Why didn't I test 1080p native I hear you ask? Well it seems that turning FSR to "disabled" doesn't turn it off. Yep, native resolution is broken lol. Not sure if it' s my machine or a bug in general but at the time of this video disabling FSR just seems to enable the "ultra performance" option, or it scales the game to a lower res, something like that anyway. Something is broken hahaha. What a mess.
Yeah if you set it below the epic preset the resolution scaler will be below 100%. The trick is setting it to epic preset then tweak the individual settings below. It's a broken setting for sure. What kind of asinine decision was it to tie the scaler to the preset and why is the resolution scaling hidden in the graphics options? This game will need a lot of patches before it's in a playable state. Sad trend for PC ports these days.
I think 1080p around 60fps low settings WITHOUT FSR should be the standard for minimum specs. Upscaling techniques are great for getting older or weaker hardware but shouldn't be relied on to make a game playable
But then it wouldn't be an accurate example of minimum settings. If they didn't use FSR then it'd make the game seen less scalable than it actually is and discourage people who have rigs perfectly capable of playing it. Minimum spec is the bare minimum for a playable experience not the minimum for a quality presentation that's what recommended settings are for. Nowadays pretty much everyone uses FSR/DLSS by default anyway, it's not just for low performance machines but even high end rigs use it to get 4k ultra at >60fps. Anyway I don't understand why you'd be ok with low texture, low models, low resolution etc but not FSR when that's the setting that gives the most bang for ya buck in terms of visual quality to performance. Also this game clearly isn't using FSR ultra performance for it's minimum spec, seeing as he raises it all the way to balanced with medium settings and still gets a good framerate, if anything the devs undersold this games performance on the low end.
@@MsMarco6 Ok, fair points. But some additional considerations. FSR upscaling varies quite a bit depending on the game. Sometimes it's near indistinguishable from native, other times it looks markedly worse even on "quality". Also FSR generally works better at higher resolutions. I believe AMD said so themselves, it's more suited to 1440p and 4K resolutions while 1080p isn't as great. I guess one of the problems is what is considered "playable" and that depends on both the player and the game. There's no one right answer so I'll take back my "1080p ~60fps low NO FSR" statement. Perhaps the best way for published min specs is the settings, resolution and framerate achieved with the suggested hardware. I know Resident Evil 4 did this and I just checked, Jedi Survivor does not. EA should take notes from Capcom
Nope, for this kind of game (hack & slash 3rd person ) 30-40 FPS is enough to play comfortably. Frankly, with RX 580 yould even try 1080p high with some FSR.
@@aleksazunjic9672 Exactly, the original game was 30fps on consoles and noone had a problem with it. I and pretty much everyone else my age grew up playing games at 20-30fps on X360 and loved it. Just because 30fps isn't ideal doesn't make it unplayable and claiming that it's not even acceptable as a minimum spec is something only someone who grew up with too much money would say. PC gaming has become so elitist nowadays it's crazy, 30fps with FSR is a fine way to experience a game, its still way better than the games we grew up with so claiming its suddenly unacceptable is ridiculous. Tbh looking at this performance it runs well on the RX 580, and i know people who actually use that card will be more than happy with this, cos if they thought
Devs nowadays simply suggest a top tier old gen graphics card for "recommended" settings and throw in FSR and expect it to call it a day... Unreal Engine needs work, this game feels exactly as the previous one but with slightly more features. Additional note: What im saying is Unreal is not a "bad" engine, but if the devs are lazy under the excuse of "record time" these things will happen. And having played Fallen Order before gives me the right to say this game is more of the same but with a more cinematic touch, that's all, same mechanics same boring traveling linear level design, inefficient saving/checkpoint system. Feels like they did Ctrol C + Ctrol V in the editor and continued from where they left.
My brother works with Unreal Engine 5 developing games for Double Fine (Psychonauts 2) Unreal Engine 5 has incredibly high polygon counts. The level he was designing had a single stone wall that was 100,000 polygons. It's incredibly detailed and complex. UE5 is optimized fine. He can design levels on an i9 3080 workstation with 128 GB RAM. It's clearly EA studios that need optimization, since the game can't even pull 60 fps on a 4090 with a 7900x3D. Game devs nowadays DO optimize their games half assed and use DLSS and FSR to get decent performance on a top of the line system and then release the messy code to Steam. It's not an unreal Engine 5 problem. Please stop making assumptions based on insufficient knowledge, and then posting comments claiming it's the truth. Please.
@@zackburkhart8693 RX 480 in 2016 was basically 290X/390X/780 Ti/980 top of the line 2013-2014 GPUs, only 980 Ti / Fury X being faster by a bit. They were great cards. Imagine getting a new 200$ card in 2024 with the performance of 4080 / 7900 XTX. That's not gonna happen
Programming in directx 12/vulkan is more difficult than for directx 11. For example, you now have to do your own memory management, the driver did that for you first. If you don't do that properly, you run the risk of fragmenting your memory and then you quickly run out of memory, the teams of nvidia and amd have decades of experience writing good memory management routines. The combination that shaders can now be made by artists with shader graphs, with the PSO of directx 12/vulkan, causes an explosion in the number of shaders and thus long shader compile times. The shader has to be compiled differently for each GPU (and sometimes even for other driver versions) This makes it impossible to precompile the shaders for the PC (which is possible for the consoles) and has to be done during the game So i hope people now know wy a long time games are stuck on directx 11 and 12 hybrid . This is wy full directx 12 sucks . And wy we now have a memory problems on gpu side
I swear, devs-studios don't care to optimise their games anymore. It is absurd to see that a game that looks pretty close to the last one to have such bad performance. Shame
That ultra performance was super blurry. I could even see it on my phone. Medium settings with balanced FSR didn't look too bad. What really stood out like a sore thumb was the stutter & slowdown.
The problem with this game is hardware scaling, it has no idea how to handle better hardware. Test it and see, go and grab your main rig, the one you use to game and edit on (i feel like you have one that has like a 3050 or 3060, I cant remember.) Put it up against the same settings on this PC that you have in the video and you will get the EXACT SAME frame rate and core utilization. This seems to be a problem between the allocation of hardware and the game actually using it. Let's say it allocates 15GB of system ram to use for the game but the game engine is only accessing like half of that amount, same issue for CPU and GPU utilization. This is an unreal 4 issue that happens to games that are brought to console and rushed to PC. However the game is also having problems on consoles too due to no optimization. DEVS DO NOT WANT TO OPTIMIZE FOR ALL HARDWARE ANYMORE!!! They release a broken mess and then they will optimize for the most used hardware, so some folks with more obscure setups may not ever be able to run the game properly, even through their hardware should allow them. Again this is a product of the gaming industry using engines like unreal4/5 and then using tech like dlss and fsr to do all the "optimization" for them. Anyone notice the quality of PC ports after DLSS and FSR became a thing? This is not Nvidia or AMD's fault because they brought this to us for people with low end hardware and devs are using it as a reason to not release a full-playable game. bullcrap.
These games are also designed around the fixed function hardware in consoles -- namely, texture decompression chip and I/O accelerator which allows blazing fast asset streaming. The system doesn't get changed for PC, it's just chucked on as an afterthought. Well guess what, PC doesn't have these fixed function chips & accelerators, so the pipeline gets stuffed to bursting and the CPU goes into meltdown due to the insane # of memory heaps being shoveled in it's direction (thanks to 4K full resolution textures they are using with a texel-to-pixel ratio of 1:2 or worse) Just look at Hogwart's Legacy. It used 9.1GB VRAM at 960p (yes, 960p!!) at launch..... Now? They've alleviated the asset streaming issues and even the RTX 3070 can do 1080p/Ultra without exceeding VRAM. Wow... optimization for PC made the game run better on PC? Who would've thought! People going "It's VRAM we need more VRAM!" Clearly 24GB GDDR6X didn't help the 4090 which gets 24-45 FPS in Jedi Survivors at 1440p Ultra even when using DLSS. (And just to reiterate, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assume 12GB is the new 8GB, we do need more VRAM but this is irrelevant to the issue actually going on) THE ISSUE IS OPTIMIZATION. This is just one aspect of the horrific crimes being committed on recently launched PC games. So you're right, developers just aren't optimizing for hardware anymore. If they do it's months after the game launches and they'll only do the bare minimum to get people to shut up. But I wanted to include my 2 cents after months of research and speaking with graphics developers and programmers. I'm still investigating other issues but I believe this is the main cause of recent PC optimization woes and yes relying on DLSS/FSR is definitely being used as a crutch. Again to reiterate - these games are designed around fixed function hardware consoles have and PC does not. Lack of optimization and full stop incompatibilities mean we get games that look like last gen and require future gen hardware to run properly.
