Listen to this Post
A Dream Tactical Star Wars Game With a Rough Technical Edge
For fans who have spent years waiting for another great tactical strategy experience in the spirit of XCOM, Star Wars Zero Company immediately feels like an exciting answer. The Clone Wars era is almost tailor-made for a squad-based strategy game, offering everything from blaster battles and droids to Jedi, clones, alien worlds, and morally complicated missions.
The problem is that the
Early experiences suggest that Star Wars Zero Company can deliver the tactical atmosphere players want, but performance problems are making the experience considerably less consistent than it should be. Crashes, frame-time spikes, and CPU limitations can appear even on powerful gaming systems, meaning that simply owning a high-end graphics card does not necessarily guarantee a flawless experience.
That is particularly frustrating for a game built around careful tactical decision-making. When you’re supposed to be studying the battlefield and planning your next move, the last thing you want is a sudden hitch, stutter, or crash breaking your concentration.
Why XCOM Fans Are Paying Attention
The appeal of Star Wars Zero Company goes beyond its famous license.
The XCOM formula has always worked because it combines small-scale combat with meaningful decisions. Every movement matters. Every attack has consequences. Every member of your squad can become important to the larger story.
Putting that structure inside the Clone Wars creates enormous potential.
Imagine commanding a squad through a battlefield filled with Separatist forces, taking cover behind futuristic structures, managing abilities, positioning units, and watching the consequences of your decisions unfold.
It is an unusually natural combination.
The Clone Wars also gives the developers an enormous visual playground. Different planets, enemy types, weapons, characters, and environments can provide tactical encounters that feel dramatically different from one another.
But that visual ambition comes with a price.
Unreal Engine 5 Is Part of the Equation
The game uses Unreal Engine 5, a technology capable of producing impressive visuals but also notorious for creating difficult performance challenges when developers push its most demanding features.
Ray-traced global illumination and reflections can put serious pressure on GPUs. Meanwhile, effects, hidden-object processing, world simulation, and other systems can place additional demands on the CPU.
That distinction is important because not every performance problem can be solved by buying a faster graphics card.
In the testing described in the original article, even an extremely powerful system featuring a Ryzen 7 9850X3D and GeForce RTX 5090 could experience CPU spikes at specific moments.
That tells us something important: Zero Company may not simply be a GPU-heavy game.
It can become CPU-limited.
The RTX 5090 Cannot Magically Fix Everything
A high-end GPU can brute-force many graphics workloads, but it cannot eliminate every bottleneck in a modern game engine.
When the processor is responsible for preparing game logic, objects, effects, animation, AI behavior, and rendering instructions, a graphics card can end up waiting for the CPU to catch up.
That appears to be one of the more interesting problems with Zero Company.
The reported experience on a powerful RTX 5090 machine suggests that upgrading the GPU alone may not eliminate every hitch.
This is particularly relevant for players who assume that lowering graphical settings will automatically solve stuttering.
Sometimes it will.
Sometimes it
Handheld Gaming PCs Face a Bigger Challenge
The situation becomes even more interesting on handheld hardware.
Testing on a Lenovo Legion Go 2 reportedly showed CPU utilization around 50 to 60 percent and GPU utilization around 70 to 80 percent.
At first glance, those numbers might not look terrible.
But utilization percentages do not tell the entire story.
A game can still be bottlenecked by particular CPU threads, engine tasks, memory behavior, or frame-time spikes without showing 100 percent total CPU utilization.
This is one reason why simply looking at overall utilization can lead to misleading conclusions.
The Most Important Setting May Not Be Graphics
If your system is CPU-limited, lowering graphical quality may produce surprisingly small improvements.
Reducing texture quality, for example, primarily helps VRAM usage. Lowering reflections generally helps GPU performance. But neither necessarily addresses a processor bottleneck.
For a CPU-limited machine, settings such as effect quality and hidden-object detail can be much more useful targets.
This is arguably the most important lesson from the performance guide.
Don’t lower everything blindly.
Find the component that is actually holding the game back.
Windowing Mode: Choose Based on Your Setup
Fullscreen for Maximum Focus
Fullscreen mode dedicates the display primarily to the game.
