Red Dead Redemption 2 PC benchmarks- move over Crysis ; UPDATED

[S w a t s o n]

2 hours ago, CTR640 said:

So wtf is this? My 1080Ti is a piece of garbage shit now? Wow R*, you are as worst as Bugisoft.

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

In other words, terrible optimization because R* didn't bother to make the game run decently on anything older than Turing based cards.

IMO not worth getting this game for PC, guess i'll wait for a sale or stick to console for Rockstar games.

This is why we can't have nice things. The optimization would only come from Nvidia's side. Rockstar isnt tinkering with things that are on the architecture level. When people cry UNOPTIMIZED at a game because it has advanced and taxing settings you encourage them to release Ultra settings that dont look any better than high or artifically limit what the game engine could produce.

RDR2 uses more advanced technologies than GTA V a game known to run like ass if you ACTUALLY make EVERYTHING max settings including advanced graphics options. Almost every video of gta v that claims to be max settings isnt because they dont max out msaa or turn on nvidia txaa if available or dont max out everything in the separate advanced options.

8 hours ago, Humbug said:

Ya, even in the guru3d comments under this article there are lots of people accusing nvidia of gimping. I think many people don't understand that what is going on is not active gimping, it is just that the nvidia software engineers who have limited time are spending their manhours trying to make Turing as fast as possible in the latest AAA games.

 

Older generations don't get the same attention because they are not trying to convince people to buy them anymore, that doesn't mean they are gimped or intentionally slowed down- just less optimized.

This is true although I think nvidia fucked up or may have done this intentionally. They arent like Radeon, they ARE the leading GPU maker. If anyone has enough engineers it's Nvidia, imo.

 

11 hours ago, Humbug said:

Some people seem to be having better luck on DX12 and some on Vulkan with this game. Not sure why. Best to try it yourself on your individual rig and see which is smoother.

Seems to me like Nvidia is about par on both but AMD should probably stick with vulkan no matter what. The game does default to it so not much risk there but I wouldnt waste time benching both on AMD.

[Tristerin]

Actually testing the R9 Fury series and posting this...awesome lol I was curious if I should buy this game if it would run well enough

[Skiiwee29]

4 hours ago, CTR640 said:

So wtf is this? My 1080Ti is a piece of garbage shit now? Wow R*, you are as worst as Bugisoft.

only if you run it in DX12 mode.. run it in Vulkan and you good. 

[Froody129]

Everyone: We want a new Crysis that really pushes modern hardware!

 

Rockstar: releases game that looks amazing where ultra is actually difficult to run for current gen 

 

Everyone: muh optimizations! 

[vanished]

2 hours ago, Tristerin said:

Actually testing the R9 Fury series and posting this...awesome lol I was curious if I should buy this game if it would run well enough

I like how the Fury is destroying the 1060 despite being largely similar in most other games lol

very odd

[atxcyclist]

Apparently my GTX 1060 just became a doorstop for current games. 

[SkilledRebuilds]

4 hours ago, SpookyCitrus said:

Calm down guys it's literally the second day the games been out, they have already pushed out 2 game and 2 launcher updates today, they're working as hard and fast as possible to get the game running smoothly for everyone. They can't test everyone's system before they release the game, they have some build combos they test it out on before release but it's not as intensive or the same drivers and programs, everyone's system is different, within the next couple weeks they'll have it sorted out and I'm sure running much more optimized.

While I agree...

I Still paid real $money's.

Game shouldn't be THIS broken (outside of GPU performance)

[Humbug]

 

2 hours ago, Froody129 said:

Everyone: We want a new Crysis that really pushes modern hardware!

 

Rockstar: releases game that looks amazing where ultra is actually difficult to run for current gen 

 

Everyone: muh optimizations! 

The question is- For those of you who have played it on PC- is it the best looking game to date technically?

Hard to judge from compressed online videos and static screenshots, games always look better in person. If the graphics horsepower has been put to good efficient use then it's very justified IMO.

[vanished]

3 hours ago, Humbug said:

The question is- For those of you who have played it on PC- is it the best looking game to date technically?

Hard to judge from compressed online videos and static screenshots, games always look better in person. If the graphics horsepower has been put to good efficient use then it's very justified IMO.

That's really the question.  I think (or at least hope) that people realize that demanding != unoptimized.  Unoptimized means it's unreasonably demanding for the visuals - hard to run but doesn't look good for it compared to other titles.  If it's just hard to run but looks great, then there's nothing wrong, it's just a demanding, good looking game.

[LeSheen]

Well rip my 2070 on a 3440x1440 resolution. Looks like I will be picking it up in a sale in maybe 5 years?

[Rupe]

Just got a new 1440p monitor. Looks like I'm probably gonna have to play it either low 1440p or medium 1080p for the frames I want with my 1080. Would of been nice if they had included some benchmarks of lower quality settings. 

[Brehohn]

I am on 3440x1440, using a mixture of high and medium settings. 1080ti, 8700k, 32gb 3200mhz ram. I get 45 to 60fps which isnt horrible at all.