Pc ports has problems way before fsr and dlss came out. Ironic that these technologies were looked as giving new life the low budget gpus but instead fucking absolutely everyone
Using the mouse wheel actually changes the settings. What's even more crazy, is that Fallen Order ran at 1080p60 maxed out on a RX580 8GB with a 8700K.
fallen orders maxes out at my gtx 1650, much less an rx 580 this kind of shit is just unacceptable, and Im glad I didnt preorder or buy jedi survivor, they deserve to have to fix this shit before getting my money
The walking running animation is the same since last game. It looks off to me, similar to Mass Effect Andromeda before they patched it. Its like leaning to much side to side and it looks like hes constantly floating over the ground, not really affected by gravity
I like it. it shows that Respawn cares more about player fluidity and control than immersive animation and realism which is paramount for an action platformer like Jedi Survivor
Yea eats 21gb of vram at 1440p while only running 35-40fps while gpu utilization is locked at 50%. I somewhat feel like giving up on modern gaming if this is going to be the trend going forward for the next few years or more.
I can't believe to said this but PC Master Race have been finally hit a rock with how lazy these devs are for a couples of releases games lately and seems like console is looking more appealing at this point.
I just stick with indie games now, 100x more than there are on consoles and they're almost always much more fun too. Run 20x better aswell. Also cheaper!
Brand new Patch just came out that fixes the CPU limited issue. I'm getting ~ 15fps boost on my 3070 laptop, so if anyone's worried about performance on a 580 it'd be worth checking out some post-patch benchmarks to see what improvement there is. TBH considering how quickly they got this patch out and how much of a boost it offers it's shocking that they didn't have it ready at launch. It's not a great performing game now but it's pretty average for modern heavy titles so they could've saved themselves a lot of bad press by either getting the patch ready for day 1 or delaying the launch for 3 days. Publishers seem to have forgotten that they only get one chance to make a first impression and the sales they lose through bad press is far worse than what they'd lose through a small delay.
@@beardalaxy One indicator if a game has denuvo is that if the game blocks you from playing it on other devices (say, you have to benchmark this game on another pc) and you hit that limit Second is always the performance
2017 literally feels like yesterday to me. I vividly remember driving to Fry's Electronics on a saturday morning to pick up an i7-6700k and Z170 Maximus Hero board that were on sale. Tried this setup with an RX 480 at first but I found a deal on a GTX 1070.
Cant wait for the "Can Jedi:Survivor run without a GPU" video 😂 Incidentally, my son bought the game without paying full price and on his system with a Xeon E3 1270, 16 Gb RAM, and GTX 1650 (4GB VRAM 😂) seems playable. Hopefully it'll be better after a patch or 2.
I'm so happy you covered this setup, because ALL the other UA-camrs are going to play it with systems that cost $3500-$4000 which isn't realistic. Big companies send them those GPUs to make videos, and they want to show them off. My love for PC gaming only hits a maximum of $2000 and thats after saving up for a year. Yes I'm poor. Laugh all you want.
Wtf since when was a 2000$ pc for poor ppl tf wth bruh fr ???? Here in country a used ps4/xbone (150-200$) is mostly what the average citizen coulf afford and next gen consoles like series s are only for the rich
Because ID Software got actual talented people. The company were made by some of the biggest nerds. And yes I wish more would use Idtech engine for their games. Then again if they are incompetent it might not matter :D
Doom eternal has way smaller maps with a lot less stuff going on, also artstyle. Like come on, it’s like asking why asphalt 9 looks great and runs on integrated graphics at 1080p max settings 60fps.
@@oo--7714 oh yeah, then why is Rage 2 running totally smooth as well on their engine? Large maps in that game. Also we had plenty of open world games and mmo's that ran better than recent trash releases.
Yep, not only that, they are PAYING the company to beta test. It used to be that you would GET PAID to beta test. People seem to not care at all that they are being used and abused, and that’s pretty sad.
I've been playing on PS5 performance mode (managed to get it 2 days early) and the FPS reminds me of inFamous on PS3, where you could quite clearly see the frame rate jumping up and down, depending on what you're looking at.
i'll take lower fps as long as its smooth, but this isn't. What i don't understand is the console gamers claiming it runs fine when it clearly does not.
@@cowboybenbop Could be that they have VRR TVs, framerate, as long as it not flucktuates heavily, could then look pretty smooth. I saw PS5 on performance mode runs at around 50 FPS most of the time. And Quality seems to be pretty much fixed to 30 FPS with good framepacing. So either they play on Quality mode and are fine with 30 FPS or they could have variable refresh rate and that mitigates a lot of stuff, but the 50 FPS indicates that there are problems with the performance even on console, I bet performance-mode also has dynamic resolution and FSR on PS5 and it still doesn't hit consistent 60 FPS, so seems to be bad all around.
@@cowboybenbop Console gamers generally have lower standards for what's considered playable. I can agree though I'd rather take a solid 30 to it jumping up and down. Either way you shouldnt tolerate games this bad no matter if you play on console or pc.
I saved for so long to finally get a high end PC late last year with a 4090 and 13700k because of all the huge games coming out this year and it has not paid off at all. The performance with PC games this year has gotten so bad that it is actually surprising if one runs well.
Huh? There are definitely some annoying releases, but I'm getting 90-120 fps at 4k max settings on the vast majority of games. It's annoying when the games aren't buttery smooth because of shader comp stutter but I still vastly prefer this to my series x and ps5 for the games that have a PC port
@@YumiSumire A trend that has been picking up speed for a few years now. My life hack is to simply wait till AAA games go on sale in 18 months or whatever. By then the game will generally be as patched as it ever will be and any desperately needed mods will have been provided by the community (if applicable). Also gives you that bit more time in your upgrade cycle to possibly be on better hardware. I'm actually just now playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider which was a free get off epic a little while back. 90-100fps on 1440p ultrawide with the setting mostly maxxed. Decent game, very pretty, glad I waited. Last game I was playing was Cyberpunk. I'm getting the premium AAA gaming experience in finally finished yet heavily discounted games using mid-tier hardware. It simply requires waiting.
@@kleinbottled79 ye it's true. But to those people buying a high-end PC, expecting to play new AAA games on launch, it's been a pretty shitty experience. But ye, nothing we can do but to stop paying full price on those shitty games.
I've tested the game with the RX 480 8GB and with Low settings ( Medium Textures) and FSR on Quali it was really good playable , slightly under 60 FPS . The RX 6500XT can also run this game, but the stutters are more there because of the 4GB . :')
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat For the RX 6500XT : 1080p - low settings (FSR on Quali) For the RX 480 8GB : 1080p - low settings (Medium textures) + FSR on Quali This was also at the beginning of this game as in this video, so i can warry later on.
I'd say AAA game have often been releasing as buggy mess's since the mid 2010's well before dlss and fsr were a thing, if anything the scale of AAA games combined with harsh deadlines and crunch are what is leading to such a poor performance rather than a reliance on up-scaling especially when indie games don't seem to be suffering the same performance issues when they appropriately scale their projects
1:31 when they ported it from console they didn't even make the menu work with mouse and keyboard, it seems like changing settings is literally just emulating moving a controller joystick 💀
The last of us port was literally unplayable but they still made money, EA saw that and pushed this unfinished port out, they even had an advance apology ready
AAA gaming is in such a sad state... there's maybe 1 decent game each year. Just lazy design all around - gameplay, optimization, bugs. They're just hoping the big IP carries the sales. At least we have indies and a LOT of games, but still.
Yeah the release now fix later is the MVP minimal viable product software vendors are classic for. Think of the last of us part 1 on PC ; how many iterations of patches has that been thru? I’ve had an rx580 for years and years now and its been brilliant and sufficed my gaming experience, I’m not an avid gamer so for me has been perfect. I bought another for a hackintosh build i am doing only a week ago too - brilliant card that has weathered the test of time IMHO.
Optimization for games is totally dead at this point. If graphical update was good and older hardware couldn't run the game properly that would be understandable but graphical update is kinda minimal and scaling of hardware is legit bad!
Im curious to see how core count/HT/SMT affect performance. Completely untested hypothesis but when looking at CPU usage of high core count CPUs, the game doesn't appear to be leveraging all available threads, so it makes me wonder if there aren't scheduling issues afoot, hence why you're getting decent performance with your quad core i3
Idk but people with 6950XT says their GPU runs at 400W or higher so they're getting absolutely thrashed. Higher perf on AMD is likely because Jedi Survivor uses 4c/4t so it's heavily CPU bound and AMD does not suffer from driver overhead like Nvidia ergo higher FPS.
Dawid Does Tech has recently shown a bit of overhead/FPS limitation when using Afterburner, which was solved using FRAPS. It’d be interesting to get more thorough testing on that.
