New Starfield Test Suggests It Could Run At 40-60FPS On Xbox Series X

It really wasn't until this year where every console and enthusiast is constantly talking about performance. I really miss the days when people barely gave two sh**s about this. 2022 was such a fabulous, heady time.

Cmon.. just let it go for now. The game runs great on stable 30FPS. Enjoy the game instead of thinking that maybe the grass could be a bit greener.

I think the headline is worded in a way that is a bit misleading to be honest.

If you watch the entire DF analysis it was pretty clear it wasn't running anywhere near 60 fps for large parts of the game. Even 40fps wasn't consistently achievable.

@FraserG the headline is fine, don’t fret.

@evan23 the video showed it running almost always at 40fps using the current settings the Xbox is using and in some places 60fps. But there are some things to remember.

The video was the PC version using Xbox Series X CPU with PS5 GPU, so not like for like.

No one is suggesting they keep the graphics the same and just unlock the frame rate to achieve 60. There will always have to be a visual compromise to achieve it.

Conclusion: Bethesda could easily have delivered a 60fps option on Series X version only with slightly downgraded graphics. (And personally I can’t understand why they didn’t).

@themightyant
40fps would be good especially as I have 120hz tv with VRR the tech heads say it works really well because of the 3 x 40fps equals 120hz.

Sony did it with ratchet and also gowr it works well.

@Kienda
After reading the conclusion part at the bottom it tells me what I think about Bethesda a good studio with a great game in Starfield, but that conclusion and somethings in Starfield itself.
Bethesda should be doing better and need a good poke to up their game a bit.
But I bet no one at Xbox HQ will give them a poke and set them targets for this.

@Ocat the game is great, but Bethesda/Microsoft aren’t charities. We are paying customers and it’s okay for us to have high expectations from them.

Some basic things I would like to see:

• 60fps
• Mouse and Keyboard support on Xbox
• Maps of cities

All could (arguably should) have been in there at launch. But they can still be patched so let’s push them to add them.

Only tried a very small amount of Starfield so far but the 30fps is a real bummer and noticeable. Maybe playing more I wont notice as much but I’d kill for the game at 60fps at say 1440p with slightly lower graphical settings.

Maybe one day but until then I’ll play it at 30 after I’ve finished BG3.

It’s a bummer that so few games have VRR implementation. It’s so good. Jedi Survivor ran so well with VRR that I wouldn’t have known it had performance issues if I had not read about it online.

@Kienda

Conclusion: Bethesda could easily have delivered a 60fps option on Series X version only with slightly downgraded graphics. (And personally I can’t understand why they didn’t).

You must of watched a different video than I did since that certainly wasn't what I took away from that video.

@RBRTMNZ I can understand why devs don’t put the work in, the vast majority of console gamers don’t have VRR, it’s only on top end expensive TVs. I know people on forums and message boards would love it but the install base for it is tiny.

Am I missing something? I was under the impression that Digital Foundry had previously stated that the decision regarding 30fps was not just about frame rates, but also item persistence; dropping a potato in one location, exploring the Universe, and returning to the potato 200 hours later to find it precisely where you had dropped it. And there was also something regarding the different lighting on various planets at differing times of the day. Am I mistaken...? 🤔

What's crazy to think about is this is how it runs with similar specs on PC.

PC has more overhead than consoles so this would actually be running even better than their tests show on Xbox.

Even a locked 40fps would have been better thanks to VRR and LFC modern screens have.

@Cashews
I'm not sure we've been living in the same reality. Performance has been something that's been hot and heavy on peoples: minds since the first 60fps COD on the 360/PS3.

I still remember the swathes of people angry that Final Fantasy XIII ran better on Xbox than Playstation.

And last generation it was even more important. The Xbox One was pretty much always the butt of jokes because when Playstation did something at 1080P, it was playing at 900p or less. When Playstation did 900P, it was running at 720p or less.

It was so important last gen that they gave us, for the first time, mid console-life refreshes with oodles more power.