For players using a single monitor who rarely switch applications, this can be the simplest option.
Borderless for Multitasking
Borderless windowed mode behaves much like fullscreen while remaining friendlier to desktop multitasking.
If you frequently use a second monitor, check Discord, browse a guide, or switch applications, borderless is generally the more convenient choice.
Windowed Mode for Traditional Desktop Use
Windowed mode gives you a conventional adjustable game window.
It is rarely the first recommendation for performance-focused players, but it remains useful for unusual monitor configurations and multitasking setups.
Upscaling: One of the Easiest Performance Wins
Modern upscaling technologies have transformed PC gaming.
Instead of rendering every frame at native resolution, technologies such as DLSS, FSR, and XeSS render internally at a lower resolution and reconstruct the image.
The result can be a substantial performance improvement while retaining much of the visual quality of native rendering.
For Zero Company, upscaling makes particular sense because the game already appears capable of becoming demanding on modern hardware.
Nvidia Users: DLSS
Owners of Nvidia GPUs should generally start with DLSS where available.
AMD Users: FSR
AMD hardware can take advantage of FSR, providing another route toward higher frame rates.
Intel Users: XeSS
Intel GPU owners can use XeSS where supported.
The best choice ultimately depends on the individual implementation, GPU generation, resolution, and image-quality preference.
Upscaling Quality: A Practical Starting Point
A useful starting point is:
4K: Performance
1440p: Balanced
1080p: Quality
These are not laws.
They are simply sensible places to begin.
If your system is already performing comfortably, moving toward a higher-quality preset can improve image quality. If you’re struggling, stepping down can provide additional performance.
Frame Generation Makes More Sense Here
Frame generation creates additional frames between traditionally rendered frames.
This technology can introduce latency in certain circumstances, which makes it controversial in competitive shooters and other extremely reaction-sensitive games.
But Star Wars Zero Company is a turn-based tactical game.
That changes the equation.
Reaction time is not nearly as important as it is in a competitive multiplayer shooter. For players who prioritize visual smoothness, frame generation can therefore be a particularly attractive option.
Nvidia Reflex and AMD Anti-Lag
Latency reduction technologies can help synchronize CPU and GPU workloads more efficiently.
Depending on your hardware, you may encounter Nvidia Reflex, AMD Anti-Lag, or Intel’s equivalent technology.
If available and functioning correctly, enabling the appropriate latency-reduction option is generally a reasonable choice.
The important point is that these technologies address responsiveness rather than raw rendering performance.
They should not be confused with a solution to a fundamental CPU bottleneck.
Shadow Quality: The Easy Cut
Shadows are among the first settings worth reducing when GPU performance becomes a problem.
Lower-quality shadows can significantly reduce rendering demands while still looking acceptable.
For a mid-range PC, High can be a good starting point.
For a handheld, Low is much more sensible.
This is one of those settings where sacrificing some visual precision can deliver a worthwhile performance benefit.
Global Illumination: A Major GPU Cost
Global illumination controls how indirect lighting behaves throughout the environment.
The higher settings can become particularly expensive when ray tracing is involved.
Moving from Medium to High can therefore create a much larger performance penalty than players might expect from a single setting.
For a mid-range PC, Medium is a sensible compromise.
On handheld hardware, Low is the safer option.
Reflections: Beautiful but Expensive
Science-fiction environments naturally contain reflective materials.
Metal surfaces, polished floors, futuristic architecture, weapons, vehicles, and other objects can all make reflections particularly visible.
Unfortunately, ray-traced reflections can also be expensive.
Unless
On a handheld, Low makes considerably more sense.
Post Processing: More About Preference Than FPS
Post-processing combines numerous visual effects, including things such as bloom and motion blur.
The performance impact may not be dramatic compared with more expensive settings.
But there is another reason to lower it.
Some players simply dislike motion blur.
If that includes you, reducing post-processing can improve the subjective quality of the game even if your frame rate barely changes.
Textures: Watch Your VRAM
Texture quality is primarily a VRAM consideration.
If your graphics card has plenty of memory, higher texture settings can usually be maintained without a huge performance penalty.
