SSD Usage In Starfield Is Causing Stuttering Issues: Report

Compusemble's Starfield SSD Bottlenecking Video
(Image credit: Compusemble - YouTube)

Compusemble from YouTube contends they have discovered that Starfield suffers from a large amount of traversal stuttering due to poor SSD utilization, even on the Best SSDs. The issue purportedly pertains to SSD optimization, with the game file system incessantly relying on very small block sizes and a low queue depth to stream assets into the game. Compusemble feels Starfield's reliance on this data transfer method causes the SSD to bottleneck the game, reaching 100% utilization with read speeds well under 1GB/s when traversal stutter occurs — even on a PCIe Gen 5 SSD.

The video shows Compusemble running through the city of Atlantis — one of Starfield's largest and most intensive cities, with monitoring software to see how the game's frame rate, GPU, and SSD behave in the city. As Compusemble's character strolled through the city, the frame rate dropped momentarily several times during the "benchmark run" due to traversal stuttering, causing GPU usage to drop to almost 0% due to the above-mentioned SSD bottlenecking issues. SSD usage was hitting 100% utilization several times, with peak read speeds spiking as little as 555MB/s during one of these periods. That's far beneath the peak speed capabilities of the SSD.

For reference, Compusemble used a Radeon RX 6950 XT and Ryzen 7 7700X with 32GB of memory, along with a Crucial T700 Gen 5 SSD, the fastest consumer SSD on the market just a few months ago. So there's very little reason to doubt it's the test system at fault here.

Starfield's intrinsic use of low queue depths and small block sizes is very unusual. Compusemble reports that many games today read from storage drives in large block sizes to hit SSDs where they perform best. For instance, Microsoft recommends a block size range anywhere between 32-64k and very high queue depths for DirectStorage support. Starfield does not have DirectStorage support, but you don't need to optimize a game with Microsoft's storage API to make it work with this more appropriate IO workload.

Sadly, there's no real way at this time to prevent traversal stuttering in Starfield. Even on the low-quality preset, the game suffers from SSD-bound traversal stuttering issues. Hopefully, Bethesda will discover this problem and figure out how to optimize the game better for SSDs.

Aaron Klotz
Freelance News Writer

Aaron Klotz is a freelance writer for Tom’s Hardware US, covering news topics related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • Makaveli
    Yup probably better to pick it up next year after they have had more time to patch it.
    Reply
  • Roland Of Gilead
    Yeah, this is my might peeve at the moment. Games, that on release date are only beta versions. It's up to (us) the paying public, have to put up with a donkey of a game, New AAA games take a full year of updates, fixes etc to be playable. All the while those paying for the game in this form are being shafted. People are buying new rigs for this game. And it runs like a turkey!
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    Makaveli said:
    Yup probably better to pick it up next year after they have had more time to patch it.
    I mean... I think I've repeated this phrase so many times now I'll have nightmares, but here we go again: it is a Bethesda game. This implies they won't really fix it and wait for the modders to do it instead. I'm not even being cynical or doing hot takes on them. That is their history speaking for themselves on the titles which share a similar history, like Fallout and ES.

    Look at the huge amount of mods the game already has that fix like 50% of the most annoying UI issues and then some more xD

    Regards.
    Reply
  • NeoMorpheus
    I know that Bethesda is famous for these beta releases, but I find interesting how so many negative/issues posts are being posted all over.

    Personally, I havent had the chance to play much, but so far, i havent noted any issues.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    Roland Of Gilead said:
    Yeah, this is my might peeve at the moment. Games, that on release date are only beta versions. It's up to (us) the paying public, have to put up with a donkey of a game, New AAA games take a full year of updates, fixes etc to be playable. All the while those paying for the game in this form are being shafted. People are buying new rigs for this game. And it runs like a turkey!
    This is so true. The whole inventory management system, for the various Fallout games, Skyrim, and now Starfield, is utter garbage. It can work, but it's just so bad. I guess it has improved a bit from Fallout (?), but one of the big problems with Bethesda games is all the meaningless junk you can pick up that's literally everywhere. Immersive? Perhaps, but it makes it super easy to miss some actually useful stuff.
    Reply
  • SaddleMtnMan
    Easy - just buy 192gb of RAM and put the entire game into a RAMdisk.
    Reply
  • salgado18
    SaddleMtnMan said:
    Easy - just buy 192gb of RAM and put the entire game into a RAMdisk.
    I don't think that's easy...
    Reply
  • salgado18
    -Fran- said:
    I mean... I think I've repeated this phrase so many times now I'll have nightmares, but here we go again: it is a Bethesda game. This implies they won't really fix it and wait for the modders to do it instead. I'm not even being cynical or doing hot takes on them. That is their history speaking for themselves on the titles which share a similar history, like Fallout and ES.

    Look at the huge amount of mods the game already has that fix like 50% of the most annoying UI issues and then some more xD

    Regards.
    I don't think a mod can fix this, since it is probably an architectural issue. But then again, a modder fixed GTA V's long loading, so maybe a modder saves Bethesda (again), right?
    Reply
  • Makaveli
    SaddleMtnMan said:
    Easy - just buy 192gb of RAM and put the entire game into a RAMdisk.
    What desktop motherboards will take 192GB of ram?

    99% top out at 128GB.

    Secondly trying to use ram to cover up shoddy work is not the direction we want to go.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    Makaveli said:
    What desktop motherboards will take 192GB of ram?

    99% top out at 128GB.

    Secondly trying to use ram to cover up shoddy work is not the direction we want to go.
    I do believe that was intended as sarcasm. "Oh, your new $60 game doesn't run very well? I have a solution that will only cost you $725!" (Technically speaking, there are now 48GB DDR5 modules, and Z690/Z790 as well as X670 are all capable of using four such chips.)
    Reply