Want to play Starfield with DLSS upscaling? There's already a mod for that

[Strawman]

And almost every single nvidia sponsored title runs faster on nvidia cards. Who would have thought.

Nope, not the case. You are making stuff up.

And considering that in starfield a 6800xt beats a 4070ti,yeah,lol.

 

[godrilla]

Does anyone know if dlss 3.5 has improved upscaler vs dlss 3.0? Why would you need dlss 3.5 with RR in Starfield via mod I've seen an article in Wccftech saying there is a mod out but it matches FSR quality settings in terms of image quality. People believe anything these days.

 

[VcoreLeone]

Does anyone know if dlss 3.5 has improved upscaler vs dlss 3.0? Why would you need dlss 3.5 with RR in Starfield via mod I've seen an article in Wccftech saying there is a mod out but it matches FSR quality settings in terms of image quality. People believe anything these days.

probably not, no mention of it. btw, most 3.xx.x versions are still worse than 2.5.1 in my testing

Nope, not the case. You are making stuff up.

And considering that in starfield a 6800xt beats a 4070ti,yeah,lol.

nvidia-specific driver level changes are missing from the early access win store/game pass version and will be included in steam version only, what else did you expect from amd sponsored game in 2023 ? need to show skewed results that hurt competition asap before real ones come.
same thing happened already a couple of times this year in other games, which withdrew nvidia optimization patches until after the reviews.

 

[godrilla]

1. no, it's isn't brutally better. it's pretty much the same. 8% difference.

2. they have a grd driver already, but early access (gamepass/ws) version only applies driver improvements for amd. gotta wait for steam version for the grd improvements to kick in on nvidia.



I'm fine with 3080 doing 41fps at 4K, with upscaling it'll do +60. I run 1920p dldsr + upscaling anyway for game like that, and 60 is enough on controller.

thee bigger problem is cpu, game drops well under 60 on 5800x3d. the only mid range cpu that seems to be able to keep it at 60+ is 13600k. piece of unoptimized trash. I bet they'll report record sales during 1st week tho, so we get what we deserve.

Starfield: 24 CPU-Benchmarks - Welcher Prozessor reicht aus?

Starfield ist da und PCGH prüft mit CPU-Benchmarks, welche Anforderungen das Spiel an den Prozessor stellt.

www.pcgameshardware.de

gamegpu is fake to beging with. they're approxmations, not actual runs.
no one can run 40 gpus with 40 cpus at three resolutuion on day one.

Buildzoid take on this article

update the game's performance relies a lot on system memory bandwidth.

 

[nnguy2]

Nope, not the case. You are making stuff up.

And considering that in starfield a 6800xt beats a 4070ti,yeah,lol.

Nvidia released drivers 2 weeks ago for starfield. Sounds like bad nvidia drivers 😂

 

[VcoreLeone]

Nvidia released drivers 2 weeks ago for starfield. Sounds like bad nvidia drivers 😂

but windows store and game pass versions block those improvements on nvidia side only (surprise, surprise.... in amd sponsored game blocking dlss).

At the original date/time of this post, it appears that Starfield when installed and run from the PC GamePass/Windows Store may not apply all Nvidia's 537.13 driver level optimizations for 'Starfield' as the APPID (packageFamilyName) isn't present in the Nvidia Starfield driver profile.
The Steam version won't be impacted, only PC GamePass/Windows Store installations.

nvidia only just pushed the update via automatic game profile updates, so any test done yesterday or the day before is gonna be useless for measuring nvidia's performance.

 

[neeyik]

but windows store and game pass versions block those improvements on nvidia side only (surprise, surprise.... in amd sponsored game blocking dlss).

A game cannot block anything a driver does when it comes to rendering, because the latter compiles everything that the former issues to it, per frame. The drivers require a correct Application ID in order to know exactly what it needs to look for, in order to inject code and/or compile the code in a specific way -- the fault of this particular issue was Nvidia's, not Bethesda's nor AMD's (although it's clearly been fixed now).