 

TL;DR, hopefully wait for the 3000 series nvidia cards.

[Brehohn]

Also, for anyone saying that this game is a "bad" console port, please understand and remember how demanding GTA V was back in 2015 during the 900 series Nvidia cards.

Normal texture settings got you above 60fps on 1440p. Very High texture settings got you 60fps or less at the same. Yes, even the Titan struggled.

The game did improve over time, but the next generation of cards literally made it much more playable and eventually, even a GTX 980 mobile chip could run the game above 60fps consistently at higher settings.

So either upgrade your GPU to the 2000 series, or wait for the next generation. It's up to you. This is the first game to actually put my 1080Ti to work after 2 years. So next year sounds like upgrade time.

The time is now, old man.

[TheNamelessOne]

6 minutes ago, Brehohn said:

Also, for anyone saying that this game is a "bad" console port, please understand and remember how demanding GTA V was back in 2015 during the 900 series Nvidia cards.

Uh what? Dude I played GTA V on a 8800GT without a problem when it came out. Low and medium settings 1080p and was getting between 30-50 fps. 

[GoldenLag]

8 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I like how the Fury is destroying the 1060 despite being largely similar in most other games lol

very odd

it could be possible they made the game with async compute in mind. something every new card has these days. from GCN onwards from AMD (dont know if terrascale had it) and Turing Onwards with Nvidia. 

 

hopefully pascal gets a bump down the line with a few patches. perhaps Vulcan will get a nice bump ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[CTR640]

1 hour ago, Brehohn said:

Also, for anyone saying that this game is a "bad" console port, please understand and remember how demanding GTA V was back in 2015 during the 900 series Nvidia cards.

Normal texture settings got you above 60fps on 1440p. Very High texture settings got you 60fps or less at the same. Yes, even the Titan struggled.

The game did improve over time, but the next generation of cards literally made it much more playable and eventually, even a GTX 980 mobile chip could run the game above 60fps consistently at higher settings.

So either upgrade your GPU to the 2000 series, or wait for the next generation. It's up to you. This is the first game to actually put my 1080Ti to work after 2 years. So next year sounds like upgrade time.

The time is now, old man.

Except GTAV is not a console port. It has always run awesome on my GTX780 with Textures on Very High and other settings a mixture of high and very high and steady 1080p60. And it has run awesome since launch day. 

[williamcll]

Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum

 

[Dabombinable]

5 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That's really the question.  I think (or at least hope) that people realize that demanding != unoptimized.  Unoptimized means it's unreasonably demanding for the visuals - hard to run but doesn't look good for it compared to other titles.  If it's just hard to run but looks great, then there's nothing wrong, it's just a demanding, good looking game.

ARK is a good example if a game that is optimized (talking game level) badly. With RDR2 we will be seeing driver updates that improve performance.

[Brehohn]

1 hour ago, CTR640 said:

Except GTAV is not a console port. It has always run awesome on my GTX780 with Textures on Very High and other settings a mixture of high and very high and steady 1080p60. And it has run awesome since launch day. 

How was GTA V not a console port? It launched on console, people petitioned for the game to even be considered for PC release, and we got it 2 years later. The 980 was fresh at the time so yeah, of course a 780 will do decent, but only with a mixture of settings like you said at 1080p. Whereas the 980 and 980ti could achieve 60fps easier, at launch, at 1440p.

 

Same thing is happening with my 1080ti. 2 year old hardware does decently well enough, but the 2080ti is able to perform more stable at 60fps, very high settings, 1440p.

[CTR640]

49 minutes ago, Brehohn said:

How was GTA V not a console port? It launched on console, people petitioned for the game to even be considered for PC release, and we got it 2 years later. The 980 was fresh at the time so yeah, of course a 780 will do decent, but only with a mixture of settings like you said at 1080p. Whereas the 980 and 980ti could achieve 60fps easier, at launch, at 1440p.

 

Same thing is happening with my 1080ti. 2 year old hardware does decently well enough, but the 2080ti is able to perform more stable at 60fps, very high settings, 1440p.

GTA4 was worse. At that time the most highest end GPU's were the ATi HD4870 and it ran like shit. The whole Gtaforums.com was overflooded with issues. The GTX780 was a bit old when GTAV came out and it does very well, actually much better than expected. But if GTAV PC is a port, then it's extraordinary optimized. The 980 and 980Ti are better than 780, that's true. 

[Brehohn]

3 hours ago, CTR640 said:

GTA4 was worse. At that time the most highest end GPU's were the ATi HD4870 and it ran like shit. The whole Gtaforums.com was overflooded with issues. The GTX780 was a bit old when GTAV came out and it does very well, actually much better than expected. But if GTAV PC is a port, then it's extraordinary optimized. The 980 and 980Ti are better than 780, that's true. 

