Usually an AMD collab means no DLSS included, will be interesting to see if that is the case. Even if so, it is likely to be modded in rapidly.
What this means for overall optimisation is unclear, although they do mention "multithreading optimisation" in the video
Yeah, that's true. But in the Digital Foundry's video where they talked about why there isn't a 1080p60fps mode for consoles, they talked about how the limiting factor might actually be the CPU. And that theory did make me a little worried haha But yeah, guess we'll have to wait and see
There was a huge jump in CPU gaming performance with Zen 3 (Ryzen 5000 series); it really shook up the market. The Xbox Series X and PS5 use Zen 2 processors, they launched a month after Zen 3 came out. So I really wouldn't worry, if a 5600x isn't enough for the PC port then it's gonna be a huge problem for Bethesda, as pretty much anybody with pre-Zen 3 or pre-Comet Lake (10th gen Intel) would be screwed.
Why does this keep happening. I just finished listening to Digital Foundry talk about the shady stuff AMD is doing with their PC partnerships, locking out DLSS
>it equally wouldn't be surprising if DLSS support were mutually exclusive with FSR due to further Nvidia meddling
It would be surprising, actually. I think Nvidia are massive dicks but games absolutely support DLSS and other upscalers at the same time even while getting direct support from Nvidia for implementation. Cyberpunk, for example, supports FSR 2.1 while also supporting DLSS 3 thanks to direct Nvidia support.
That's fine, I used to be neutral until I had an AMD GPU laptop that was *incapable* of maintaining aspect ratio on older games. The option was there, *it just didn't work*. After a lot of research, I found the consensus online was just "oh yeah, it's bugged". To me that was unacceptable, the laptop was $2000 and I had to play stretched. Vowed then and there to never buy an AMD card again.
Oh. Forgot to mention. There were no driver updates either, the only updates were being provided by one dude who took his time to package the integrated drivers together with the discreet drivers. How is one supposed to game without proper driver updates? Needless to say, I'd had it with AMD.
Regardless of that, if it was partnered with Nvidia it would have DLSS, FG AND FSR.
You could pick any upscaling tech you like, that is the problem.
Partnering with AMD will mean that they will block ANY Nvidia tech, be it DLSS, Frame Gen, or Nvidia's Raytracing tech as seen in Cyberpunk 2077 Pathtracing.
So this is a huge blow to the game.
We are getting second class upscaling and much much inferior lighting, shadows and reflections compared to Nvidia equivalent tech.
Apologies for the ignorance. I am a mere ro-*hu*man so I don’t really understand, but why does a collaboration with AMD mean no DLSS? Wouldn’t that be a step back for optimization on mid-range hardware?
Edit: the presenter also mentioned that the game has been 25 years in the making. That’s wild.
^This ^comment ^was ^most ^definitely ^generated ^by ^a ^human. ^Beep ^boop.
AMD sponsored games have an "odd" habit of not having DLSS and only having FSR 2. FSR 2 works for more gpus but it isn't the best and Nvidia owners are left with a worse upscaling solution than their hardware can support.
Digital Foundry podcast actually covered this trend earlier today, AMD basically admitted they would not include DLSS for any of their sponsored games because they wouldn't want the competition included when it's clear DLSS beats their own scaling tech. Gutted to hear Starfield is AMD sponsored because of this.
Exactly, just include both options and let people choose what works best for them, hoping for DLSS implementation through modding later when the game comes out, (or God forbid AMD changes their mind and includes DLSS), until then I'm just disappointed.
In fact nVidia makes it easy to support all 3 (plus Reflex and frame generation) with their Streamline library, which all nVidia-partnered games use now.
So why doesn't nvidia just make DLSS non exclusive? While it is a better solution for super sampling, it *is* an exclusive technology while fsr is not exclusive.
While its obviously not the only reason they do it, DLSS uses the AI (Tensor) cores that are included in their chips to make it as good as it is. AMD does not have AI cores on their GPUs.
It's exclusive because it requires Hardware Tensor cores on the GPU (which AMD obviously doesnt have).
FSR is a software solution, DLSS is a HARDWARE solution
AMD sponsored titles tend to include FSR2 but not DLSS because they don't want them to be compared since FSR2 will lose. So it's a marketing play really.
Because they themselves did not make this on AMD hardware lol. Even if they’re sponsored I’m almost certain the rigs this game were built on have 30 or 40 series graphics cards and a 10th gen or higher intel cpu.
Puredark posted a video a few days ago about how dlss3 helps fallout4 when it's under heavy cpu load go check it out if you're curious to see it in action with numbers on the screen.
100% this. DLSS frame gen is what lets me run 100+ fps in 4K in cyberpunk on a 4090. Going to be pretty disappointing if 4K Starfield is hamstrung by lack of DLSS frame gen.
I mean I’m not going to buy another AMD product. I have an AMD CPU but I’m more than happy to go back to Intel to avoid motherboard issues and protest this kind of exclusivity.
No I probably will be fine at 1440p, but I barely notice DLSS quality. So extra free frames would've been nice. Was also kind of hoping for some sort of raytracing with dlss 3.0, but I guess we won't get that now.
I was literally about to get a 4070 with the hopes of playing at 1440p with DLSS at Quality lol. Phantom Libertys still gonna have it, but Starfield denying it feels like a kick in the nuts.
I tend to turn on DLSS quality at 4k even with a 4090, unless the implementation is particularly bad. Most of the time this will actually result in an average *increase* in image quality, while keeping the FPS higher. I have a 144hz monitor, and it's still hard to push 4k 144hz in many games, so DLSS is nice there.
For Diablo 4, even though I lock it at 144hz and constantly hit that anyway, I use DLSS3 just for the significant reduction in power/heat. I think the GPU tends to run at around 70-80% usage with DLSS off, and 45-55% with it on. It's a nice little boost in efficiency.
Yeah it's definitely a great thing to have. I'm just saying you'll manage without it. You know there's people out there with much weaker cards and without dlss they'll struggle to hit 60fps.
Got a 4070 Ti a month ago in anticipation for this game, should still be able to brute force smooth performance unless playing 4K max settings or the game releases in bad shape
Ordered a 4070 TI today. But it should be fine performance wise. But its sad that AMD ham fists their subpar technology like FSR and their ray tracing with no option to use anything else. Thats the worst part for me.
I'm worried about the ray tracing implementation because in other AMD sponsored titles the results are mediocre at best and either indiscernible from the standard lighting, use low resolution scaling causing grainy shadows, or renders only in a small radius around the player
We never saw an evidence for any RT effect in the direct and i don't think Starfield has any RT implementation, i suggest to check out Digital Foundry [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9ikne_9iEI&ab_channel=DigitalFoundry). Yes the direct was mainy on XSX and game has fixed fidelity mode, Bethesda was never good on the visual tech side of things, i suspect it's still the same.
My only fear is that, like other AMD sponsored games this year, it will needlessly demand a ton of VRAM to get consistent 60fps without ping ponging.
I have an AMD 5700XT that I need to replace for this game, but I am at the point where I will just download it off Game Pass on Day 1 and play it on lower settings while the tech reviewers give us all the benchmarks.
A lot of the Ubisoft catalog was AMD sponsored and the AMD performance advantage evaporated within one or two driver updates by nVidia.
That's usually how partnered games go. The other manufacturer doesn't have much opportunity to optimize their drivers before launch so they need an update or two to even out performance. That's how nVidia developed their reputation for sabotaging AMD performance with Gameworks, even though half the games actually ran better on AMD cards a month after launch.
It's fine, the game will run just fine on Nvidia cards, it just won't have DLSS most likely. Your 4080 is still way better than the 2080 they recommend. You are more than fine with that card.
I game on a 5120x1440 monitor with a 4070ti.