 

[VcoreLeone]

Still, those early performance previews are not 100% correct.
My fault fot not interpreting that appid message correctly, thought ws store or gamepass changed it.

 

[neeyik]

Still, those early performance previews are not 100% correct.

Depends on what Starfield version was used, though -- press release, Steam Premium, MS Store, etc -- but the performance results are correct for that time of testing. As with all games, later updates and driver releases will improve matters. Take The Last of Us Part 1 as an example: performance benchmarks issued at the time of the game's release were valid but no longer so.

 

[VcoreLeone]

Depends on what Starfield version was used, though -- press release, Steam Premium, MS Store, etc -- but the performance results are correct for that time of testing. As with all games, later updates and driver releases will improve matters. Take The Last of Us Part 1 as an example: performance benchmarks issued at the time of the game's release were valid but no longer so.

yup, same with hogwarts.
who pays 60-70usd for a game anyway...... I think last time I did that was in 2016.
I hope sf will get fsr3 in the future, really curious to test it on 6800. I'm not paying more than 30eur for it tho, so the studio can take their time. The critic reviews are overwhelmingly positive

Starfield

Starfield for PC game reviews & Metacritic score: Starfield is the first new universe in over 25 years from Bethesda Game Studios, the creators of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Fallout 4. In this next generat...

www.metacritic.com

Seems like a game that'll require a lot of time to consume propperly. same case as rdr2. I didnt appreciate it enough on 1st playthrough, only now that I'm replaying it I know it's not meant to be completed in just 100hrs. I have 150hrs on my 2nd playthrough and I only just got to Clemens Point.

 

[nnguy2]

Depends on what Starfield version was used, though -- press release, Steam Premium, MS Store, etc -- but the performance results are correct for that time of testing. As with all games, later updates and driver releases will improve matters. Take The Last of Us Part 1 as an example: performance benchmarks issued at the time of the game's release were valid but no longer so.

So does that mean Tim needs to redo his SF optimization guide 😜

 

[VcoreLeone]

So does that mean Tim needs to redo his SF optimization guide 😜

I don't think so, I think the percentage method will hold, only the fps values might change.
So glad that optimization guides are back tho, we need them more than ever with games releasing in the state they do now.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I don't understand why Bethesda wouldn't include both DLSS and XeSS in a game this big. I mean, ok, maybe not XeSS because Intel cards can't even play the game but omitting DLSS made no sense. The vast majority of gamers have GeForce cards so why alienate them? AMD publicly said that they had no issue with Bethesda putting DLSS in the game (although they could be lying). Maybe Bethesda just wanted to get the game off of the ground with FSR first (since any card can use it) and will add DLSS later.

I really do hope that this happens because it's a really bad look.

 

[VcoreLeone]

I don't understand why Bethesda wouldn't include both DLSS and XeSS in a game this big. I mean, ok, maybe not XeSS because Intel cards can't even play the game but omitting DLSS made no sense. The vast majority of gamers have GeForce cards so why alienate them? AMD publicly said that they had no issue with Bethesda putting DLSS in the game (although they could be lying). Maybe Bethesda just wanted to get the game off of the ground with FSR first (since any card can use it) and will add DLSS later.

I really do hope that this happens because it's a really bad look.

Bethesda scheming to get nvidia to pay for sponsoring something they made free to use years ago.

 

[Strawman]

Nvidia released drivers 2 weeks ago for starfield. Sounds like bad nvidia drivers 😂

Yeah, in amd sponsored games nvidia keeps failing the drivers. Not suspect, not at all

I hope you are trolling, but with amd fans, you are never sure

 

[nnguy2]

Yeah, in amd sponsored games nvidia keeps failing the drivers. Not suspect, not at all

I hope you are trolling, but with amd fans, you are never sure

Nvidia dropped the ball but sure you can believe amd sabotage them.

