AMD-Sponsored Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Gets Surprising DLSS 3 Update and Game Optimizations

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor
(Image credit: YouTube - EA Star Wars)

Seemingly out of nowhere, Respawn just released a brand new performance patch for Star Wars Jedi: Survivor that (reportedly) greatly enhances the game's performance on console and PC. Perhaps more importantly for PC users, the update also includes the official integration of DLSS 2 upscaling and DLSS 3 frame generation into the game.

According to the EA patch notes and official post on X (Twitter), the game has gone through a serious rework to provide a smooth 60FPS on consoles specifically. The console patch notes reveal that the game's performance mode has been "completely reworked" to provide a substantially better gaming experience. Respawn says it has implemented a number of CPU and GPU optimizations, along with disabling ray tracing to enable a solid 60 FPS in performance mode.

Quality mode got some optimizations to reduce FPS fluctuations and has received additional visual improvements as well. Variable refresh rate support has also been implemented on the PS5 for variable refresh rate TVs and monitors.

For the PC, additional performance optimizations have been made, along with full official integration of DLSS. (For the past several months, DLSS has been unofficially available via a PureDark mod.) Respawn also fixed several game crashes and other bugs affecting save game corruption and visual bugs.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

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

With contributions from
  • -Fran-
    Well, no matter what modders do, you can never ever equate development from Companies to small "guerrilla" coders pushing out something (at times) that just works for very specific hardware configs with very quirky behaviours.

    Generally speaking, mods are most welcome (hello Beat Saber!), but also understood they're not something you can expect to work flawlessly and without quirks. Simplest thing to say is UI integration and the more complex would be alignment to the artists vision of the game (mods that increase light conditions or gamma, for instance). When building any new tech into a game, you not just have to take into account the time it takes to, say, "slap it into the engine", but also the time it takes to re-work the menu, the interactions and, more importantly, the validation/testing. PC, fortunately, can get away with shorter cycles, possibly, unlike consoles and in the particular case of DLSS, maybe even less, but you still have a sizable overhead modders do not have, including expectations.

    All in all, people want these new techs to be included in the "vanilla" experience first and that just takes time.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • Makaveli
    I don't think this has anything to do with modders pushing them. On the sponsored title there looks to be a delay on purpose and once that is up the other tech will get implemented. The same with happen for Starfield.
    Reply
  • pf100
    -Fran- said:
    Well, no matter what modders do, you can never ever equate development from Companies to small "guerrilla" coders pushing out something (at times) that just works for very specific hardware configs with very quirky behaviours.

    Generally speaking, mods are most welcome (hello Beat Saber!), but also understood they're not something you can expect to work flawlessly and without quirks. Simplest thing to say is UI integration and the more complex would be alignment to the artists vision of the game (mods that increase light conditions or gamma, for instance). When building any new tech into a game, you not just have to take into account the time it takes to, say, "slap it into the engine", but also the time it takes to re-work the menu, the interactions and, more importantly, the validation/testing. PC, fortunately, can get away with shorter cycles, possibly, unlike consoles and in the particular case of DLSS, maybe even less, but you still have a sizable overhead modders do not have, including expectations.

    All in all, people want these new techs to be included in the "vanilla" experience first and that just takes time.

    Regards.
    PureDark has proven over and over that if the game already has fsr2 it takes one person one day to add dlss3. Stop defending lazy devs.
    Reply
  • NeoMorpheus
    I’m still amazed as to how we are now turning our backs on tech that works on as many devices as possible and instead demand a lock-in tech that limits us to whichever excuses are used to justify the already short list of devices that can support it.

    If intel can pull a dlss tech, AMD should simply close shop, because they wont have a chance in hell of getting anything that’s open and opposite to it that will be acceptable by todays dumb consumers.
    Reply
  • willis9829
    dang, I feel like fool having purchased Pure Dark's DLSS mod yesterday seeing today news Respawn released update with official support.
    Reply
  • KyaraM
    Makaveli said:
    I don't think this has anything to do with modders pushing them. On the sponsored title there looks to be a delay on purpose and once that is up the other tech will get implemented. The same with happen for Starfield.
    Which Nvidia game this year didn't launch with at least FSR implemented next to DLSS? If they can do it, then holy AMD surely can as well? Why wouldn't their devs do it if they had a choice?

    NeoMorpheus said:
    I’m still amazed as to how we are now turning our backs on tech that works on as many devices as possible and instead demand a lock-in tech that limits us to whichever excuses are used to justify the already short list of devices that can support it.

    If intel can pull a dlss tech, AMD should simply close shop, because they wont have a chance in hell of getting anything that’s open and opposite to it that will be acceptable by todays dumb consumers.
    I'm still amazed at how we are now turning our backs on choice and get complacent with only having a single piece of tech implemented instead of all three, so that people can actually choose the one that works best with their system. The only dumb people are the one who support this anti-consumer practice. You gys are literally the only ones not demanding to have a choice. Now what does that tell us, huh.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    pf100 said:
    PureDark has proven over and over that if the game already has fsr2 it takes one person one day to add dlss3. Stop defending lazy devs.
    You completely missed the point, but that's ok.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • NeoMorpheus
    KyaraM said:
    I'm still amazed at how we are now turning our backs on choice and get complacent with only having a single piece of tech implemented instead of all three, so that people can actually choose the one that works best with their system. The only dumb people are the one who support this anti-consumer practice. You gys are literally the only ones not demanding to have a choice. Now what does that tell us, huh.
    Some people have an amazing capacity for mental gymnastics that defy logic.
    Reply
  • KyaraM
    NeoMorpheus said:
    Some people have an amazing capacity for mental gymnastics that defy logic.
    Tell me where I'm wrong. You are the one clamoring for having only FSR in a game, not me. I want to have a choice. What is your justification against said choice?
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    KyaraM said:
    Tell me where I'm wrong. You are the one clamoring for having only FSR in a game, not me. I want to have a choice. What is your justification against said choice?
    You're not wrong in the sentiment, but your portrayal is a tad flawed, I'd say.

    Think about it from this perspective: why do games only release on Windows and not on all major OS'es (PC-wise; let's ignore consoles for now)? Have you ever got angry at* Developers for not releasing on Linux (a flavour of it), MacOS and Windows consistently and all the time? Have you ever questioned why most developers use the Intel Compiler instead of other alternatives like LLVM or GCC? Why some software uses DirectX exclusively instead of also using Vulkan, OpenGL and Metal? And there's so many more examples of this where the answer is often simple: time and money.

    I wholeheartedly agree AMD imposing exclusivity is crap and must not be, but they have come out and said they don't and only use "priority". They're taking a book form how "exclusives" work in the gaming industry which, like it or not, seems to be accepted practice and I don't see any outrages against the EPIC store*, Sony or Nintendo about it? Or at least, there may be a sentiment of discomfort and annoyance, but it doesn't get coverage in the tech media or consumer backing to have enough momentum to generate noise and/or impact. This has told all major Corps "it's ok to by scummy to this level" and they're running with it.

    As I said, it's a different ball game if AMD was confirmed to exclude DLSS (or any other tech) from any given title, but they have cleared the waters (late, yes; annoying as it is) so now it's a matter of accepting it as the trend unless there's backlash of some kind. As stated before: there won't be as it's an "accepted" practice.

    Regards.
    Reply