I love your videos but balanced FSR or below at 1080p shouldn't be considered even on the minimum spec (if you pay 70 bucks you deserve a worthy experience) let alone ultraperformance at 1080p. Not suggesting you shouldn't test them at all. seeing how far you can go is always fun, but testing also realistic scenarios in which you can have an acceptable experience for modern standards like native 1080p would have been nice.
i disagree, "minimum" is exactly that, "minimum specs to get the game running at a reasonable standard" reasonable means, everything is clear and visible, Balanced FSR at 1080p and HECK even performance or ultraperformance at 1080p is VERY much what i consider "reasonable standard", you can play the game, you have acceptable performance, at the expense if visual fidelity. heck evne 720p balanced FSR is within my "acceptable standard" for minimum Its the MINIMUM requirement not the "nice standard" i rather have the devs be honest and giv eme the ABSOLUTE minimum the game has any reasonable way of running, then the inflated minimum requirements we are dealing with 90% of the time if i see minimm specs, i expect them to be minimum, not "oh, this is "minimum" for this arbitrary standard of performance at 1080p" only Standard there is, is it running at at least 720p, and is it running at over 30FPS consistently? if yes, thats the minimum spec
@@weberman173 If you consider paying 70 bucks to play a modern game with the image quality of a PS3 that's your thing. But I think that if a set of specs are given they should not deceive ANY possible customer to think it will give them an acceptable experience, when it doesn't. Developers build games with consoles in mind, that's at least 1440p in performance mode worst case 1080p (this game is next gen only by the way). Gameplay is built accordingly. If you take longer to notice an enemy for example due to low resolutions and reconstructions artifacts you are at a disadvantage and the game is not balanced anymore something that's very important at higher difficulties and to maintain the game fair. Is it really playable if the game ends up not being balanced neither the experience the game designers meant when they built the game in a console?
@@JaimeIsJaime The point still is "minimum requirements" should be the minimum the game reasonable run at, reasonable means at a Resolution at or above 720p at at least 30fps imo. not to mention that No, games arent usually "balanced around" stuff like the resolution beyond a certain point for visual identifiation of enemys,(multiplayer non withstanding)etc.there are a mulitude of ways games tell you there si an enemy, from sound cues to HUD elements etc, saying "oh, the enemy was slightly blurry so i could not see him from a hundred meters away" in a game, where most combat takes place in relativly close quarters is just trying to find a fault i am NOT defendingthis particular game fi ti really is as bad as people are saying even on reasonably highs pec machines. I am saying that expecting "minimum requirements" to require 1080p with FSR off or above balanced is just silly and totally misses the point of "minimum requirements" i have a small list myself for what i consider "running" and thus "minimum spec reqirements" "does it run" "is text and HUD readible" "is the visual quality at the range at which combat(or gameplay in general) usualy takes place at clear enough" "does it run at at least stable 30FPS" What settings are used dont matter, ultra performance, 720p whatever, it if checks those boxes, it runs, and whatever gets closest to not checking those while stil actually checking them is the minimum spec
@@weberman173 What are you even talking about. the game literally has tons of guys shooting lasers at you from very far away. It does huge damage at hard difficulty.
@@JaimeIsJaime the "huge distance" are very much "medium range" in my book at best and given its star wars the Blasters(its not laser, its plasma yes i am THAT kind of nerd) have enough of a travel time and a distinct look(givne they are very red when most of the game so far is very much NOT red) that even at lower resolution its a clear indicator of their position
Do you see sometimes you get 30% GPU Usage, while the very next, 90% ? This game is completely broken, no matter what you do, even with FSR Off (which renders the game at lower res putting more strain on the CPU), there are huge problems.. I refunded immediately.
Jedi fallen order had some horrendous stutter which was mostly 'solved' by capping yourself to 60 fps, but ea never did bother to fix it. Fantastic game but not well optimised on pc. Looks like this one has poor performance too, I will probably get it in a few years when I can compensate for poor optimisation to a degree with better than recommended hardware
I want to see how well "S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2: Heart of Chernobyl" runs on low end setups. And what it takes to run it well...WHEN it comes...(been waiting for years and years).
Strange that the more advanced our graphical capabilities get the blurrier the visuals are once turned down a nodge. I miss the look from 2010 to 2019 games tbh. Something about this new generation feels kinda off.
its due to these "game engineers" doign nothing and only the ai like chatgpt, coding the whole game. Ever since 2013 games look sthe same copy pasted graphics and style with shtier and shtier performance....
Are there any good pc ports anymore? Days Gone was one of the few recent games that really seemed to me have been done right in terms of optimization and ran very well at launch (at least in my experience). I'm sure there have been others, but for every decent port, there are dozens of games like Arkham Knight that had their pc version handed off to a tiny team that wasn't given the time or resources to do it right.
Tweet by Daniel Owen said that he tried swapping graphics cards on this game to test it out. He got a notice that said: "Too many computers have accessed this account's version of Star Wars Jedi - Survivor recently. Please try again later"
lol We don't even own the games we buy any more. This is why I never buy AAA games nowadays and stick to retro/older titles (or free to play). Just a cynical cash-grab.
I am thinking that since he is shooting for the lowest settings on older hardware he might avoid some bugged settings that you and others with high end pc's are using. Hope that makes sense. Try and set the game to lowest with FSR quality. Just to see how many fps you get :)
It is sad that games on PC are often nowadays built for temporal AA and break if you try to make them run at native resolution. Like red dead redemption 2 all graphic rendering breaks if TAA is disabled
As someone who daily drives a Steam Deck, I'm going to hold off on this one until it gets its optimization treatments. JFO worked great after some tweaking, with a solid non-stuttery 40 FPS most times... really hoping that this will eventually live in the same neighborhood in the future.
Eh I’m probably gonna sell my steam deck, the performance in newer games ain’t good. The device hits its limits too many times. In 2 years these handhelds might be feasible but for now no (the rog ally seems to be like the bare minimum for newer games)
Ouch, it seems my 1060 & 2700x would kinda struggle running this, i'm curious how it would run on a steam deck. And no, the trend of "release now, fix later" started a while back, facilitated by the inclusion of ethernet ports on mainstream consoles, especially proliferated during the ps4/xbone generation. Cheers!
I’m running the game on 980 (4gb) at low with balanced fsr, the game runs at 50 fps for a while, but after some time suddenly drops to 20 fps, and only goes back up after 5 minutes, this often triggered by my charcter dying, but just playing the game causes this to happen I don’t know if my card is running out of vram, any ideas/
100 w is kinda low for that card am i wrong? i got the SE version clocked at 1430 mhz and it draws 180w at full load (tested in first game, all cranked up to epic settings)
I can say those GPU are great ! , nope that is not joke , you can play classic RPG on those Baldurs Gate 1&2 , Icewind Dale 1&2 , Planscape Tourment , Fallout 1&2 , Gothic 1&2 , TES III&IV among NWN 1&2 , KOTR 1&2 , also games like GTA 3,VC,SA... and gem like Ballance so yes someone will write those GPU are trash , but honestly both those cards are much better that GPU I have played all those games when they came out , all depent from perspective .
@@adammarcinkowski-ko3el I have a GT 710 2gb gddr5 gpu, that GPU sucks even with retro pc builds. The integrated GPU u mentioned is actually slightly better. I recommend instead of buying a GT 710, if you have access to a CEX or something near you, buy something like a HD 5770 or GTS 450 for $10~20 USD, those are much better and cheaper than the GT 710. If you can afford to spent a little more, maybe go for a used GTX 900 series GPU. edit: woops I replied to wrong person, was supposed to be @Prince Charming
No, I hope he doesn't. 710 and HD 630 has no reason to still be sold anymore. If you live in a third world country, get an iGPU like Ryzen 5 5600G and go on with your day.
Nice video! I am somewhat shocked that a game like this runs so poorly on a nice GPU. For example, Bioshock Infinite, on the high/ultra settings runs much better, and at least to me looks much better too.
If that adjustment wackiness with the UI at the beginning wasn't a bug, then that's an oddly ass backwards design given how being able to click on or use the arrow keys to adjust settings is something games have been able to do for literal decades now. Even mobile games with PC and console ports can manage that.
A 12900k with max setting gets 37 fps on avg thats where the complains are coming from i dont think anyone was complaining about the gpu side of things the only gpu problem so far is cards with 16 gb+ vram suddenly gets maxed out in some areas some guy claimed that his 4090 spikes upto 21 gb vram but didnt saw that happen and the ultimate reason people are mad is because the previous game had the same problem it is actually mindbogling how they still ignored them, it feels very intenional from Eas side to release this game in this condition and in 14 hrs release a statement they are already fixing the bugs
02:38 the fighting, I see they are all standing around waiting to take their turn to attack. So poorly optimised for higher settings and poor game mechanics too.
I'm gonna wait for this to get patched, and possibly a sale before I jump in. I'm tired of game companies releasing broken buggy games. Great video though, I enjoy your content. I have to say, those 570-580 cards were amazing performers given their price point.