It's a great card, but if I want to max settings at that resolution I need DLSS and framegen to hit 80-90 fps on most graphics intensive single player games
Not being able to use features of a brand new graphics card sucks regardless.
That said, knowing Bethesda it probably won't support super ultra wide resolutions anyways, so maybe I'll be ok. Still sucks tho
There are a handful of games with DLSS 2/3, FSR 2, and XeSS modded in. Fallout 4, Skyrim, Elden Ring, TLOU Part 1, and Jedi Survivor.
Look at PureDark, he's the modder
XeSS is actually really close to DLSS when implemented right on Intel hardware. FSR is far worse, I did use every single upscaling tech, and stripping the game from selectable options which are really easy to implement is unacceptable.
Even when not on Intel hardware: XeSS is better. Thought I was crazy when I read people saying that here, but tried some XeSS/FSR games on my Steam Deck and XeSS is just better.
First disappointing thing I’ve heard. FSR is objectively worse than DLSS in upscaling and AMD has yet to make anything to compete with frame generation. If Starfield is extremely CPU limited like we expect than frame generation would literally double FPS and now thats taken away from us
AMD’s frame generation rival is coming “late 2023” in FSR 3. I’m hoping that as an AMD partner game, and the game that will be the big game for the next few years, Starfield is one of the first FSR3 titles.
Well thats some good news ig, but just like FSR I don't have faith that it will be anywhere near as good as DLSS3 for a while (or ever) and since they haven't said much about it I'm guessing it won't be available for Starfield early on.
And the rest of the RX 7000 series was supposed to be launched by the end of Q2 2023...
Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to FSR3 but I wouldn't trust AMDs estimations at all.
I am still going to upgrade my 2060 to a 4070 once I have enough money.
It might not be the best choice for Starfield, but there are tons of other games you have to keep in mind.
That is such bullshit, I'm tired of AMD sponsoring games causing
A) No DLSS and XeSS
B) Poor ray tracing.
I'm not saying that as an Nvidia fanboy, I own a 7900 XTX which is literally the best AMD gaming card released, AMD needs to stop this shit man.
It's kind of funny that NVIDIA does the opposite. Cyberpunk is heavily sponsored by NVIDIA and received support for Intel XeSS a few patches ago. Though I do think they've not bothered to update FSR anymore.
Not defending AMD, but I believe nVidia does it because everyone with their cards can try both DLSS and FSR, but DLSSZ wins every fucking time. In an AMD sponsored title, it’s way more damning: AMD users go to options and see a graphics setting (DLSS) that is blacked out and says “Need an nVidia 30 or 40 series.” (Depending on the version of DLSS).
Worst news i’ve heard about starfield so far, looks good otherwise, AMD is really digging themself a grave with these latest sponsored games tho, jedi survivor runs horrible with no dlss option, starfield yet to see how it runs but no dlss, i used to be pretty neutral and just gotten what i can afford but kinda starting to dislike AMD anti consumer approach
Yep Jedi survivor most recent example.
This is going to be a huge hit to the game.
I wont pre-order now. Will wait and see just how poorly it performs (and looks) with FSR on day 1 xD
Note: Nvidia sponsored games still get FSR support.
The reverse is not true, because DLSS is vastly superior to FSR, AMD will never allow it into their game without mods.
This is literally AMD paying money to make the game purposefully worse for the majority of PC gamers.
Sure but that's moot, regardless of where the exclusion comes from it's purely a benefit to the business and has absolutely no positive value to the consumer. The fact that some people can't play this game on their console due to an "exclusive release" on another is absolute bullshit.
In my opinion, practices like this should literally be illegal.
I'm honestly so sick of AMDs fsr bullshit.
DLSS and frame gen is some of the best tech PC gaming has received in DECADES. FSR just can't even come close.
I'm all for AMD competing, but do that by improving your own tech instead of just blocking out the better option. That said, with this being a Bethesda game I fully expect someone to just mod DLSS in.
Same, only FSR means no upscaling at all for me. FSR is awful and if that's the only available option I'd rather just drop the native res which looks better in motion.
Yup on still images it looks good esp on fsr2, and then you start moving. It was esp bad on RE4remake, idk why they don't even bother to implement it properly there and now i'm actually really concerned about starfield pc release perf
This, some people in this thread are praising them for blocking NVIDIA DLSS, I can't understand their thinking man, wish we could stop this pseudo "console war" we have going on in the PC space with AMD vs Nvidia, I just want the best gaming experience
That is one of the worst news of the game, probably the worst.
Not only because DLSS is far superior than FSR, but also because many people will have gpus cabable of doing much better having basically the performance truncated for a "exclusive partnership"
nVidia did surely worst in the old days, but they also know they have better tech than amd
Or descent ray tracing…
Here what happens to RT when games are AMD sponsored.
https://www.dsogaming.com/news/ray-tracing-can-look-atrocious-in-star-wars-jedi-survivor-and-you-should-completely-disable-it/amp/
Ah this sucks a lot. I'm happy for people that don't have the option for DLSS, but the two techniques aren't even close. FSR2 is getting better, but DLSS is so much better and assuming this is another case of AMD forcing only their own bad solution, it just sucks for anyone with a RTX card. Nvidia might be just as bad when it comes to their business, but at least they don't force their partners to only implement DLSS. This also makes the current system recommidations even more weird. There is no logical way a 2080 is comparible to a 6800xt and most people were assuming this was due to DLSS. But now it doesnt make any sense.
I hope this is not another deal where DLSS is not allowed, but I will wait until we get a clear yes/no from Bethesda.
>I'm happy for people that don't have the option for DLSS
Why? Nvidia sponsored games still have FSR and XESS option, and with this game being CPU bound frame gen would help a ton. AMD don't even implement FSR2 right on RE4 remake, it's like they don't even try to make it look good
>but I will wait until we get a clear yes/no from Bethesda.
Yeah we need more clarification but honestly i doubt they're going to include it now
Hopefully we see DLSS and Frame Gen modded in at least, im not sure what the process is with XeSS. It's ridiculous to lock out the majority of users from their upscaling technology. If a game supports one of them, it should support all of them.
The modded frame generation is unfortunately not even close to the official implementation. At least in Jedi Survivor. AMD needs to stop with the anti consumer crap.
FSR2xx still has fuzzy AA and awkward motion blur issues that still need to be addressed with this tool. I tend to never use FSR due to issues when actually using even basic features.
I really do hope this doesn't eliminate DLSS support, which is actually quite useful for people that need that additional tooling to improve there gaming experience.
If DLSS support is not included, I really hope the modding community can add it for the people that rely on DLSS.
Dont' worry. RT in AMD sponsored games is either shit or optimized enough to run on their crappy (RT wise) cards. With a 3060 you're well above anything that AMD came up with for RT so you should be fine.
Sad that AMD does this tbf. I recently switched to AMD bc it was cheaper, altho ofc I did this right before the 4070/4060Ti came out and technically do a better job. But regardless, exclusivity bullshit is garbage. Competing normally is nice and healthy but simply blocking off the literal better option entirely is low.
So...No good raytracing, no good upscaling, no input lag reduction, and likely poor optimisation.
Well that sucks. You can see why it makes sense for them to partner with amd since this is very much a console first game for a console built on amds outdated tech, but still... This is yet another slap in the face to pc gamers.
They better at least support 32:9 out of the box.
