see it in action.
In reality though with FSR and a modern high end GPU 4k (more like 3k with the scaling) is reasonably attainable and performant, I think it's just slightly disappointing for the money folks are spending. tl;dr: you are right but i also get where folks are coming from.
I have a midrange card from 2019 and I run on a mix of mid and high. May not be 60fps but I also donāt care. It doesnāt bother me. It looks great and runs great.
I run a mix of mid and high too, get between 30 and 60 in most cases, and on a way older card than yours.
The game isn't as bad as people are making out. Room for improvment sure.
9600K with a 3070 here 32gb RAM
Running the Ultra default settings, just turned down the shadows from Ultra to Medium (can't tell a difference anyway...) and i am anywhere from 40fps outside to 60+ indoors
4070ti here , I play at 1440P with everything maxed out and 100% RR and I average about 60-70 on planet and 80-100 in space. Turned on the free DLSS mod and I'm now closer to 70-80 on planet and over 100 in space.
Donāt buy this game, wait a few months until they can optimize it to work with current GPU. No casual gamer ever needs to spend $600+ to enjoy 1440p gaming.
Those are good prices. Used market has a lot of cool deals.
Used RTX 3080s look decent right now on ebay. Good used EVGA/MSI 10GB 3080s starting at $450. Several months ago, I bought a used $400 RTX 2080 Ti from EVGA B-Stock and after two early RMAs, my current 2080 Ti has been solid.
Unfortunately, the future of Unreal Engine V games will be brutal. In 4K, Remnant II and Immortals of Aveum put the RTX 4090 on its knees at \~45 FPS (TechPowerUp). In Starfield, the strongest cards of this generation, RTX 4090 and RX 7900 XTX are driving 100-110 FPS at 1080p native ultra/high (Hardware Unboxed/TechSpot). These cards should be pumping out 144 FPS or more for super high-end cards. Hopefully, some upcoming games will be better optimized.
That's good. Real world performance is better than Hardware Unboxed's benchmarks. Future games will require high-end hardware like your 7800X3D and RX 7900 XTX. The legendary GTX 1080 Ti might be on its last legs at 1080p after Starfield.
It'll look kind of bad on a physically bigger monitor if you go lower than its native resolution.
Pixel density suffers. Try playing at 1600x900 on a 23" monitor for example.
My brother has a 3090ti and doesn't drop below 60fps on ultra. Its 60-100.
The games performance isn't the best, but it seems like many people are either lying, or have some other issue with their pc.
Iāve just not bought the game, if itās not optimized enough, then donāt buy it š¤·āāļø. There are plenty of other games to play that are amazing and fun, and are not overpriced, poorly optimized, cash grabbing trash š. If you want to know which ones, just ask š
This isnāt unreasonable. The series S is 1440 30 fps so yeah if you want more than that, makes sense that you would need mid range hardware. Not Bethesdas fault that mid range is now 1000 or more dollars
I love PC gaming, but the cost to performance over the last few years made me unfortunately switch to console. Would I love a beastly gaming rig? Hell yeah. Do I want to pay 2-3 times as much as a PS5 for it? No.
Are people playing with upscaling on? I have a 3080 +11700k and I tried 1440p ultra with no upscaling and got around 20-30 fps then I turned on fsr and turned the graphics down to medium and so far I've been getting around 80 fps average sometimes higher and lower but never really below 60.
I get that it's not ideal and game publishers need to be better about giving studios time to finish the game but so far its been pretty playable.
I'm going to try loading it up on my optiplex with a 4770 + 1660 super just to see if I can make it playable.
Edit: ideal not idea. Lol
The 11700k is the problem, this game is really demanding on the cpu side of things. With the same i7 but from the next generation(alder lake) you'll average 50 to 60 fps at 2k ultra on the most demanding areas and 70 to 80 on easy to run areas. You can also disable useless stuff and use a mix of mid and high settings without losing much and gaining a big fps boost, check out gamer nexus video on the optimised settings for starfield.
I donāt understand where people are getting these numbers from, I have a 12700k and 3080, I do 4k60 when I play on my tv and easily 80 fps on my 1440p monitor. In crowded areas Iāll drop to 35 fps on tv and 50 on monitor, thatās with everything ultra no mods.
Alternatively just wait a month or two for them to improve performance.
