Game Discussions Bethesda Softworks Starfield Space RPG

[wrmiller]

Have you tried using Radeon Chill ?

Yes I have, thanks.

It's interesting in that I can play other games like DCS, Elite, MSFS, and FC at 3440x1440 and high or ultra modes and don't have the problems that I have with this game. This game is the only one that will cause the computer to literally turn off.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Yes I have, thanks.

It's interesting in that I can play other games like DCS, Elite, MSFS, and FC at 3440x1440 and high or ultra modes and don't have the problems that I have with this game. This game is the only one that will cause the computer to literally turn off.

Try to monitor which component is overheating. My bet would be on the CPU, since Starfield is very demanding there. If nothing else runs on my PC it'll fully use all my 8 physical and all my 8 logical cores.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

Yes I have, thanks.

It's interesting in that I can play other games like DCS, Elite, MSFS, and FC at 3440x1440 and high or ultra modes and don't have the problems that I have with this game. This game is the only one that will cause the computer to literally turn off.

So, basically, Bethesda is, most probably, using a brute force approach to rendering that does not use the last techniques to optimize load.

Well, it gives force to some comments about the game engine being severely outdated.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

Try to monitor which component is overheating. My bet would be on the CPU, since Starfield is very demanding there. If nothing else runs on my PC it'll fully use all my 8 physical and all my 8 logical cores.

If that is true, the game engine is not offloading sufficient work to the GPU. A sign of a an outdated engine.

 

[wrmiller]

So, basically, Bethesda is, most probably, using a brute force approach to rendering that does not use the last techniques to optimize load.

Well, it gives force to some comments about the game engine being severely outdated.

I was an embedded systems designer (RTOS stuff) and know nothing about designing/writing code for graphics, but I suspect that you may be correct. Unfortunately.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

I was an embedded systems designer (RTOS stuff) and know nothing about designing/writing code for graphics, but I suspect that you may be correct. Unfortunately.

I am not a graphics programmer, but I do have software/hardware training and I do inform myself regularly on the technical aspects of PCs.

Certain specific calculations have progressively migrated from CPU to GPU for many years now. And that amount has just increased in recent years, with higher rate of innovations on 3D graphics engines (the mathematical functions and its implemented algorithms), paired with the parallel evolution of processing units in modern GPUs.

From what I have read and observed, in a game, a heavy load on the CPU and a low load on the GPU, at high resolutions and with max settings, can be a consequence of an extremely high frame rate on a undemanding game engine (Source 2) or, a lot of the times, an unoptimized engine where many new GPU hardware functions have not been programmed on the game engine because of some of the following:

1 - The engine's inability to be modified to include that code;​

2 - The Studio's unwillingness to modify the engine due to permanent ongoing projects.​

I have no idea in what category Bethesda is included. Maybe both?

 

[Hank]

There is good info on this forum for tech stuff like above ^^.

I still don't have SF but I plan to get it next time its on sale; for building ships, flying to planets, and say Hey to somebody I can walk up to and admire.
Its rough over at the SF Steam forums.
There are some creative folks over there who come up with some of the wildest reasons to bash SF. Some are comical but the hate oozes from some of the posts.

Just an observation. I'm still mostly playing ED:H but the urge to get up out of my seat and wander the bridge grates on me so I'll crank up X4 and talk to some of my crew (who happen to be on the bridge With Me). Thus my interest in SF.

 

[wrmiller]

There is good info on this forum for tech stuff like above ^^.

I still don't have SF but I plan to get it next time its on sale; for building ships, flying to planets, and say Hey to somebody I can walk up to and admire.
Its rough over at the SF Steam forums.
There are some creative folks over there who come up with some of the wildest reasons to bash SF. Some are comical but the hate oozes from some of the posts.

Just an observation. I'm still mostly playing ED:H but the urge to get up out of my seat and wander the bridge grates on me so I'll crank up X4 and talk to some of my crew (who happen to be on the bridge With Me). Thus my interest in SF.

I just recently fired up ED:H after not having played in a couple of years, with the announcement of a new ship. Spent years and 5k+ hours in that game. Solo only. I have about 1.4k hours in X4, and a few hundred in SF. I find X4 the most immersive, and I like flying ships and combat in ED:H, but there not much else there. I find SF the least immersive, but it's playable. In the Fall, Winter, and Spring that is...

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I am not a graphics programmer, but I do have software/hardware training and I do inform myself regularly on the technical aspects of PCs.

Certain specific calculations have progressively migrated from CPU to GPU for many years now. And that amount has just increased in recent years, with higher rate of innovations on 3D graphics engines (the mathematical functions and its implemented algorithms), paired with the parallel evolution of processing units in modern GPUs.

From what I have read and observed, in a game, a heavy load on the CPU and a low load on the GPU, at high resolutions and with max settings, can be a consequence of an extremely high frame rate on a undemanding game engine (Source 2) or, a lot of the times, an unoptimized engine where many new GPU hardware functions have not been programmed on the game engine because of some of the following:

1 - The engine's inability to be modified to include that code;​

2 - The Studio's unwillingness to modify the engine due to permanent ongoing projects.​

I have no idea in what category Bethesda is included. Maybe both?