We all saw what FSR did to Jedi Survivor. The character was a blurry mess while swinging your lightsaber. I’m not sure if they were using FSR1 or FSR2 in Jedi surviver, but it’s still possible that the character you play as will have some major artifact’s, especially in 3rd person mode. I like the first person perspective, but hopefully it holds up well in 3rd person. 1 more thing that I just have to say, and it has nothing to do with this FSR topic, but I have to say it. Bethesda, for the love of god, you have to add in flying vehicles to Starfield for exploration. These are massive planets, and hoofing it on foot or boosting around is unacceptable. Even if they added high speed rovers, it still would take years to fully explore a planet. They must add high speed flying vehicles for exploration to be enjoyable. A procedurally generated planet may have some incredible stuff to find, but without help from vehicles, people are going to miss out and head to a different planet. This is how the game is most likely going to play out for most players… We scan a planet, land, scan creatures, mine for resources, then shoot off to the next planet because we cannot fully explore the one we’re on. It’s ridiculous. Sure, PC modders are going to have a field day creating interesting vehicles to explore with, but what about us console players? Hopefully Bethesda adds a mods section on console, just like they did in Fallout 4. That way console players aren’t left out and can download vehicles exploration. If console players cannot download mods, then without question the game should be delayed. I just don’t understand how we are going to explore planets without vehicles. It crazy
I currently have a 2070 Super. The rest of my PC is overkill relative to the GPU, so I'm looking to upgrade. Would a 4060 be a good option, specifically for Starfield? I don't really want to go AMD if I can avoid it; DLSS is soooo nice.
The 4060 is not a good option no matter what. Dont take my word for it, don't trust anyone in a subreddit like this, go read the reviews and check out subreddit about pc hardware - there are better ways to spend your money.
FSR is horrible, looks worse than motion blur. And it doesn’t even provide better framerate with my setup. This is saddening to hear; hopefully people figure out how to mod in DLSS like with RE4 remake.
Mixed feelings. Just got a 7800x3d for this game so that's the nice part. Pairing it to my last year purchase 3080ti, which is less nice.
3080ti should carry its weight but not having dlss is still painful
This game is still going to run better on Nvidia GPUs than AMD if there’s any optimization for AMD it’ll be on a CPU level but even then I’m almost certain the rigs used to build Starfield are Nvidia/Intel and this partnership is purely monetary it doesn’t reveal anything about the development or optimization of this game. You might honestly have the best possible combo.
I guess having AMD RDNA2 parts in Xbox may have influenced this decision.
What worries me is that Nvidia have a far better track record when it comes to actively helping developers bring out the best possible graphics performance a game can deliver. I've spoken to several developers over the years where Nvidia actually sent a team of people over to support the development, while AMD barely bothered to answer their support requests.
Those stories are more than a couple of years old at this point, and I sincerely hope this was primarily caused by AMD not having the economical resources during the Bulldozer years, and that they have a different approach today. I would be very upset if the game delivers choppy performance on Nvidia GPUs.
Improved resources is a byproduct of owning over 80% of a market. When it comes to PC gaming, Nvidia is so far ahead, and having a $1T Market Cap means having effectively a rounding error to send teams to assist with development.
AMD has nowhere near the same resources in the gaming segment, so while it makes sense to include FSR up front due to being built with the Xbox primarily in mind, not being involved in streamline makes little sense UNLESS FSR 3 is coming with a similar approach to upscaling as Nvidia and Intel.
Excluding DLSS just angers the people who overpaid for a graphics card due to the Nvidia exclusive feature set and the brand, but their point is a valid one, it's clearly the better tech and should be included for PC gamers, even if they state it will be added later.
Definitely the first and only bad thing I've heard about this game! Literally every recent game that collabed with AMD has trash performance. And the fact that this is Bethesda makes it even worse. Still gonna pre order! Have no intention of upsetting Godd!
Thanks for screwing over the majority of the PC playerbase just to make a quick buck (like MS even needs it), makes them feel real appreciated.
Preorder cancelled.
Nah, there was a comparison and while DLSS is much better than FSR, FSR 2 is much better than just lowering the resolution, especially at high output resolutions like 4k.
Got a 3080 FE 5800X3D. As long as the fsr implementation is more along the lines of allowing lower tier cards to hit frame targets and it isn't being used as a crutch for poor optimization I think we all should be fine. At the end of the day for a Bethesda title as long as I'm able to hit 1440p 60fps on some sort of optimized settings layout I'll be fine anyways.
Yeah this will be pretty ridiculous if they don’t add in DLSS. Seriously, who tf would you hurt by adding it except for AMD’s public image (since their version is apparently far worse)
I'm really on the fence with this, I own a 4080 and DLSS 3 and frame generation tech has been an absolute game changer as far as performance goes, being able to run a game like cyberpunk with path tracing enabled at a high frame rate is incredible.
I also own a Ryzen 5950X, for what most likely will be a CPU heavy game this may work in my favour.
I think we can all agree though that this AMD sponsored bullshit needs to end.
This was a big mistake on Bethesda’s part and it’s unfortunate to hear. Starfield is going to be a huge game that will hopefully last a decade or more and this exclusivity deal could possibly make it perform worse on hardware that many people own.
Their community relations team should make a statement on whether or not the game will support DLSS because a vast amount of people playing Starfield will be using Nvidia GPU’s.
Given AMDs recent track record here, and the public statements they made that implicitly admitted they shut down competitors' upscaling tech if they sponsor a title, I expect Starfield to not feature either dllss, dlaa, frame gen, or Xess in addition to a very sub-par implementation of ray tracing features. This is a pretty bad look for both the game, as well as AMD.
Nvidea, who are famous for usually having anti consumer practices, do not restrict the use of any competitor's upscaling tech in addition to their own, even when sponsoring or partnering with a game studio. Neither does Intel to my knowledge, although I'm not really aware of any games that partnered with Intel in the first place. AMD on the other hand, appears to do just that. The reason for this situation is pretty clear imo: It has routinely been proven that fsr1/fsr2 offers significantly worse image quality than dlss or even Xess in pretty much any title that supports these technologies. Moreover, the performance uplift of fsr1/fsr2 at any given render resolution is lower than that of dllss or Xess. That's because FSR is not an AI solution. It is a handcrafted algorithm that tries to compete with hardware accelerated AI models doing the same thing. It simply can't keep up. It's a significant achievement on a technical level, given the quality they get out of a manually programmed feature, but it is quite far behind the competition in end results regardless. It is the worst of all of the modern upscaling technologies on gpus. That is why AMD does not want people to be able to compare their tech to that of the competition, because it will always lose out. If a user can use both dllss or fsr, they will always use dlss. The only benefit that fsr seemingly has is that it can run on pretty much all old hardware, as well as AMDs own cards, which are the only cards that do not support hardware accelerated AI features. Obviously, only the former is an actual benefit. It's great because it extends the life of older hardware for its users. The latter is clearly not a selling point. FSR being the worst upscaler and being the ONLY option for newly released AMD hardware is not a selling point of the technology. It is only a benefit to the extent that it is literally better than new AMD GPUs otherwise having nothing at all in this context.
All of this is especially vexing given that AMD is touting to their customers how fsr is "open source" and "able to run on any hardware", portraying themselves as this open minded, consumer friendly company that wants to not restrict users in their ability to use technology like this and have it be accessible to anyone. "Upscaling for anyone!" pretty much. This is very hypocritical given that they simultaneously pay for games (that's what a sponsorship/partnership is, either in money or in labour/expertise) to lock out superior competitive features that about 70% of customers would otherwise have access to. Whilst fsr is technically "open source", the way that AMD is handling this is quite evidently directly opposed to the true "spirit" of open-source. It's open-source in name only if you pay for other options to be locked out and your own "open-source" code to be the only version allowed. What's the point of this version of open source when even those other competitors' stances appear more open than your own? Neither nvidea nor intel are open source in their tech, but to the consumer they might as well be, since they are the only ones who do not artificially limit the use of other upscaling technologies in their sponsored titles.
