Starfield’s numbers have swollen in early access on streaming and gaming platforms - and the global release is yet to take place.

  • irongamer@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Here are some numbers. I’m at 42 hours played. Resolution 2k, settings are on High. Ryzen 5800x and a Radeon RX 6800xt. The last session of ~5 hours had an average FPS of 108, Starfield is more optimized than BG:3 and Remnant 2… at least for AMD. I had to lower a lot of Remnant 2 settings and it still averages around 55.

    • Virkkunen@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ony 3080 with a 5900x I’m constantly getting 60fps at 1080p (unfortunately for now that’s the only screen I have), meanwhile BG3 would dip to low 10s after a few minutes of playing every time

      EDIT: I would also like to add that I didn’t use DLSS or FSR in both games, since my hardware is more than capable of running both on maximum quality at 60fps 1080p.

      • Poopfeast420@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s exactly what I have, but I play on 3840x1600, 24:10 Ultrawide.

        I don’t remember BG3 giving me any problems, even in Act 3, before the last patch, that supposedly addresses some performance problems. I loaded up a save just now and get ~50fps running around in the Lower City (very short test, only like two minutes). That’s with most settings maxed and DLSS Quality.

        Depending on the area, I’d probably get similar numbers in Starfield (according to the benchmarks I’ve seen), but for me, it’s a difference playing an FPS or isometric RPG.