My daughter hasn't complained about the ryzen 7 2700x and rx 5600xt i built her years ago for this game. I was curious about rhe 6gb of vram, hut someone mentioned that with the compression ots not bad with 6gb, but I'd probably avoid 4gb of vram for this game.
I’m running a 12700k and 3070 and I’m getting 20-50fps at 2560x1080 no matter the settings, no matter if RT is on or off, FSR is on or off. If I cap to 30fps in nvidia control panel it’s still crap fps but GPU use drops-down to about 40% (from 99% uncapped fps) with everything at epic, RT on, fsr off. Performance is all over the place. But the game is fun, finished it on easy, now to play through new game plus on harder difficulty now that I’ve done the story.
i mean if you want to crank up textures to max and high res then yes otherwise just play 1080p with lower textures on 8GB cards for this new games and upcoming ones
We as consumers should just refuse to buy games that use Denuvo, it's objectively a bad form of DRM, invasive and causes more problems than the three weeks of protection it actually provides even comes close to excusing. Anyone who is going to sail the seas on a game isn't going to be bothered by a three week wait for that objectively horrible DRM to be bypassed anyways. People who will buy it will buy it, DRM freedom or Publisher bankruptcy, this needs to be the only options.
Bruh the 580 8gb should be reaching 60 fps at low settings 1080p native... That's the true meaning of minimum specs : still being able to play at native resolution without relying on an upscaler. Sad to see that devs nowadays just add upscalers like FSR and DLSS instead of actually optimizing their games.
My modest specs: Rx 580 4 gb on auto overclock through amd software Ryzen 7 1700 16 GB ram 2666 mhz A320m-k Mainboard Latest amd patch The game is installed on a dedicated 256 GB SATA 3 SSD. Windows 10 I had some strange experience: First level/planet had very bad performance. I had to play 720p, low, but with fsr set on quality. I was around 30 FPS, with some dips under 20 - during some cinematics and sometimes when the game was loading assets. Lowering fsr did nothing. If I set it to 1080p, the game was around 26-27 FPS. The image quality was bad. Also, the GPU showed 100 percent usage, even though it was around 40-50 degrees and quiet during gameplay. In the menu it was getting really loud with around 70+ degrees. BUT!!! On the second planet I had between 60 and 80 FPS! I switched from 720p to 1080p, again at low, and I was having the same results. Then I set the game settings to medium and am having between 40 and 60 FPS. There are some dips around 30 , but it's much more playable. There is also some asset and texture popping, no matter the settings (though more frequent on the second planet) I got through the first level because I had previously played 1/3 of the first game with similar settings and am used to such performance. Recommendation: If you can stomach poor performance the first hour and a half of the game, you will have better experience on this modest hardware. Also, I recommend you turn off the FPS counter, in reality the game feels better than the FPS show. If you are patient, just wait for the next digital foundry performance test. Don't search anything else "jedi survivor" on UA-cam, you will get spoiler thumbnails. That's why I bought the game. Don't be afraid to test the game on hardware lower than the minimum requirements! Have fun testing!
The fact that EA owns Codemasters, developers of the very well optimized F1 22 (runs at 1440p 60 FPS High settings on the same card without FSR while still looking great), makes this very sad.
bro i have an i5 10500 1650gtx 4 gb 16 gb ram i get 20 fps in some scenes on low graphics on Jedi fallen order i use to get 80 - 90 on high graphics any advice ?
Do you think a Intel i5-4590 Gpu, gtx 750 card, 8 gb, could play it at 20 fps? I ran Lego Star Wars tss at 4k, 24-30fps and it ran great. I could never hit 60 fps, i could hit 40-50 fps if i put the resolution to 1440p i believe.
this is really weird because just last night i watched a guy have absolutely crap utilization on both cpu and gpu with a 5950 and 4090 while your RX580 got 100% utilization
Why didn't I test 1080p native I hear you ask? Well it seems that turning FSR to "disabled" doesn't turn it off. Yep, native resolution is broken lol. Not sure if it' s my machine or a bug in general but at the time of this video disabling FSR just seems to enable the "ultra performance" option, or it scales the game to a lower res, something like that anyway. Something is broken hahaha. What a mess.
Edit the config file to use 100% resolution scale then set it to read only.
The graphics quality setting changes 3d resolution, so for example low quality and fsr off is 50% 3d resolution.
the game defaults to 50% resolution scale on native for no reason, only way to fix is to edit the config file
Only the epic preset let you play at native resolution 😂
Yeah if you set it below the epic preset the resolution scaler will be below 100%. The trick is setting it to epic preset then tweak the individual settings below. It's a broken setting for sure. What kind of asinine decision was it to tie the scaler to the preset and why is the resolution scaling hidden in the graphics options? This game will need a lot of patches before it's in a playable state. Sad trend for PC ports these days.
Priceless statement , “Never thought there would be a learning curve for adjusting the menu graphics settings”
Always a great video! It's really sad that PC games nowadays are a mess. All we get are apology statement from these companies.
Yep :(
This game is a mess on every platform. I've never seen EA apologizing before :p
@@RandomGaminginHD Biggest fan!
@@RandomGaminginHD sorry bro.
Weeks a go the 1e part on steam sell for 5 euro
Stop buying these games before optimization reviews are outt.
I think 1080p around 60fps low settings WITHOUT FSR should be the standard for minimum specs.
Upscaling techniques are great for getting older or weaker hardware but shouldn't be relied on to make a game playable
Certainly not ultra performance at 1080.p.....
But then it wouldn't be an accurate example of minimum settings.
If they didn't use FSR then it'd make the game seen less scalable than it actually is and discourage people who have rigs perfectly capable of playing it.
Minimum spec is the bare minimum for a playable experience not the minimum for a quality presentation that's what recommended settings are for.
Nowadays pretty much everyone uses FSR/DLSS by default anyway, it's not just for low performance machines but even high end rigs use it to get 4k ultra at >60fps.
Anyway I don't understand why you'd be ok with low texture, low models, low resolution etc but not FSR when that's the setting that gives the most bang for ya buck in terms of visual quality to performance.
Also this game clearly isn't using FSR ultra performance for it's minimum spec, seeing as he raises it all the way to balanced with medium settings and still gets a good framerate, if anything the devs undersold this games performance on the low end.
@@MsMarco6 Ok, fair points. But some additional considerations. FSR upscaling varies quite a bit depending on the game. Sometimes it's near indistinguishable from native, other times it looks markedly worse even on "quality".
Also FSR generally works better at higher resolutions. I believe AMD said so themselves, it's more suited to 1440p and 4K resolutions while 1080p isn't as great.
I guess one of the problems is what is considered "playable" and that depends on both the player and the game. There's no one right answer so I'll take back my "1080p ~60fps low NO FSR" statement.
Perhaps the best way for published min specs is the settings, resolution and framerate achieved with the suggested hardware. I know Resident Evil 4 did this and I just checked, Jedi Survivor does not. EA should take notes from Capcom
Nope, for this kind of game (hack & slash 3rd person ) 30-40 FPS is enough to play comfortably. Frankly, with RX 580 yould even try 1080p high with some FSR.
@@aleksazunjic9672 Exactly, the original game was 30fps on consoles and noone had a problem with it. I and pretty much everyone else my age grew up playing games at 20-30fps on X360 and loved it.
Just because 30fps isn't ideal doesn't make it unplayable and claiming that it's not even acceptable as a minimum spec is something only someone who grew up with too much money would say.
PC gaming has become so elitist nowadays it's crazy, 30fps with FSR is a fine way to experience a game, its still way better than the games we grew up with so claiming its suddenly unacceptable is ridiculous.
Tbh looking at this performance it runs well on the RX 580, and i know people who actually use that card will be more than happy with this, cos if they thought
Devs nowadays simply suggest a top tier old gen graphics card for "recommended" settings and throw in FSR and expect it to call it a day... Unreal Engine needs work, this game feels exactly as the previous one but with slightly more features.
Additional note: What im saying is Unreal is not a "bad" engine, but if the devs are lazy under the excuse of "record time" these things will happen. And having played Fallen Order before gives me the right to say this game is more of the same but with a more cinematic touch, that's all, same mechanics same boring traveling linear level design, inefficient saving/checkpoint system. Feels like they did Ctrol C + Ctrol V in the editor and continued from where they left.
My brother works with Unreal Engine 5 developing games for Double Fine (Psychonauts 2)
Unreal Engine 5 has incredibly high polygon counts. The level he was designing had a single stone wall that was 100,000 polygons. It's incredibly detailed and complex. UE5 is optimized fine. He can design levels on an i9 3080 workstation with 128 GB RAM.
It's clearly EA studios that need optimization, since the game can't even pull 60 fps on a 4090 with a 7900x3D. Game devs nowadays DO optimize their games half assed and use DLSS and FSR to get decent performance on a top of the line system and then release the messy code to Steam. It's not an unreal Engine 5 problem. Please stop making assumptions based on insufficient knowledge, and then posting comments claiming it's the truth. Please.