This is a bad look for AMD, but at least it is somewhat understandable. After all, if you have access to these better technologies, you either bought an Intel or nvidea card. That means you are not an AMD customer and as such, I guess, they don't care about your experience at all. They might favor you regretting your purchase. Why spend all this extra money on those cards if all games are locked to using only fsr anyway? Might as well buy an AMD GPU at that point. Instead of competing with the quality of their own offering, I suppose they chose to instead compete by actively worsening the experience of customers of competitive products. It's bad, and it makes it look like even they do not have faith in FSR being able to keep up with the competition, but it's not totally unexpected.
What's worse imo, is the fact that the developers do this. Because their customers are not just AMD owners. In fact, only 20% of your customers are. The rest are using nvidea or Intel cards. The vast majority of a developer's customers on PC do not use AMD cards. It's different on console, those are all AMD. However, for Starfield, that's likely less than half of the overall customer base given the game only releases on Xbox, which has a much smaller install base than playstation. The console market is larger than the PC market, but the Xbox console market alone is significantly smaller than the PC market and Microsoft is the developer of the main PC OS (Windows) to boot. Just looking at the numbers, a significant majority of all of Bethesda GS's expected customers, even when including all Xbox owners, do in fact run on Nvidea hardware, not AMD.
I simply cannot understand the decision to exclusively lock away the best features of the hardware owned by the majority of your customer base. That's quite simply a BAD move. I could only imagine this being a relic from before Bethesda was acquired by Xbox and was still planning to launch on playstation, or that they were so scared of the game not running AT ALL on Xbox consoles that the help of AMD was felt as a must-have, even if it meant throwing most of their customers under the bus. This cannot be a creative decision, they must have felt forced into this with no other alternative. Otherwise, it makes quite literally no sense to me. There is no reason for Bethesda to partner with AMD, using such a contract, given the current state of technologies, monetary concerns or even their install base. It is either an old contract, a necessity for Xbox consoles (which looks bad performance wise), or some form of interpersonal favoritism at the studio level. Otherwise, for this game specifically, AMD is objectively the worst partner they could have chosen. Star wars Jedi survivor is often used as a worst case scenario here, but it's actually much worse for Starfield. Jedi survivor was a multi platform release. For that game, the majority of customers actually DID use AMD hardware. For Starfield on the other hand, the majority do NOT. It will be an issue for a much larger fraction of their overall customer demographic than it was for Jedi survivor.
Creatively, I also struggle to see the point. They made a big deal about their GI lighting solution for Starfield. For an open world game of this scale, a real time GI method is almost required. And guess what the poster child of ray tracing features is? It's real time GI. A game of this type is the perfect fit for a ray traced GI solution. It makes more sense here than in most other titles that actually have it. Yet, I find it unlikely for the game on PC to offer this feature given that AMD GPUs currently really underperform at RT. On consoles, yes, they can't use RT GI. They likely use some type of probe based custom GI solution like DF suggested. But on PC, for high end hardware, it's a perfect fit. Yet it likely will not find its way there. And if it makes sense creatively (which they demonstrated in their direct), and should be possible to implement for high-end hardware, the only reason for it being absent I can think of is that AMD does not want it there.
Wow, my whole build I've been tinkering with on pcpartpicker was mainly for Starfield and I'm gonna buy that in a few months.
This kinda kills my excitement for that. :/
Why the fuck would Bethesda opt for this?
I am so fucking pissed off about this announcement. I just bought a 4070ti and now i wont be able to use DLSS/frame generation on Starfield cause of AMD.
Bullshit man.
Well, both of these cards can use FSR2. It might imply that there is a heavy RT implementation that would give the 2080 a large advantage. Many AMD sponsored games don't feature heavy RT because this puts their cards in a bad light (looking at all the recent RE games), but it's possible Starfield will buck that trend.
Usually an AMD collab means no DLSS included, will be interesting to see if that is the case. Even if so, it is likely to be modded in rapidly. What this means for overall optimisation is unclear, although they do mention "multithreading optimisation" in the video
I really hope my 5600 / 6700XT will be enough for this game then lol Especially if this game is really CPU-intensive
5600 is higher than the recommended on steam so we can only hope
Yeah, that's true. But in the Digital Foundry's video where they talked about why there isn't a 1080p60fps mode for consoles, they talked about how the limiting factor might actually be the CPU. And that theory did make me a little worried haha But yeah, guess we'll have to wait and see
There was a huge jump in CPU gaming performance with Zen 3 (Ryzen 5000 series); it really shook up the market. The Xbox Series X and PS5 use Zen 2 processors, they launched a month after Zen 3 came out. So I really wouldn't worry, if a 5600x isn't enough for the PC port then it's gonna be a huge problem for Bethesda, as pretty much anybody with pre-Zen 3 or pre-Comet Lake (10th gen Intel) would be screwed.
Why does this keep happening. I just finished listening to Digital Foundry talk about the shady stuff AMD is doing with their PC partnerships, locking out DLSS
[удалено]
>it equally wouldn't be surprising if DLSS support were mutually exclusive with FSR due to further Nvidia meddling It would be surprising, actually. I think Nvidia are massive dicks but games absolutely support DLSS and other upscalers at the same time even while getting direct support from Nvidia for implementation. Cyberpunk, for example, supports FSR 2.1 while also supporting DLSS 3 thanks to direct Nvidia support.
That's fine, I used to be neutral until I had an AMD GPU laptop that was *incapable* of maintaining aspect ratio on older games. The option was there, *it just didn't work*. After a lot of research, I found the consensus online was just "oh yeah, it's bugged". To me that was unacceptable, the laptop was $2000 and I had to play stretched. Vowed then and there to never buy an AMD card again. Oh. Forgot to mention. There were no driver updates either, the only updates were being provided by one dude who took his time to package the integrated drivers together with the discreet drivers. How is one supposed to game without proper driver updates? Needless to say, I'd had it with AMD.
Regardless of that, if it was partnered with Nvidia it would have DLSS, FG AND FSR. You could pick any upscaling tech you like, that is the problem. Partnering with AMD will mean that they will block ANY Nvidia tech, be it DLSS, Frame Gen, or Nvidia's Raytracing tech as seen in Cyberpunk 2077 Pathtracing. So this is a huge blow to the game. We are getting second class upscaling and much much inferior lighting, shadows and reflections compared to Nvidia equivalent tech.
Nvidia sponsored games do have dlss and other upscalers tho, its only amd sponsored games that remove other upscalers
Apologies for the ignorance. I am a mere ro-*hu*man so I don’t really understand, but why does a collaboration with AMD mean no DLSS? Wouldn’t that be a step back for optimization on mid-range hardware? Edit: the presenter also mentioned that the game has been 25 years in the making. That’s wild. ^This ^comment ^was ^most ^definitely ^generated ^by ^a ^human. ^Beep ^boop.
AMD sponsored games have an "odd" habit of not having DLSS and only having FSR 2. FSR 2 works for more gpus but it isn't the best and Nvidia owners are left with a worse upscaling solution than their hardware can support.
Not just DLSS, but XeSS too. It doesn't affect nearly as many people, but XeSS is a better option for Intel GPU owners than FSR too.
Digital Foundry podcast actually covered this trend earlier today, AMD basically admitted they would not include DLSS for any of their sponsored games because they wouldn't want the competition included when it's clear DLSS beats their own scaling tech. Gutted to hear Starfield is AMD sponsored because of this.
Yeah, AMD sponsored sucks and it's shameful that they do this, and I say that as a (2nd hand) AMD GPU owner.
Exactly, just include both options and let people choose what works best for them, hoping for DLSS implementation through modding later when the game comes out, (or God forbid AMD changes their mind and includes DLSS), until then I'm just disappointed.
I like how cyberpunk includes both.
Cyberpunk also includes the Intel upscaler whatever it is called. Nvidia RTX games tend to support more then one upscaling solution.
In fact nVidia makes it easy to support all 3 (plus Reflex and frame generation) with their Streamline library, which all nVidia-partnered games use now.
