# Red Dead Redemption 2 Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2019)

Red Dead Redemption 2 is the best-looking game ever released. You're getting a huge graphics upgrade over the console version. As expected, impressive visuals come with high hardware requirements. We tested the game on 23 graphics cards, at three resolutions, and took a closer look at DirectX 12 vs. Vulkan, too.

*Show full review*


----------



## TheLostSwede (Nov 6, 2019)

Clearly not optimised for 4K...


----------



## mgilbert (Nov 6, 2019)

Why isn't anyone testing this game at lower settings, for those of us that don't have $1,200 video cards???


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 6, 2019)

Oh man Pascal is having it rough recently.2070 Super beat 1080Ti by 14% in Modern Warfare and now 18% in RDR2.And Vega 64 is just 5% slower.
This may turn into Kepler to Maxwell scenario again with Pascal cards not supporting fp+int and fp16.


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 6, 2019)

Remember when everyone said the 3GB variant of the 1060 was fine ? Yeah ...



mgilbert said:


> Why isn't anyone testing this game at lower settings, for those of us that don't have $1,200 video cards???



Probably it's one of those cases when going just one tier below in quality results in a major boost in performance. This game ran on a Xbox One, it can't be that bad.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 6, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Remember when everyone said the 3GB variant of the 1060 was fine ? Yeah ...


an they recommended 570 4GB instead,yeah.....


----------



## Tartaros (Nov 6, 2019)

After all the fuss GTA V made on pc with all the micro transaction money they make because it is still popular, I supposed they would release a better port this time. It's shameless.


----------



## Chomiq (Nov 6, 2019)

mgilbert said:


> Why isn't anyone testing this game at lower settings, for those of us that don't have $1,200 video cards???


Never knew that 1060 3G is a $1,200 video card.


----------



## PerfectWave (Nov 6, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> Oh man Pascal is having it rough recently.2070 Super beat 1080Ti by 14% in Modern Warfare and now 18% in RDR2.And Vega 64 is just 5% slower.
> This may turn into Kepler to Maxwell scenario again with Pascal cards not supporting fp+int and fp16.


pascal sucks in DX12 and vulcan


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 6, 2019)

PerfectWave said:


> pascal sucks in DX12 and vulcan


it's doing good in games that nvidia put some effort to optimize.
they took time to improve pascal pefromance in doom and hitman and the improvements were huge.1070 even outperformed Vega 56 at 4K 









						MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Gaming review
					

We review the MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Gaming edition. The new Ti is aimed at and against the Radeon Rx Vega 56 from AMD and obviously sits in-between the GeForce GTX 1070 and 1080. In this review, we ... Vulkan: DOOM (2016)




					www.guru3d.com
				




before the driver optimization









						AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB review
					

In this review we take the 399 USD Radeon RX Vega 56 with 8GB graphics memory for a spin. This more affordable AMD graphics card might actually be the better proposition value for money wise. ... Vulkan: DOOM (2016)




					www.guru3d.com
				




+14% peformance with just the driver


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 6, 2019)

Tartaros said:


> I supposed they would release a better port this time. It's shameless.



Why would they, they know everyone is going to eat up whatever garbage they spit out. I wouldn't touch anything Rockstar makes on the PC, I for one am not willing to pay 60$ for a game that was already released a while ago just because they want to squeeze out every penny out of a shitty port. It is truly unforgiving for a game that broke records in profit to be delivered like this.


----------



## 64K (Nov 6, 2019)

Definitely one of the best games out there right now. If Rockstar hadn't been Rockstar and released the PC version along with the console version then I would gladly pay full price for this game but they made me wait for a year so I will wait for a sale. The PC version will also be patched by then. I'm patient.


----------



## mgilbert (Nov 6, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> Never knew that 1060 3G is a $1,200 video card.


You obviously misunderstood my point.  Everyone is testing this game at Ultra settings only, and the only cards that can reach a solid 60 FPS at ultra settings are expensive cards.  I want to see the game tested at 1080p with high, medium, and low settings.  I'm sure I'm not the only person out there running a 480/580/1060, etc.  We would like to know what settings we'd have to use to make the game playable, if indeed, it can even be played on an average, two or three year old card.


----------



## Xuper (Nov 6, 2019)

different between Vega 56 and 590 is massive and it's just ported to PC ,Without any optimization ,Now Think If this game was ported from PS5 to PC, it would be nightmare.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Nov 6, 2019)

Nvidia is pissed right now lol.