 

[Strawman]

I don't understand why Bethesda wouldn't include both DLSS and XeSS in a game this big. I mean, ok, maybe not XeSS because Intel cards can't even play the game but omitting DLSS made no sense. The vast majority of gamers have GeForce cards so why alienate them? AMD publicly said that they had no issue with Bethesda putting DLSS in the game (although they could be lying). Maybe Bethesda just wanted to get the game off of the ground with FSR first (since any card can use it) and will add DLSS later.

I really do hope that this happens because it's a really bad look.

Is that a serious question? For the same reason 22 out of the 27 amd sponsored games dont have dlss either. The only ones that do are the Sony exclusives sponsored by amd.

 

[Strawman]

Nvidia dropped the ball but sure you can believe amd sabotage them.

Yeap, nvidia dropped the ball with dlss as well, they decides not to include it in the game. I know buddy.

 

[nnguy2]

Yeap, nvidia dropped the ball with dlss as well, they decides not to include it in the game. I know buddy.

One of techspot editors literally said nvidia dropped the ball but it's amds fault according to you.

"A game cannot block anything a driver does when it comes to rendering, because the latter compiles everything that the former issues to it, per frame. The drivers require a correct Application ID in order to know exactly what it needs to look for, in order to inject code and/or compile the code in a specific way -- the fault of this particular issue was Nvidia's, not Bethesda's nor AMD's (although it's clearly been fixed now)."

 

[neeyik]

One of techspot editors literally said nvidia dropped the ball but it's amds fault according to you.

I was referring to driver-side optimizations, though, not DLSS. That's something that can only be added by Bethesda themselves (mods excluded).

One can surmise that they only added FSR 2.0 due to its being an AMD partnership title, but I suspect there's a lot more to it than that. It's not clear at what exact point in the development cycle of Starfield that versions for other platforms were dropped (if any were ever being done), but Microsoft finally acquired Bethesda in March 2021 -- that's a pretty short amount of time after the Xbox Series X/S platforms were officially launched.

It's also around the same time that AMD launched FSR 2.0 and it seems to me that the decision to focus solely on an upscaling system that could be employed on the Xbox and every PC that could run the game was made around that period, too (perhaps no more than 12 months later).

The AMD-Bethesda partnership wasn't announced until just a few months ago but such agreements take a while to put together and set in stone, by which time I suspect Bethesda had already finalized the engine and wasn't going to alter it after that point. It's possible that AMD genuinely didn't know if the devs were going to utilize other techniques (its marketing division isn't the best out there), hence the silence when initially questioned about it.

Modders have shown how easy it is to add DLSS and Frame Generation to the game, so the lack of support for them (and XeSS) shows that the 'blame' can't really be attributed to AMD, Nvidia, et al -- this is a decision by Bethesda (and possibly Microsoft).

 

[Strawman]

One of techspot editors literally said nvidia dropped the ball but it's amds fault according to you.

How old are you man? Have nothing against the editor but why are you using what he said as proof of anything? What the actual...?

 

[Strawman]

I was referring to driver-side optimizations, though, not DLSS. That's something that can only be added by Bethesda themselves (mods excluded).

One can surmise that they only added FSR 2.0 due to its being an AMD partnership title, but I suspect there's a lot more to it than that. It's not clear at what exact point in the development cycle of Starfield that versions for other platforms were dropped (if any were ever being done), but Microsoft finally acquired Bethesda in March 2021 -- that's a pretty short amount of time after the Xbox Series X/S platforms were officially launched.

It's also around the same time that AMD launched FSR 2.0 and it seems to me that the decision to focus solely on an upscaling system that could be employed on the Xbox and every PC that could run the game was made around that period, too (perhaps no more than 12 months later).

The AMD-Bethesda partnership wasn't announced until just a few months ago but such agreements take a while to put together and set in stone, by which time I suspect Bethesda had already finalized the engine and wasn't going to alter it after that point. It's possible that AMD genuinely didn't know if the devs were going to utilize other techniques (its marketing division isn't the best out there), hence the silence when initially questioned about it.

