Starfield now runs twice as fast on Linux compared to Windows

[dilpickle]

41 minutes ago, ItTakes2ToMango said:

Never has a AAA game required the latest gen hardware for 60 FPS on 1080p since 1080p has been standard

 

Must be your first day on earth

6800 is 3 years old.

[Azariel-chan]

So did anyone try this on Linux on an AMD GPU to see performance?
I mean graphs etc.

[ItTakes2ToMango]

24 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

6800 is 3 years old.

Literally not even 2 years old yet. You're just trolling at this point

 

I played AAA games at 60FPS 1080p high/ultra with my 1080 for almost 5-6 years. I actually don't wanna hear it like this is supposed to be standard when it was never like that. It's always been like how the people you are criticizing are saying it should be.

[tikker]

1 hour ago, ItTakes2ToMango said:

Literally not even 2 years old yet. You're just trolling at this point

The RX 6800 released October 2020 which would put it at 3 years minus 1.5 month: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6800.c3713

Far from "not even 2 years ago".

 

1 hour ago, ItTakes2ToMango said:

I played AAA games at 60FPS 1080p high/ultra with my 1080 for almost 5-6 years. I actually don't wanna hear it like this is supposed to be standard when it was never like that. It's always been like how the people you are criticizing are saying it should be

That is more luck than "how it should be" in my opinion. It varies game to game, but even my 1080 Ti (paired with a 7700k) struggles to keep a rock solid 60+ FPS in AAA titles at 1080p ultra or at times high the past 2-3 years or so. Still the best value GPU I've ever bought. I am not defending bad game optimisation, games like Doom Eternal show that a lot is still possible and I woul dlove to see devs get the time for those kind of things, but my system being top of the line 6 years ago doesn't mean that it should still guarantee 60+ FPS 1080p high/ultra in current day games simply because "1080p".

[dilpickle]

5 hours ago, ItTakes2ToMango said:

Literally not even 2 years old.

Correct. Its 3 years like I said.

[Aeternalis]

12 hours ago, dilpickle said:

BREAKING NEWS: newest game requires newest hardware. Film at 11.

 

I swear it's like people today act like everyday is their first day on earth. 

This is not a good or normal thing and shouldn't ever be.

 

Literal last gen high end GPUs shouldn't struggle on new games.

[Stahlmann]

19 hours ago, dilpickle said:

BREAKING NEWS: newest game requires newest hardware. Film at 11.

 

I swear it's like people today act like everyday is their first day on earth. 

How long have you been playing games on PC? This has never been the case expect for some rare exceptions like Crisis and Cyberpunk. 1080p high 60 fps was a very achieveable goal in most games even with older mid-range hardware.

[Azariel-chan]

On 9/10/2023 at 12:01 PM, mepah9 said:

1. Starfield allocates its memory incorrectly where it doesn't align to the CPU page size. If your GPU drivers are not robust against this, your game is going to crash at random times.
2. Starfield abuses a dx12 feature called ExecuteIndirect. One of the things that this wants is some hints from the game so that the graphics driver knows what to expect. Since Starfield sends in bogus hints, the graphics drivers get caught off gaurd trying to process the data and end up making bubbles in the command queue. These bubbles mean the GPU has to stop what it's doing, double check the assumptions it made about the indirect execute and start over again.
3. Starfield creates multiple `ExecuteIndirect` calls back to back instead of batching them meaning the problem above is compounded multiple times.

 

Summary

Windows 64 fps

Linux 136 fps

 

This marks the first 'triple a' game that runs twice as fast on linux.

 

Quotes

 

Sources

 

https://github.com/HansKristian-Work/vkd3d-proton/commit/88e4f300cc0b5b6f0880c1233d562cf506b546fb

Where do you take these bogus fps numbers from my guy?

[ItTakes2ToMango]

15 hours ago, tikker said:

but my system being top of the line 6 years ago doesn't mean that it should still guarantee 60+ FPS 1080p high/ultra in current day games simply because "1080p".