----------



## ZeppMan217 (Nov 6, 2019)

Curious about the lack of 1660 Super from the results.


----------



## lemkeant (Nov 6, 2019)

I played this on XboneX and loved it. The story is amazing, but W1zzard nailed it harping on the controls and the "horse riding simulator". 

I might grab this on PC in the future, but have way too many hours in the console version to want to play it all over again


----------



## tussinman (Nov 6, 2019)

Will wait till at least next month when it launches on Steam. Should have at least 1 if not 2 patches/driver updates by then.



Vya Domus said:


> Remember when everyone said the 3GB variant of the 1060 was fine ? Yeah ...


 Yeah seems fine to me. Despite being over 3 years old (and being on the lower side of mid tier) it's still running games well.......


----------



## TheGuruStud (Nov 6, 2019)

tussinman said:


> Will wait till at least next month when it launches on Steam. Should have at least 1 if not 2 patches/driver updates by then.
> 
> Yeah seems fine to me. Despite being over 3 years old (and being on the lower side of mid tier) it's still running games well.......



I must be in a different universe.


----------



## kings (Nov 6, 2019)

So, we need a $650~$700 GPU to play at 1440p 60fps average... 1080p 60fps requires a 1080Ti/2070 Super/RX 5700XT...

Man, this thing is the new Crysis, eating GPUs for breakfast.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 6, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> I must be in a different universe.


you are.


----------



## tussinman (Nov 6, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> I must be in a different universe.


 I guess so. It's not gonna shatter records but for a 3.5 year old lower mid-tier card it still runs most recent games on high settings 1080p (recent techpowerup reviews of gears 5 and yesterdays COD benchmark it was getting over 50FPS on ultra).


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2019)

ZeppMan217 said:


> Curious about the lack of 1660 Super from the results.


Will include it in future articles I think, but generally wondering if it's worth including all those SKUs that have only small differences


----------



## TheGuruStud (Nov 6, 2019)

tussinman said:


> I guess so. It's not gonna shatter records but for a 3.5 year old lower mid-tier card it still runs most recent games on high settings 1080p (recent techpowerup reviews of gears 5 and yesterdays COD benchmark it was getting over 50FPS on ultra).



It wasn't recommend THREE years ago, b/c it was obvious what was going to happen then. It was already suffering on heavy titles and 1/.1% lows were worse pretty much across the board. And as soon as you smacked into the vram limit, fps tanked in some games. Best case scenario you get a nice stutterfest with decent average framerate. Yay.

It was a scam card and dummies fell for it in droves. Not to mention fewer SPs...


----------



## ShurikN (Nov 6, 2019)

mgilbert said:


> Why isn't anyone testing this game at lower settings, for those of us that don't have $1,200 video cards???


Both Hardware Unboxed and Gamers Nexus tested at high. Although GN did some tinkering with the settings. Check their site for details.



W1zzard said:


> Will include it in future articles I think, but generally wondering if it's worth including all those SKUs that have only small differences


Ti and a regular 1660 are enough. We all know the super follows the same pattern in almost every game, being a couple % behind the Ti.


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 6, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Remember when everyone said the 3GB variant of the 1060 was fine ? Yeah ...



Yeah the GTX 1060 3GB plays the game at a crummy 26.7 avg FPS but the 6GB version is buttery smooth 28.1FPS...


----------



## tussinman (Nov 6, 2019)

TheGuruStud said:


> It wasn't recommend THREE years ago, b/c it was obvious what was going to happen then. It was already suffering on heavy titles and 1/.1% lows were worse pretty much across the board. And as soon as you smacked into the vram limit, fps tanked in some games. Best case scenario you get a nice stutterfest with decent average framerate. Yay.


 You slamming what is basically a budget 5+ year old gtx 970 as a scam card on the basis of a few poorly optimized games ?

"Obvious of what was going to happen". Eh what happened ? There's not a single game it can't run at regular high settings 1080p despite being a 3.5 year old lower mid tier card. I'm not seeing the drama or controversy ?



dirtyferret said:


> Yeah the GTX 1060 3GB plays the game at a crummy 26.7 avg FPS but the 6GB version is buttery smooth 28.1FPS...


 Yeah it's not that this game is poorly optimized its a fringe mid level card from over 3 years ago that's the issue


----------



## Steevo (Nov 6, 2019)

Sounds like I need an upgrade......