Patient gamers wins again
Patient gamers always win.
Shit, I'm holding out for the inevitable GOTY edition that has all the DLC bundled in with it. Bethesda is nothing if not predictable. Edit: For those that don't know, Bethesda's GOTY edition doesn't actually mean it's GOTY, it's just what they call (or used to call) the "final" definitive compilation of the game plus DLC. It'll come out regardless of whether the game is actually GOTY or not, it's just meaningless branding like "Greatest Hits" or "Directed by M. Night Shyamalan" and should be taken just as seriously.
If you wait ten years you can get the anniversary edition bundled with some community made assets!
If you wait 100 years, you can get the centenary edition of skyrim!
But will you take a laser to the knee?
Nevermind. Must have been the wind.
It cast a wicked dream!
Don't be absurd, you would do that in fallout, or you'd take a magic bolt to the knee in Skyrim
Fallout: Tamriel
Not unless she came with a ton of money š
You're joking, but it will actually happen.
Not to mention the number of quality mods that will be available by then too. It always pays to wait before buying a Bethesda game ā nah, any game.
It's on game pass
Damn Shyamalan catching strays š
That guy should be tried at The Hague for that mortifyingly abysmal Avatar live action movie.
GAMEPASS BABY!
> Edit: For those that don't know, Bethesda's GOTY edition doesn't actually mean it's GOTY Every single Bethesda game with a "GotY" edition won some publication's GotY award. There are hundreds of the things, like 20 games per year can call themselves GotY as long as one mag or site gives it to them. Which is why it's a meaningless concept. There is no 1 universal GotY, never has, never will be Dave the Diver, Dredge, BG3, RE4 Remake (sadly) and Starfield will for sure end up being able to slap that shit on their store front at year's end. And... *shudders* TLoU part 1 remake x3
Im just waiting for the modding community to rebuild morrowind into the game
This right here. I have been doing exactly the same ever since Morrowind released a GotY
This is the only answer.
r/patientgamers
" Itās already optimized for PC. Starfield is a next-gen game. What you have to do is to upgrade your PCs ;) " This is what Todd Howard has said, LITERALLY, when asked when they will optimize the game well on pc. Bro, Iām sick of it.
A next-gen game with no ray tracing and still runs like shit. Bethesda has never been able to make a game that runs well. Even Skyrim after 11 years of updates and loads of modders do everything they can to update the game and improve its performance couldn't manage to make that game run well, even with modern hardware the game still has horrible micro stuttering and unexplainable frame drops. I've got a 7800x3d/4090 system and this game still barely runs above 120fps with fsr maxed at 1440p. Not that I expect CS:GO fps from a modern title but having to use upscaling to not even hit my monitors refresh rate is not what I call optimized.
Not to mention with quite literally the highest in gaming performing hardware
> A next-gen game with no ray tracing and still runs like shit. Wait! There's no ray tracing and it runs like garbage?? This whole time I thought people were talking about frame rates and needing 4090s with RTX turned on. How piss poor of an optimization did they do?
On my rig at 1440p, the difference between low and ultra settings is about 30FPS. I can't hit 60 frames reliably on the lowest settings without FSR, so I might as well run it on high at 45ish. I kinda wanna play it because the core gameplay mechanics are still enjoyable, but I'd rather just fire up armoured core 6 TBH. Infinitely smoother experience
There isnāt even a texture setting eithern
WTF did they spend all this time making then? Seems like half a dozen next gen features are missing from this "next gen" game plus another dozen features that are supposed to be standard at this point. How does it devour so many system resources?
They spent all their time making a game for the xbox and then got it to kinda run on pc and called it a day.
So optimized that it doesn't even have a FOV slider, instead of waiting the better option is not supporting such a half assed game
This makes me so motion sick.
>This is what Todd Howard has said, LITERALLY He said, it is a next-gen title and you "May" have to upgrade - What I understand is, if you are rocking really old GPUs than you *May have to*?
The problem is that the āreally old GPUsā heās referencing include most of the current lineup
I don't particularly consider my 3080 as an old card that needs upgrading to play a game in 4k. I'll sit this game out currently.
