It's really only noticeable if the game has a 60 FPS mode to compare it to. I play TotK on a G1 and it's perfectly fine - I typically only notice when there are frame rate dips. If I try Horizon: Forbidden West on 30 FPS it's very noticeable.
Todd Howard has confirmed that Starfield will run 4K/30fps on Xbox Series X & 1440p/30fps on Xbox Series S
- Thread starter IDontBeatGames
- Start date
I think a lot have, it's legitimate option for those that want to play at 60 but don't have a gaming PC.
If they feel comfortable with Series X locking in 4K30fps, there's really no reason not to allow a performance option of locked 1080p60fps.
Then again, it's a slow paced Bethesda RPG and not an action game, so I don't think my personal enjoyment will be negatively impacted by 30fps.
Overall, performance options are becoming industry standard at this point and it's odd they just said "fuck it".
Then again, it's a slow paced Bethesda RPG and not an action game, so I don't think my personal enjoyment will be negatively impacted by 30fps.
Overall, performance options are becoming industry standard at this point and it's odd they just said "fuck it".
That's a bummer. I'm glad ended up using the funds from selling my series x to upgrade my gpu. My 4070ti should be fine, just hope the launch isn't a disaster in terms of performance.
Personally I wished higher fps was pushed more than resolution. I would be fine with a 1080, 60ps version rather than a 4k, 30.
I'm trying to decide on whether to get this on Series X or have it run on my 2060.. which doesn't even meet recommended specs (everything else does just not the GPU..) Would I even be able to hit 60fps if I can't meet recommended?
I'm trying to decide on whether to get this on Series X or have it run on my 2060.. which doesn't even meet recommended specs (everything else does just not the GPU..) Would I even be able to hit 60fps if I can't meet recommended?
I can't agree with this. Every 30fps game looks horrible on my OLED, I've not come across any real exceptions.
Your CPU dictates the framerate you can play a game at, not your GPU. Reconstructed 720p and low settings aren't going to help even a 4090 out if you're CPU limited. You can always increase your GPU performance, very rarely can you improve your CPU performance to a significant degree.
As soon as they have to make sure that the game would run well at all times at 40 fps they would have to consider their budget for the simulation and that would affect all modes and platforms. It's literally a 33% reduction in frame time. They have decided to compromise performance for being able to do more per frame. It's fine to disagree with that decision, but they didn't make it because they are incompetent. They just value having that CPU budget more.
60 fps is the dream, but I played Fallout 3-4, NV, Oblivion and Skyrim on console @30fps and still had a grand old time, so it's not a dealbreaker in any way.
The CPU won't be an issue, I upgraded that not too long ago. But to say the CPU dictates the framerate seems not right.. By your logic, are you saying I can run this game happily at 4k 60 as long as my CPU is good enough?
Shouldn't it be more that CPU and GPU need to be on par, so the CPU can compute all of the information from the GPU, but you still need a decent GPU to be able to even reach the required/wanted graphical settings.
It really is one of those first world problems. The panel is so good, almost to its detriment. Give it 60/120fps content and it sings.
FWIW 30fps content on an OLED isn't that bad. The other qualities of this screen more than make up for it.
a better way to put it is that your framerate can only go as high as your cpu allows it.
I figured as much. That increase in res is no joke, and I fear my performance is going to tank if I get one. 😋
One of the things I was really worried about when I got my oled was 30fps gaming. But Tears was fine. So I'm less worried now. Though I hope my cpu can get me to the 60 fps promise land.
The CPU handles logic threads, render drawcalls, physics and all that. It needs to complete everything needed to render a frame, and then tell the GPU to render it. So yes, CPU dictates the maximum fps you can get, assuming unlimited GPU power. This is the reason why something like a 4090 also requires a powerful CPU, because it is so fast, slower CPUs can not keep up.
With modern games and hardware the general (but not absolute) rule is: Cpu dictates maximum framerate, gpu dictates actually framerate.
If your cpu can calculate 30 character moves per second and your game has one character then your maximum framerate is 30, regardless of rendering resolution etc.
Of course this is all really dependent on what a game does, what hardware you have, etc etc. but generally, yeah.
Both do. It's all about how you use your resources. There's no doubt Starfield could run at 60 on XSX, but for that it's likely they'd have to compromise on draw distances or physics or whatever in a way they deemed detrimental to the game.
"CPU bound" and "GPU bound" are broad terms used to describe how specific implementations use resources and which will hit its limit first. It's nowhere near a definitive analysis on how the game could run.
They unsurprisingly (given the studio pedigree) chose to sacrifice high framerates for all the other things the game has to offer.
I just compared my CPU with the recommended and it's like 120% faster so hopefully I'll be absolutely fine. Sept can't come quick enough.
I really hope the 30 will be stable though. I'm sooo tired of rough 30s ...
That's not entirely true. If the game is CPU limited (which is very likely the case) a performance mode wouldn't be possible.
if this is locked 30 at that res, would've been cool to get a 60FPS mode on X at least even with a resolution hit.
Ok I see, I think it's the same with the 30fps of Halo Infinite, seems always related to frame time issues:
Halo Infinite Digital Foundry video
To be fair, I do notice this also on my current 2013 1080p samsung LED TV. I think it's more related to games having less good and consistent 30fps option, as they often focus more on the performance mode these days.