But once you approach the VRAM limit, the situation can become much worse.
A useful strategy is to monitor VRAM usage during an actual mission rather than relying exclusively on benchmark numbers.
If your GPU has ample VRAM, Ultra textures may be perfectly reasonable.
If
Effect Quality: Important for CPU-Limited Systems
Explosions.
Debris.
Blaster fire.
Smoke.
Energy effects.
These visual elements may look like purely GPU-oriented features, but effect processing can also place meaningful demands on the CPU.
That makes Effect Quality one of the more interesting settings in Zero Company.
If your processor is the bottleneck, reducing this setting may help more than lowering some traditional graphics options.
For mid-range hardware, High is a reasonable target.
For handheld PCs, Low is safer.
Shading and Mesh Detail
Shading quality in this game is closely related to the complexity and detail of objects.
Higher settings can make environments look richer, but they can also increase memory requirements.
If
For mid-range systems, High is a reasonable compromise.
For handheld systems, Low can help keep the workload under control.
View Distance: A Surprisingly Easy Sacrifice
View distance controls how much distant detail remains visible.
In an enormous open-world game, reducing view distance can dramatically alter the experience.
In a tactical game built around relatively contained arenas, however, the impact can be considerably smaller.
That makes View Distance a good candidate for reducing when you need additional performance without sacrificing the core visual experience.
Medium on a mid-range PC and Low on a handheld are sensible starting points.
Hidden Objects Detail: A CPU Setting to Watch
This setting is particularly interesting because it deals with objects that aren’t currently visible.
It might seem strange to spend processing power on things outside your immediate view.
But games frequently need to maintain information about the wider environment.
If your CPU is struggling, simplifying hidden-object detail can therefore be worthwhile.
For CPU-limited machines, this may be more valuable than lowering several GPU-oriented settings.
Environment Geometry Detail
Environment Geometry Detail changes the complexity of objects within the scene.
The
That means owners of relatively modern systems should generally leave it enabled.
Older machines, particularly systems several years behind current hardware, may benefit from turning it off.
For a mid-range modern PC, keep it On.
For a handheld, Off is a reasonable starting point.
Best Starting Settings for a Mid-Range PC
Balanced 1440p Configuration
A sensible starting configuration would look something like this:
Window Mode: Fullscreen or Borderless
Upscaling: DLSS/FSR/XeSS
Upscaling Quality: Balanced
Frame Generation: On if desired
Latency Reduction: On
Shadows: High
Global Illumination: Medium
Reflections: Medium
Post Processing: Personal preference
Textures: High or Ultra depending on VRAM
Effects: High
Shading: High
View Distance: Medium
Hidden Objects: Simplified
Environment Geometry: On
This should provide a good compromise between image quality and performance.
Best Starting Settings for a Gaming Handheld
Prioritize Stability Over Eye Candy
Handheld systems have tighter thermal and power limits than desktop gaming PCs.
A sensible starting point would be:
Window Mode: Borderless
Upscaling: FSR/DLSS/XeSS depending on hardware
Upscaling Quality: Quality or Balanced
Frame Generation: On if supported
Latency Reduction: On
Shadows: Low
Global Illumination: Low
Reflections: Low
Post Processing: Personal preference
Textures: Medium
Effects: Low
Shading: Low
View Distance: Low
Hidden Objects: Simplified
Environment Geometry: Off
From there, increase individual settings one at a time.
Deep Analysis: How to Diagnose Star Wars Zero Company Performance
Start by Identifying the Bottleneck
Before changing dozens of settings, determine whether the CPU, GPU, VRAM, or memory subsystem is responsible.
On Windows, tools such as Task Manager can provide a basic overview.
For deeper monitoring, utilities such as MSI Afterburner with RTSS can expose frame-time behavior, GPU utilization, CPU utilization, temperatures, clocks, and VRAM usage.
The most important metric is often not average FPS.
It is frame time.
Monitor the GPU
A simple PowerShell approach can help you inspect available performance counters:
Get-Counter '\GPU Engine()\Utilization Percentage' -SampleInterval 1
This
If the GPU is consistently near full utilization while the CPU has room, you are probably GPU-bound.