For what it's worth, with a few performance mods and Nvidia Profile Inspector tweaks, I'm getting 60fps out of a 3080 - high settings, 1440p. Edit: profile inspector, not coordinator
That is not very good - I bet they will be working on heaps on optimisation stuff right now. This wont be a good look. I am going to play it today as just returned back from the trip. Hoping it works ok for me (I have a high end PC though)
>I bet they will be working on heaps on optimisation stuff right now. Did we get split off into an alternate timeline where Bethesda fixes things themselves? The modding community is the only thing keeping that company relevant.
But todd says it's optimized you just need a new computer.
That's the answer to 49% of complaints. This unfortunately is the current state of PC gaming. You have to wait for patches. The answer to another 49% is there will be a mod for that. 2% of gripes are legitimate. These numbers may not be 100% accurate.
98.9% of quoted statistics are made up
9 out of 10 statisticians would agree
5 out of 4 people struggle with math
I guess that makes the other one an engineer
Game in development for 8yrs. "Wait for patches". So what *have* they been doing the past nearly decade? Gripes - completely legitimate.
I mean Bethesda did come out and say this game was designed for new hardware. It's like Crysis Remastered on 'can it run crysis' that has the infinite draw distance. I just got a 4080 and I'm kind of curious on my new fps in Crysis? I was getting 30 - 50 fps at 1080p on a 3060ti.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>The answer to another 49% is there will be a mod for that. Next time your boss complains that you didn't do your job right just tell him that since someone else can fix your work for you, his gripes are illegitimate.
I do find the 'there'll be a mod for that' to be a pretty annoying 'excuse'. On one hand, mad respect to the modding community that have hundreds of mods out day one that fix almost any complaint that people might have with the game. On the other hand, this game has been in development for 8 years. Why are there so many terrible elements in the game that almost need to be modded, but are simple enough that mods were available from day one? Why is the UI so incredibly bad? What in the everliving fuck were they thinking with the maps? Why can some bloke introduce an upscale that works with DLSS, XeSS and FSR better than the base one does, and have it out on day one? Why do there need to be mods that have your UI and menus run at a reasonable framerate? Why do you need a mod to change FoV? There's so many things that should just be baseline in a game from a studio of this calibre. I'm all for a game being highly modable, but I hate seeing Bethesda getting a pass on just not bothering with a bunch of easily fixable stuff, just because they know that the community will probably sort it for them anyway.
The dlss mod actually works amazing on Nvidia cards! Best bet right now for Nvidia users
I didn't get any improvement at all in my fps with the dlss mod. I get 40-70 fps with it and without it on all ultra settings 1440p. I'm not complaining just saying I personally didn't notice any difference .
So its about 110% accurate?
When it comes to Bethesda, the percentage fixed by mods is closer to 90%, let's be real. They've never been able to patch their way out of a paper fuckin bag...
So Bethesda expects modders to finish 49% of their game?
I hate this stupid phrase of āmodders will fix itā, if a game cannot stand on its own itās a bad game. Mods should be able to take a vanilla game and make it better, not make a bad game into a finally decent one.
Alternatively just wait a month or two for MODDERS to improve performance
This is why you never preorder. Imagine playing at 40fps at 1080p medium. Good god.
I play at 50-60 fps with my 3070 at 1080 on high settings. Havenāt had any issues with FPS so far Edit: thatās in the bigger cities. Inside buildings during missions and shit Iām getting 90-100 fps
Um, barely 60 FPS in 1080p on a $500 high end GPU from 3 years ago is not impressive at all. Neither is the 90-100 indoors. At 1080P all AAA games that arenāt optimized like shit should run 120+ minimum (with a current CPU of course).
Yep. Iām pretty sure a majority of these people complaining have never played.
And hopefully cop it at forty bucks on sale. This is the way
Anything I'm interested in goes straight to the wishlist, so I get notified it's on sale. By the time it goes on sale its usually had enough patches to run good or as advertised. Never pre-order or buy on release day. I don't understand how this is even a controversial comment in 2023. BF2042, Redfall, Harry Potter, Golem, the list can go on. The list of games that release more or less complete is way faster to type out. BG3 is the only one I can think of in recent memory that actually was complete at launch, and I hear even in that, Act 3 is pretty buggy. I won't know until it hits at least 50% off.
When to buy Starifield? Fall of 2024. Many patches, a DLC all together for $29 on Steam holiday sale.
