Starfield Running Through GeForce Now

[Merlindad51152]

I recently discovered that nVidia has begun a cloud gaming service that seems to be a noteworthy endeavor. It's not available without a monthly fee, IF one wants to be able to use it and not wait in queue.

 

However, it allows for use of an RTX 4080 GPU, as long as your internet connection and your hardware passes the free test that is performed.

 

This discovery came to my attention as a windfall, because my gaming laptop has an RTX 3060 6GB GPU, 12th Gen Intel i7-12700H CPU and 64GB of RAM struggled to run the game. Being an avid fan of Bethesda, Vortex and Nexus Mods, I was disappointed that running Starfield was quite a stretch.

 

Then, I become aware of GeForce Now!

 

Therefore, I am hopeful that running the game now, with the addition of some crafted mod(s) hosted here will preclude my :

 

1. Spending heinous amounts of money to acquire a system with an RTX 4xxx series GPU,

 

or

 

2. Spending monies for a monthly subscription, JUST to enjoy this fantastic adventure.

 

Perhaps one of the above scenarios will satisfy my need to enjoy this creation after waiting 25yrs. for it to be published.

 

[Forgive my passion for sagecraft, but I have been a huge gamer since my adult children were being raised in the 80s. We share many treasures of knowledge frequently and I believe one of the best methods that kept them focused on what is right in life was partially a result of gaming.]

 

[zanity]

Well you could just buy an AMD GPU, you know- the 5700XT runs the game excellently at 1440P high (vastly better than any Geforce Now stream would be). Starfield sadly shows the limitations of the Nvidia architecture. Too many people buy Nvidia as a direst consequence of the hundreds of millions of dollars a year Nvidia spends on PR (and negative PR against AMD).

 

At the prices Nvidia demands, no-one should buy their cards currently save for work (4090). Thankfully most devs are rejecting Nvidia 'gameworks' initiatives now, and optimising to the exclusively AMD architecture in Sony's PS5 and MS's Xbox. The result is that AAA games (outside of Cyberpunk, where Nvidia themselves coded the so-called 'overdrive RT') in 2023 have been doing much better on AMD cards, even more so given that AMD tends to be cheaper at any given tier.

 

Online steaming for games is a point of last resort- and is a service best for people with no real gaming hardware on their PC, but a good Internet connection. It is shameful that your gaming laptop, which won't have been cheap, cannot run Starfield well enough- but Nvidia is wholly to blame here by selling so many sub-standard so-called 'gaming' laptop GPUs that should have been a lot better for the money.

[Merlindad51152]

Thanks for the explanation! You have my attention and I have been considering builds for my next computer upgrade.

 

I built my own desktop surfboards until Windows went to x64, and the opinion I had about GPU suppliers then was always about nVidia bc the part availability was cheaper. ( I have a friend who would wholesale a component and then sell it to me for +30% markup. )

 

Presently, I am about gaming laptops....It's cheaper for me bc I am done being that guy....

 

Will be sure to come back to this after I have surfed for some machines configured per your suggestion.

 

I appreciate for your time & attention :cool:

[kithylin2]

Well you could just buy an AMD GPU, you know- the 5700XT runs the game excellently at 1440P high (vastly better than any Geforce Now stream would be). Starfield sadly shows the limitations of the Nvidia architecture. Too many people buy Nvidia as a direst consequence of the hundreds of millions of dollars a year Nvidia spends on PR (and negative PR against AMD).

 

At the prices Nvidia demands, no-one should buy their cards currently save for work (4090). Thankfully most devs are rejecting Nvidia 'gameworks' initiatives now, and optimising to the exclusively AMD architecture in Sony's PS5 and MS's Xbox. The result is that AAA games (outside of Cyberpunk, where Nvidia themselves coded the so-called 'overdrive RT') in 2023 have been doing much better on AMD cards, even more so given that AMD tends to be cheaper at any given tier.

 

Online steaming for games is a point of last resort- and is a service best for people with no real gaming hardware on their PC, but a good Internet connection. It is shameful that your gaming laptop, which won't have been cheap, cannot run Starfield well enough- but Nvidia is wholly to blame here by selling so many sub-standard so-called 'gaming' laptop GPUs that should have been a lot better for the money.

Speaking of Negative PR towards AMD ... you are doing that exact thing right now. Do you work for Nvidia? It sure reads like you do.

