• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Starfield PC Performance Tested: Your GPU isn't ready...

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

"Intel Arc GPUs currently cannot play Starfield, with varying symptoms ranging from the game not starting to it taking 30-40 minutes before presenting the player with a jumbled cacophony of texture mayhem. Users report that the executable does launch in the background, and that during the half-hour that it's visible in Task Manager it can consume as much as 30 GB of system memory, before either crashing or finally presenting the game menu. If one does manage to get to anything resembling gameplay, their time is short as the game will crash to desktop within only a few minutes.

Intel stated they were aware of the issues shortly after advanced access began opening up, but hopes of a quick fix are not high. In a post by @IntelGraphics on X they state that they are working to improve the experience by the game's full release date on September 6th, roughly a week away."
 
It is early days but from what I've gathered so far, it is gonna be interesting seeing where things end up once the bigger testers finish their stuff on it. I find this more interesting than the game itself.
 
Yep, well, the version everyone is trying out should technically still be a beta, official launch is the 6th, curious for the day 0/1 patch notes...


 
Apparently this review generated some Bethesda fan hatred on Reddit?


Clipboard03.jpg
 
Why is Bethesda so bad at menus? I've watched a couple of streams and obviously people are interacting with their inventories and I can't help but think Blizzard did a better job in 2004 of making an intuitive menu and inventory system.
 
I'm honestly conflicted... They copy/pasted the ship's piloting/HUD from Elite Dangerous, the shooting makes me feel I'm playing Wolfenstein, the random quest pickups are from Mass Effect, the messed up menus (having to press ESC/tab several times) are definitely from Mass Effect Andromeda, the story from Mass Effect/Dead Space/likely others, the randomly generated worlds from any generic space game... I've played games from 5y-6y ago with better graphics (and much better performance)...

Does it get better after the 1st 3h-4h? Is there anything original to this game that might keep me hooked? Because so far this has been a collection of déjà vu that's making me hate Bethesda even more...
 
Starfield: 32 GPU Benchmark, 1080p, 1440p, 4K / Ultra, High, Medium

 
[SPECULATIVE RAMBLING] Starfield seems to be very RAM bandwidth limited
I saw early hints of this and this is what I'm hoping more in depth testing will reveal. If we assume this is the case, the 7800X3D cache may not help as it is still too small for this use case. The environments do look nice in game and there might just be too much data needing to be moved around.
 
I saw early hints of this and this is what I'm hoping more in depth testing will reveal. If we assume this is the case, the 7800X3D cache may not help as it is still too small for this use case. The environments do look nice in game and there might just be too much data needing to be moved around.
Wouldn't that be caused by bad programming/crappy graphics engine? Supposedly it's just an updated version of the "creation engine" they used 20y+ ago for the elder scrolls/fallout games...
 
Wouldn't that be caused by bad programming/crappy graphics engine? Supposedly it's just an updated version of the "creation engine" they used 20y+ ago for the elder scrolls/fallout games...
Yep it's still the same base engine that they continue to update over time. I think a lot of folks wonder what they could do with something more current like UE5, but I imagine that would remove a portion of how they get the engine to do what they want and the 'expected' level of jank that you always get from these games
 

"Intel Arc GPUs currently cannot play Starfield, with varying symptoms ranging from the game not starting to it taking 30-40 minutes before presenting the player with a jumbled cacophony of texture mayhem. Users report that the executable does launch in the background, and that during the half-hour that it's visible in Task Manager it can consume as much as 30 GB of system memory, before either crashing or finally presenting the game menu. If one does manage to get to anything resembling gameplay, their time is short as the game will crash to desktop within only a few minutes.

Intel stated they were aware of the issues shortly after advanced access began opening up, but hopes of a quick fix are not high. In a post by @IntelGraphics on X they state that they are working to improve the experience by the game's full release date on September 6th, roughly a week away."
IntelArcUpdate.jpg
 
Back