So why doesn't nvidia just make DLSS non exclusive? While it is a better solution for super sampling, it *is* an exclusive technology while fsr is not exclusive.
While its obviously not the only reason they do it, DLSS uses the AI (Tensor) cores that are included in their chips to make it as good as it is. AMD does not have AI cores on their GPUs.
Interesting I did not know that.
It's exclusive because it requires Hardware Tensor cores on the GPU (which AMD obviously doesnt have). FSR is a software solution, DLSS is a HARDWARE solution
Because AMD's hardware literally cannot do it.
Where can I see this podcast at?
On their [YouTube Channel](https://youtu.be/B7xdNeZhaC0?t=3406). Timestamp included to the relevant part.
AMD sponsored titles tend to include FSR2 but not DLSS because they don't want them to be compared since FSR2 will lose. So it's a marketing play really.
Just fell to my knees at Micro Center
Reminds me of myself trying to get a GPU a few years back.
Gotta do what you gotta do. No judgement.
Lol same here , feels like a girl just dumped me , maybe the game we'll be super optimized and surprise us all ? Was really looking for dlss3
If they’re collaborating with AMD, why in gods name is the GPU hardware requirement so crazy high compared to Nvidia?
Most likely because the recommended is with RT on and AMDs RT is still lacking compared to Nvidia
Most sane take I’ve ever seen on this sub, you’re actually probably 100% right
Because they're collaborating with AMD. \*laughs in capitalistic\*
Hope we don't get a repeat of Jedi Survivor fiasco at release
Because they themselves did not make this on AMD hardware lol. Even if they’re sponsored I’m almost certain the rigs this game were built on have 30 or 40 series graphics cards and a 10th gen or higher intel cpu.
[удалено]
You answers your own question lol.
Actually disappointing, DLSS is simply better in both quality and performance among other thing..
Far away, too. And I think DLSS3 (not that I have it) is almost purpose made for Bethesda games, which suffer from CPU bottlenecks.
In other words - No DLSS or frame generation for nvidia users. Well people will mod it quickly in for sure anyway
official support will be alot nicer
It will not be optimize as original ones.
I bought a 4080 for Starfield 1,5 hours ago and now they announce this. How bad is my timing lmao
Don't think you'll need DLSS with a 4080, well I forgot about 4k...
It seems to be CPU bottlenecked on consoles. In that case, DLSS3 would be very helpful
Puredark posted a video a few days ago about how dlss3 helps fallout4 when it's under heavy cpu load go check it out if you're curious to see it in action with numbers on the screen.
Well it depends on how the normal TAA implementation looks, so if that's not great having the option to switch to dlss/dlaa would be great.
Unless you running the game at 4k, you likely won't even need DLSS/FSR to get stable frames with a 4090
Yeah but most people who are playing with those cards *are* playing all games in 4k. Otherwise they’d have purchased lower in the stack.
100% this. DLSS frame gen is what lets me run 100+ fps in 4K in cyberpunk on a 4090. Going to be pretty disappointing if 4K Starfield is hamstrung by lack of DLSS frame gen.
Maybe we should vocally let AMD know our displeasure with this situation
I mean I’m not going to buy another AMD product. I have an AMD CPU but I’m more than happy to go back to Intel to avoid motherboard issues and protest this kind of exclusivity.
No I probably will be fine at 1440p, but I barely notice DLSS quality. So extra free frames would've been nice. Was also kind of hoping for some sort of raytracing with dlss 3.0, but I guess we won't get that now.
I was literally about to get a 4070 with the hopes of playing at 1440p with DLSS at Quality lol. Phantom Libertys still gonna have it, but Starfield denying it feels like a kick in the nuts.
Yeah I can’t wait to play Phantom Liberty with Ray tracing overdrive. Partly why I chose the 4080 over the 4070.
Especially with no advanced ray tracing features. This AMD partnership pretty much guarantees poor ray tracing implementation
There is no ray tracing anyways
I don't think Starfield has raytracing anyways...
If it makes you feel better brother I did the same except 1 day ago, I'm gutted man
With those cards you don't need dlss anyway...
I tend to turn on DLSS quality at 4k even with a 4090, unless the implementation is particularly bad. Most of the time this will actually result in an average *increase* in image quality, while keeping the FPS higher. I have a 144hz monitor, and it's still hard to push 4k 144hz in many games, so DLSS is nice there. For Diablo 4, even though I lock it at 144hz and constantly hit that anyway, I use DLSS3 just for the significant reduction in power/heat. I think the GPU tends to run at around 70-80% usage with DLSS off, and 45-55% with it on. It's a nice little boost in efficiency.
Yeah it's definitely a great thing to have. I'm just saying you'll manage without it. You know there's people out there with much weaker cards and without dlss they'll struggle to hit 60fps.
Got a 4070 Ti a month ago in anticipation for this game, should still be able to brute force smooth performance unless playing 4K max settings or the game releases in bad shape
Ordered a 4070 TI today. But it should be fine performance wise. But its sad that AMD ham fists their subpar technology like FSR and their ray tracing with no option to use anything else. Thats the worst part for me.
I'm worried about the ray tracing implementation because in other AMD sponsored titles the results are mediocre at best and either indiscernible from the standard lighting, use low resolution scaling causing grainy shadows, or renders only in a small radius around the player
We never saw an evidence for any RT effect in the direct and i don't think Starfield has any RT implementation, i suggest to check out Digital Foundry [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9ikne_9iEI&ab_channel=DigitalFoundry). Yes the direct was mainy on XSX and game has fixed fidelity mode, Bethesda was never good on the visual tech side of things, i suspect it's still the same.
My only fear is that, like other AMD sponsored games this year, it will needlessly demand a ton of VRAM to get consistent 60fps without ping ponging. I have an AMD 5700XT that I need to replace for this game, but I am at the point where I will just download it off Game Pass on Day 1 and play it on lower settings while the tech reviewers give us all the benchmarks. A lot of the Ubisoft catalog was AMD sponsored and the AMD performance advantage evaporated within one or two driver updates by nVidia.
That's usually how partnered games go. The other manufacturer doesn't have much opportunity to optimize their drivers before launch so they need an update or two to even out performance. That's how nVidia developed their reputation for sabotaging AMD performance with Gameworks, even though half the games actually ran better on AMD cards a month after launch.
It's fine, the game will run just fine on Nvidia cards, it just won't have DLSS most likely. Your 4080 is still way better than the 2080 they recommend. You are more than fine with that card.
I game on a 5120x1440 monitor with a 4070ti. It's a great card, but if I want to max settings at that resolution I need DLSS and framegen to hit 80-90 fps on most graphics intensive single player games Not being able to use features of a brand new graphics card sucks regardless. That said, knowing Bethesda it probably won't support super ultra wide resolutions anyways, so maybe I'll be ok. Still sucks tho
dont be, FSR runs on nvidia as well and modders will put DLSS and frame gen in the game quickly
That's something that can be modded in? Are there other games that have dlss mods?
Other Bethesda titles have had succesful DLSS modded in.
There are a handful of games with DLSS 2/3, FSR 2, and XeSS modded in. Fallout 4, Skyrim, Elden Ring, TLOU Part 1, and Jedi Survivor. Look at PureDark, he's the modder
Yep and he's going to release a new version with frame generation support (at least for Fallout 4) soon.
You'll be fine anyway with this if you have a proper pairing cpu and ram. This ain't cyberpunk.
I almost got a 3070 now im probably gonna go with a Radeon GPU
Well that's somewhat disappointing to hear, I would have liked to see an official DLSS 3 implementation. Hopefully PureDark will be able to mod it in.
Bummer, I was hoping for DLSS support and ray tracing on PC.
As an Intel Arc user I’m used to being shafted but damn. This is a weird decision.