I have a 1080Ti and am not complaining a single bit. This game IS intensive to run. It's running on an engine that has TONS of ways to cater to your experience. You're saying its buggy and unoptimized. Do we need to remind you how bad Fallout 76 was? This has a launcher and loading issue, that can be fixed. This game actually supports ultrawide, HDR, ingame voice chat, etc. It could be WAY WORSE. Just because you spent $1000 TWO years ago doesnt mean your card is going to outlast 2 or 3 years. Graphical technologies are in fast pace right now. Get a 2080Ti or wait for the 3000 series.

 

Meanwhile, dont complain about something you havent even bought. I have a 1080ti, 8700k, and 32gb of ram enjoying this game from 45 to 60fps on ultrawide settings. So unless you have 4K or ultrawide, I'm sure you will be fine at high settings at 1080p or 1440p.

[CTR640]

11 minutes ago, Brehohn said:

I have a 1080Ti and am not complaining a single bit. This game IS intensive to run. It's running on an engine that has TONS of ways to cater to your experience. You're saying its buggy and unoptimized. Do we need to remind you how bad Fallout 76 was? This has a launcher and loading issue, that can be fixed. This game actually supports ultrawide, HDR, ingame voice chat, etc. It could be WAY WORSE. Just because you spent $1000 TWO years ago doesnt mean your card is going to outlast 2 or 3 years. Graphical technologies are in fast pace right now. Get a 2080Ti or wait for the 3000 series.

 

Meanwhile, dont complain about something you havent even bought. I have a 1080ti, 8700k, and 32gb of ram enjoying this game from 45 to 60fps on ultrawide settings. So unless you have 4K or ultrawide, I'm sure you will be fine at high settings at 1080p or 1440p.

Excuse me but why are you implying I spent $1000 TWO years ago on it? No, I didn't, I waited at the right moment for it to be under €700 and it did: €680 and that was last year. I had my 780 since April 2014 and September 2018 it got upgraded. I am very well aware the 1080Ti will be weak in future. I expected R* to optimise RDR2 as they did with GTAV but maybe most of us were naive.

 

And now, I don't play Fallout 76 but I heard it's bad. But I only play open-world games and in this case, only GTA and some older games too. I'll see when I'll get RDR2.

[TigerHawk]

56 minutes ago, Brehohn said:

I have a 1080Ti and am not complaining a single bit. This game IS intensive to run. It's running on an engine that has TONS of ways to cater to your experience. You're saying its buggy and unoptimized. Do we need to remind you how bad Fallout 76 was? This has a launcher and loading issue, that can be fixed. This game actually supports ultrawide, HDR, ingame voice chat, etc. It could be WAY WORSE. Just because you spent $1000 TWO years ago doesnt mean your card is going to outlast 2 or 3 years. Graphical technologies are in fast pace right now. Get a 2080Ti or wait for the 3000 series.

 

Meanwhile, dont complain about something you havent even bought. I have a 1080ti, 8700k, and 32gb of ram enjoying this game from 45 to 60fps on ultrawide settings. So unless you have 4K or ultrawide, I'm sure you will be fine at high settings at 1080p or 1440p.

My beef isn't that my $1000 card is getting old. My beef is that, in literally every other title(well, every other title that review sites benchmark with) it is performing roughly on par with the 2080 or 5700 XT. There are a few percents here and there swinging in either direction for all three, but they are mostly +/- 10%. You can use that and generalize over most of the AAA games out right now and be pretty safe and expect a certain performance.

 

But in this particular game, the 2080 and 5700XT are performing as expected but suddenly all of the pascal cards, as a GPU family, don't follow this trend? Why? The most obvious conclusion to draw is the drivers were not optimized for the pascal architecture. nVidia is a business after all, and they are just as aware as we are how strong of an architecture pascal was. It makes sense they would want to purposefully make them underperform in a new, very popular first-time-on-PC title like this to get people to buy into their new stuff. Maybe purposefully underperform are the wrong words. More like....not necessarily do their best to optimize the driver for them? Like they had their A team working on Turing optimizations and the C team who only works Tuesdays and Thursdays doing pascal? lol.

 

I actually don't think this thought is that tinfoilhat-y.

[MichaelWd]

15 hours ago, Humbug said:

 

The question is- For those of you who have played it on PC- is it the best looking game to date technically?

Hard to judge from compressed online videos and static screenshots, games always look better in person. If the graphics horsepower has been put to good efficient use then it's very justified IMO.

It would be super useful if anyone could answer this. It looks pretty amazing from the videos but I can't be sure. The snow especially.

[Mira Yurizaki]

I don't think it's fair to solely blame NVIDIA for not optimizing drivers for Pascal, if that is even the case. Outside of trying to do some promotional/branding deal, It's not NVIDIA's responsibility to go out and optimize someone else's application, mostly because they need to have access to the shader code of the engine to begin with. It's up to the application's developer to contact the manufacturer for help in optimizing the shader code. If Rockstar did ask NVIDIA for help but NVIDIA chose to not incorporate the changes (which they could easily verify), Rockstar would, one would think, make a stink about this.