Sorry 7970, its been a good run.


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 6, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> an they recommended 570 4GB instead,yeah.....



the extra 1GB gets you .3 FPS avg increase!  If thats not a win for AMD I don't know what is...


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 6, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> the extra 1GB gets you .3 FPS avg increase!  If thats not a win for AMD I don't know what is...


yup gotta be vyadomus to look at those results and say the problem is vram on nvidia cards.
what is the reason for rx590 matching 1070 ? vram too ? 1660ti is 20% faster than 1070 and it's got 6GB.


----------



## Dyatlov A (Nov 6, 2019)

Works awesome with Windows 7 and my Geforce 1660ti gets precisely as much points as in this review. but what would happen if I would try to apply directx 12? I did not dare, maybe the game would not start anymore and i could not switch back.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2019)

Dyatlov A said:


> but what would happen if I would try to apply directx 12? I did not dare, maybe the game would not start anymore and i could not switch back.


You should be fine, but no point changing to DX12 I think. Still, if it crashes, edit the settings xml file in My Documents -> Rockstar -> RDR2


----------



## Jism (Nov 6, 2019)

Windows 7 does'nt support DX12. It's limited to DX11 only and Vulkan.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2019)

Jism said:


> Windows 7 does'nt support DX12. It's limited to DX11 only and Vulkan.


Oh whoops, I didnt realize you had Windows 7


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 6, 2019)

@W1zzard Steven at the hwunboxed said that one have to equal graphical setting manually for every card, because of given preset for one card was not the same for the other(as like Ultra preset for graphics card A is not the same as Ultra on graphics card B). Did you notice the same behavior?


----------



## Jism (Nov 6, 2019)

W1zzard said:


> Oh whoops, I didnt realize you had Windows 7



I never said i have?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> @W1zzard Steven at the hwunboxed said that one have to equal graphical setting manually for every card, because of given preset for one card was not the same for the other(as like Ultra preset for graphics card A is not the same as Ultra on graphics card B). Did you notice the same behavior?


I think what he's seeing is the game auto-configure itself when a GPU change is detected. I disabled that of course.

Our new "relative differences" chart should show such fishy differences quickly


----------



## Vya Domus (Nov 6, 2019)

tussinman said:


> Yeah seems fine to me.





> With DirectX 12 these two cards would crash all the time at the same settings, due to lack of memory



Don't seem all that fine to me but the standards fall with each passing day I guess.


----------



## tussinman (Nov 6, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Don't seem all that fine to me but the standards fall with each passing day I guess.


 Wizard: "runs fine at 1080p Vulkan at high details"

So essentially the only reason it's not fine is if you want to argue an optional technicality on a poorly optimized game........ (basically if you have nothing better to do then nitpick it's bad while in terms of real/practical purposes all the 1060 owners will be playing it fine no complaining)



Vayra86 said:


> This ain't fine. This is a lazy port.


 That's my point. People are slamming the 1060 3GB on the basis of a poorly optimized game and  optional setting with the main compliant being 3GB can't cut it. In reality the 1060 owners will play this game and not complain day 1 and performance is only going to increase over time with drivers and patches


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 6, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> Oh man Pascal is having it rough recently.2070 Super beat 1080Ti by 14% in Modern Warfare and now 18% in RDR2.And Vega 64 is just 5% slower.
> This may turn into Kepler to Maxwell scenario again with Pascal cards not supporting fp+int and fp16.



Yup. Planned obscolescence 'lite', really...

But this game's optimization... what the hell. I'm staying far away when a 1080 can't even do 50 FPS averages... on 1080p! and even a 2080ti peaks at 85? What?

All things considered I can't say this game can be any sort of benchmark to gauge GPU performance... Its a shitshow



tussinman said:


> Wizard: "runs fine at 1080p Vulkan at high details"
> 
> So essentially the only reason it's not fine is if you want to argue an optional technicality........ (basically if you have nothing better to do then nitpick it's bad while in real/practical purposes all the 1060 owners will be playing it fine no complaining)



This ain't fine. This is a lazy port and clearly optimized around a 30 FPS target for consoles. Put this next to GTA V and its a complete and utter joke.


----------



## Cheeseball (Nov 6, 2019)

Game runs around 60 to 90 FPS on a mix of 1080p medium and high settings (Vulkan Graphics API) on a Dell G5 5587 (GTX 1060 Max-Q).