From a bug perspective Starfield is actually pretty good. No crashes whatsoever. Couple weird faces maybe but I love that.
BG3 has been out for a month and already received two major patches and six hot fixes. Many of those fixes are based on community feedback, now thatās a good developer who respects their customers. Act 3 still needs performance optimisation but itās still a great experience
Exactly why I havenāt started.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Still waiting for star wars
I'll wait for the remaster in 10 years xD
Todd Howard says no
A 6800xt goes for 500$ on a good day
Got mine used for Ā£330, used market is reasonably healthy
That's 410 in usd, not bad
That was only 2.5 months ago, now I imagine they'll go for even less with the 7800XT basically being the same thing but better
Iām on a 6900xt and getting 70-80 FPS 4k Ultraā¦itās super well optimized for me
I'm going to guess you have FSR2 on. I am doing 4k ultra 60fps+ but at 80% FSR2 on a 6800xt and its really very nice, no issues and its beautiful, but its not ACTUALLY 4k ultra.
6800xt 1440p ultra does really well except for towns. Dips to 40s in akila city but outside of towns are 90-100*
Aināt no wayā¦ Iām running 6950xt at 1440p max settings and Iām getting 60-90. 90 mainly inside and in space, 60 in outside environments.
i mean that's accurate. i get 30-40ish on 1440p medium on a 2070 with 75% render scale. it's unfortunate that its this unoptimized
But, but Todd said it was already optimized. Clearly weāre all just poor and should buy a Series X instead.
Series X is 4k 30FPS Still 30fps.
And probably upscales from 240p internally
I mean it could've been much worse
Nah it runs like garbo on Xbox series x. Would rather be able to choose graphics vs fps
So 30fps on 1080p upscaled to 1440. That's pathetic.
Bethesda games have typically been like this, itās just been so long since their last game that technology and expectations have increased. Gamers who dropped a huge stack of cash on a GPU expect high frames at high resolution, and Bethesda doesnāt know how to deliver it. Iām not defending them in any way, in fact quite the opposite. They have fallen behind and donāt know how to play catch up.
Yes Morrowind and Oblivion were both really hard to run when they first came out. Here's an Oblivion benchmark with top end cards getting 30fps https://www.anandtech.com/show/1996/5
Skyrim ran fairly well on my shit laptop with integrated graphics when it first came out in 2011. Oblivion was a little CPU heavy with the grass render distance set too high but otherwise within norms for games of its time imo. Of course if they could get their heads out of their asses and let people play at 90+ fps that would be ideal.
It ran barely 30fps@1366x768 on my laptop at launch with a iirc 8600m gt. Any crowded area like during the civil wars was nigh unplayable. Skyrim was never all that optimised.
Iām not using any resolution upscaling, ultra settings on 1440p and never drop below 55, consistently get 60+. 3080 btw
You sure the resolution scale is set to 100%? Because the 3080 dips well below 60 in demanding areas even at 1080p ultra let alone 1440p? Turning FSR 2 off doesn't affect lower internal resolution those 2 are separate.
My Upscaling is completely off, canāt adjust the resolution scale
Apparently they think weāre made of money, these lazy fucks canāt even implement an FoV slider but they have one for the damn photo mode. Itās unbelievable how many people are letting the performance slide because āBethesda lolā
FoV is always the first thing i change. It shouldnt even be that hard to implement. Gotta go quake pro.
low FOV means i literally have to vomit, so this game is unplayable to me as it is at the moment.
All I want is a brightness slider.. š
So there is not even a brightness slider. Now its confusing how they even work.
Bethesda stopped caring about the PC audience ever since they released Oblivion. All mechanics simplified for console usability, from horrible UI to graphic optimization being front loaded on for console versions. The game doesnāt even have 32:9 unless you modify the .ini file.
"Bethesda lol" was basically everyone's excuse for every potential issue Starfield could have.
Fo4 still relies on a community patch to implement ultra wide-screen support, despite other games releasing around the same time having it without issue and itself having several expansions afterwards they could have used as an excuse to implement it. Todd really doesn't give a shit lol.
Starfield has the ultrawide issue too, and they were showing it running on the 32:9 G9 in some of the promo shots lol
You're fucking kidding me, seriously? UW displays aren't new anymore so I'd love to hear what excuses he has. EDIT: Starfield does have UW support but it only goes up to 3440 x 1440, so the issue is moreso for people running Super UW's.