@Fenbops By that logic, why push 4K when the majority of screens are 1080p?

I've personally had a VRR capable screen since 2016 and would much rather then push VRR due to how it improves gameplay, over some additional pixels.

I imagine Bethesda already went down this route and found locked 30 is the best approach on consoles.

I think it’s possible to enjoy the game at 30fps but, for the tech enthusiasts, also theorize if it could’ve managed 60fps. Seeing a lot people jump to conclusions lol.

the best thing about sony's first party games is that they give a 40fps mode (thanks to insomniac leading the way) shame xbox aren't looking into similar things.

I don't see what's wrong with a 1080p 60fps mode. Nothing wrong with 1080p to me. I think the trade off would be worth it for a lot of ppl

I'd be quite happy running 1440p to get higher frames, would have been nice to have the option. I know it is a current-gen game so wouldn't be as capable as the likes of the previous-gen games running quality and performance modes, such as Borderlands 3, Wonderlands, Sea of Thieves etc but having those smoother frames would have made my experience all the better and I am currently having a blast with the game so far on 30fps!

I saw this video and it was an interesting perspective.

I do wonder if 60fps could be possible on Series X simply because:

1) This is a PC test - and PC has more overhead than a console
2) This is a Frankenstein machine and not entirely indicative of real hardware capabilities.
3) Their test didn't take into account using Series S equivalent graphical settings - only resolution. That's another boost to performance.

Also, I think there are odd inefficiencies at play here.

Why would the city area like Neon hit a solid 60fps, but then, going into an interior space with a crowd, tank the framerate so much?

Cyberpunk has just as crowded areas and the NPCs and it can stick pretty well to a 60fps.

What is it about the basic "crowd NPC" in Starfield that is different to cause so much calculation to them to push the hardware?

Also, why would a mostly empty planet drop the framerate so hard?

I know the view distance is large, but, again, look at Cyberpunk when you get outside the city and have large (mostly empty) open land to look at - 60fps there too.

The 30fps doesn't bother me with Starfield, but I do wonder if it is possible, down the road, for a Performance Mode option on Series X (as Bethesda patches the game and potential inefficiencies are found and fixed).

I do wish the 40fps mode wasn't locked behind 120Hz.

My TV is a 60Hz, but supports VRR and can handle 40fps. However, I can't use it because 120Hz is the requirement.

Also, Bethesda needs to ditch that Gamebryo-based engine.

In all my years of gaming I have never seen a game a divisive as Starfield or as many articles about every single aspect of the game, whether perceived good or bad. It is too much at this point. Just play the darn game at this point. I have never seen so much hate or anger for a game in my life. We all know why.

Digital Foundry in order to be relevant in the tiniest way have started this whole 60 fps fiasco. And they do nothing but continue to feed it.

Honestly would anyone be talking about either if this was not a "thing"?

I highly, highly, highly doubt it.

@cburg I'm waiting for an article, the shoelaces on the spacesuit would show the correct amount of fuzz if the game could do 717 fps.

No. I'm not joking.

@Cashews But, but, but but my angelic eagle, immortal eyes would roll out my skull and head explode as I can't play ANY game that is below 120 fps.

I also only eat vegan.

@evan23 I'm sure the Shia Lebouf guy will make a post here explaining and justify why the title is that way.

@GuyinPA75 I know me too. It is ridiculous at this point.

It could run at 60fps easily the series x could but bethesda don't want leave series s owners out so its capped at 30 fps which it shouldn't be and is a joke anyway bethesda need release a damn map for this game perhaps bethesda need a new engine now this creation engine is ancient that said starfield is full of faults but I'm still enjoying it most of the time

I sure do love the hypocrisy. Yes Starfield and Redfall is two different games and Starfield is way bigger than Redfall. But do you remember when Redfall announced 30 frames and everyone was crying? Now all of a sudden it's fine because it's Starfield.