I believe it should run around 100 FPS straight high settings on a RX 5700 XT. Hopefully I don't run into the AM4 BIOS problem people are reporting when I try it at home.

It seems like Rockstar Crysis'd this game though.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 6, 2019)

tussinman said:


> Wizard: "runs fine at 1080p Vulkan at high details"
> 
> So essentially the only reason it's not fine is if you want to argue an optional technicality on a poorly optimized game........ (basically if you have nothing better to do then nitpick it's bad while in terms of real/practical purposes all the 1060 owners will be playing it fine no complaining)
> 
> That's my point. People are slamming the 1060 3GB on the basis of a poorly optimized game and  optional setting. In reality the 1060 owners will play this game and not complain



Well there are always more settings than Ultra, and 1060 3GB was always underpowered, and yes, many of those owners DO complain about shit performance and in hindsight 'should've bought the 6GB version'. 3GB is just not pleasant and liable to stutter.

Will people play regardless and not complain? Sure, but I played Guild Wars 2 at 10 fps too. Doesn't mean its good.


----------



## tussinman (Nov 6, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Well there are always more settings than Ultra, and 1060 3GB was always underpowered


 It's essentially a budget/more power efficient version of a 5+ year old GTX 970 so I don't know what the users here are whining about. Every 1060 3GB owner I know plays games on at least high settings 1080p with no issues. The issue is people are using this terrible port as the basis/grounds to slam it which is 1. Unfair and not the norm and 2. Strange since despite this being a terrible port it runs regular high settings just fine......


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 6, 2019)

tussinman said:


> It's essentially a budget/more power efficient version of a 5+ year old GTX 970 so I don't know what the users here are whining about. Every 1060 3GB owner I know plays games on at least high settings 1080p with no issues. The issue is people are using this terrible port as the basis/grounds to slam it which is 1. Unfair and not the norm and 2. Strange since despite this being a terrible port it runs regular high settings just fine......



The reason is that it matches the core grunt of that 970, but has 25% less VRAM, and games are progressively leaning more on VRAM than they used to. Even the 970 aged pretty badly because of its 3.5GB issue, the 1060 is worse. This card is how old now? And already you're heavily cutting corners to make stuff run proper.

Games like RDR2 that are straight console ports (Consoles with... 6GB addressable at least!) are the ones where these cards fall down way faster than they should.

Is it a horrible card? IMO yes, in the larger scheme of things, no, it does the job. It's just poorly balanced. If you wanted RDR2 with a 1060, I'd straight up advise you to get the console instead...


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 6, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Put this next to GTA V and its a complete and utter joke.


word.


----------



## tussinman (Nov 6, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> games are progressively leaning more on VRAM than they used to


 That's a RD2 issue and not a 1060 3gb issue. Every game bench-marked this year (Borderlands 3, COD, Gears 5, DMC5, Metro, Outerworld) it ran fine no issues.

In terms of actual practicality (which is the target demographics of a fringe $200 card) this is literally a non existent issue. Only die hard enthusiast over analyzing technicalities  care about this, all the 1060 3GB owners running games on high settings on a 3.5 year old barely mid tier card literally do not care


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 6, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Yup. Planned obscolescence 'lite', really...
> 
> But this game's optimization... what the hell. I'm staying far away when a 1080 can't even do 50 FPS averages... on 1080p! and even a 2080ti peaks at 85? What?
> 
> ...



Well I prefer good gameplay over graphics, which you can tune down to run well and still look quite gorgeous. The bigger problem for gameplay is that half ass'd mouse and keyboard support and broken menus W1zzard mentions.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 6, 2019)

tussinman said:


> That's a RD2 issue and not a 1060 3gb issue. Every game bench-marked this year (Borderlands 3, COD, Gears 5, DMC5, Metro, Outerworld) it ran fine no issues.
> 
> In terms of actual practicality (which is the target demographics of a fringe $200 card) this is literally a non existent issue



I agree, I think the underlying point really was: 'you could've made better choices with that money'. And that is what many advice topics also contained when the question was presented at the time.



jabbadap said:


> Well I prefer good gameplay over graphics, which you can tune down to run well and still look quite gorgeous. The bigger problem for gameplay is that half ass'd mouse and keyboard support and broken menus W1zzard mentions.