Yeah, I would bet so. They are excellent prices here in the UK for the LG C1 and I think it will still be a great fit for Starfield there.
People need to accept that 30fps will always be around.
If devs see performance overheads, they'll grab it for other things. Improved graphics/AI/animation/bigger game worlds/universes etc.
For a game this size, with often slower gameplay elements, it makes sense to push all power into the world itself, including the persistent, evolutionary gameplay.
This is likely to be the BIGGEST game ever made, in terms of scope. This isn't a corridor/arena shooter or linear action game. You can even take multiple Assassins Creeds/TLOUs and drop them into this world, with room to spare. If ever there was a game that merited 30fps it is this one.
If devs see performance overheads, they'll grab it for other things. Improved graphics/AI/animation/bigger game worlds/universes etc.
For a game this size, with often slower gameplay elements, it makes sense to push all power into the world itself, including the persistent, evolutionary gameplay.
This is likely to be the BIGGEST game ever made, in terms of scope. This isn't a corridor/arena shooter or linear action game. You can even take multiple Assassins Creeds/TLOUs and drop them into this world, with room to spare. If ever there was a game that merited 30fps it is this one.
Is it not an armchair assessment to say its CPU limited? I don't see where Todd Howard said it was.
BGS games have always been CPU limited, that's just how they design their games, its a very fair assesment (which experts like John Linneman agree with based on what they've seen so far https://twitter.com/dark1x/status/1668160646276431872 )
the recommended PC CPU specs aren't particularly high either.
From what I've read the series x CPU is comparable to Ryzen 7 3700X.
Edit: Based on those recommended system requirements I will be able to run the game at 60fps on my pc and I have a Ryzen 5 3600.
Last edited:
The creative choice is to pump the graphics instead of lowering them to have 60FPS.
I mean, it just makes sense if you think. We speak of 1000+ visitable planets with each of them their own assets, weather etc + the space itself with npcs, cities, your ship (with various parts!), seamless transitions, shit tons of interactions with objects npcs in real time, physics. Add that in Bethesda games, items usually stay forever where you drop them, assuming it's the same here it's an insane CPU load at this scale. Alex from DF resume this pretty well:
View: https://twitter.com/Dachsjaeger/status/1668154965091663875
Doesn't bother me. A smooth 30fps with no dips and proper frame pacing is a solid choice specially at 4k.
lol there are so many reasons one would prefer their console over their PC
PC version being way more resource hungry because not as optimized, one's PC not being powerful enough to run as well as console, not willing to bother with all the drivers updates and other PC shenanigans like framepacing issues due to framerate locks, PC being noisy, to name a few obvious ones...
It's all speculation as we're not working on the game and we don't have access to their profiling data.
But resolution on both XSS/XSX and lack of performance option suggests that it is indeed limited by something else than a GPU and it's not as simple as "just lower the resolution".
I think the best way to think of it is actually as two FPS graphs: CPU frame rate and GPU frame rate. That usually helps people understand it better and is why many benchmarks visualise it that way as two numbers and two fps counts.
For example, if your CPU frame rate is 35fps it doesn't matter how fast your GPU frame rate is (it could be capable of 1000fps for example) - you're still only going to see 35fps because your CPU is what's holding everything back (whether that's hardware weakness or bad CPU optimisation in game). In that scenario, the only way to get smooth performance is to cap your FPS below 35fps (usually at 30). And the reason you want to cap framerate in this scenario, rather than leaving it unlocked, is that VRR/Freesync/Gsync cannot account for CPU-related performance fluctuation (upward or downward) so you will get TONS of disgusting stutter with an unlocked framerate, no matter what screen you're using.
For those who are legitimately concerned, there will probably be a framerate uncapping mod like Skyrim and Fallout 4 had on Xbox One.
It's a pretty logical conclusion based on past Creation Engine games being CPU heavy. If the game was GPU bound then we probably wouldn't see the Series S hitting 1440p.
It's a pretty logical conclusion based on past Creation Engine games being CPU heavy. If the game was GPU bound then we probably wouldn't see the Series S hitting 1440p.
XSS has ⅓ the GPU power (but pretty much equivalent CPU) of the XSX but runs the game at ½ the resolution. If it was just GPU bound they could just run the XSX at the same settings as XSS and get 60FPS.
Except that's not how it works. Both work in tandem. "CPU bound" and "GPU bound" are restrictive ways to describe that lowering res (or AA, or other "pure" GPU settings) wouldn't help the framerate by a significant margin in the first case, and that increasing it would hurt the framerate significantly in the second case.
They're just shorthands to easily summarize an infinitely more complex situation.
No worries, they usually need 2-3 years to iron out all the game breaking bugs ... by then new consoles or pro models are out :P
Yes, of course. You're right. It's just that it's a convenient way of reinterpreting, that's true enough, and that actually makes sense to people, at least in my experience.
The "Flight Sim" compromise would be welcomed here for console players. It's an incredibly CPU intensive game that targets 30 by default on XSX, but they give those with a 120hz VRR displays the option to play with an unlock framerate, which is a massive improvement over 30fps.
Once you're accustomed to playing at higher frame rates, going back to 30 is a major downgrade to both gameplay and visuals.
Once you're accustomed to playing at higher frame rates, going back to 30 is a major downgrade to both gameplay and visuals.