Monitor CPU Activity
You can inspect processor utilization with:
Get-Counter '\Processor(_Total)\% Processor Time' -SampleInterval 1
However, total CPU usage can be misleading.
A game might heavily load a handful of CPU threads while overall utilization remains below 100%.
That is why per-core monitoring is much more useful during serious troubleshooting.
Watch VRAM
VRAM pressure can cause sudden performance problems that aren’t obvious from average FPS.
If your GPU is approaching its memory limit, try reducing:
Textures
Shading Quality
Shadow Quality
Textures are generally the first place to experiment because they can consume significant VRAM without necessarily changing CPU performance.
Look at Frame-Time Spikes
A stable 60 FPS corresponds to approximately 16.7 milliseconds per frame.
A sudden jump from 16.7ms to 40ms or 60ms will be perceived as a hitch even if your FPS counter quickly returns to 60.
This is why a game can advertise a respectable average frame rate while still feeling unpleasant.
Test During Actual Missions
Do not optimize only while standing in a menu.
Menus rarely represent the real workload.
Instead, choose a demanding mission or scene and monitor the system while moving around, triggering effects, engaging enemies, and entering new areas.
This reveals the conditions under which the engine actually struggles.
Change One Setting at a Time
If you change fifteen options simultaneously, you
Instead:
1. Record baseline FPS/frame time.
2. Change one setting.
3. Repeat the same scenario.
4. Record the result.
5. Keep or revert the change.
This simple process produces much more reliable optimization.
Use a Cap Instead of Chasing Maximum FPS
If your system constantly fluctuates between 75 and 110 FPS, a frame-rate cap can sometimes produce a smoother experience.
For a display operating at 60Hz, for example:
Target: 60 FPS
Frame budget: ~16.7 ms
The goal
Consistency matters.
Why CPU Utilization Can Be Misleading
Suppose a CPU has eight cores.
If one critical game thread is saturated while the remaining cores are lightly loaded, Task Manager might report only 30 to 50 percent overall CPU utilization.
The game can still be CPU-limited.
This is why Zero Company showing moderate total CPU usage does not necessarily mean that the processor isn’t responsible for a bottleneck.
Ray Tracing Deserves Special Attention
Ray tracing can dramatically increase GPU workload.
If Global Illumination or Reflections are set to High or Ultra and your frame rate collapses, try Medium before sacrificing every other graphical option.
This preserves much of the
Don’t Expect Upscaling to Fix CPU Bottlenecks
Upscaling reduces the number of pixels the GPU needs to render.
It does not magically make the CPU process game logic faster.
If your GPU is at 60 percent utilization and the CPU is holding back frame delivery, switching from native resolution to Performance mode may barely change your frame rate.
That is an important diagnostic clue.
Frame Generation
Frame generation can make the displayed frame rate look much higher, but the underlying game simulation still needs to be produced.
If your base frame rate is unstable, generated frames cannot completely eliminate the underlying problem.
For a turn-based game, however, the trade-off may still be worthwhile because the genre is relatively forgiving of additional latency.
What Undercode Say:
The Bigger Story Is Optimization
Star Wars Zero Company appears to have an unusually strong foundation.
The Clone Wars is an excellent setting for tactical combat, and the XCOM-style structure gives the Star Wars universe room to breathe beyond another conventional action game.
CPU Performance Is the Real Concern
The most interesting technical detail is not simply that the game can be demanding.
It is that CPU limitations appear capable of affecting even powerful systems.
That suggests some of the
More GPU Power
A player with an RTX 5090 can still encounter stutters.
That should immediately challenge the assumption that performance problems are exclusively graphics-related.
Handheld Players Have Less Room for Error
Handheld PCs operate within tighter power and thermal envelopes.
A game that is merely “a little demanding” on a desktop can become substantially more difficult to optimize on a handheld.
Unreal Engine 5 Needs Careful Scaling
UE5 offers enormous graphical potential.
But its most advanced features can create significant performance costs.
The challenge is not using impressive technology.
The challenge is scaling that technology across hundreds of hardware configurations.
Tactical Games Need Smooth Frame Times
A tactical game does not need 200 FPS.
But it does benefit from consistency.