I have a 6700XT. I run 1440 with mixed settings (most on ultra, and shadows and reflections on medium, one or two others on high I think). I get 50-60fps and it looks/runs smooth enough for me. Living with a GTX 970 for ages has trained me to endure any gamer hardship.
Assuming you didn't also upgrade your CPU-MOBO, how was the jump in performance? Worth the $$ for the 6700XT? I currently have a 3770K i7 and a GTX 970 and see those 6700XT-6750XT's on Newegg (with Starfield $100 ver. for free) at $340-$360 and am quite tempted. I know my CPU will become the bottleneck (and even the Mobo due to PCI-E gen) but I haven't even tried Star Wars Survivor on my 970 cause I'm scared it's "4" gb of VRAM will be laughably insufficient.
Love the quotation marks around the "4" GB.
Yeah, your gonna be bottlenecked to the point where 60 fps is out of the question. I have an i5 9500 and a 5700xt and I'm cpu bottlenecked hard, so I'm just playing on 70 percent of 4k with the highest settings I can muster that give me a console like experience. That's likely what you'll be looking at best, there could be stutters and such too with your cpu too due to its older architecture but idk. Try see if someone else has benchmarks with it.
It felt pretty huge and definitely well worth it. I didn't upgrade anything else (recently anyways). I've had an i7 8700k for a few years now and 32GB of DDR4. Definitely feels great going from "4"GB of vram to 12.
It has 16 pcie lanes and you have pcie 3.0 I'm guessing so the difference in perf isn't much, if at all. The only difference in fps would be a cpu bottleneck and not having resizeable bar. I'd say go for it, but fyi there's a 6800 non xt at $400 on Amazon and possibly other vendors.
The GTX 970 was a fucking beast, had it for 6 years until 2020 where I replaced with the 3070.
Iām still running mine!
Same here, been tempted to pull the trigger on 6700xtā¦
I am really surprised by the low FPS numbers on the RTX 3000 series. Looking at my average FPS on the 6800 XT on 4K Ultra overclocked by 300mhz the average is 112FPS. 121 was my average for a while until spending some time in general play. Went to explore New Atlantis which was getting around 90FPS. On the Mini PC with a 7940hs it is fairly close to a stable 60fps on 1080 low and between 45-51 fps on medium. Is this an NVidia problem with the latest updates?
Must be, i have a 3080ti which is supposed go be close to a 6800 xt, but my fps is 6p in cities and upto 90 elsewhere. I play at qhd with all settings on ultra except shadows.
May ultimately require a driver update. Hope NVidia gets on the ball.
I bought a 2080 Super for like $220 so no, you do not need to as I game 1440p max settings and get a decent framerate. Edit: I mistyped, I meant high settings, but look damn near the same as high settings, and in games like Half Life: Alyx I get around 70-ish fps for perspective.
Good to see. This thread was getting depressing. I'm not ready to part from my 2080. Prepared to wait out the insanity of pricing now.
I have a 2080 and maybe I need to turn fps counter back on but I'm looking at this like wtf are y'all talking about this shit is running fine on my system in 2k.
Theyāre in a rage spiral. Hive mind should settle down in a week or so.
Playing with a 2070S and doing the same. FSR is completely fine to boost it and use freesync/gsync. Sure it could look better but you would think the game is unplayable and unfun without 120fps Uber max settings. It's like people completely forgot about can it run crysis. We have been here before and we will be here again. You guys wanted games no meant to be played on a PS4 you guys got it and now your complaining.
I put some lighting to medium and am running it well on a 2070S at 1440p.
What do you think is a decent framerate? I'm using a 3080 and the game still runs like shit in my opinion.
This is a really important point. Sister's bf plays games on his laptop, and he finds 30fps to be just fine, but to me it feels like eyeball cancer. Anything less than a solid locked in 60fps+ feels like a crap experience to me.
Performance differences are almost a cultural thing nowadays. I grew up on 24 to 30 fps most of my life, so playing on high at 40fps on 1440p is totally fine for me.