Yeah, lazy port  Its never only graphics when its like that.



tussinman said:


> Even then most of those people on 2016/early 2017 budget systems where skimping on ram and hard-drive. Better choice for the money ($50-60 saved between the 2) could of easily been argued more ram or switching to an SSD would be equally as good of a choice as simply buying basically the same card with more Vram.



You make good points! Certainly. Let's not derail further though


----------



## tussinman (Nov 6, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I agree, I think the underlying point really was: 'you could've made better choices with that money'. And that is what many advice topics also contained *when the question was presented at the time.*


 Even then most of those people on 2016/early 2017 budget systems where skimping on system ram and hard-drive. Better choice for the money ($50-60 saved between the 2) could of easily been argued more system ram or switching to an SSD would be equally as good of a choice as simply buying basically the same card with more Vram.


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 6, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Well there are always more settings than Ultra, and 1060 3GB was always underpowered, and yes, many of those owners DO complain about shit performance and in hindsight 'should've bought the 6GB version'.



But the 6GB owners have the exact same complaint, it's practically offering the same performance as the 3GB version.  You can stick 12GB on that card and it won't make a real world difference.  Regardless of a GTX1060 3GB or 6GB, you are better off turning settings down (probably to the exact same level).  Also lets not forget those cards were sold during the mining craze.  At times the 6GB version was selling for $80 or more then the 3GB version.

End of the day, it's a lazy port for whatever reasons.  Only Rockstar can answer that.



tussinman said:


> Wizard: "runs fine at 1080p Vulkan at high details"
> 
> In reality the 1060 owners will play this game and not complain day 1 and performance is only going to increase over time with drivers and patches



I don't see patches or drivers fixing the issue for 1060 owners, maybe you can squeeze an extra 10-15% out of those cards but that means going from 28FPS to 31-33FPS.  Hardly a difference


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 6, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I agree, I think the underlying point really was: 'you could've made better choices with that money'. And that is what many advice topics also contained when the question was presented at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


55 fps at 1440p is fine @stock,could get to 60 avg. OC,but this games doesn't really look that great tbh.I mean it looks very good but I expected more.
A GTX1080Ti should absoulutely rip this


----------



## unclesharkey (Nov 6, 2019)

I am cheap....I am waiting for the Steam release and discounts. But if the game play is as slow as what is reported in this review I probably will not buy it.


----------



## Kaotik (Nov 6, 2019)

Curious how different the results are from those at Guru3D, of course different systems etc, but AMD cards seem to do noticeably better there with 5700 XT beating 2070 Super on everything above 1080p and even 2080 at times and 5700 beating 2070 comfortably








						Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics benchmark review (revisited)
					

We take a renewed look at Red Dead Redemption II.  We have retested almost 30 graphics cards on the Windows PC platform gaming-wise relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVID... Article - Guide - Review




					www.guru3d.com


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 6, 2019)

i would be curious to see what the performance is like with different processors... looks like this is using their engine which is pretty sensitive to st performance / core speed.


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 6, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> i would be curious to see what the performance is like with different processors... looks like this is using their engine which is pretty sensitive to st core speed.



2c/4T gives you 60FPS, 4C/8T gives you 100FPS with little gain afterwards.  Pretty much typical of the 2019 AAA games


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 6, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> 2c/4T gives you 60FPS, 4C/8T gives you 100FPS with little gain afterwards.  Pretty much typical of the 2019 AAA games


yep right below it is the graph im interested in.

really curious to see 3600x vs 3800x vs 3900x in this title





^ single thread cap.  Would be interesting to see how a 4.6ghz turbo would act with this game on a 3900x.  Pretty well I would imagine.  There was also mention of a CPU bottleneck at 1080 P despite framerates at half their usual rates.









						Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics benchmark review (revisited)
					

We take a renewed look at Red Dead Redemption II.  We have retested almost 30 graphics cards on the Windows PC platform gaming-wise relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVID... VRAM Usage - Image quality vs perf  | DX12 vs Vulkan




					www.guru3d.com


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 6, 2019)

Doubt you see any difference between those three CPUs since the IPC is the same and all have similar frequency.


----------



## _Flare (Nov 6, 2019)

If i support Vulkan, why do i add DX12 inthere?
Looks like a nobrainer.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 6, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Remember when everyone said the 3GB variant of the 1060 was fine ? Yeah ...



Remember when people said the 4GB RX 570 was fine? Oh wait.


----------



## Kaotik (Nov 6, 2019)

_Flare said:


> If i support Vulkan, why do i add DX12 inthere?
> Looks like a nobrainer.


