I was legit pissed I couldn’t run this. It doesn’t even look that good. BG3 ran just fine though?
As part of an exciting partnership with NASA, Bethesda have created a game that can only be run on a NASA supercomputer.
Bethesda had brought out some cracking games but their contempt for users has increased with every release. They’re not the only games company that does this. It’s still disappointing.
“just buy a 400W GPU” -Todd Howard, 2023
hmm…
“Let them eat cake” -Marie Antoinette, 18th Century
Always best to go direct to the source on these things (emphasis mine):
NOTE: The meaning of this PR, potential perf impact and the problem it tries to solve is being grossly misrepresented on other sites.
The goal of this refactor is to optimize for cases where games (Starfield in particular) uses advanced ExecuteIndirect in very inefficient ways.
[…]
To be clear, the gains expected here are very minute. Single percent range to pop some final bubbles that Mesa didn’t clean up on its own. The real gains come from recent Mesa patches on main.
It’s absurd that I can’t run it at a decent frame rate even at lowest possible settings. I have a 3070ti and “only” an i7-9700k. I’ll pirate it again when I upgrade my CPU to an i9 series I guess.
I can run it good with a mix of medium/high settings with a 3080. With that said Baldurs Gate 3 and even Cyberpunk back in 2020 did run better and I would argue did look better as well ? So yeah the optimization for Starfield is pretty weak and if you have a weaker rig like say a 2060 I can imagine its gonna run like shit.
Im pretty sure I did run Cyberpunk and BG3 on max setting as well and they did run ok.
It has worse optimization then fuckin Cyberpunk? And looks that mid, while needing a supercomputer to run it at all?