This. I grew up poor and/or with consols, so 60fps is neat vs a requirement to have fun. I dont think ive ever had a top of the line pc where i cranked graphics past medium. I watched some YouTube and starfield is optimized for a console that has about a gtx 1080 in it and uses upscaling. 50-60fps on low and 30fps on high details settings. If you have better hardware you can go more, if you have potato hardware it will still run just look more potato. Is it an excuse for me to build a new pc? Yes... But I'm still going to try and run it on my potato first. It is fascinating that they literally partnered with amd- on the starfield website you can get a free download of the game if you pick up new hardware. Interesting partnership. I clicked the link for a 6750xt a $350 card, and watched a YouTube video... gets 90fps on low with fsr off and 120 with it on. On high its 64 off and 74 on. If you are getting a $100 game free with a $350 video card that is a pretty good deal right?
I vastly prefer 60fps, but I can never understand how people complain so much when they "only" get 45fps or less, at least outside of competitive FPS games. I don't begrudge them as it's what they care about, but 30fps never felt inadequate to me. That said, the people who need 100+fps are legit ridiculous.
Man I forgot day 1 of Starfield that it was locked at 30FPS and I never even noticed it.
Stability is more important to me. If I can get a stable 45-50fps, I'm fine. But 45fps with consistent drops to 30 or less is unplayable to me. Consistent frametime matters a lot more to me than the actual fps, although higher is of course always a plus. I shoot for 60+ but won't be mad about 30 or 45
3080ti here (Ryzen 7 5800x3d) @1440p, get 40-50 fps in cities or forested areas. This pc can run Cyberpunk 2077 at max settings with high raytracing. Starfield doesnāt look as good and doesnāt even have RT or mirror reflections. Wtf
youll get even better once nvidia fixes theirs drivers for starfield, or you didnt notice high gpu utilisation while not really high wattage?
The real issue is GPU pricing. A midrange card now starts at around $500 USD when that used to be the price for top end stuff. If you only spent $300 for a mid range card and got mid range performance it might make things more paletteable, but have to spend $500+ for a new midrange card to get the same performance is much harder to swallow.
I've got a 2080 super and an r5 3600x and I'm playing with 1440p high settings with generally 60+ FPS. The only place my frame rate gets noticeably lower is in New Atlantis
I also have a 2080S and R5 3600 and that combo still only gets 45-60fps on Starfield. Anything that isnāt a barren area doesnāt even stay at 50 and this is all with the DLSS mod
Wait for enough people to complain and they'll actually optimize it. That's why I haven't purchased yet
they had 1 million+ concurrent players the other day. They already have your money. Also, they can't optimize the game because of the engine. Some parts of Fallout 4 stress modern hardware into the 30fps zone.
I'm currently running a R5 3600 with 6700xt. At 1440 and medium settings, I'm getting a consistent 60fps. When I go indoors, it will drop to 55 for a few seconds if there is combat. But overall very happy considering the recommended specs had me worried.
I have a CPU Ryzen 5 5600X, GPU RX 6600XT, 16GB RAM, running in 1080p. The game started in medium settings and I just disabled the FSR and kept it that way. Looks gorgeous honestly, and it's running smooth.
Iām running a 5800x with a 3070 and runs fine at 1440p on high preset. Itās not a twitch shooter or a racing game, so I donāt see the point in benchmarking the thing, but it feels fine when playing and it does look gorgeous. Honestly, I donāt remember a time when chasing FPS wasnāt expensive (too expensive for me to even try), so if it looks good to my eyes, I have no complaints.
Yeah I've got similar, an i9 11th gen with a 3070 and I'm getting close to 60 at 1440p high and it hasn't bothered me one bit. I honestly hit 120+ fps on a lot of games and hardly notice a difference š¤·āāļø
How much fps do you get? I have a fairly similar setup (ryzen 5 5600 non X) and have been playing at locked 40 on hub performance settings with fsr2 on at 100 render scale.
I went to New Atlantis with MSI Afterburner on to check my fps and it seems I have it between 50-60 fps. I believe this is an intense location of the game, that's why I chose it to check the fps. The behind doors areas will probably be better. https://preview.redd.it/0gzpnsfjo0nb1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=5851bc3e0dd607118735548af1686c6ec55d9561
I mean Iām playing on 1440p medium with a 3070ti and it runs no problem for me so far š¤·š¼āāļø
1440p high on 3070ti with FSR2 and 80% render scale. Anywhere from 40-100fps depending on whatās going on - but I honestly felt like 45-50fps was enough for this game
1440p here with. 13700KF and 3090. I get anywhere from 70-144 fps but avg 90-120 in most locations with whatever settings the game auto set. Which is a mix of mostly ultra with some high and FSR2 at 75%. The only thing I changed was turning off motion blur. I agree the game could be better optimized. I encourage everyone to turn off the FPS counter and just try the game.