This is not a UE problem at all. It's the lack of optimizations. Even a 4090 struggles to consistently stay above 60fps.
Devs need to stop using unreal, garbage engine
@@zackburkhart8693 RX 480 in 2016 was basically 290X/390X/780 Ti/980 top of the line 2013-2014 GPUs, only 980 Ti / Fury X being faster by a bit.
They were great cards.
Imagine getting a new 200$ card in 2024 with the performance of 4080 / 7900 XTX. That's not gonna happen
@@Khloya69 LMFAO🤣🤣 Unreal engine is leagues ahead of any other engine out there, its just trash optimization by the devs
Programming in directx 12/vulkan is more difficult than for directx 11. For example, you now have to do your own memory management, the driver did that for you first. If you don't do that properly, you run the risk of fragmenting your memory and then you quickly run out of memory, the teams of nvidia and amd have decades of experience writing good memory management routines. The combination that shaders can now be made by artists with shader graphs, with the PSO of directx 12/vulkan, causes an explosion in the number of shaders and thus long shader compile times. The shader has to be compiled differently for each GPU (and sometimes even for other driver versions) This makes it impossible to precompile the shaders for the PC (which is possible for the consoles) and has to be done during the game
So i hope people now know wy a long time games are stuck on directx 11 and 12 hybrid .
This is wy full directx 12 sucks .
And wy we now have a memory problems on gpu side
Refreshing to hear an actual reason.
Ah thanks for that. Very interesting info
Why would any customer care about this? The end product should work properly. That's it.
@@nanenab8744 Yes man. Like I get the issue for developers. But my green mint is real and it's hard earned, so it better be worth it.
don't care
I swear, devs-studios don't care to optimise their games anymore. It is absurd to see that a game that looks pretty close to the last one to have such bad performance. Shame
Only Id Software cares. Look at Doom Eternal. Butter smooth on old pc's and last gen consoles.
@@The.Crawling.Chaos. Restricted environments create ingenious solutions.
-John Carmack probably
@@The_Man_In_Red Well this Jedi game is linear as fuck for the first few hours yet it can go as low as 24 fps on a 3080ti which is a joke
@@The.Crawling.Chaos. Rage 2 exists, also Id ain't a good company either way (:
@@The.Crawling.Chaos. there's a game that was released between Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal, and that game took more than a year to optimize it.
60 fps with FSR at 1080p is NOT ok. You’re running the game at 640x360.
...and it looks like it.
Considering the gtx 1650 the most popular card on steam is slower a lot slower and with half the vram, this is not good.
Maybe if you're playing on a phone screen.
That ultra performance was super blurry. I could even see it on my phone. Medium settings with balanced FSR didn't look too bad. What really stood out like a sore thumb was the stutter & slowdown.
@@trackingdifbeatsaber8203 BTW 3060 is the new most popular GPU
The problem with this game is hardware scaling, it has no idea how to handle better hardware. Test it and see, go and grab your main rig, the one you use to game and edit on (i feel like you have one that has like a 3050 or 3060, I cant remember.) Put it up against the same settings on this PC that you have in the video and you will get the EXACT SAME frame rate and core utilization. This seems to be a problem between the allocation of hardware and the game actually using it. Let's say it allocates 15GB of system ram to use for the game but the game engine is only accessing like half of that amount, same issue for CPU and GPU utilization. This is an unreal 4 issue that happens to games that are brought to console and rushed to PC. However the game is also having problems on consoles too due to no optimization. DEVS DO NOT WANT TO OPTIMIZE FOR ALL HARDWARE ANYMORE!!! They release a broken mess and then they will optimize for the most used hardware, so some folks with more obscure setups may not ever be able to run the game properly, even through their hardware should allow them. Again this is a product of the gaming industry using engines like unreal4/5 and then using tech like dlss and fsr to do all the "optimization" for them. Anyone notice the quality of PC ports after DLSS and FSR became a thing? This is not Nvidia or AMD's fault because they brought this to us for people with low end hardware and devs are using it as a reason to not release a full-playable game. bullcrap.
These games are also designed around the fixed function hardware in consoles -- namely, texture decompression chip and I/O accelerator which allows blazing fast asset streaming.
The system doesn't get changed for PC, it's just chucked on as an afterthought. Well guess what, PC doesn't have these fixed function chips & accelerators, so the pipeline gets stuffed to bursting and the CPU goes into meltdown due to the insane # of memory heaps being shoveled in it's direction (thanks to 4K full resolution textures they are using with a texel-to-pixel ratio of 1:2 or worse)
Just look at Hogwart's Legacy. It used 9.1GB VRAM at 960p (yes, 960p!!) at launch..... Now? They've alleviated the asset streaming issues and even the RTX 3070 can do 1080p/Ultra without exceeding VRAM. Wow... optimization for PC made the game run better on PC? Who would've thought!
People going "It's VRAM we need more VRAM!" Clearly 24GB GDDR6X didn't help the 4090 which gets 24-45 FPS in Jedi Survivors at 1440p Ultra even when using DLSS. (And just to reiterate, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assume 12GB is the new 8GB, we do need more VRAM but this is irrelevant to the issue actually going on)
THE ISSUE IS OPTIMIZATION.
This is just one aspect of the horrific crimes being committed on recently launched PC games. So you're right, developers just aren't optimizing for hardware anymore. If they do it's months after the game launches and they'll only do the bare minimum to get people to shut up.
But I wanted to include my 2 cents after months of research and speaking with graphics developers and programmers. I'm still investigating other issues but I believe this is the main cause of recent PC optimization woes and yes relying on DLSS/FSR is definitely being used as a crutch.
Again to reiterate - these games are designed around fixed function hardware consoles have and PC does not. Lack of optimization and full stop incompatibilities mean we get games that look like last gen and require future gen hardware to run properly.
Pc ports has problems way before fsr and dlss came out. Ironic that these technologies were looked as giving new life the low budget gpus but instead fucking absolutely everyone
@@The_Man_In_Red Thanks. Truer words have never been said.
Using the mouse wheel actually changes the settings. What's even more crazy, is that Fallen Order ran at 1080p60 maxed out on a RX580 8GB with a 8700K.
fallen orders maxes out at my gtx 1650, much less an rx 580
this kind of shit is just unacceptable, and Im glad I didnt preorder or buy jedi survivor, they deserve to have to fix this shit before getting my money
The walking running animation is the same since last game. It looks off to me, similar to Mass Effect Andromeda before they patched it. Its like leaning to much side to side and it looks like hes constantly floating over the ground, not really affected by gravity
i noticed the same thing too, looks awful IMO.
He's a jedi. Maybe he really is floating all the time.
@@zirkoni42 😂
I like it. it shows that Respawn cares more about player fluidity and control than immersive animation and realism which is paramount for an action platformer like Jedi Survivor
Not just the walking animation. The running one as well. Super Janky
Runs better than it does on a 4090.
Nice job EA.
Lovely. Electronic Ass games are the best :)
4090 get 70 fps in 4 k wtf u talk about
4090 is a crap
Yea eats 21gb of vram at 1440p while only running 35-40fps while gpu utilization is locked at 50%. I somewhat feel like giving up on modern gaming if this is going to be the trend going forward for the next few years or more.
@@splasherrrr 4090 cant even play at a steady 60fps
I can't believe to said this but PC Master Race have been finally hit a rock with how lazy these devs are for a couples of releases games lately and seems like console is looking more appealing at this point.
Not with this game, even Series X and PS5 can't hit a constant 60fps in performance mode
I just stick with indie games now, 100x more than there are on consoles and they're almost always much more fun too. Run 20x better aswell. Also cheaper!
Brand new Patch just came out that fixes the CPU limited issue. I'm getting ~ 15fps boost on my 3070 laptop, so if anyone's worried about performance on a 580 it'd be worth checking out some post-patch benchmarks to see what improvement there is.
TBH considering how quickly they got this patch out and how much of a boost it offers it's shocking that they didn't have it ready at launch.
It's not a great performing game now but it's pretty average for modern heavy titles so they could've saved themselves a lot of bad press by either getting the patch ready for day 1 or delaying the launch for 3 days.
Publishers seem to have forgotten that they only get one chance to make a first impression and the sales they lose through bad press is far worse than what they'd lose through a small delay.
lmaoooo adding Denuvo to an already badly optimized game is just asking for disaster lol
I didn't even know the game had denuvo and just assumed lol that explains some things.
@@beardalaxy One indicator if a game has denuvo is that if the game blocks you from playing it on other devices (say, you have to benchmark this game on another pc) and you hit that limit
Second is always the performance
2017 literally feels like yesterday to me. I vividly remember driving to Fry's Electronics on a saturday morning to pick up an i7-6700k and Z170 Maximus Hero board that were on sale. Tried this setup with an RX 480 at first but I found a deal on a GTX 1070.