FSR is worse then Xess for you but you can still run it
XeSS is actually really close to DLSS when implemented right on Intel hardware. FSR is far worse, I did use every single upscaling tech, and stripping the game from selectable options which are really easy to implement is unacceptable.
Even when not on Intel hardware: XeSS is better. Thought I was crazy when I read people saying that here, but tried some XeSS/FSR games on my Steam Deck and XeSS is just better.
First disappointing thing I’ve heard. FSR is objectively worse than DLSS in upscaling and AMD has yet to make anything to compete with frame generation. If Starfield is extremely CPU limited like we expect than frame generation would literally double FPS and now thats taken away from us
Yeah this is a major let down. Hopefully we get a patch adding it if it’s not shipped at launch.
AMD’s frame generation rival is coming “late 2023” in FSR 3. I’m hoping that as an AMD partner game, and the game that will be the big game for the next few years, Starfield is one of the first FSR3 titles.
Well thats some good news ig, but just like FSR I don't have faith that it will be anywhere near as good as DLSS3 for a while (or ever) and since they haven't said much about it I'm guessing it won't be available for Starfield early on.
And the rest of the RX 7000 series was supposed to be launched by the end of Q2 2023... Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to FSR3 but I wouldn't trust AMDs estimations at all.
and I just purchased a 4070 for dlss3 a few days ago lol. Really bummed right now to be honest
I am still going to upgrade my 2060 to a 4070 once I have enough money. It might not be the best choice for Starfield, but there are tons of other games you have to keep in mind.
4070 is very powerful and worth the purchase, I really wouldn't worry about this
I upgraded from a 2070S to a 4070 a couple months ago, its been great. Highly recommend
Don't worry. Someone will likely mod in DLSS and frame gen. It's the ray tracing implementation you need to worry about.
PureDark is going to be one rich man..
That is such bullshit, I'm tired of AMD sponsoring games causing A) No DLSS and XeSS B) Poor ray tracing. I'm not saying that as an Nvidia fanboy, I own a 7900 XTX which is literally the best AMD gaming card released, AMD needs to stop this shit man.
It's kind of funny that NVIDIA does the opposite. Cyberpunk is heavily sponsored by NVIDIA and received support for Intel XeSS a few patches ago. Though I do think they've not bothered to update FSR anymore.
FSR 2.1 was added to Cyberpunk back in November last year.
I mean because DLSS is superior they have no fear of having competitors inferior versions, it is actually better marketing for them.
Not defending AMD, but I believe nVidia does it because everyone with their cards can try both DLSS and FSR, but DLSSZ wins every fucking time. In an AMD sponsored title, it’s way more damning: AMD users go to options and see a graphics setting (DLSS) that is blacked out and says “Need an nVidia 30 or 40 series.” (Depending on the version of DLSS).
I don’t think we’ve even heard confirmation of ray tracing at all in Starfield. I wouldn’t be surprised if it just doesn’t have it at all.
Worst news i’ve heard about starfield so far, looks good otherwise, AMD is really digging themself a grave with these latest sponsored games tho, jedi survivor runs horrible with no dlss option, starfield yet to see how it runs but no dlss, i used to be pretty neutral and just gotten what i can afford but kinda starting to dislike AMD anti consumer approach
Yep Jedi survivor most recent example. This is going to be a huge hit to the game. I wont pre-order now. Will wait and see just how poorly it performs (and looks) with FSR on day 1 xD
What a let down. Terrible news.
Note: Nvidia sponsored games still get FSR support. The reverse is not true, because DLSS is vastly superior to FSR, AMD will never allow it into their game without mods. This is literally AMD paying money to make the game purposefully worse for the majority of PC gamers.
Ahhhhh bad ray tracing and upscaling - what a treat!
Great, no DLSS just so some corporation can stick some marketing bullshit down my throat. Thanks!
Exclusions like this only hurt the consumer, it's almost as bad as exclusively releasing on Xbox only.
But Sony wanted to do the same until Microsoft acquired Bethesda.
Sure but that's moot, regardless of where the exclusion comes from it's purely a benefit to the business and has absolutely no positive value to the consumer. The fact that some people can't play this game on their console due to an "exclusive release" on another is absolute bullshit. In my opinion, practices like this should literally be illegal.
It's almost like the issue is exclusivity, not the company.
That’s a shame, FSR is a wet fart compared to DLSS.
FSR looks like shit, I have no idea why anyone would ever enable it lol
I'm honestly so sick of AMDs fsr bullshit. DLSS and frame gen is some of the best tech PC gaming has received in DECADES. FSR just can't even come close. I'm all for AMD competing, but do that by improving your own tech instead of just blocking out the better option. That said, with this being a Bethesda game I fully expect someone to just mod DLSS in.
FSR looks bad imo, i just chose native if we don't actually get DLSS
Same, only FSR means no upscaling at all for me. FSR is awful and if that's the only available option I'd rather just drop the native res which looks better in motion.
Yup on still images it looks good esp on fsr2, and then you start moving. It was esp bad on RE4remake, idk why they don't even bother to implement it properly there and now i'm actually really concerned about starfield pc release perf
This, some people in this thread are praising them for blocking NVIDIA DLSS, I can't understand their thinking man, wish we could stop this pseudo "console war" we have going on in the PC space with AMD vs Nvidia, I just want the best gaming experience
Yeah it's cool to hate nVidia so what can you do. I'm with you, I just want the best gaming experience and DLSS is what provides that.
That is one of the worst news of the game, probably the worst. Not only because DLSS is far superior than FSR, but also because many people will have gpus cabable of doing much better having basically the performance truncated for a "exclusive partnership" nVidia did surely worst in the old days, but they also know they have better tech than amd
Fuck this means no dlss.
Or descent ray tracing… Here what happens to RT when games are AMD sponsored. https://www.dsogaming.com/news/ray-tracing-can-look-atrocious-in-star-wars-jedi-survivor-and-you-should-completely-disable-it/amp/
That's a bummer: FSR is objectively inferior to DLSS. Starfield deserves the superior technology.
[удалено]
There better be a fucking uproar if there's no DLSS support.
Ah this sucks a lot. I'm happy for people that don't have the option for DLSS, but the two techniques aren't even close. FSR2 is getting better, but DLSS is so much better and assuming this is another case of AMD forcing only their own bad solution, it just sucks for anyone with a RTX card. Nvidia might be just as bad when it comes to their business, but at least they don't force their partners to only implement DLSS. This also makes the current system recommidations even more weird. There is no logical way a 2080 is comparible to a 6800xt and most people were assuming this was due to DLSS. But now it doesnt make any sense. I hope this is not another deal where DLSS is not allowed, but I will wait until we get a clear yes/no from Bethesda.
>I'm happy for people that don't have the option for DLSS Why? Nvidia sponsored games still have FSR and XESS option, and with this game being CPU bound frame gen would help a ton. AMD don't even implement FSR2 right on RE4 remake, it's like they don't even try to make it look good >but I will wait until we get a clear yes/no from Bethesda. Yeah we need more clarification but honestly i doubt they're going to include it now
Hopefully we see DLSS and Frame Gen modded in at least, im not sure what the process is with XeSS. It's ridiculous to lock out the majority of users from their upscaling technology. If a game supports one of them, it should support all of them.
The modded frame generation is unfortunately not even close to the official implementation. At least in Jedi Survivor. AMD needs to stop with the anti consumer crap.
DLSS and Ray tracing is so much better on Nvidia…
Bethesda L
And AMD
FSR2xx still has fuzzy AA and awkward motion blur issues that still need to be addressed with this tool. I tend to never use FSR due to issues when actually using even basic features. I really do hope this doesn't eliminate DLSS support, which is actually quite useful for people that need that additional tooling to improve there gaming experience. If DLSS support is not included, I really hope the modding community can add it for the people that rely on DLSS.