@S-Bacc

I was actually on a really old game on PS the other day and it had Unlocked Framerate, I was shocked and loved it. Uncharted has this too and some other PS titles.

I would hope Xbox games follow suit on Xbox Series X.

@Lightweight Is it possible that what you've identified is not hypocrisy and instead that there are hundreds of millions of gamers and some of them have opposing opinions?

Hell, I think it's even possible for the same person to completely reasonably think Redfall, primarily a shooter, is not okay at 30 fps but Starfield, primarily an immersive storytelling RPG is fine. For me personally Starfield at 30 fps was a deal breaker but 30 fps didn't impact my enjoyment of Zelda in the slightest. Different games and different people have different needs.

@GuyinPA75 Digital Foundry keeps us informed. If people want to run with that information and fuss over it (which they absolutely do!), then that's on them, not on DF.

Personally, I don't care about all the nitpicking regarding resolution, AA, ray tracing, and other visual details, but whether a game is capped at 30fps or not is absolutely a big deal to me, and I always look into that (via DF or other means) before buying games. But that's just me, and everyone is free to ignore that info if they don't care!

@themightyant
Totally technical correct you are and a very good summary of 40fps.

Let’s just hope they get on and do it then.
There’s about 400 at Bethesda surely they can get this done.

The game perhaps could run at 40fps in a 120hz container for large parts of the Game Play but it would still be 'inconsistent' in some areas and as 120hz TV's are NOT the standard, not common and certainly not owned by the majority, it made MUCH more sense to cap the Frame Rate at 30fps for a very Consistent experience.

I expect that MOST (if not all) Consistent 30fps games could perhaps hit 60fps in certain places, with an 'average' of 40-50fps. Games are 'NOT' static, but 'dynamic' and as such, the load will vary. To hit a 'locked' 30fps for example, that means that the 'most intensive' moments that really push the hardware must be at least running at 30fps but that might only be '1%' of the time with the majority running at 40-50fps and some aspects 'comfortably' hitting 60fps - such is the 'dynamic' nature of games.

I'd rather they ensure a consistent 30fps at 'launch' with a polished, bug free experience myself and then maybe added a 'performance' or 'unlocked' frame rate mode post launch. adding 'features' - like extra modes for example, is preferable to me than 'promising' a 60fps mode but unable to deliver on it. I expect a '60fps' mode to run at 60fps the vast majority of the time with only minor 1-2 frame dips at most. Most 'performance' modes are more like uncapped 30fps modes that may hit 60fps but not in any meaningful game-play.

@Ocat I didn't mind 30 FPS in games. But after getting an OLED TV it's been pretty rough. They have faster response times so the frames are generated and displayed much quicker, which translates to each frame having more screen time and causing stuttering. That makes for a pretty poor experience on 30 FPS games, especially first-person shooters.

I seriously can't play Starfield for a long time cause the stuttering makes me nauseous, which had never happened to me before and I've been playing games for almost 30 years! I have like 10 hours at most and have been playing since early access, so a 40 FPS mode would be a very welcome addition so I could play and enjoy the game.

@Kienda From what I understand, the game is primarily CPU-bound not GPU-bound, therefore lowering graphical fidelity will result in only minimal increases in performance and even then, only in areas where the GPU is being taxed. I'm no expert though and I'm only going by what I've watched and read online. I'd still appreciate it if they offered a 40fps or VRR mode though as those would surely make a bit of difference to those of us with compatible screens.

@Ocat I don't enjoy the lag of 30 lock. Not just me by the way.

@Cashews IDK, I feel like everyone became obsessed with graphics & FPS since the empty promises of the Xbox One & PS4 in 2013. Before that people mostly just cared that the games were stable and the graphics were fitting for the art style. It's just been escalating since then without end.

And why they used a similar gpu to ps5? Series X gpu is way faster, even the cpu is faster with fixed clocks and no variable like the ps5, wtf?
The game is heavy and demanding, I have non-issue with 30fps on my series x it runs pretty smooth most of the times with minor dips here and there. First I try to run the game on my pc (i5 10500+GTX 1660ti) but it was unplayable even with low graphics, so Series X, this is the way for me, really I don't care for a 60fps mode, I'm now at 130 hours in the game with no issues for me.