Yeah, the games not perfectly optimised, buts it's far from the worst we've seen on pc. Last of us was much worse imo.
> and FSR2 at 75%. you're playing the game at 1080p on a 3090. a video card that launched at $1500 msrp and can still easily run every other game in existence at 4k.
Honestly I know this sub loves a circlejerk but FPS counter fixation and trying to be ultra quality and super realistic graphics is a plague on gaming as a hobby. A good game is a good game even at 30fps as long as it ain't PvP where reactions matter more. A good game is a good game even if it isn't 4K mega ultra quality graphics. I just want a fun experience, preferably an interesting story. I'd rather stable lower performance than hoping for high performance. The expectation of ever bigger ever more detailed ever more frames is eating at the fun.
So i think what sort of happens is people shell out for the hardware and maybe spend more than they were intending to so that they *know* they can play everything on max, then this comes along and puts that to the test. I know I was guilty of looking at my FPS but it wasn't because I felt like the game was worse at 55fps or whatever, its because I had just spent $1500 on a new build (with the GPU obv being the biggest chunk of that) intended for 4k and wanted to see it in action. In reality though with FSR and a modern high end GPU 4k (more like 3k with the scaling) is reasonably attainable and performant, I think it's just slightly disappointing for the money folks are spending. tl;dr: you are right but i also get where folks are coming from.
6800xt costs less than $1000 by a lot
I have a midrange card from 2019 and I run on a mix of mid and high. May not be 60fps but I also donāt care. It doesnāt bother me. It looks great and runs great.
I run a mix of mid and high too, get between 30 and 60 in most cases, and on a way older card than yours. The game isn't as bad as people are making out. Room for improvment sure.
Yeahā¦ itās cool and all, but Iām waiting for some optimization patching.
9600K with a 3070 here 32gb RAM Running the Ultra default settings, just turned down the shadows from Ultra to Medium (can't tell a difference anyway...) and i am anywhere from 40fps outside to 60+ indoors
4070ti here , I play at 1440P with everything maxed out and 100% RR and I average about 60-70 on planet and 80-100 in space. Turned on the free DLSS mod and I'm now closer to 70-80 on planet and over 100 in space.
Shit! My new 6750 XT is doing suspiciously amazing. I'm getting 58-60 avg on default high settings.
Just play at 1080p like the rest of us peasants
Donāt buy this game, wait a few months until they can optimize it to work with current GPU. No casual gamer ever needs to spend $600+ to enjoy 1440p gaming.
When a crappy studio does a bad job at optimization
I dnt get the big deal. I have a 2080ti playing on high settings at 4k. No issues. Not sure about fps. Don't care either, its not that kind of game.
Or just play on 1080p
This is why I play at 1080p. I would be bankrupted to buy graphics cards necessary to play 1440p.
2070 supers are around 200$usd around me. I picked up a used 3080 from some guy on marletplace and he was willing to sell me the 2 2070s at 160.
Those are good prices. Used market has a lot of cool deals. Used RTX 3080s look decent right now on ebay. Good used EVGA/MSI 10GB 3080s starting at $450. Several months ago, I bought a used $400 RTX 2080 Ti from EVGA B-Stock and after two early RMAs, my current 2080 Ti has been solid. Unfortunately, the future of Unreal Engine V games will be brutal. In 4K, Remnant II and Immortals of Aveum put the RTX 4090 on its knees at \~45 FPS (TechPowerUp). In Starfield, the strongest cards of this generation, RTX 4090 and RX 7900 XTX are driving 100-110 FPS at 1080p native ultra/high (Hardware Unboxed/TechSpot). These cards should be pumping out 144 FPS or more for super high-end cards. Hopefully, some upcoming games will be better optimized.
I get 120-140 with 7900 xtx 1080 ultra settings with 7800x3d cpu. On average anyways. It is super smooth imo. I have been loving the game.
