this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
31 points (89.7% liked)
Starfield
2850 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!
- Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)
Helpful links:
Spoiler policy:
- No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
- Add
[Spoilers]to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post. - Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
- Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!
Post & comment spoiler syntax:
<spoiler here>
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Compusemble from YouTube contends they have discovered that Starfield suffers from a large amount of traversal stuttering due to poor SSD utilization, even on the Best SSDs.
As Compusemble's character strolled through the city, the frame rate dropped momentarily several times during the "benchmark run" due to traversal stuttering, causing GPU usage to drop to almost 0% due to the above-mentioned SSD bottlenecking issues.
SSD usage was hitting 100% utilization several times, with peak read speeds spiking as little as 555MB/s during one of these periods.
Compusemble reports that many games today read from storage drives in large block sizes to hit SSDs where they perform best.
For instance, Microsoft recommends a block size range anywhere between 32-64k and very high queue depths for DirectStorage support.
Starfield does not have DirectStorage support, but you don't need to optimize a game with Microsoft's storage API to make it work with this more appropriate IO workload.
The original article contains 376 words, the summary contains 154 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!