Review: Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics benchmark analysis

he has been trolling for past few pages. Ignore him.

 

Could the bad results from graphic cards mean its ported down from consoles?

 

can you prntscrn your graphics settings

 

I've settled for everything on high, textures at ultra, taa on high and resolution scale to 150%. Makes TAA that more usable, and without the shimmer you get for playing without it. Only downside is that I'm playing on ~40 FPS instead of ~60 FPS which is a downer but hopefully we'll see some improvements soon.

 

Hey @Hilbert Hagedoorn Do you remember if GTA V had performance issues at launch? It was a while ago so I can't remember I think I was still on my Q6600 and dual 570s back then.

 

It had both performance issues and they introduced a commit leak in the first patch.

 

I love when nVidia cards are not doing that well we must blame the developers but when AMD cards (or every products really) are not doing well then it's all on AMD. Obviously it's Rockstar so we all knew it was going to be a piss poor console port. But it doesn't change the fact the 2070 Super doesn't look good at all here for the price it is sold at.

Really RTX lineup (outside of maybe 2080) doesn't look great and i don't think nVidia needs any help here to not make it look great. And this is coming from someone who has been using nVidia cards for the past 15 years. RTX 2070 Super is barely better than a 5700 XT and in Canada it is currently 120$ (138$ with taxes) more expensive. Unless you care very very very much about underpar ray tracing performance man this is a hard pill to shallow.

At this point my decision is pretty much final i'll go with a 5700 XT. It's 540$ CAD instead of 660$ CAD for the 2070 Super. I'll jump into ray tracing in 2-3 years when it will be more mature.

 

Rage engine has evolved. From a single threaded dx11 and nvidia favored to multi threaded dx12 amd favored.

Pretty streight forward.

 

Now that I've played the game, as a 1080 Ti user. I think the fps is kind of justified. If ya'll just went in and saw the graphics, and i mean really see them for what they are. They done did it again,
pushed a lot of stuff to their absolute limit. The game is utterly gorgeous and I'm starting to wonder how its even running real-time at all. All the whining about it being poorly optimized is ignorant at best.

 

This. I still can't get over how negative people are being. I'm not making excuses for Rockstar or Nvidia, but I think a game like this with it's cinematic style and excellent animation works just fine and plays very fluid even in the 40fps range. Not to mention it's much slower paced than something like GTA 5.

 

system requirements are wrong though....

Minimum Specifications:
OS: Windows 7 - Service Pack 1 (6.1.7601)

• Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K / AMD FX-6300
• Memory: 8GB
• Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 2GB / AMD Radeon R9 280 3GB
• HDD Space: 150GB
• Sound Card: DirectX compatible

Recommended Specifications:
OS: Windows 10 - April 2018 Update (v1803)

• Processor: Intel Core i7-4770K / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
• Memory: 12GB
• Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB / AMD Radeon RX 480 4GB
• HDD Space: 150GB
• Sound Card: DirectX compatible

My card is the Recommended Card?

 

Recommendations cover medium settings.

 

Im negative... and what is that approach you are showing? 40 fps plays very fluid? Oh ok. For me 60fps is the absolute minimum since last 5 years at least, and all of sudden, 40 fps is all good.
Anyway this is the most demanding game of the year by the order of magnitude. We had beautifully optimized games like Gears 5 which I played on close to ultra and this RDR2 I cant play at 60fps on everything low all of sudden. What ever. Im glad you are happy.

 

Yes, so what is the min specs? GTX 770 2G and FX 6300, Thats for low + 720p at 24fps I guess. And I dont even believe its the case. Wow, thats fair!!! Not misleading at all. Putting such extremely low min specs is just fake. GTX 1060 6GB recommended can hardly play the game - thats really cool to recommend it.

These specs they posted are lunatic from start to end. Makes the customer believe he can run the game and enjoy it, while in fact, he cant at all. Honesty at its best!

 

i agree, worst off is there are fermi users trying to run it.....

 

I honestly feel like people are playing a different game than I am since I'm just not having any problems. Perhaps they are a lot further along than I am. Perhaps I just got lucky. I've played maybe 3-4 hours, I've made it into Valentine, and a bit beyond that. I'm running it on Ultra, 1080p/144, getting really good results. (runs smooth, I'll have to check the frame-rate). My rig is nothing special. All stock 1070/4790K/16GB. Only trouble has been two game crashes. One, before I even started playing as it loaded story mode and another when I made it to the mountain encampment during a cut-scene transition. I'm (still) using a ~6 month old driver. 430.64. Perhaps that's an issue as I read that people using really old drivers are seeing the game run better than with the newest one. This game does have some pretty stunning visuals. Perhaps, turn the settings down a bit?

As for the game? It's phenomenal! The quality and work put in is just astounding. The story is quite solid, a bit like being in an Old West movie. I barely have interest in gaming anymore but this game, I played until I passed out yesterday. Woke up, played a little more before work. That hasn't happened in years.

I hope all of you having issues get it sorted out. This is a fantastic game.

 

​

https://www.sweclockers.com/test/28500-red-dead-redemption-2-sweclockers-utmanar-systemkraven

The minimum requirements are almost enough for a 30 FPS minimum target at 1080p lowest, with the 770 getting 27 FPS minimum. They didn't test the FX 6300 because they don't have it.
According to DF, base PS4 runs it at 1080p with drops down to the 20s. One X runs at 4k but still 30 FPS.

Move up to the recommended settings and the game will run better. Easily 60 FPS targeting low, experience between 30-60 FPS targeting medium.

The specs listed can however clearly play the game. I'm waiting for DF to say if the lowest are equal to or better than consoles.
Comparing RDR2 to Gears 5 is useless, totally different cases.

Rockstar, and everyone else in the industry, should however start always telling what settings the official requirements are targeting. That all millions of PC gamers have different views of what the requirements should cover, what the acceptable performance figures should be etc, is just making PC gaming into a freaking mess.

 

I agree with you on almost all points, but realistically - ALL cards are doing VERY bad atm in RDR2. just because one has better results than the other that usually does, does not mean the results are great on either of them. I mean, when you have something like 2080Ti (and that could have been an AMD card for all I care) getting bottlenecked at 1080p @ ~130fps avg, I mean....surely you can see how badly game has been ported.
5700xt is a good card anyway, you are not making a mistake. nV overpriced their cards way too much.

 

Do you understand the architectural changes and the various API additions that exploit those enhancements?

This game is the heaviest in terms of sheer integer and floating point that we can probably say has been released to date.
And we don't even know the extent of the API in use, or features like rapid packed math (which pascal CAN'T do)

Question: Are people here forgetting the 8 series coming out and making the 6 and 7 series look like chumps in DX9 games simply through architectural differences?

 

Yeah, I have the same issue. Low textures on whatever settings I use.

Besides that, the games runs pretty great for me. (5700 XT)