If you support DX12, why add Vulkan in there? 
(The game supported DX12 to begin with due Xbox, Vulkan was added later for whatever reason and seems be just a tad behind in performance)


----------



## Dwyriel (Nov 6, 2019)

Registered just to say this: There's more than just VRAM difference between the 1060 6gb and 3gb, it's nothing massive but it has less cores and less TMUS. 

6gb: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1060-6-gb.c2862
3gb: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1060-3-gb.c2867


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2019)

Kaotik said:


> for whatever reason


People who don't have Windows 10?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 6, 2019)

I was tempted in my down time to throw a lot of money at what seems to be yet another dodgy console port. 

I'm glad I resisted the urge.


----------



## erocker (Nov 6, 2019)

Game is pretty broken. Got today's patch, things were going pretty well in story mode, got into Valentine and it crashed again.


----------



## Minus Infinity (Nov 6, 2019)

I never go near new game releases which are usually untested betas. Arstechnica was also annoyed about the keyboard and mouse controls and how hard they made it to remap, it's not obvious how to do it. I hate lazy ports, so unless they patch this big time and greatly improve the controls I won't be spending a dime on it, I'll check back for the Steam summer sales. BTW even when released on Steam, it still requires the Rockstar launcher, which is pathetic.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 7, 2019)

Ouch, my 1080 is getting smashed in this one

would be nice to see some medium and minimum settings at each res, ultras usually unreachable except at 1080p these days


----------



## rvalencia (Nov 7, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> 55 fps at 1440p is fine @stock,could get to 60 avg. OC,but this games doesn't really look that great tbh.I mean it looks very good but I expected more.
> A GTX1080Ti should absoulutely rip this


GTX 1080 Ti is missing hardware async and rapid pack math INT16/FP16 features. RX Vega 56/64 has rapid pack math INT16/FP16 features like Turing.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 7, 2019)

I'm going to wait until next summer or Fall before I get this game, it clearly needs several patches and polish.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Nov 7, 2019)

thanks for the great analysis on this crappy porting games. But, at least it's still better than ace combat  
LOL


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 7, 2019)

SIGSEGV said:


> thanks for the great analysis on this crappy porting games. But, at least it's still better than ace combat
> LOL



The problem with that analogy is that Rockstar is rich as crap and can afford to do better than this.


----------



## 64K (Nov 7, 2019)

Dwyriel said:


> Registered just to say this: There's more than just VRAM difference between the 1060 6gb and 3gb, it's nothing massive but it has less cores and less TMUS.
> 
> 6gb: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1060-6-gb.c2862
> 3gb: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1060-3-gb.c2867



The 1060 3 GB has 11% less cores than the 1060 6 GB but a lot of people only notice the difference in VRAM. Nvidia should have called the 1060 6 GB the 1060 Ti in order to not cause confusion with their customers.



lynx29 said:


> The problem with that analogy is that Rockstar is rich as crap and can afford to do better than this.



True. Their last big hit, GTA V, had sold 110 million copies 8 months ago and generated around 6 billion dollars in revenue. I'm sure it's more by now.
The last I read Red Dead Redemption 2 sold 25 million copies just on console. That amount will rise considerably now that it's released for PC.
Rockstar is making a fortune from their games and they certainly could have done a better job porting it over to PC.


----------



## Nima (Nov 7, 2019)

"The map can be zoomed out with the mouse wheel, but zoom speed is incredibly slow, requiring crazy mouse wheel spinning to give you an overview"

How such an obvious problem can go unnoticed??? the amount of laziness and Incompetency of these big, rich, crappy developers is just unbelievable. small and indie developers put much more effort and passion in developing games these days.


----------



## pjl321 (Nov 7, 2019)

Does anyone know if Crossfire is supported and what's the performance is like? 
I have  2 x RX580 and on GTA V that setup works really well.


----------



## I No (Nov 7, 2019)

Another flawless console port from Rockstar, bravo gents ... Looks like GTA IV allover again, damn game needed ~6 months worth of patching to be playable.
For the amount of money they make on console sales one would think that they can actually HIRE a company that can  port stuff in a decent manner. The team that handles the ports for Rockstar should be taken behind the building and introduced to a firing squad .....


----------



## delshay (Nov 7, 2019)

Jism said:


> Windows 7 does'nt support DX12. It's limited to DX11 only and Vulkan.