Cant wait for the "Can Jedi:Survivor run without a GPU" video 😂
Incidentally, my son bought the game without paying full price and on his system with a Xeon E3 1270, 16 Gb RAM, and GTX 1650 (4GB VRAM 😂) seems playable. Hopefully it'll be better after a patch or 2.
I'm so happy you covered this setup, because ALL the other UA-camrs are going to play it with systems that cost $3500-$4000 which isn't realistic. Big companies send them those GPUs to make videos, and they want to show them off. My love for PC gaming only hits a maximum of $2000 and thats after saving up for a year. Yes I'm poor. Laugh all you want.
I can't even afford a RTX 3070 :(. The max I could go for is a 3060 Ti
You’re not poor, you are the common man. Hello, fellow common man 👍
@@Extrn1488 same bro..i could save up for new one but i doubt its gonna be much better... for them prices nowadays
Wtf since when was a 2000$ pc for poor ppl tf wth bruh fr ????
Here in country a used ps4/xbone (150-200$) is mostly what the average citizen coulf afford and next gen consoles like series s are only for the rich
@extern extern The 3060ti is a better buy anyways. It is barely slower.
Why has NO game in the last 3 years looked better than Doom Eternal while still running at a decent frame rate.
Idtech kicks ass that's why.
decent ?? Doom Eternal run in awesome frame rate even on my 1060 back then
Because ID Software got actual talented people. The company were made by some of the biggest nerds. And yes I wish more would use Idtech engine for their games. Then again if they are incompetent it might not matter :D
Doom eternal has way smaller maps with a lot less stuff going on, also artstyle. Like come on, it’s like asking why asphalt 9 looks great and runs on integrated graphics at 1080p max settings 60fps.
@@oo--7714 oh yeah, then why is Rage 2 running totally smooth as well on their engine? Large maps in that game. Also we had plenty of open world games and mmo's that ran better than recent trash releases.
It's fricking 360p internal, how is that playable ??
Edit: the later medium with balanced FSR is much better.
2023 gamers are basically beta testing new releases.
Yep, not only that, they are PAYING the company to beta test. It used to be that you would GET PAID to beta test. People seem to not care at all that they are being used and abused, and that’s pretty sad.
@@brando3342yes, all that for "just" 79,99€.
I've been playing on PS5 performance mode (managed to get it 2 days early) and the FPS reminds me of inFamous on PS3, where you could quite clearly see the frame rate jumping up and down, depending on what you're looking at.
is it really that bad even on performance mode?
i'll take lower fps as long as its smooth, but this isn't. What i don't understand is the console gamers claiming it runs fine when it clearly does not.
@@cowboybenbop Could be that they have VRR TVs, framerate, as long as it not flucktuates heavily, could then look pretty smooth.
I saw PS5 on performance mode runs at around 50 FPS most of the time.
And Quality seems to be pretty much fixed to 30 FPS with good framepacing.
So either they play on Quality mode and are fine with 30 FPS or they could have variable refresh rate and that mitigates a lot of stuff, but the 50 FPS indicates that there are problems with the performance even on console, I bet performance-mode also has dynamic resolution and FSR on PS5 and it still doesn't hit consistent 60 FPS, so seems to be bad all around.
@@cowboybenbop Console gamers generally have lower standards for what's considered playable. I can agree though I'd rather take a solid 30 to it jumping up and down.
Either way you shouldnt tolerate games this bad no matter if you play on console or pc.
@@wtf17727 fair enough
I saved for so long to finally get a high end PC late last year with a 4090 and 13700k because of all the huge games coming out this year and it has not paid off at all. The performance with PC games this year has gotten so bad that it is actually surprising if one runs well.
Huh? There are definitely some annoying releases, but I'm getting 90-120 fps at 4k max settings on the vast majority of games. It's annoying when the games aren't buttery smooth because of shader comp stutter but I still vastly prefer this to my series x and ps5 for the games that have a PC port
@@cheese_crab he's talking about newly released AAA games of course. Half of them are broken on launch
@@YumiSumire A trend that has been picking up speed for a few years now. My life hack is to simply wait till AAA games go on sale in 18 months or whatever. By then the game will generally be as patched as it ever will be and any desperately needed mods will have been provided by the community (if applicable). Also gives you that bit more time in your upgrade cycle to possibly be on better hardware.
I'm actually just now playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider which was a free get off epic a little while back. 90-100fps on 1440p ultrawide with the setting mostly maxxed. Decent game, very pretty, glad I waited. Last game I was playing was Cyberpunk. I'm getting the premium AAA gaming experience in finally finished yet heavily discounted games using mid-tier hardware. It simply requires waiting.
@@kleinbottled79 ye it's true. But to those people buying a high-end PC, expecting to play new AAA games on launch, it's been a pretty shitty experience.
But ye, nothing we can do but to stop paying full price on those shitty games.
that moment when the minimum requirements can run the game as it is intended but recommended requirements cant 😵💫
0:50 The prior game, Fallen Order, had similar weirdness with the settings menu.
Ah ok good to know, I think haha
They had time to fix it from that game... they didn't.
I've tested the game with the RX 480 8GB and with Low settings ( Medium Textures) and FSR on Quali it was really good playable , slightly under 60 FPS .
The RX 6500XT can also run this game, but the stutters are more there because of the 4GB . :')
Yep las GPU con 4gb de vram ya tienen sus días contados, porque las de 8 ya andan medias al límite en algunos juegos
You were playing lower than 720p I think.
@@flegetonte8491 It was 1080p, but with FSR on Quali, so it could be an upscaled 720p. 🙂
@@Beisepimp Settings used ?
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat For the RX 6500XT : 1080p - low settings (FSR on Quali)
For the RX 480 8GB :
1080p - low settings (Medium textures) + FSR on Quali
This was also at the beginning of this game as in this video, so i can warry later on.
I'd say AAA game have often been releasing as buggy mess's since the mid 2010's well before dlss and fsr were a thing, if anything the scale of AAA games combined with harsh deadlines and crunch are what is leading to such a poor performance rather than a reliance on up-scaling especially when indie games don't seem to be suffering the same performance issues when they appropriately scale their projects
About the time Denuvo came ont he market and became the go to DRM software... interesting.
1:31 when they ported it from console they didn't even make the menu work with mouse and keyboard, it seems like changing settings is literally just emulating moving a controller joystick 💀
The last of us port was literally unplayable but they still made money,
EA saw that and pushed this unfinished port out, they even had an advance apology ready
while absolutly inexcusable... the game dOES tell you quite prominently that it recomends a controller at launch
@SGT_Weber
I would recommend one regardless for a game like this, but still
@@user9267 as isaid "while absolutly inexcusable"
@@weberman173
Mhmm ^
Ultra performance FSR is like 540p .... right? 580 should not get 50fps on 540p. That's just wrong.
Even lower than that. 360p.
AAA gaming is in such a sad state... there's maybe 1 decent game each year. Just lazy design all around - gameplay, optimization, bugs. They're just hoping the big IP carries the sales.
At least we have indies and a LOT of games, but still.
Yeah things need to improve optimisation wise for sure
Me : Looks at my pc with my RX580...
RX580 : Please boss, I'm tired...
It's not even just various pc hardware having issues, they haven't even made it run well on consoles.
Yeah I’ve heard that too :/
Yeah the release now fix later is the MVP minimal viable product software vendors are classic for. Think of the last of us part 1 on PC ; how many iterations of patches has that been thru? I’ve had an rx580 for years and years now and its been brilliant and sufficed my gaming experience, I’m not an avid gamer so for me has been perfect. I bought another for a hackintosh build i am doing only a week ago too - brilliant card that has weathered the test of time IMHO.
look forward to playing this game when its finished and on sale in 5 years.
2023 games are so bad I actually started going outside. Walking around the supermarket is more exciting than these games.
What really stands out to me is the stutter & slowdown more than anything. That plaques so many games nowadays, it's ridiculous.
Optimization for games is totally dead at this point. If graphical update was good and older hardware couldn't run the game properly that would be understandable but graphical update is kinda minimal and scaling of hardware is legit bad!
4:31 the game's only on current gen consoles with fast ssd's (and PC) and they still had to use that "squeeze through tight hole" game design?
Thanks for the video. As an owner of an RX 5700 I was worried I can't play this game. Now I will give it a go.
Im curious to see how core count/HT/SMT affect performance. Completely untested hypothesis but when looking at CPU usage of high core count CPUs, the game doesn't appear to be leveraging all available threads, so it makes me wonder if there aren't scheduling issues afoot, hence why you're getting decent performance with your quad core i3
It's reported Jedi Survivor uses 4c/4t so it is not well parallelized from what I've seen
im pretty sure there are scheduling/thread usage issues.