Of course, I don't have any disagreements there - @dilpicklewas saying that to expect 60FPS for top of the line on LAST gen which is only 3 years old max, with several cards less than two years, is ridiculous. That's a dumb statement no matter how you twist it

[dilpickle]

7 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

How long have you been playing games on PC? This has never been the case expect for some rare exceptions like Crisis and Cyberpunk. 1080p high 60 fps was a very achieveable goal in most games even with older mid-range hardware.

Hmm almost 40 years now. Its literally always been the case that you need to upgrade your hardware every year if you want to play the latest games at max settings. 

 

If you have old hardware that's what the Low settings are for.

[Stahlmann]

4 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

Hmm almost 40 years now. Its literally always been the case that you need to upgrade your hardware every year if you want to play the latest games at max settings. 

 

If you have old hardware that's what the Low settings are for.

I'm not talking about max settings. I was trying to be reasonable which is why i was talking about "high" settings, not ultra.

[iramo94]

If I don't misremember, in the good old days you wouldn't expect to play ultra with current gen hardware. That was a setting for "just turn off all the tricks and give us full pretty" for a few years in the future. For example, crysis being unplayable with everything turned all the way up when it was released.

 

I can't wait for Linus and Luke to do the windows challenge for this game, it'll be a nice change of pace.

[ewitte]

11 hours ago, Aeternalis said:

This is not a good or normal thing and shouldn't ever be.

 

Literal last gen high end GPUs shouldn't struggle on new games.

Tell that to the Nvidia 3000 series where there was only like 2 cards with sufficient vram for "next gen"

[EndTrophy]

If your claim about the fps is legitimate, the big performance gain is probably not coming from the vkd3d-proton changes. If you look at the pr comments the dev says that their change should only be a few percentage points. You can read more about how incredibly stupid that post is in this thread here.
 

As the devs point out in the thread and on the github pr, the perf gains on linux are coming from a driver optimization in mesa/vulkan. Note that this optimization is something that the dev in the thread sees as the responsibility of driver devs, and not Bethesda.

What is true though then is that microsoft needs to optimize their shit, and that this is a win for Linux/open source.

[Azariel-chan]

17 hours ago, EndTrophy said:

If your claim about the fps is legitimate, the big performance gain is probably not coming from the vkd3d-proton changes. If you look at the pr comments the dev says that their change should only be a few percentage points. You can read more about how incredibly stupid that post is in this thread here.
 

As the devs point out in the thread and on the github pr, the perf gains on linux are coming from a driver optimization in mesa/vulkan. Note that this optimization is something that the dev in the thread sees as the responsibility of driver devs, and not Bethesda.

What is true though then is that microsoft needs to optimize their shit, and that this is a win for Linux/open source.

I did a Test etc.
Its 20fps on my Rig.
5800x and 7900xt on all High in New Atlantis Plaza

[Aeternalis]

On 9/12/2023 at 12:24 PM, ewitte said:

Tell that to the Nvidia 3000 series where there was only like 2 cards with sufficient vram for "next gen"

Game companies are not putting the resources into optimizing games. VRAM is only part of the issue.

[atxcyclist]

On 9/12/2023 at 10:01 AM, dilpickle said:

Hmm almost 40 years now. Its literally always been the case that you need to upgrade your hardware every year if you want to play the latest games at max settings. 

 

If you have old hardware that's what the Low settings are for.

1080P isn't 'max settings'. That yearly upgrade stuff was true in the '97-'04 timeframe, when game engines were being re-imagined every year; This is a decade-old game engine with terrible optimization. This is essentially a reskin of Fallout 4's engine, it shouldn't be a whole lot more taxing to run on the GPU side, and apparently it's not when you remove the DX12 coding errors.

[FezBoy]

On 9/10/2023 at 2:23 PM, RejZoR said:

How is this even possible? Because this game would actually be playable at 130fps where at 60, it's just horrid. And 60 was suppose to be some sort of holy grail "bottom" line for smoothness. It's just not as it feels janky and laggy.

I think that's the frame pacing, there are enough frames that it averages out to 60fps, but they come at inconsistent times making it feel bad

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, FezBoy said:

I think that's the frame pacing, there are enough frames that it averages out to 60fps, but they come at inconsistent times making it feel bad

I'm on GeForce and I've seen about that on Digital Foundry. Frame pacing is absolutely terrible on GeForce cards...

[Mark Kaine]

"triple a" good one!