News Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Patched Performance — AMD and Nvidia GPUs Tested

[JarredWaltonGPU]

i did restart game, and picture shows just terrain texture dropped

Interesting. I wonder if it's impacted by GPU. What are you running — the RX 6800 in your signature? Because on RTX 3080 (which is what I checked), setting any of the other settings to "Low" clearly dropped texture quality, and probably other settings as well.

 

[kerberos_20]

Interesting. I wonder if it's impacted by GPU. What are you running — the RX 6800 in your signature? Because on RTX 3080 (which is what I checked), setting any of the other settings to "Low" clearly dropped texture quality, and probably other settings as well.

it is RX6800
setting preset to low, game does look like garbage tier graphics...but to some extent

here example what ive noticed:
starting game in koboh town/village, graphics at low looks properly ugly, LOD/mip bias working as intended...then walking around loads better resolution mips as you walk around you pick em up when close enough, now you return to that spot which was ugly before and it doesnt looks ugly anymore, game remembers high texture res you picked up before, doesnt switch back to low mip, so you endup with low graphic settings which doesnt look low anymore and high vram usage due to high resolution textures in it

 

[kerberos_20]

got some free time to make comparison picture, its on pyloon meditation spot

both pictures on low detail preset
picture on left is when i just started game
picture on right is when i walked close by and moved back
i can go outside, walk around buildings and go back and it keeps showing picture on right instead of picture on left

so textures and geometry i guess?

ok just textures, teleported away and back and geometry was same as on left picture with texture from right picture (more detailed potato)

 

[gamergtx]

I chalk some of that up to guerilla marketing. AMD has pushed multiple games with higher than usual VRAM requirements, and often you'll get major outcry about poor performance on Nvidia (especially at launch) when that happens — anything to paint Intel or Nvidia in a bad light. The Last of Us Part 1, some of the Resident Evil games, Godfall, God of War... The list goes on. There are a lot of games where I can't help but question the "need" to push VRAM use beyond 8GB, particularly when the visual upgrades provided aren't actually noticeable.

That an AMD-promoted game had issues with Nvidia hardware at launch, and then those issues got (mostly/partially) fixed with driver and game updates within a week, is the real story IMO. We've seen the reverse as well, though not so much recently that I can think of unless you count Cyberpunk 2077 RT Overdrive. Actually, you could probably make the claim of Nvidia pushing stuff that tanks performance on AMD GPUs for any game that uses a lot of ray tracing, though in some cases the rendering does look clearly improved.

Part of this is probably also a rush to release the game head of May the 4th. Or at least that's the only thing that I can come up with. Was there any good reason to ship the game in a poorly running state, rather than spend a few more weeks? Or maybe EA just didn't realize how bad things were, and releasing it to the public provided the needed feedback. Whatever.

I did not get early access or launch access, so the first time I tried the game was with the patches already available (and there's no way with Steam/EA to stay with the original launch version). Aaron however has been playing on an RTX 2060 Super at 3440x1440 with FSR2 Quality and a mix of ~high settings since launch and hasn't had too many issues. If you try maxing out settings on hardware that can't really handle those settings, don't be surprised if performance is poor.

Finally someone says things as they are, suddenly they want us to believe that the games made a tremendous graphic leap and that the 8GB of vram is obsolete when the titles that are coming out are still from the previous generation. I understand that many people with bad intentions use it to promote AMD gpus with more vram but I'm surprised that this comes from users, I have an RX 6600 that I bought recently and they want me to believe that my gpu is already obsolete even for 1080P, and why does that happen? Because they only look at the numbers in the requirements and don't stop to think if they are really justified.

 

[zx128k]

STAR WARS Jedi: Survivor™ PC Recommended System Requirements​

• OS: Windows 10 64-bit
• RAM: 16Gb
• CPU Features: 4 core / 8 threads
• CPU* AMD: Ryzen 5 5600X
• GPU** AMD: RX 6700 XT
• GPU Features: DX12, 8Gb VRAM
• Storage: 155Gb SSD
• *CPU alternate: Intel Core i5 11600K
• **GPU alternate: Nvidia RTX2070

The nVidia RTX 2070 is a 8GB VRAM card. The AMD RX 6700XT is a 12GB VRAM card. The developer recomments a 8GB card for the game.

The game should run on a lot less.

STAR WARS Jedi: Survivor™ PC Minimum System Requirements​

• OS: Windows 10 64-bit
• RAM: 8Gb
• CPU Features: 4 core / 8 threads
• CPU* AMD: Ryzen 5 1400
• GPU** AMD: Radeon RX 580
• GPU Features: DX12, 8Gb VRAM
• Storage: 155Gb
• *CPU alternate: Intel Core i7-7700
• **GPU alternate: Nvidia GTX 1070

So this game could hit the RTX 2060 with its 6GB of VRAM. So this game targets 8GB of VRAM.

This video shows playable FPS at 1080p, 1440p and 4k on a RTX 2070.

1080p, 1440p of a 6700xt.

Running on a AMD RX 580.

AMD RX 6600 1080p and 1440p epic settings.

Seems 8GB of VRAM is doing fine.

Game is improved with the patch. You can see the massive boost in fps for 8GB cards at the correct settings.

 

[kerberos_20]

Running on a AMD RX 580.

he did run it on 4GB vram rx580...on epic lots of blurry textures, but it does runs fine

 

[zx128k]

he did run it on 4GB vram rx580...on epic lots of blurry textures, but it does runs fine

So there is hope for people with less VRAM. I guess set it to 1080p and head for performance FSR.

AMD RX 580 4GB. 720p

nVidia RTX 2060 6GB. 1080p/1440p/4k

 

[kerberos_20]

So there is hope for people with less VRAM. I guess set it to 1080p and head for performance FSR.

thats hard to say, coruscant is like 8GB vram on mine 16GB vram card, while kobos is around 12GB vram...on both low/epic, on low it takes a few minutes longer to fill up vram, while on epic it fills up faster
older games doesnt have vram management issues...kinda odd game

 

[zx128k]

thats hard to say, coruscant is like 8GB vram on mine 16GB vram card, while kobos is around 12GB vram...on both low/epic

The issue is the performance is far better after the patch but videos don't state the game version.

The cracked version looks to be faster than the original. I would guess the patch was timed for after the crack released.

 

[kerberos_20]

The issue is the performance is far better after the patch but videos don't state the game version.

game doesnt report any version number, but maybe thats just issue on high vram cards..as i already finished this game, im moving onto next game(s)...game is mostly playble, but the thing is, if you play a bit longer (say 1hr+), game gets laggy over time

 

[zx128k]

game doesnt report any version number, but maybe thats just issue on high vram cards..as i already finished this game, im moving onto next game(s)...game is mostly playble, but the thing is, if you play a bit longer (say 1hr+), game gets laggy over time

Sounds like a memory leak. Maybe the patch fixed that issue.