Cyberpunk 2077 Benchmark Test & Performance

[lexluthermiester]

Apparently you don't see what is right in front of your eyes.

Oh? All I see is...

...that. There seems to be an attachment, but can't see what it is.

It's ok to be wrong from time to time.

Sure is.

 

[bubbleawsome]

They attached a pic on mobile without posting it. You don't see that?

I can see the attachment, and I can also see the attachment shows a 3090 at 4k RTX OFF not even breaking 50fps.
EDIT: Let me help actually

Spoiler

 

[lexluthermiester]

I can see the attachment, and I can also see the attachment shows a 3090 at 4k RTX OFF not even breaking 50fps.
EDIT: Let me help actually

Spoiler

That's the attachment? Why am I not seeing it?...

 

[Ravenas]

That's the attachment? Why am I not seeing it?...

Why do you need to see the attachment? Read the performance review before posting and arguing with other users about it. It's in the review lol.

I'm just spelling it out for you.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Why do you need to see the attachment?

Possible site glitch that W1zzard might need to see.

Read the performance review before posting and arguing with other users about it. It's in the review lol.

I don't care about your silly point, been running you in circles just for giggles because you were being a dink.

I'm just spelling it out for you.

Oh really? Please allow me to spell it out for you. In your original statement you said the following;

I really don't even want to talk about 4K, because neither card is capable of running the game at optimal 60 FPS, but still the difference is 6 FPS.

...then you followed up with...

Ultra settings to Ultra settings.

There is a HUGE difference between the word "optimal" and the word "ultra". The word "optimal" usual means optimized for the best balance between performance and quality. Optimal does NOT equal Ultra.

It's ok to be wrong from time to time.

You were saying?

 

[Ravenas]

Possible site glitch that W1zzard might need to see.

I don't care about your silly point, been running you in circles just for giggles because you were being a dink.

Oh really? Please allow me to spell it out for you. In your original statement you said the following;

...then you followed up with...

There is a HUGE difference between the word "optimal" and the word "ultra". The word "optimal" usual means optimized for the best balance between performance and quality. Optimal does NOT equal Ultra.

You were saying?

Now its a glitch in W1z's review. Lol...

 

[bubbleawsome]

I'm fairly sure Ravenas was calling the framerate (being 60) optimal, not the settings. You know it's ok to say you missed something instead of dragging this all out

 

[Ravenas]

I'm fairly sure Ravenas was calling the framerate (being 60) optimal, not the settings. You know it's ok to say you missed something instead of dragging this all out

No apparently W1z had a site glitch, he might need to see.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'm fairly sure Ravenas was calling the framerate (being 60) optimal, not the settings.

His choice of vocabulary and sentence structure say otherwise. When someone says "optimal 60fps" that does NOT equate to all settings on maximum.

You know it's ok to say you missed something instead of dragging this all out

No apparently W1z had a site glitch, he might need to see.

Yeah, sure, whatever...

 

[Ravenas]

His choice of vocabulary and sentence structure say otherwise. When someone says "optimal 60fps" that does NOT equate to all settings on maximum.


Yeah, sure, whatever...

You’re just reaching for some form of a win at this point. Even after I restated so you could understand, you still argued it wasn’t true.

I then provided you the results of the review via and attachment. You then said W1z made a mistake on the site that you needed to check on.

Even after repeatedly shown evidence, you’re still trying to reframe the argument. I guess you just can’t stand to be wrong.

Anxious to know what’s next.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You’re just reaching for some form of a win at this point.

Irony, far out...

I guess you just can’t stand to be wrong.

Yup, that's got to be it.

 

[tfdsaf]

Also, I think people who praised CP2077's DLSS is good are the ones who never bothered to run the game on native to begin with. It's not a day and night difference, but native is discernably less blurrier (at least on 1440p).

I mean it is quite huge difference from my own experience! DLSS max quality looks quite good, but when compared to native 4k its not even close. I also disable all of the "film" options like film grain, motion blur, etc... they just make everything grainy and blurry and look bad and unfocused.

Yeah, some text seems to be a bit better off with dlss, it looks sharper and fuller, but other than that pretty much every texture looks worse. And its not like my own experience is unrepresentative, I'm looking at tpu, gamer nexus, etc... videos and images and there is no question DLSS looks much worse than native.

Again max quality dlss doesn't look half as bad, but the difference is still quite obvious.

 

[r9]

Hell yes and think of it as a futuristic take on a GTA5ish kind of world but with better, more intuitive controls, better GFX and (IMHO) a much better, if more linear, story line.

Agree with most but it's far from GTA V looking at physics and other mechanics: cars driving under water, punching characters through a window without breaking, cats sitting under water, cars burning under water, NPC walking through objects all the time ... there is no end to this list. There are plenty of videos comparing and loosing to GTA IV. Let's be honest here CDR needed another year at least of hardcore putting some overtime kind of effort to release a version of the game polished to the level we were promised.