@themightyant a wild cpu bottleneck brain dead argument came out everyone on this site and reddit xbox and starfield subs for months whenever someone complained about the limited frame rate, and THEY STILL ARE, goes to show how much are fanboys desperate to justify their existence by negating any criticism of some game

@cburg because people have ulterior grudges with Bethesda or because it is an xbox exclusive? Pick your conspiracy of choice.
Game has flaws, people will criticise them, deal the **** with it

@InterceptorAlpha "By that logic, why push 4K when the majority of screens are 1080p?"

Cause you can buy a 4k TV for $5 and a stick of bubble gum down at the local Walmart. It makes more sense to push something vastly more obtainable. VRR TVs are not as obtainable.

@AverageGamer Not sure what the price of a scene matters when it still commands the minority of market share.

Hell, my LG C1 TV was only $600. Got it on sale and that's 120/VRR right there. Never mind the near decade worth of VRR monitors I've owned.

@InterceptorAlpha 4K TVs is only a minority to the amount of 1080P set already on the market. But they have controlled over half of sales over the last 4 years. The increase in sales is due to the massive price cut 4K TV have seen... aka you can buy a 4k TCL TV for less than $200 in walmart.

$600 even for a sale price is still extreme amount of money to spend on a TV. VRR TV would have to be sub $400 before most normal people to even start considering one to buy.

About as you say, 4k is a minority, so why support a feature that a minority of a minority is going to be able to use.

Digital Foundry warned everyone months ago : the race to the best graphics (and / or the largest universes) possible will put 30fps as the norm again.

And honestly, I'm among those who are perfectly fine with it.

Loved every second of A Plague Tale Requiem, of Jedi Survivor, of Spider-Man Miles Morales and now of Starfield. And I've played all of these games in 30 fps.

I like the cinematic feeling of it, and the possibility to play with the best graphics available on my hardware.

But I can hear the voices of those who want to have a choice, and go the fps way.

@Ocat Trouble is that some 30fps games can literally make people sick.

I only get it mildly but by the time I got out of the cave I was already had a headache, but for those that get it bad the problem is real.

I am sure they Howard said they had it running in the 40-60 mark but opted for a stable 30 instead of having it bounce all over the place.

VRR mode please!

Not having unlocked fps since vrr is a thing is just lame

@Kaloudz not even claiming to be an expert on this but 40 fps makes a game smoother on a 60hz display because it is divisible by an even number and not an odd one like 30 which causes more stutter.

@txpistolpete
I personally have a 4k 70" TV so 1080p is a noticeable departure from 4k

Said it few times in the past that Bethesda should offer optional 40 fps mode on 120 hz screen like R&C Rift Apart. It's literally perfect middleground, smoother than 30 fps with even frametime on 120 hz screen. Also, Todd said it himself that the game can run above 30 fps but they prefer to lock it anyway. Performance headroom exist it's doable to do.

@Scirius Ok champ.

@Kaloudz who knows really since most top console hardware struggles to keep a stable 30 in the most graphically intense games still. Devs will always try and push the hardware that much harder just to get it looking a little prettier and until the day comes where you can make whatever you want visually with zero hit to performance it may be a long way off before even that becomes the norm.

@Kaloudz it doesn't bother me too much either. I played through man N64 games with awful framerates but they were still playable. As long as the game doesn't grind to a crazy slow pace and is enjoyable regardless not even constantly hitting even 30 is much of an issue. Sadly you have a collection of people who seem to claim anything below a constant 60 makes a game totally unplayable. Very few games can boast that they manage that and usually its games that aren't taxing the hardware as much or in terms of PC games most of the settings turned down so it looks much worse. I sometimes feel people don't actually play these games anymore just like to argue over the performance.