Red Dead Redemption 2 Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis

[dirtyferret]

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]

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 ?

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]

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

Sorry 7970, its been a good run.

 

[dirtyferret]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[W1zzard]

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

Oh whoops, I didnt realize you had Windows 7

 

[jabbadap]

@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]

Oh whoops, I didnt realize you had Windows 7

I never said i have?

 

[W1zzard]

@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]

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]

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)

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

word.

 

[tussinman]

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]

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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