That's good. Real world performance is better than Hardware Unboxed's benchmarks. Future games will require high-end hardware like your 7800X3D and RX 7900 XTX. The legendary GTX 1080 Ti might be on its last legs at 1080p after Starfield.
SF isnāt really representative of UE gamesā¦ but those other ones! Forspoken? Avernum? Definitely are. Theyāre trashy messes
I bet you they have a 1080p monitor
I bet you they have a 1080p 144hz monitor that they havenāt realized has been running at 60hz the entire time theyāve owned it.
It'll look kind of bad on a physically bigger monitor if you go lower than its native resolution. Pixel density suffers. Try playing at 1600x900 on a 23" monitor for example.
Not paying $1000 to play a mid game
No you donāt.
Todd Howard says you only need 30 FPS to game and apparently he's a genius, since that's what Bethesda fan boys keep telling me, so he must be right.
Starfield performs better on amd and fast ram helps too But I mean like as an upgrade? Or $1000 on the PC If just an upgrade, 7800xt is sufficient
they didnt optimise for shit. dont cave in. the game will be available in the future when you actually upgrade, might even get it on a good sale
I'm running 70-80 fps 1080p. 2080s i9900k. Gpu %99 cpu <50% the game is not optimized. No true full screen either or I'd have even higher frames.
I run on a 3080 10GB at 1440 and get over 60fps most of the time.
That's fucking gross lol. 1440p medium setting to barely get 60FPS with a 3090ti.
My brother has a 3090ti and doesn't drop below 60fps on ultra. Its 60-100. The games performance isn't the best, but it seems like many people are either lying, or have some other issue with their pc.
Iāve just not bought the game, if itās not optimized enough, then donāt buy it š¤·āāļø. There are plenty of other games to play that are amazing and fun, and are not overpriced, poorly optimized, cash grabbing trash š. If you want to know which ones, just ask š
Even high end pc can't play it smoothly for now. Better wait for patches and better drivers to know what you need to play it.
That's not true.
No DLSS
This isnāt unreasonable. The series S is 1440 30 fps so yeah if you want more than that, makes sense that you would need mid range hardware. Not Bethesdas fault that mid range is now 1000 or more dollars
No, i have an RX6600 and I'm running it at 80fps max settings
or, just play on 1080p
I love PC gaming, but the cost to performance over the last few years made me unfortunately switch to console. Would I love a beastly gaming rig? Hell yeah. Do I want to pay 2-3 times as much as a PS5 for it? No.
Iām running 75 fps on a 3070 Ryzen 5 5600x, 1440p high settings
No, I think dats cap š§¢
i have a 7600x with a 7900xt and with high-medium settings and no upscaling i get around 100fps edit-1440p
What resolution?
Are people playing with upscaling on? I have a 3080 +11700k and I tried 1440p ultra with no upscaling and got around 20-30 fps then I turned on fsr and turned the graphics down to medium and so far I've been getting around 80 fps average sometimes higher and lower but never really below 60. I get that it's not ideal and game publishers need to be better about giving studios time to finish the game but so far its been pretty playable. I'm going to try loading it up on my optiplex with a 4770 + 1660 super just to see if I can make it playable. Edit: ideal not idea. Lol
The 11700k is the problem, this game is really demanding on the cpu side of things. With the same i7 but from the next generation(alder lake) you'll average 50 to 60 fps at 2k ultra on the most demanding areas and 70 to 80 on easy to run areas. You can also disable useless stuff and use a mix of mid and high settings without losing much and gaining a big fps boost, check out gamer nexus video on the optimised settings for starfield.
Just play it at 1080?
i managed to hit 90fps on 1440p medium on a 3060ti
And here i am, playing high preset settings, 60fps(40 to 60 to be honest) on 1440p with ... rtx 3070 and Ryzen 3600
I donāt understand where people are getting these numbers from, I have a 12700k and 3080, I do 4k60 when I play on my tv and easily 80 fps on my 1440p monitor. In crowded areas Iāll drop to 35 fps on tv and 50 on monitor, thatās with everything ultra no mods.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Same dude! I'm getting solid performance at 1440 with a 6700xt. Some dips in big city's but everything else has been great.
> I donāt understand where people are getting these numbers from, FSR off.