A stable 60 FPS can feel significantly better than a game that repeatedly jumps between 45, 80, and 60 FPS.
Stutters Are More Noticeable Than Average FPS
Players tend to remember the moment the game freezes or hitches.
A high benchmark average cannot compensate for repeated frame-time spikes.
Cutscenes Are Especially Interesting
The reported problems during cutscenes suggest that the workload isn’t always tied directly to battlefield rendering.
That could indicate asset streaming, shader compilation, animation, effects, or other engine processes.
Shader Compilation Could Matter
Modern Unreal Engine games have increasingly drawn attention to shader compilation and traversal-related stutters.
If some hitches occur when entering new environments or triggering particular effects, shader and asset behavior becomes worth investigating.
The
The encouraging part is that many of these problems can potentially be improved through software.
Engine optimization, shader changes, asset streaming improvements, CPU scheduling adjustments, and better scalability can all produce meaningful gains.
Settings Are Only a Temporary Solution
Players can optimize around problems.
Developers can fix them.
Those are not the same thing.
A Good Settings Menu Is Still Valuable
The
They give PC players the ability to adapt the experience to different hardware.
But More Options
A thousand settings cannot fix a poorly optimized underlying workload.
The engine still has to distribute tasks efficiently.
Low-End Players Need Special Attention
The most important test for PC optimization
It’s how gracefully the game scales downward.
If a game runs beautifully on flagship hardware but poorly on mainstream PCs, its scalability needs more work.
The Mid-Range Market Is Huge
Most PC gamers
A game that performs well on mainstream hardware has a much better chance of building a large and satisfied audience.
DLSS and FSR Are Valuable Tools
Upscaling should be considered part of modern PC optimization rather than a desperate emergency measure.
When implemented properly, it can provide excellent results.
Frame Generation Fits This Genre
This is one of the rare cases where frame generation makes especially strong sense.
Because the game is turn-based, latency concerns are considerably less severe than they would be in a competitive shooter.
Ray Tracing Should Be Optional Luxury
Global illumination and reflections can look excellent.
But players should never need them enabled to experience the game’s artistic identity.
Medium Is Often the Sweet Spot
The jump from Medium to High can sometimes be visually subtle but computationally expensive.
Medium settings can therefore provide a surprisingly good balance.
Texture Quality Is Different
Textures are often easier to preserve when VRAM allows it.
Players should generally lower expensive lighting and reflection settings before aggressively reducing texture resolution on a high-VRAM GPU.
CPU Bottlenecks Require Different Thinking
If the processor is limiting performance, reduce settings that influence simulation, effects, hidden objects, and scene complexity.
Lowering textures
Benchmarking Needs Real Gameplay
Synthetic scenes
The most useful benchmark is a repeatable section of actual gameplay.
Consistency Should Be the Goal
The best configuration
It is the one that produces the most consistent experience.
The Game Has Enormous Potential
The technical problems are frustrating, but they
Star Wars and tactical strategy are an unusually good combination.
Clone Wars Is the Perfect Era
The era offers massive armies, recognizable factions, unusual planets, specialized units, Jedi, clones, droids, and political tension.
It gives tactical designers an enormous toolbox.
XCOM Fans Have Reason to Be Hopeful
For players who have been waiting for a modern tactical experience with cinematic storytelling, Zero Company could become something special if the technical foundation catches up with the design.
The Launch Period Will Be Critical
Early patches can dramatically change how a PC game is perceived.
A problematic launch does not necessarily predict the game’s long-term condition.
Developers Have a Clear Optimization Target
The performance profile described here gives developers useful clues.
CPU behavior, frame-time spikes, ray tracing, effects, and handheld scaling should all be closely examined.
Hardware Reviews Should Go Beyond Average FPS
A game can produce excellent average FPS and still feel terrible.
Frame-time consistency needs to be part of the conversation.
PC Players Should Avoid Panic Upgrades
If your current system is struggling,
Determine whether
Smart Optimization Beats Blind Downgrading
Reducing the right setting can produce a major improvement.
Reducing everything can make the game look worse without solving the actual bottleneck.
Patches Could Change the Recommendation
Today’s optimal settings may not be tomorrow’s optimal settings.