Windows 7 has some DX12 features. It was added-in by Microsoft. There's even Microsoft Edge which works well on Windows 7.



_Flare said:


> If i support Vulkan, why do i add DX12 inthere?
> Looks like a nobrainer.



Vulkan.  ..Windows 7


----------



## Prince Valiant (Nov 7, 2019)

Any chance of comparison shots of TAA/MSAA at the various settings? This game looks bad for how it's performing.



Nima said:


> "The map can be zoomed out with the mouse wheel, but zoom speed is incredibly slow, requiring crazy mouse wheel spinning to give you an overview"
> 
> How such an obvious problem can go unnoticed??? the amount of laziness and Incompetency of these big, rich, crappy developers is just unbelievable. small and indie developers put much more effort and passion in developing games these days.


People have shown a willingness to accept poor quality products and even pay for beta gameplay. I expect it to continue until the majority stop enabling such practices.


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 7, 2019)

delshay said:


> Windows 7 has some DX12 features. It was added-in by Microsoft. There's even Microsoft Edge which works well on Windows 7.
> 
> Vulkan.  ..Windows 7



Vulkan ... Linux. Should be quite easy to get it run with wine, unless it have some horrible drm.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 7, 2019)

delshay said:


> Windows 7 has some DX12 features. It was added-in by Microsoft. There's even Microsoft Edge which works well on Windows 7.


Not really. It was done on a “by game” basis, with so far as I know, only Blizzard taking up Microsoft on the extra work, and only for Warcraft.


----------



## Badelhas (Nov 7, 2019)

This sentence says it all: "RDR2 is clearly a console port, and a bad one."


----------



## SystemMechanic (Nov 7, 2019)

Is this a First for the worst Vulkan implementation lol ?!? Its gotta be right...Every Vulkan game gives huge FPS boost over DX12 except this one..


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 7, 2019)

SystemMechanic said:


> Is this a First for the worst Vulkan implementation lol ?!? Its gotta be right...Every Vulkan game gives huge FPS boost over DX12 except this one..



Dunno about that, I.E. Strange Brigade had a rough start with Vulkan vs DX12(Vulkan runs that game much better now). And at the guru3d test vulkan runs game the same or a bit higher fps than dx12:


Spoiler: Guru3D vulkan vs dx12


----------



## QUANTUMPHYSICS (Nov 7, 2019)

NO GAME currently on the market should need a 9900k and a 2080Ti.  This is poor optimization


----------



## Ron Damon (Nov 8, 2019)

I've never seen a port so trash by a company as big as R*. God damn.


----------



## Vario (Nov 8, 2019)

For those commenting about the 1060 3GB, people buying it back in 2016-2017 didn't have too many choices, cryptomining made everything else unaffordable.


I had a great impression of the game at first, Chapter 1, no lag issues, the 1060 6GB was handling it great, it had some preset setting that was a mix of ultra and high.  Then I got to chapter 2.  It got a hell of a lot more laggy with all the greenery.

Really wish DX11 was an option.

Been running high texture low everything else except medium water because low water produces this weird flashing effect, that just about gives me 60 FPS average with 1440P but sadly there are occasionally hang ups, where the game just stops for a second or two.  Game still looks good for me, I don't mind games at lower settings as long as it can run smooth at this resolution.   It mostly does except for when it doesn't, and it just hangs paused for a second or two like its going to crash.  That happens sometimes when riding through town, or even looking at the gun store catalog.  Also if you lower textures below high all the faces turn to pixel mud and things such as playing cards become unrecognizable.

GTA IV was kind of a mess on PC release too.

GTA V seemed fine by comparison, I had that when it released with just a 3770K and 770 2GB and it ran it pretty well at 1080P, not much drops, crashes, hangs.




Nima said:


> "The map can be zoomed out with the mouse wheel, but zoom speed is incredibly slow, requiring crazy mouse wheel spinning to give you an overview"
> 
> How such an obvious problem can go unnoticed??? the amount of laziness and Incompetency of these big, rich, crappy developers is just unbelievable. small and indie developers put much more effort and passion in developing games these days.



Thankfully page up and page down zoom the map.


----------



## INSTG8R (Nov 8, 2019)

I’m not gonna go thru 4+ pages but people seem forget that both GTA4 and 5 were PC crushers on release, now granted 4 was just poorly done but 5 definitely needed a generation to be fully put to max.