Modders have shown how easy it is to add DLSS and Frame Generation to the game, so the lack of support for them (and XeSS) shows that the 'blame' can't really be attributed to AMD, Nvidia, et al -- this is a decision by Bethesda (and possibly Microsoft).

Theory is great but the end result is, out of the 27 amd sponsored games 21 do not have DLSS, and of those 5 that do have it, it's only the SONY exclusives.

When it comes to nvidia sponsored games, out of the 25 games (that were released after FSR was introduced) 21 do have FSR. Not only that, but there are nvidia sponsored games that have FSR and not DLSS. To add insult to injury, a bigger portion of nvidia sponsored games have the latest FSR 2 than the amd sponsored ones.

Need more evidence? Boundary had DLSS working in the game until they got amd sponsored and then POOF, it was gone.

Need more evidence? DF just today twitted that at least 3 developers admitted that they were forced to remove DLSS (that they had already implemented in the game) due to amd sponsorship.

Now none of that tells us exactly what went down with starfield of course, but in general, AMD seems to be very pationately trying to block DLSS.

 

[neeyik]

in general, AMD seems to be very pationately trying to block DLSS.

And yet it serves them no purpose to do so. AMD has no technology that's exclusive to its hardware (other than Hyper-RX) so other than marketing a feature that generates them no actual income, actively preventing a developer from utilizing another company's feature set isn't to AMD's advantage.

On the other hand, working with the devs to streamline the code and fully optimize for its hardware is of clear benefit, as its GPUs will then perform better than the competition. DLSS may arguably produce better results than FSR, but it's not that much faster or better-looking.

Having worked for a game development house, albeit very briefly, I was left with the impression that if the senior managers were told that employing tech A only meant that the game would be finished quicker and have fewer potential bugs to iron out, then they would absolutely insist on this, over supporting techs A+B+C.

Of course, this was just one dev house and others may well be happy to do otherwise. And yes, the devs could also agree to not employ other techs, purely so that they can focus on the hardware involved in the partnership.

On the point of Nvidia sponsored games employing FSR, remember that the only non-DLSS upscaling system that Nvidia has is NIS and it's definitely not as good as FSR/DLSS/XeSS. If the use of upscaling is fairly critical to how well a game is going to run, Nvidia is unlikely to suddenly going to force a developer to ignore all of its pre-RTX userbase.

 

[Strawman]

And yet it serves them no purpose to do so. AMD has no technology that's exclusive to its hardware (other than Hyper-RX) so other than marketing a feature that generates them no actual income, actively preventing a developer from utilizing another company's feature set isn't to AMD's advantage.

On the other hand, working with the devs to streamline the code and fully optimize for its hardware is of clear benefit, as its GPUs will then perform better than the competition. DLSS may arguably produce better results than FSR, but it's not that much faster or better-looking.

Having worked for a game development house, albeit very briefly, I was left with the impression that if the senior managers were told that employing tech A only meant that the game would be finished quicker and have fewer potential bugs to iron out, then they would absolutely insist on this, over supporting techs A+B+C.

Of course, this was just one dev house and others may well be happy to do otherwise. And yes, the devs could also agree to not employ other techs, purely so that they can focus on the hardware involved in the partnership.

On the point of Nvidia sponsored games employing FSR, remember that the only non-DLSS upscaling system that Nvidia has is NIS and it's definitely not as good as FSR/DLSS/XeSS. If the use of upscaling is fairly critical to how well a game is going to run, Nvidia is unlikely to suddenly going to force a developer to ignore all of its pre-RTX userbase.

But none of that explains why games that had dlss already implemented and working dropped it after the amd sponsor. Boundary for example.

 

[neeyik]

But none of that explains why games that had dlss already implemented and working dropped it after the amd sponsor. Boundary for example.

No, but this does in the case of Boundary.