Engine updates and game patches can alter CPU and GPU behavior considerably.
The Real Test Is Scalability
Ultimately, the question is simple.
Can Star Wars Zero Company deliver its cinematic tactical vision across mainstream PCs, gaming laptops, and handhelds without forcing players to sacrifice too much visual quality?
That is the challenge that matters.
The Verdict From Undercode
The game appears to have the right idea.
Its biggest enemy may not be the Separatists, the battlefield, or the next tactical encounter.
It may be the engine itself.
If the developers can smooth out CPU spikes, frame-time inconsistencies, crashes, and hardware scaling problems, Star Wars Zero Company could become one of the more compelling tactical Star Wars experiences in years.
✅ The Game Can Be CPU-Limited
The supplied testing reports moderate overall GPU usage alongside CPU-related performance limitations, including spikes on high-end desktop hardware. This supports the conclusion that not every performance problem can be solved by reducing GPU-heavy settings.
✅ Upscaling Can Improve GPU Performance
DLSS, FSR, and XeSS reduce the internal rendering workload and can increase performance when the GPU is the bottleneck. Their effectiveness depends on the specific implementation and hardware.
⚠️ Settings Recommendations Are Not Universal
The suggested settings are useful starting points, not guaranteed optimal configurations. Resolution, GPU generation, VRAM capacity, CPU architecture, drivers, patches, and personal image-quality preferences can all change the ideal setup.
❌ A Powerful GPU Does Not Guarantee Perfect Performance
The presence of an RTX 5090 does not automatically eliminate CPU bottlenecks, engine stalls, shader-related hitches, or other sources of frame-time instability. High-end hardware can still encounter poorly optimized workloads.
Prediction
(+1) Performance Should Improve With Continued Patches
If the reported problems are primarily caused by engine optimization, asset streaming, CPU workloads, shader behavior, or scalability issues, future patches could substantially improve the experience.
(+1) Mid-Range PCs Could Become the Sweet Spot
Once optimization improves, players with mainstream CPUs and GPUs may be able to achieve a strong balance between image quality and performance without needing flagship hardware.
(+1) Handheld Performance Could Improve Significantly
Handheld PCs stand to benefit disproportionately from optimization. Reducing CPU overhead and improving scalability could make the game much more comfortable on lower-power devices.
(+1) Frame Generation Could Become Popular Among Tactical Players
Because this is a turn-based strategy experience rather than a competitive shooter, players may be more willing to accept the latency trade-off in exchange for smoother motion.
(-1) CPU Bottlenecks Could Remain the Hardest Problem
If the underlying engine workload is heavily dependent on a limited number of CPU threads, graphics settings alone may never completely eliminate certain frame-time spikes.
(-1) Low-End Hardware May Continue to Struggle
Even after optimization, visually ambitious Unreal Engine 5 games can remain demanding. Players with older CPUs, limited VRAM, or integrated graphics should not expect patches to transform the game into a lightweight title.
(+1) The Long-Term Potential Remains Strong
If the developers can bring the technical side under control, the combination of Star Wars, Clone Wars storytelling, squad tactics, and XCOM-inspired gameplay has the potential to become something much bigger than a simple licensed strategy game.
▶️ Related Video (72% Match):
🕵️📝Let’s dive deep and fact‑check.
🎓 Live Courses & Certifications:
Join Undercode Academy for Verified Certifications
🚀 Request a Custom Project:
Secure, high-velocity infrastructure and disruptive technological engineering. Contact our engineering team for high-tier development and proprietary systems:
[email protected]
💎 Smart Architecture | 🛡️ Secure by Design | ⭐ Trusted by Thousands
References:
Reported By: www.ign.com
Extra Source Hub (Possible Sources for article):
https://www.stackexchange.com
Wikipedia
OpenAi & Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
🔐JOIN OUR CYBER WORLD [ CVE News • HackMonitor • UndercodeNews ]
📢 Follow UndercodeNews & Stay Tuned:
𝕏 formerly Twitter 🐦 | @ Threads | 🔗 Linkedin | 🦋BlueSky | 🐘Mastodon | 📺Youtube