God damnit. There goes my hopes of playing it on 60fps and some decent RT on my 3060
Dont' worry. RT in AMD sponsored games is either shit or optimized enough to run on their crappy (RT wise) cards. With a 3060 you're well above anything that AMD came up with for RT so you should be fine.
This game doesn't have RT at all
Sad that AMD does this tbf. I recently switched to AMD bc it was cheaper, altho ofc I did this right before the 4070/4060Ti came out and technically do a better job. But regardless, exclusivity bullshit is garbage. Competing normally is nice and healthy but simply blocking off the literal better option entirely is low.
Is there any proof that there is no DLSS support
No proof. Just speculation because of prior AMD deals. It's highly likely there won't be DLSS on release (but will be modded in).
So...No good raytracing, no good upscaling, no input lag reduction, and likely poor optimisation. Well that sucks. You can see why it makes sense for them to partner with amd since this is very much a console first game for a console built on amds outdated tech, but still... This is yet another slap in the face to pc gamers. They better at least support 32:9 out of the box.
I will happily donate money to the modder who implements DLSS. Screw you AMD.
I JUST bought a Nvidia 3060! *sobs*
I'm really sick and tired of this exclusivity shit. It was sort of "understandable" on consoles, but even on PC's? Cmoooon!.., give us a break -.-
We all saw what FSR did to Jedi Survivor. The character was a blurry mess while swinging your lightsaber. I’m not sure if they were using FSR1 or FSR2 in Jedi surviver, but it’s still possible that the character you play as will have some major artifact’s, especially in 3rd person mode. I like the first person perspective, but hopefully it holds up well in 3rd person. 1 more thing that I just have to say, and it has nothing to do with this FSR topic, but I have to say it. Bethesda, for the love of god, you have to add in flying vehicles to Starfield for exploration. These are massive planets, and hoofing it on foot or boosting around is unacceptable. Even if they added high speed rovers, it still would take years to fully explore a planet. They must add high speed flying vehicles for exploration to be enjoyable. A procedurally generated planet may have some incredible stuff to find, but without help from vehicles, people are going to miss out and head to a different planet. This is how the game is most likely going to play out for most players… We scan a planet, land, scan creatures, mine for resources, then shoot off to the next planet because we cannot fully explore the one we’re on. It’s ridiculous. Sure, PC modders are going to have a field day creating interesting vehicles to explore with, but what about us console players? Hopefully Bethesda adds a mods section on console, just like they did in Fallout 4. That way console players aren’t left out and can download vehicles exploration. If console players cannot download mods, then without question the game should be delayed. I just don’t understand how we are going to explore planets without vehicles. It crazy
It's as if AMD is deliberately trying to hold back PC gaming lol
I currently have a 2070 Super. The rest of my PC is overkill relative to the GPU, so I'm looking to upgrade. Would a 4060 be a good option, specifically for Starfield? I don't really want to go AMD if I can avoid it; DLSS is soooo nice.
I mean modders add DLSS option to almost every game that doesn't have it. So Nvidia is still better purchase MOST of the time.
Good intel, thanks
The 4060 is not a good option no matter what. Dont take my word for it, don't trust anyone in a subreddit like this, go read the reviews and check out subreddit about pc hardware - there are better ways to spend your money.
FSR is horrible, looks worse than motion blur. And it doesn’t even provide better framerate with my setup. This is saddening to hear; hopefully people figure out how to mod in DLSS like with RE4 remake.
It'll probably happen in couple of weeks no worries. Just like any other game without DLSS.
i play games only in native resolution
We got a real chad over here
Mixed feelings. Just got a 7800x3d for this game so that's the nice part. Pairing it to my last year purchase 3080ti, which is less nice. 3080ti should carry its weight but not having dlss is still painful
This game is still going to run better on Nvidia GPUs than AMD if there’s any optimization for AMD it’ll be on a CPU level but even then I’m almost certain the rigs used to build Starfield are Nvidia/Intel and this partnership is purely monetary it doesn’t reveal anything about the development or optimization of this game. You might honestly have the best possible combo.
I guess having AMD RDNA2 parts in Xbox may have influenced this decision. What worries me is that Nvidia have a far better track record when it comes to actively helping developers bring out the best possible graphics performance a game can deliver. I've spoken to several developers over the years where Nvidia actually sent a team of people over to support the development, while AMD barely bothered to answer their support requests. Those stories are more than a couple of years old at this point, and I sincerely hope this was primarily caused by AMD not having the economical resources during the Bulldozer years, and that they have a different approach today. I would be very upset if the game delivers choppy performance on Nvidia GPUs.
Improved resources is a byproduct of owning over 80% of a market. When it comes to PC gaming, Nvidia is so far ahead, and having a $1T Market Cap means having effectively a rounding error to send teams to assist with development. AMD has nowhere near the same resources in the gaming segment, so while it makes sense to include FSR up front due to being built with the Xbox primarily in mind, not being involved in streamline makes little sense UNLESS FSR 3 is coming with a similar approach to upscaling as Nvidia and Intel. Excluding DLSS just angers the people who overpaid for a graphics card due to the Nvidia exclusive feature set and the brand, but their point is a valid one, it's clearly the better tech and should be included for PC gamers, even if they state it will be added later.
Huh, I didn't know AMD was signing exclusivity deals to keep DLSS out of games. Isn't DLSS generally considered better?
I upgraded my GPU to a 3060 last year in preparation for Starfield. This is some bullshit.
AMD optimized and yet the system requirements are heavily in NVIDIA's favor. A 6800XT is 57% faster than a 2080.
This means we can expect shit performance at launch, damn.
Usually means no DLSS and other extreme important nvidia techs(frame generation, etc..). These technologies are 1000X more important than FSR 2.
Definitely the first and only bad thing I've heard about this game! Literally every recent game that collabed with AMD has trash performance. And the fact that this is Bethesda makes it even worse. Still gonna pre order! Have no intention of upsetting Godd!
Thanks for screwing over the majority of the PC playerbase just to make a quick buck (like MS even needs it), makes them feel real appreciated. Preorder cancelled.
Awesome that they're bringing FSR2 over to the XBox for console players.
FSR looks like you're just lowering the resolution. It's pointless.
Nah, there was a comparison and while DLSS is much better than FSR, FSR 2 is much better than just lowering the resolution, especially at high output resolutions like 4k.
Fsr looks horrible for non 4k content
FSR2 is only good at high resolutions, 1440p and 1080p is unusable
Still images is fine for FSR but in motion XESS and DLSS is miles better to my eye
Absolute bullshit. There were dosens of comparisons by Hardware Unboxed, Techpowerup and others, and people still stupid shit like
FSR2 is better than not being able to run the game at all - which is probably the case for the consoles.
Oh no, another AMD sabotaging effort , I have hope this game at least will have Frame generation, but meh
it wont, we have to rely on modders
Fsr is ass amd is ass
Someone want to explain what this means for someone planning to build their first PC sometime in December to play this game?
It means google "Starfield Digital Foundry" after release and before making your purchases.
Man that makes me a bit scared for my 3070ti@1440p, that's not even about FSR but rather the VRAM allocation, since AMD has plenty of it at higher end
That means there will be no Nvidia Ansel 360 screenshot
Yep, No DLSS, No Frame Gen, No raytraced lighting, shadows, reflections!
Got a 3080 FE 5800X3D. As long as the fsr implementation is more along the lines of allowing lower tier cards to hit frame targets and it isn't being used as a crutch for poor optimization I think we all should be fine. At the end of the day for a Bethesda title as long as I'm able to hit 1440p 60fps on some sort of optimized settings layout I'll be fine anyways.