Um, Starfield loads both the CPU and the GPU. I have an i7 5960X overclocked to 4 GHz and a 3080ti. Both run at 80-90% load in Starfield, and I am getting over 100 FPS at 3840x1600. I'm fairly sure that there are still tasks within games that are better done on the CPU, while the GPU's job is to render what the CPU is throwing at it.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I think it'll be a while until I play again. Starfield doesn't always react well when you change mods around on an ongoing save, and since the launch of creations new mods and updates happen daily. I'll get back into it when all is mostly settled and finished.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I just recently fired up ED:H after not having played in a couple of years, with the announcement of a new ship. Spent years and 5k+ hours in that game. Solo only. I have about 1.4k hours in X4, and a few hundred in SF. I find X4 the most immersive, and I like flying ships and combat in ED:H, but there not much else there. I find SF the least immersive, but it's playable. In the Fall, Winter, and Spring that is...

It's still an RPG. I don't think it's their best, but it's in space. I pretty much like the Vanguard questline best. Overall the longer questlines aren't so bad, but it's kinda like they are chopped up far and between due to the nature of the world and its fracturisation.

 

[Mole HD]

I'm still playing it after the re-install, all my chosen mods seem to work (to varying degrees) but I have a tendancy to skip or fast travel everywhere between quest story lines. I know where all the quests are going or leading to which is the reason behind the impatient skipping around the map...perhaps when the DLC drops I'll get back to a more patient playstyle...or I'll get bored with it and uninstall it once again

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

Um, Starfield loads both the CPU and the GPU. I have an i7 5960X overclocked to 4 GHz and a 3080ti. Both run at 80-90% load in Starfield, and I am getting over 100 FPS at 3840x1600. I'm fairly sure that there are still tasks within games that are better done on the CPU, while the GPU's job is to render what the CPU is throwing at it.

Yes, there are tasks that will always be more suited for the CPU to calculate, like heterogenous variable code. CPUs are very good at processing the "unexpected". But most tasks that require lots of parallel similar calculations, have been migrating to the GPU for many years now, where they are more suited to be processed by those GPU architectures, because they have massive numbers of specialized parallel calculating units.

A big load on both the CPU and the GPU does seem to indicate that the SF engine has had some new hardware functions coded in to it since Skyrim, which is to be expected. However, most Single Player FPS/TPS style games do seem to load the CPU far less than the GPU. Maybe some more work is necessary for Bethesda to improve their engine?

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I think if a game uses both to the max, it's getting the best out of what it runs on

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

I think if a game uses both to the max, it's getting the best out of what it runs on

The CPU always needs to have a buffer zone of free available resources for the OS and background applications to work correctly. A game taxing 80-90% of the CPU is not good if the system has to respond to other software's requests.

Best to have 40-50% available CPU resources. 80-90% load risks slowing down the whole system. Unless you are saying that the load is 80-90% for the whole system and not just SF. Even then, 10-20% free CPU resources is a bit short.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Starfield only uses as much as it can if nothing else runs. If I want I can run a second game in parallel, and all will be working.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

Starfield only uses as much as it can if nothing else runs. If I want I can run a second game in parallel, and all will be working.

Yes, most modern OSs can force applications not to monopolize resources.

Good to know that you can run another game simultaneously.

Not that it matters but, how is SF's performance with another game running ?

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Yes, most modern OSs can force applications not to monopolize resources.

Good to know that you can run another game simultaneously.

Not that it matters but, how is SF's performance with another game running ?

Fine actually, as whichever game is in the background behaves and leaves the other room to breathe. The only caveat is that Starfield needs to be run first. To start up it needs everything, if another game is already running it won't start. Once it's up and running I can start the second game with no problem. I have 48 GB RAM in this thing, and apparently the 12 GB VRAM on the 3080ti are enough too.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

Fine actually, as whichever game is in the background behaves and leaves the other room to breathe. The only caveat is that Starfield needs to be run first. To start up it needs everything, if another game is already running it won't start. Once it's up and running I can start the second game with no problem. I have 48 GB RAM in this thing, and apparently the 12 GB VRAM on the 3080ti are enough too.

Ok. Despite your CPU being old, it was a beast back in 2014, which still makes your PC spec high. And the 48GB RAM and 12GB VRAM are pretty beefy too. That helps a lot when running multiple intensive programs. Regarding the SF behavior, it is not unheard off. I have seen it happen a few times with other games.

 

[Morbad]

Haswell-E really held in there. Having 6-8 cores ten years ago, along with relative large L3 caches and quad channel memory considerably increased it's useful life vs. mainstream (LGA-1150 and 1151) platforms that were superior for gaming at the time. The 5960X probably didn't handle Starfield all that well on launch (almost nothing did), but later patches made the game much more reasonable when it came to CPU needs.

10-20% CPU resources available on an 8c/16t part is two logical cores worth, which is fine. Running other demanding applications simultaneously would almost certainly start to cause noticeable performance issues in game, as well as with what's being run along side it, but that's to be expected.

80-90% load on the GPU does imply a CPU/memory bottleneck, but not a severe one, and slightly lower than max load on the GPU is actually good for latency as a render queue can't build up (though this can be controlled other ways, such as with NVIDIA's Reflex).

12GiB of VRAM is entirely sufficient for unmodded Starfield at any settings that a 3080 Ti could be expected to run. A 3090 would be barely faster, despite double the VRAM.