[zanity]

QUOTE- Speaking of Negative PR towards AMD ... you are doing that exact thing right now. Do you work for Nvidia? It sure reads like you do.

 

Is this some form of sarcasm or irony previously unknown to the Human Race? Or another example of someone unable to understand simple English. Or more likely the kind of pro-Nvidia trolling one gets in the AMD reddit forum whenever someone mentions AMD GPUs.

 

Currently Nvidia is the worst company in tech, whose reputation is entirely built on dirty tricks and paying companies to put sub-optimal code in games. After taking a significant pay-off from Nvidia for placing gameworks code in Arkham Knight (not to be mistaken for the recent Gotham Knights), Warner Bros were eventually forced to give PC owners of that game their money back when the Nvidia code caused the game to have dreadful performance. Strangely the console version ran fine, despite having gameworks too. The reason was simple. The console versions were allowed to use a version of gameworks (still from Nvidia) that ran better on AMD GCN architecture than on any Nvidia GPU at the time. But the version of gameworks used on the PC version was very different, carefully coded to run terribly on AMD PC GPUs. Unfortunately it also ran poorly on Nvidia, even after the game devs actually removed some of the shader effects found in the console version.

 

With Nvidia gameworks physics code, Nvidia ensured a CPU only path when AMD GPUs were used that failed to use vector instructions, instead using prehistoric x87 FPU instructions that literally ran like a snail.

 

When tessellation was a big thing, Nvidia paid game devs to massively split flat surfaces into hundreds of thousands of triangles to overload AMD GPUs (with no improvement to the visual quality of the models). Famously with Hairworks in the Witcher game, Nvidia paid CDPR to use a massive amount of unneeded tessellation again to once again swamp the (now improved) units in AMD GPUs, forcing AMD to permanently include a driver 'optimisation' that detects triangle overload, and sets the tessellation back to a reasonable level, with minimal visual degradation.

 

Today it is RT. RT in general is a lousy idea, and certainly not a new one, being the original method considered for rendering many many decades back. Raster came later. RT is awful because of the lack of memory coherence, and should be only used when a raster algorithm is impossible (very rare). Even in animated movies, where every frame is produced across hours of processing, ray tracing is rarely used. Today AMD has good enough RT performance for sensible algorithms. So Nvidia, where possible, pays to have Nvidia gameworks RT code used, which runs as badly as possible on AMD, and runs pretty poorly on lower cost Nvidia GPUs as well. Nvidia literally says that if you are "serious gamer" you should spend at least 1000 dollars on a 4080.

 

This is as big business, capitalist, anti consumer, and anti ordinary people and their need to be careful with their spending as you can get. It is unfettered greed given the smokescreen of tech legitimacy by massive PR spends.

 

Sadly as Nvidia has pushed GPU prices up massively, AMD has been encouraged to do the same, and now many people have sadly spent a fortune across the last two years buying what in the end were very low performance GPUs for the money. Those that could afford to pay silly money (usually young single males) have good enough cards, but many who until very recently paid even over 500 dollars do not.

 

This isn't fair and it isn't right (and it certainly isn't justified by how much GPUs cost to build- Nvidia could half the cost of their cards and still make a massive profit on each one). Prices are coming down, as AMD's GPU reputation, despite Nvidia's best efforts is on the rise (just as Zen eventually destroyed Intel's effective monopoly in perceived good CPUs by showing what poor value Intel's 4-core is all you get parts were at the time). But lucky are the nations where one can easily find a 6800 or 7800XT for less than 500 dollars. A heck of a base price for the cheapest cards with 16GB that are actually likely to be still doing well enough a few years from now.

[Merlindad51152]

Apologies if I offended you. I believe in you get what you pay for, but be wary of how you spend your money. The manipulation of the consumer is a big money business now, and it can go as far as needing a lawyer to protect oneself. I am saddened by the fact that this interaction that we have been enjoying didn't happen last year, before I bought this laptop. I must admit that for many years I was far too "racist" about the on going feud between Intel, AMD, and nVidia. It has certainly come to bite me where I sit.

 

Things are convoluted purposely to cause confusion OR prey on the ignorance of those folks who do not know the methods of becoming informed.

 

"...And the rich keep getting richer And the rest of us just keep getting old..." : WORDGAME Stephen Stills 2; 1971 https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/stephenstills/wordgame.html