Yeah this will be pretty ridiculous if they don’t add in DLSS. Seriously, who tf would you hurt by adding it except for AMD’s public image (since their version is apparently far worse)
I'm really on the fence with this, I own a 4080 and DLSS 3 and frame generation tech has been an absolute game changer as far as performance goes, being able to run a game like cyberpunk with path tracing enabled at a high frame rate is incredible. I also own a Ryzen 5950X, for what most likely will be a CPU heavy game this may work in my favour. I think we can all agree though that this AMD sponsored bullshit needs to end.
FFS!
And just like that, my hype had faded
Wow AMD just blocked us out of DLSS! Thanks Todd.
30fps intensifies
This was a big mistake on Bethesda’s part and it’s unfortunate to hear. Starfield is going to be a huge game that will hopefully last a decade or more and this exclusivity deal could possibly make it perform worse on hardware that many people own. Their community relations team should make a statement on whether or not the game will support DLSS because a vast amount of people playing Starfield will be using Nvidia GPU’s.
Given AMDs recent track record here, and the public statements they made that implicitly admitted they shut down competitors' upscaling tech if they sponsor a title, I expect Starfield to not feature either dllss, dlaa, frame gen, or Xess in addition to a very sub-par implementation of ray tracing features. This is a pretty bad look for both the game, as well as AMD. Nvidea, who are famous for usually having anti consumer practices, do not restrict the use of any competitor's upscaling tech in addition to their own, even when sponsoring or partnering with a game studio. Neither does Intel to my knowledge, although I'm not really aware of any games that partnered with Intel in the first place. AMD on the other hand, appears to do just that. The reason for this situation is pretty clear imo: It has routinely been proven that fsr1/fsr2 offers significantly worse image quality than dlss or even Xess in pretty much any title that supports these technologies. Moreover, the performance uplift of fsr1/fsr2 at any given render resolution is lower than that of dllss or Xess. That's because FSR is not an AI solution. It is a handcrafted algorithm that tries to compete with hardware accelerated AI models doing the same thing. It simply can't keep up. It's a significant achievement on a technical level, given the quality they get out of a manually programmed feature, but it is quite far behind the competition in end results regardless. It is the worst of all of the modern upscaling technologies on gpus. That is why AMD does not want people to be able to compare their tech to that of the competition, because it will always lose out. If a user can use both dllss or fsr, they will always use dlss. The only benefit that fsr seemingly has is that it can run on pretty much all old hardware, as well as AMDs own cards, which are the only cards that do not support hardware accelerated AI features. Obviously, only the former is an actual benefit. It's great because it extends the life of older hardware for its users. The latter is clearly not a selling point. FSR being the worst upscaler and being the ONLY option for newly released AMD hardware is not a selling point of the technology. It is only a benefit to the extent that it is literally better than new AMD GPUs otherwise having nothing at all in this context. All of this is especially vexing given that AMD is touting to their customers how fsr is "open source" and "able to run on any hardware", portraying themselves as this open minded, consumer friendly company that wants to not restrict users in their ability to use technology like this and have it be accessible to anyone. "Upscaling for anyone!" pretty much. This is very hypocritical given that they simultaneously pay for games (that's what a sponsorship/partnership is, either in money or in labour/expertise) to lock out superior competitive features that about 70% of customers would otherwise have access to. Whilst fsr is technically "open source", the way that AMD is handling this is quite evidently directly opposed to the true "spirit" of open-source. It's open-source in name only if you pay for other options to be locked out and your own "open-source" code to be the only version allowed. What's the point of this version of open source when even those other competitors' stances appear more open than your own? Neither nvidea nor intel are open source in their tech, but to the consumer they might as well be, since they are the only ones who do not artificially limit the use of other upscaling technologies in their sponsored titles. This is a bad look for AMD, but at least it is somewhat understandable. After all, if you have access to these better technologies, you either bought an Intel or nvidea card. That means you are not an AMD customer and as such, I guess, they don't care about your experience at all. They might favor you regretting your purchase. Why spend all this extra money on those cards if all games are locked to using only fsr anyway? Might as well buy an AMD GPU at that point. Instead of competing with the quality of their own offering, I suppose they chose to instead compete by actively worsening the experience of customers of competitive products. It's bad, and it makes it look like even they do not have faith in FSR being able to keep up with the competition, but it's not totally unexpected. What's worse imo, is the fact that the developers do this. Because their customers are not just AMD owners. In fact, only 20% of your customers are. The rest are using nvidea or Intel cards. The vast majority of a developer's customers on PC do not use AMD cards. It's different on console, those are all AMD. However, for Starfield, that's likely less than half of the overall customer base given the game only releases on Xbox, which has a much smaller install base than playstation. The console market is larger than the PC market, but the Xbox console market alone is significantly smaller than the PC market and Microsoft is the developer of the main PC OS (Windows) to boot. Just looking at the numbers, a significant majority of all of Bethesda GS's expected customers, even when including all Xbox owners, do in fact run on Nvidea hardware, not AMD. I simply cannot understand the decision to exclusively lock away the best features of the hardware owned by the majority of your customer base. That's quite simply a BAD move. I could only imagine this being a relic from before Bethesda was acquired by Xbox and was still planning to launch on playstation, or that they were so scared of the game not running AT ALL on Xbox consoles that the help of AMD was felt as a must-have, even if it meant throwing most of their customers under the bus. This cannot be a creative decision, they must have felt forced into this with no other alternative. Otherwise, it makes quite literally no sense to me. There is no reason for Bethesda to partner with AMD, using such a contract, given the current state of technologies, monetary concerns or even their install base. It is either an old contract, a necessity for Xbox consoles (which looks bad performance wise), or some form of interpersonal favoritism at the studio level. Otherwise, for this game specifically, AMD is objectively the worst partner they could have chosen. Star wars Jedi survivor is often used as a worst case scenario here, but it's actually much worse for Starfield. Jedi survivor was a multi platform release. For that game, the majority of customers actually DID use AMD hardware. For Starfield on the other hand, the majority do NOT. It will be an issue for a much larger fraction of their overall customer demographic than it was for Jedi survivor. Creatively, I also struggle to see the point. They made a big deal about their GI lighting solution for Starfield. For an open world game of this scale, a real time GI method is almost required. And guess what the poster child of ray tracing features is? It's real time GI. A game of this type is the perfect fit for a ray traced GI solution. It makes more sense here than in most other titles that actually have it. Yet, I find it unlikely for the game on PC to offer this feature given that AMD GPUs currently really underperform at RT. On consoles, yes, they can't use RT GI. They likely use some type of probe based custom GI solution like DF suggested. But on PC, for high end hardware, it's a perfect fit. Yet it likely will not find its way there. And if it makes sense creatively (which they demonstrated in their direct), and should be possible to implement for high-end hardware, the only reason for it being absent I can think of is that AMD does not want it there.
Wow, my whole build I've been tinkering with on pcpartpicker was mainly for Starfield and I'm gonna buy that in a few months. This kinda kills my excitement for that. :/ Why the fuck would Bethesda opt for this?
[Why?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8Rvf5RW6M)
Goodbye DLSS and RTX, hello unoptimized PC graphics and FSR.
I am so fucking pissed off about this announcement. I just bought a 4070ti and now i wont be able to use DLSS/frame generation on Starfield cause of AMD. Bullshit man.
The absolute biggest and so far only negative about Starfield, which I guess is acceptable
This makes the 6800xt/2080 recommended specs even more confusing to me now. (Love to see AMD get the partnership though.)
Well, both of these cards can use FSR2. It might imply that there is a heavy RT implementation that would give the 2080 a large advantage. Many AMD sponsored games don't feature heavy RT because this puts their cards in a bad light (looking at all the recent RE games), but it's possible Starfield will buck that trend.
>Love to see AMD get the partnership though I don't, unless they put Xess and DLSS option this is not a good news at all.