@@gozutheDJ Yes for 30-40% CPU usage something is wrong with that lol
Seems like it has good performance on AMD cards. Wonder whether I should buy it and how it will run on my RX 6800, since my CPU is R5 3600.
Idk but people with 6950XT says their GPU runs at 400W or higher so they're getting absolutely thrashed. Higher perf on AMD is likely because Jedi Survivor uses 4c/4t so it's heavily CPU bound and AMD does not suffer from driver overhead like Nvidia ergo higher FPS.
@@The_Man_In_Red wow 400W for this, its ridiculous. I can run UE 5.2 tech demos on 200W with better performance on the rx 6800 haha.
Ayy my exact gpu on the thumbnail! Nice!
Dawid Does Tech has recently shown a bit of overhead/FPS limitation when using Afterburner, which was solved using FRAPS. It’d be interesting to get more thorough testing on that.
Fraps? That’s a name I haven’t heard in a while 😂
@@TheLastLineLive it’s still around and kicking!
@@MarcosCodas last update was like 10 years ago lol
@@TheLastLineLive what I meant is that it works, hehe
I love your videos but balanced FSR or below at 1080p shouldn't be considered even on the minimum spec (if you pay 70 bucks you deserve a worthy experience) let alone ultraperformance at 1080p. Not suggesting you shouldn't test them at all. seeing how far you can go is always fun, but testing also realistic scenarios in which you can have an acceptable experience for modern standards like native 1080p would have been nice.
i disagree, "minimum" is exactly that, "minimum specs to get the game running at a reasonable standard" reasonable means, everything is clear and visible,
Balanced FSR at 1080p and HECK even performance or ultraperformance at 1080p is VERY much what i consider "reasonable standard", you can play the game, you have acceptable performance, at the expense if visual fidelity.
heck evne 720p balanced FSR is within my "acceptable standard" for minimum
Its the MINIMUM requirement not the "nice standard"
i rather have the devs be honest and giv eme the ABSOLUTE minimum the game has any reasonable way of running, then the inflated minimum requirements we are dealing with 90% of the time
if i see minimm specs, i expect them to be minimum, not "oh, this is "minimum" for this arbitrary standard of performance at 1080p"
only Standard there is, is it running at at least 720p, and is it running at over 30FPS consistently? if yes, thats the minimum spec
@@weberman173 If you consider paying 70 bucks to play a modern game with the image quality of a PS3 that's your thing. But I think that if a set of specs are given they should not deceive ANY possible customer to think it will give them an acceptable experience, when it doesn't.
Developers build games with consoles in mind, that's at least 1440p in performance mode worst case 1080p (this game is next gen only by the way). Gameplay is built accordingly. If you take longer to notice an enemy for example due to low resolutions and reconstructions artifacts you are at a disadvantage and the game is not balanced anymore something that's very important at higher difficulties and to maintain the game fair.
Is it really playable if the game ends up not being balanced neither the experience the game designers meant when they built the game in a console?
@@JaimeIsJaime The point still is "minimum requirements" should be the minimum the game reasonable run at, reasonable means at a Resolution at or above 720p at at least 30fps imo.
not to mention that No, games arent usually "balanced around" stuff like the resolution beyond a certain point for visual identifiation of enemys,(multiplayer non withstanding)etc.there are a mulitude of ways games tell you there si an enemy, from sound cues to HUD elements etc, saying "oh, the enemy was slightly blurry so i could not see him from a hundred meters away" in a game, where most combat takes place in relativly close quarters is just trying to find a fault
i am NOT defendingthis particular game fi ti really is as bad as people are saying even on reasonably highs pec machines.
I am saying that expecting "minimum requirements" to require 1080p with FSR off or above balanced is just silly and totally misses the point of "minimum requirements"
i have a small list myself for what i consider
"running" and thus "minimum spec reqirements"
"does it run"
"is text and HUD readible"
"is the visual quality at the range at which combat(or gameplay in general) usualy takes place at clear enough"
"does it run at at least stable 30FPS"
What settings are used dont matter, ultra performance, 720p whatever, it if checks those boxes, it runs, and whatever gets closest to not checking those while stil actually checking them is the minimum spec
@@weberman173 What are you even talking about. the game literally has tons of guys shooting lasers at you from very far away. It does huge damage at hard difficulty.
@@JaimeIsJaime the "huge distance" are very much "medium range" in my book at best
and given its star wars the Blasters(its not laser, its plasma yes i am THAT kind of nerd) have enough of a travel time and a distinct look(givne they are very red when most of the game so far is very much NOT red) that even at lower resolution its a clear indicator of their position
Do you see sometimes you get 30% GPU Usage, while the very next, 90% ? This game is completely broken, no matter what you do, even with FSR Off (which renders the game at lower res putting more strain on the CPU), there are huge problems..
I refunded immediately.
Thanks for covering this, my first time seeing gameplay
Jedi fallen order had some horrendous stutter which was mostly 'solved' by capping yourself to 60 fps, but ea never did bother to fix it. Fantastic game but not well optimised on pc. Looks like this one has poor performance too, I will probably get it in a few years when I can compensate for poor optimisation to a degree with better than recommended hardware
3:37 storm-trooper hit a shot? Most unrealistic game ever.
I want to see how well "S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2: Heart of Chernobyl" runs on low end setups. And what it takes to run it well...WHEN it comes...(been waiting for years and years).
They have a legitimate excuse for releasing the game with poor optimization, still not okay but i will understand why that could happen
Strange that the more advanced our graphical capabilities get the blurrier the visuals are once turned down a nodge.
I miss the look from 2010 to 2019 games tbh.
Something about this new generation feels kinda off.
its due to these "game engineers" doign nothing and only the ai like chatgpt, coding the whole game. Ever since 2013 games look sthe same copy pasted graphics and style with shtier and shtier performance....
I kid u not the UI control in the settings is like a mini boss battle
how on earth did you get over 60 fps with i3 when other people drop to 40s with 5800x3d?!
Are there any good pc ports anymore? Days Gone was one of the few recent games that really seemed to me have been done right in terms of optimization and ran very well at launch (at least in my experience). I'm sure there have been others, but for every decent port, there are dozens of games like Arkham Knight that had their pc version handed off to a tiny team that wasn't given the time or resources to do it right.
Whrn i installed the game, the first popup said EA Recommends a controller. Clearly the menu were built for a controller first keyboard second
Tweet by Daniel Owen said that he tried swapping graphics cards on this game to test it out.
He got a notice that said:
"Too many computers have accessed this account's version of Star Wars Jedi - Survivor recently. Please try again later"
lol
We don't even own the games we buy any more.
This is why I never buy AAA games nowadays and stick to retro/older titles (or free to play).
Just a cynical cash-grab.
@@DJ_Dopamine Arrr...ye'd best be belivin yer in dystopian futures...
Yer IN one!!!
You're getting better performance than i am on 7900 xtx right now lol
I am thinking that since he is shooting for the lowest settings on older hardware he might avoid some bugged settings that you and others with high end pc's are using. Hope that makes sense. Try and set the game to lowest with FSR quality. Just to see how many fps you get :)
This game should not require this much graphics horsepower. Completely unjustified.
It’s definitely much more of a CPU bottlenecked game than a GPU one. People seem to be struggling with older CPUs.
This game runs bad with modern CPUs, too.
It is sad that games on PC are often nowadays built for temporal AA and break if you try to make them run at native resolution. Like red dead redemption 2 all graphic rendering breaks if TAA is disabled
How are the controls with kbm? I had to use a controller for the first game but don't have one anymore.
when the first game came out i had a i5 4th gen and a 1650 super and it ran fantastic.
So will i see performance issues under 60 fps if I have 6 gbs of video instead of 8 gbs?
I easily match the other specs required to run the game.
3:53 "This seems like more of a GPU intensive title" famous last words!!
As someone who daily drives a Steam Deck, I'm going to hold off on this one until it gets its optimization treatments. JFO worked great after some tweaking, with a solid non-stuttery 40 FPS most times... really hoping that this will eventually live in the same neighborhood in the future.
Yeah good idea
Eh I’m probably gonna sell my steam deck, the performance in newer games ain’t good. The device hits its limits too many times. In 2 years these handhelds might be feasible but for now no (the rog ally seems to be like the bare minimum for newer games)
Would have loved to see how it runs native without FSR even if it was just a quick 5-10 second clip
About the graphics settings, it was the exact same in jedi fallen order, idk if you played that
Ouch, it seems my 1060 & 2700x would kinda struggle running this, i'm curious how it would run on a steam deck. And no, the trend of "release now, fix later" started a while back, facilitated by the inclusion of ethernet ports on mainstream consoles, especially proliferated during the ps4/xbone generation. Cheers!