----------



## Chomiq (Nov 8, 2019)

I remember the first thing I had to do in order to get GTA 3 running properly was to buy more ram.


----------



## gridracedriver (Nov 8, 2019)

..a moment of silence for invidia..


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 8, 2019)

gridracedriver said:


> ..a moment of silence for invidia..


Why? Some recent games have been tuned for AMD, yet Nvidia plays better. It has always been so, that the two trade back and forth with which brands GPU generally do better in different games.


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 8, 2019)

CPU results from overclock 3D, "playable" on a 2c/4t CPU but clearly likes a 6c or 4c/8t CPU for smooth game play.  More cores and threads don't seem to add much past that.














						Red Dead Redemption 2 PC Performance Review and Optimisation Guide | CPU Performance - Does Red Dead Redemption 2 require a high core count system?  | Software
					

CPU Performance - Does Red Dead Redemption 2 require a high core count system?




					www.overclock3d.net


----------



## Dyatlov A (Nov 8, 2019)

Seems like a 4 Core processor perfectly enough. I did not even wanted to buy more than 4 Cores processor, but 6 Core was the minimum by AMD.


----------



## Nizzer (Nov 9, 2019)

Really not had any problems at all. Maybe I just got lucky, running it ultra wide and it hasn't fluctuated from 60. Not sure what the issues are that others are having but hope you get to experience how it's meant to be soon.


----------



## delshay (Nov 9, 2019)

Can someone in this thread with an AMD card try this & confirm results. 


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dtbvdt


----------



## MustSeeMelons (Nov 10, 2019)

Enjoyed the game on my PS4, wanted to complete the game the second time as I didn't do all the activities, but the poor frame rate and the lack of a good fast travel option held me back.
Will definitely be playing this at some point, but I guess I should not even bother with a 7300HQ and 1060 6Gb Max-Q?  WIll have to wait till a have a desktop once again.


----------



## Dyatlov A (Nov 10, 2019)

I have the Ryzen 9 3800X, now with four disabled and four active Cores I have higher frequency and higher performance in this game. Pretty neat I am hitting 4.5GHZ


----------



## moproblems99 (Nov 25, 2019)

delshay said:


> Can someone in this thread with an AMD card try this & confirm results.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dtbvdt



I can say this has stopped my freezing issues.  However, 1.15 patch was installed as well so I can't say for sure enabling async was what did it but that would be my prime suspect.


----------



## INSTG8R (Nov 25, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I can say this has stopped my freezing issues.  However, 1.15 patch was installed as well so I can't say for sure enabling async was what did it but that would be my prime suspect.


It would have reset it with the patch  check for yourself


----------



## moproblems99 (Nov 25, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> It would have reset it with the patch  check for yourself



The patch had already installed before I made xml change. 

I would be willing to bet that it was async that made the difference.  The patch notes looked like mostly ctd fixes but I only skimmed the notes.


----------



## INSTG8R (Nov 25, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> The patch had already installed before I made xml change.
> 
> I would be willing to bet that it was async that made the difference.  The patch notes looked like mostly ctd fixes but I only skimmed the notes.


Hey I’m using it too I’m just saying it resets all the settings post patch. You’ll probably have to go back and redo the XML edit


----------



## moproblems99 (Nov 25, 2019)

INSTG8R said:


> Hey I’m using it too I’m just saying it resets all the settings post patch. You’ll probably have to go back and redo the XML edit



I just meant that the patch had already installed before I made the change so I wouldn't know if it was reset.

I am willing to bet that the setting change is what fixed the freezing vs the patch notes.


----------



## Nater (Dec 3, 2019)

So has this game improved much on the technical side since the PC launch?  Thinking I'll just wait till next Xmas to get it when newer hardware is out being it's not even hitting 60fps at 1440p on a 5700XT, and I have an ultrawide.  I don't wanna ruin the experience.


----------



## moproblems99 (Dec 3, 2019)

Nater said:


> So has this game improved much on the technical side since the PC launch?  Thinking I'll just wait till next Xmas to get it when newer hardware is out being it's not even hitting 60fps at 1440p on a 5700XT, and I have an ultrawide.  I don't wanna ruin the experience.



I play on a Vega 56 at 3440x1440 on med-low and get 40-50fps.  Game looks decent.  No stutters.  The trick with AMD cards it seems is to enable async.  I have no regrets playing it right now with these conditions.  Would I prefer high settings, yep.


----------

