A little over a year has passed since Bethesda Game Studios unveiled its ambitious new IP, Starfield, marking its first venture into uncharted territory since acquiring the Fallout series in 2004. While the game showcased significant advancements in graphics and scale compared to its predecessors, Fallout 4 and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, it faced criticism for being somewhat tedious and underperforming. The initial patches addressing performance issues were slow to roll out, leading the modding community to step in, particularly with popular mods that swapped FSR upscaling for DLSS. The Rev-8 patch introduced a ground vehicle but offered little else. However, the recent DLC, Shattered Space, brings fresh quests and a new location to explore, alongside a patch aimed at enhancing overall performance. For those contemplating a return to the game or diving in for the first time, the performance metrics in this new DLC are worth examining.
<h2 class="article-bodysection” id=”section-native-performance”>Native performance
Starfield is structured around three primary gameplay zones: the vastness of space, terrestrial exploration, and bustling urban areas, the latter of which can be particularly taxing on gaming hardware. Notably, Akila City exemplifies this challenge, demanding considerable CPU and GPU resources. For performance testing, I utilized an Asus ROG Ally, an Acer RTX 4050 gaming laptop, and three desktop configurations with varying graphics cards. Bethesda’s minimum system requirements remain somewhat ambiguous, particularly regarding CPU specifications, but they do stipulate a Radeon RX 5700 or GeForce GTX 1070 Ti for the GPU.
The game offers four graphics quality presets, which we will explore in detail shortly. It’s important to note that Starfield employs traditional rendering techniques, making it resource-intensive, especially at higher pixel counts. At 1080p, the game reveals a tendency to be CPU-limited. High-end setups generally manage this resolution without issue, although even at low graphics settings, frame rates may not soar as high as one might expect. This is particularly evident in the DLC’s new location, which, despite being less detailed and populated than Akila City, still struggles to push past 100 fps in certain scenarios.
Interestingly, while the ROG Ally struggled to maintain playable performance at 1080p Low, the RTX 4050 laptop fared better, albeit not spectacularly. Both devices are limited to 1080p screens, which is why they were excluded from 1440p testing. At this higher resolution, Starfield becomes predominantly GPU-limited, except for the RTX 4080 Super configuration. Mid-range setups often dip below 60 fps, which, while manageable due to the game’s pacing, can lead to noticeable stuttering as new assets load during traversal. This hitching isn’t related to memory, as most cards used possess over 8 GB of VRAM; rather, it stems from the peculiarities of Bethesda’s engine.
Despite Starfield’s year-long presence in the market, Intel’s GPU architecture continues to struggle with the game. The Arc A770, for instance, exhibits significant performance issues at 1440p, revealing a glitchy and stuttery experience. Conversely, 4K gaming remains the domain of high-end GPUs, with the RTX 4070 and RX 7800 XT performing adequately. However, to achieve playable frame rates at this resolution, upscaling techniques become essential to alleviate the pixel load on the graphics card.
Starfield’s CPU demands are notable, typically utilizing four heavy threads alongside four medium-load threads. The Ryzen 9 9950X and Core i7 14700KF handle these requirements effortlessly, as does the Ryzen 5 5600X. During testing, all 12 threads were heavily engaged, operating between 50% and 65% capacity. This observation underscores the limitation of upscaling, which cannot surpass the base performance threshold. Frame generation, however, can provide a significant boost.
<h2 class="article-bodysection” id=”section-upscaling-performance”>Upscaling performance
Starfield incorporates a variety of upscaling technologies, including AMD’s FSR, Intel’s XeSS, and Nvidia’s DLSS, though none are the latest iterations. For instance, the game utilizes DLSS 3.5 for upscaling and frame generation, while FSR is limited to version 3.0. This means players cannot enable FSR frame generation alongside DLSS or XeSS upscaling. Intel Arc users are advised to opt for FSR over XeSS if they wish to utilize frame generation, though FSR’s visual quality is generally regarded as inferior.
Unfortunately, upscaling does not significantly enhance performance on the ROG Ally, RTX 4050 laptop, or Arc A770 due to the engine’s complexity. However, frame generation does improve the experience for handheld and laptop users, albeit at the cost of input lag. On the ROG Ally, this lag is pronounced, creating a sluggish feel, while the RTX 4050 maintains a more acceptable level of responsiveness when using DLSS Quality mode with frame generation. For optimal results, frame generation is best suited for more powerful gaming PCs, yet even mid-range setups like the Ryzen 5 5600X paired with a Radeon RX 5700 XT can yield smooth frame rates with minimal input lag when utilizing FSR Quality mode and frame generation.
In terms of visual quality, the hierarchy of upscaling systems ranks as follows: DLSS > XeSS > FSR. The latter tends to produce noticeable pixel crawling along vertical edges at lower resolutions, and reducing the render scale can lead to odd appearances for distant objects like moons and stars. While static images may not fully convey the benefits of DLSS and FSR frame generation, the results are generally pleasing, with Nvidia’s system delivering superior visuals compared to AMD’s. An inconvenience arises in that FSR is automatically applied whenever a graphics preset is selected, regardless of the GPU in use. Nevertheless, all upscalers provide improved anti-aliasing compared to the native system.
<h2 class="article-bodysection” id=”section-quality-presets-and-settings”>Quality presets and settings
For the best performance and graphics balance on most gaming PCs, use the Medium or High preset and then turn down these settings:
- Shadow Quality
- Volumetric Lighting
- GTAO Quality
Starfield offers four graphics preset options, including a script for an Ultra Low setting that remains unused. The most significant performance gains can be achieved by switching between Low and Medium settings, which also results in noticeable improvements in graphics quality. Transitions from Medium to High, and High to Ultra, yield subtler enhancements, but frame rates generally remain stable as graphics quality increases. Ultimately, the choice of settings depends on personal preference and hardware capabilities.
The most demanding settings include Shadow Quality, Volumetric Lighting, and GTAO Quality, which also contribute significantly to the overall visual experience. For players seeking higher frame rates without sacrificing too much visual fidelity, adjusting these three settings down a notch or two can be beneficial.
In summary, while Starfield’s performance has improved since its initial launch, it still falls short of excellence. The experience is satisfactory enough, particularly for those transitioning from console versions, yet the visuals often do not justify the frame rates, especially in the new DLC. One is left pondering the engine’s inefficiencies, particularly when faced with sub-60 fps figures amidst sparse NPC activity in a relatively uninspired landscape. Shattered Space may draw inspiration from the design and themes of Morrowind, but it appears that Bethesda has taken this inspiration a step too far, resulting in an experience that feels reminiscent of older performance standards.