I’m running the game on 980 (4gb) at low with balanced fsr, the game runs at 50 fps for a while, but after some time suddenly drops to 20 fps, and only goes back up after 5 minutes, this often triggered by my charcter dying, but just playing the game causes this to happen
I don’t know if my card is running out of vram, any ideas/
I have the RX580 but I keep crashing and getting BSODs with MEMORY_MANAGEMENT or IQRL error codes. It sucks man.
did u enabled unified gpu usage monitoring on msi afterburner just curious
100 w is kinda low for that card am i wrong? i got the SE version clocked at 1430 mhz and it draws 180w at full load (tested in first game, all cranked up to epic settings)
Bro please compare HD 630 with GT 710 2GB DDR5 !!
I can say those GPU are great ! , nope that is not joke , you can play classic RPG on those Baldurs Gate 1&2 , Icewind Dale 1&2 , Planscape Tourment , Fallout 1&2 , Gothic 1&2 , TES III&IV among NWN 1&2 , KOTR 1&2 , also games like GTA 3,VC,SA... and gem like Ballance so yes someone will write those GPU are trash , but honestly both those cards are much better that GPU I have played all those games when they came out , all depent from perspective .
@@adammarcinkowski-ko3el I have a GT 710 2gb gddr5 gpu, that GPU sucks even with retro pc builds. The integrated GPU u mentioned is actually slightly better. I recommend instead of buying a GT 710, if you have access to a CEX or something near you, buy something like a HD 5770 or GTS 450 for $10~20 USD, those are much better and cheaper than the GT 710. If you can afford to spent a little more, maybe go for a used GTX 900 series GPU.
edit: woops I replied to wrong person, was supposed to be @Prince Charming
@@koreannom is your model 64-bit (bus bandwidth) 32-bit lacks much much behind
No, I hope he doesn't.
710 and HD 630 has no reason to still be sold anymore. If you live in a third world country, get an iGPU like Ryzen 5 5600G and go on with your day.
@@flintfrommother3gaming hey the thing is i want people to know igpu is better than that gpu
Nice video! I am somewhat shocked that a game like this runs so poorly on a nice GPU. For example, Bioshock Infinite, on the high/ultra settings runs much better, and at least to me looks much better too.
Bioshock Infinite is 10 years old though.
If that adjustment wackiness with the UI at the beginning wasn't a bug, then that's an oddly ass backwards design given how being able to click on or use the arrow keys to adjust settings is something games have been able to do for literal decades now. Even mobile games with PC and console ports can manage that.
Yeah not sure why it doesn’t work properly haha. Should be an easy fix
how about on i5-4570 gtx 950 16gb ram ddr3 can you test it?
A 12900k with max setting gets 37 fps on avg thats where the complains are coming from i dont think anyone was complaining about the gpu side of things the only gpu problem so far is cards with 16 gb+ vram suddenly gets maxed out in some areas some guy claimed that his 4090 spikes upto 21 gb vram but didnt saw that happen and the ultimate reason people are mad is because the previous game had the same problem it is actually mindbogling how they still ignored them, it feels very intenional from Eas side to release this game in this condition and in 14 hrs release a statement they are already fixing the bugs
What motherboard do you have anlong with this i3-12100?
I heard that once you get past the first world the performance gets better but I'm not sure
02:38 the fighting, I see they are all standing around waiting to take their turn to attack. So poorly optimised for higher settings and poor game mechanics too.
Pretty sure that's meant as a tutorial.
I have an RTX 3060 but with only 6gb vram which is the only problem with my setup. should I still buy it?
I'm gonna wait for this to get patched, and possibly a sale before I jump in. I'm tired of game companies releasing broken buggy games. Great video though, I enjoy your content. I have to say, those 570-580 cards were amazing performers given their price point.
I mean your getting much better than me I cant even get a stable 30
My daughter hasn't complained about the ryzen 7 2700x and rx 5600xt i built her years ago for this game.
I was curious about rhe 6gb of vram, hut someone mentioned that with the compression ots not bad with 6gb, but I'd probably avoid 4gb of vram for this game.
English mf, do you speak it?
I have a ryzen 5 3600 and gigabyte rx5600xt 6gb I was curious is I could even run this game
Just played this on my old 2600X/1060 system at medium 1080 with FSR as a test. Averaged around 45 fps and quite playable.
I’m running a 12700k and 3070 and I’m getting 20-50fps at 2560x1080 no matter the settings, no matter if RT is on or off, FSR is on or off. If I cap to 30fps in nvidia control panel it’s still crap fps but GPU use drops-down to about 40% (from 99% uncapped fps) with everything at epic, RT on, fsr off. Performance is all over the place. But the game is fun, finished it on easy, now to play through new game plus on harder difficulty now that I’ve done the story.
Seems to be more powerful cards it struggles with. It uses about 70% of my 3080 and changing the settings lower just decreased the card useage! LOL
Is vram hitting the limits? I have a rx 7900 xtx, and i have seen the game use 23gb of vram😮😮
@@gejamugamlatsoomanam7716 It will be if it's using that much!
Shame we did not see native performance numbers as well.
my brother has a 4090 he messaged me saying he can only get 40fps and that his gpu usage was only at 40% and couldn't get it to go to 100.
Its seems like game developers forcing us to buy 16gb plus vram cards
I think it’s just laziness to be honest
i mean if you want to crank up textures to max and high res then yes otherwise just play 1080p with lower textures on 8GB cards for this new games and upcoming ones
when card with 24gb vram can't play this game smoothly you know hardware is not the problem.
They will pach it , I am sure of that , for me that dont matter , I will buy new PC around summer so game will be pached :)
We as consumers should just refuse to buy games that use Denuvo, it's objectively a bad form of DRM, invasive and causes more problems than the three weeks of protection it actually provides even comes close to excusing. Anyone who is going to sail the seas on a game isn't going to be bothered by a three week wait for that objectively horrible DRM to be bypassed anyways. People who will buy it will buy it, DRM freedom or Publisher bankruptcy, this needs to be the only options.
Almost maxing out 8 gigs of vram at what is that 50% of 1080p?
Keep up the good work. Love the content.
Thanks 😁
7gb of vram on lowest??? WHAT THE HEL
Bruh the 580 8gb should be reaching 60 fps at low settings 1080p native... That's the true meaning of minimum specs : still being able to play at native resolution without relying on an upscaler.
Sad to see that devs nowadays just add upscalers like FSR and DLSS instead of actually optimizing their games.
NVIDIA: "4090!!!" .... "DLSS3!!!"
Game dev: "Ok! Now without optimization..."
what is the program you are using to see your stats
My modest specs:
Rx 580 4 gb on auto overclock through amd software
Ryzen 7 1700
16 GB ram 2666 mhz
A320m-k Mainboard
Latest amd patch
The game is installed on a dedicated 256 GB SATA 3 SSD.
Windows 10
I had some strange experience:
First level/planet had very bad performance.
I had to play 720p, low, but with fsr set on quality.
I was around 30 FPS, with some dips under 20 - during some cinematics and sometimes when the game was loading assets. Lowering fsr did nothing. If I set it to 1080p, the game was around 26-27 FPS. The image quality was bad.
Also, the GPU showed 100 percent usage, even though it was around 40-50 degrees and quiet during gameplay. In the menu it was getting really loud with around 70+ degrees.
BUT!!!
On the second planet I had between 60 and 80 FPS!
I switched from 720p to 1080p, again at low, and I was having the same results.
Then I set the game settings to medium and am having between 40 and 60 FPS.
There are some dips around 30 , but it's much more playable.
There is also some asset and texture popping, no matter the settings (though more frequent on the second planet)
I got through the first level because I had previously played 1/3 of the first game with similar settings and am used to such performance.
Recommendation:
If you can stomach poor performance the first hour and a half of the game, you will have better experience on this modest hardware. Also, I recommend you turn off the FPS counter, in reality the game feels better than the FPS show.
If you are patient, just wait for the next digital foundry performance test.
Don't search anything else "jedi survivor" on UA-cam, you will get spoiler thumbnails. That's why I bought the game.
Don't be afraid to test the game on hardware lower than the minimum requirements! Have fun testing!
I wonder if my old gtx 570 gainward could handle this game at 720p
The fact that EA owns Codemasters, developers of the very well optimized F1 22 (runs at 1440p 60 FPS High settings on the same card without FSR while still looking great), makes this very sad.
bro i have an i5 10500 1650gtx 4 gb 16 gb ram i get 20 fps in some scenes on low graphics on Jedi fallen order i use to get 80 - 90 on high graphics any advice ?
Do you think a Intel i5-4590 Gpu, gtx 750 card, 8 gb, could play it at 20 fps? I ran Lego Star Wars tss at 4k, 24-30fps and it ran great. I could never hit 60 fps, i could hit 40-50 fps if i put the resolution to 1440p i believe.
this is really weird because just last night i watched a guy have absolutely crap utilization on both cpu and gpu with a 5950 and 4090 while your RX580 got 100% utilization
It does drop to like 17% very randomly but doesn’t effect performance