Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty Benchmark Performance

[Hyderz]

Rtx 3090 at 9fps with path tracing ouch

 

[Crackong]

Seeing these graphs it is no doubt 2077 had became a sponsored tech demo instead of a game.
They don't even bother to put basic functions like New Game Plus to it.
I am not gonna play this repeat grindfest 200 hours all over again from New Game.

Consider it dead-dead.

 

[ViperXTR]

looks like performance is just like 1.63 so im still good to go

 

[EsliteMoby]

Was the VRAM usage at 4k DLSS 3 frame gen tested with DLSS 2 upscaling or just native?

 

[Kaleid]

It's very common for people with amd cards to not like cyberpunk's graphics. Not sure why that is.

Well, I had Nvidia as well recently and whilst it does easily look better than say Starfield it's still not mind-blowing. I'd rather have more work done on AI animations and AI.

Great game tho (I've bought the DLC already)

 

[tfdsaf]

GeForce 30 numbers seem to be wrong, too. I just retested 3080 1080p and got 106 FPS

Take down the whole review and retest all of the GPU's and put a big red label in the top of the new review that the old review was erroneous!

LTT type of testing here, it happens to all of course, but the review should have been taken down hours ago!

Graphics are okay, nothing special and way too plasticky for my liking! Again, it does look okay, but this isn't the future of graphics, its reminiscent of Doom 3 graphics, which were extremely shiny, but completely plasticky! The last of us has 10x better graphics than this, A plague Tale requiem has 10x better graphics, etc...

I've not tried ray tracing because my GPU doesn't support it, but it just looks so fake with it enable in any videos and images I see. All it does is make shiny light sources even shinier, that is not real life, not everything reflects light like a mirror!

I think we are at least 10 years away from REALISTIC ray tracing!

 

[W1zzard]

Take down the whole review and retest all of the GPU's and put a big red label in the top of the new review that the old review was erroneous!

You're too late to the party, everything was retested and the charts have been updated 10 hours before your post

Was the VRAM usage at 4k DLSS 3 frame gen tested with DLSS 2 upscaling or just native?

Just native. Once you turn on upscaling you're not rendering at 4K anymore

 

[EsliteMoby]

Just native. Once you turn on upscaling you're not rendering at 4K anymore

I see. Still insane VRAM usage that would make this feature obsolete for GPU with 12gb or less.

 

[W1zzard]

I see. Still insane VRAM usage that would make this feature obsolete for GPU with 12gb or less.

With 12 GB you're not running Pathtracing 4K. Even 4090 Pathtracing 4K + FG is too laggy due to the base FPS being too low, so that scenario needs upscaling, too. At that point it is extremely playable though, it's how I've reviewed the expansion

 

[BiggieShady]

I see the path tracing screenshots used 1660p + DLAA + FG and the displayed framerate seems low with frame generation ... is 1600p DLAA heavier than 4K DLSS?

 

[W1zzard]

I see the path tracing screenshots used 1660p + DLAA + FG and the displayed framerate seems low with frame generation ... is 1600p DLAA heavier than 4K DLSS?

Not sure I fully understand your question, maybe that helps:

Screenshots on page 2 were captured on 1600p with 4080 (my work system)
Settings comparison screenshots on page 4 were captured at 4K with 4090 (GPU test system)

 

[watzupken]

The gap between AMD and Nvidia's RT performance is glaring, however, I rarely find the lack of accurate lighting to be a problem in games. It is nice to have, but with PT, the performance hit is horrendous. So for 4K gamers, one will need no less than an overpriced RTX 4080 upwards.

One interesting observation is that by switching on frame generation, the VRAM usage actually went up quite a fair bit. The Tensor cores will need memory to run, but the jump is significant, and it confirms my point that FG is really for people that bought the higher end Nvidia GPUs to run at a higher FPS, and less of a help to those trying to use their lower end GPUs to achieve playable framerates, i.e. 60 FPS.

 

[JustBenching]

The gap between AMD and Nvidia's RT performance is glaring, however, I rarely find the lack of accurate lighting to be a problem in games. It is nice to have, but with PT, the performance hit is horrendous. So for 4K gamers, one will need no less than an overpriced RTX 4080 upwards.

One interesting observation is that by switching on frame generation, the VRAM usage actually went up quite a fair bit. The Tensor cores will need memory to run, but the jump is significant, and it confirms my point that FG is really for people that bought the higher end Nvidia GPUs to run at a higher FPS, and less of a help to those trying to use their lower end GPUs to achieve playable framerates, i.e. 60 FPS.

No. You are not going to run a 4060ti at 4k natively. As you can clearly see from the charts, there is no difference between a 4060ti 8gb and a 4060ti 16gb in 1080p, which is basically 1440p + DLSS Q.

 

[Adrian Andrzejewski]

The graphics in modern games are impressive, but there are still some areas where the details look clunky and geometric. I recall when ATI introduced TruForm to the public in 2006(?), and I was optimistic that it would put an end to games with blocky visuals. I cannot provide my opinion on Cyberpunk as I haven't played it, but the same is true for the physics in most games, which tend to be overly simplistic despite the availability of 8+ core CPU power.

 

[csendesmark]

Ooof,
I think I will play this ray traced with my future GPU in 2026...

 

[aciDev]

Ooof,
I think I will play this ray traced with my future GPU in 2026...

I like your optimism.

 

[csendesmark]

I like your optimism.

Well even on the 4090 is barley playable...
I could only afford the AMD RX 7900XT, so next GPU sometime in 2026, maybe 2025 if I do well

 

[Space Lynx]

If I owned a 4090, I'd leave ray tracing off, run frame gen on ultra settings to get me to that sweet sweet smooth 165 fps 165hz 1440p goodness.

Luckily, this game is officially announced to get the FSR3 Frame Gen tech, in which next year I will do this with my 7900 XT. I could care less about ray tracing, give me a good story, combat, and high fps smoothness.

 

[JustBenching]

It is very very playable with a 4090 though with PT.

 

[Space Lynx]

It is very very playable with a 4090 though with PT.

I require 165 fps at 165hz 1440p 27" and no dips in fps for ultimate immersion. Playing the old Batman games now like this and wow seeing the action with no blur is a sight to behold.

 

[Crackong]

The gap between AMD and Nvidia's RT performance is glaring, however, I rarely find the lack of accurate lighting to be a problem in games. It is nice to have, but with PT, the performance hit is horrendous. So for 4K gamers, one will need no less than an overpriced RTX 4080 upwards.

One interesting observation is that by switching on frame generation, the VRAM usage actually went up quite a fair bit. The Tensor cores will need memory to run, but the jump is significant, and it confirms my point that FG is really for people that bought the higher end Nvidia GPUs to run at a higher FPS, and less of a help to those trying to use their lower end GPUs to achieve playable framerates, i.e. 60 FPS.

Yes.
Frame gen requires the GPU to have playable FPS to begin with.
Otherwise the input lag is very noticeable.
Frame gen 30->60 feels like 30 and the player will be heavily disoriented for how the visual de-sync with input response.
On the other hand, FG 60->120 feels like just normal usual input lag

Ooof,
I think I will play this ray traced with my future GPU in 2026...

I bet they will keep patching it with more demanding techs so by the year 2026 it is still a 30fps game with all things maxed out.

 

[csendesmark]

It is very very playable with a 4090 though with PT.

In 1080p it can give a lil more than 60 fps
Of course personally I have nothing against whom loves to see a good coming book...

 

[Hyderz]

path tracing reminded me of the older games that have settings that current gpu at that time couldn't run
doom 3 i remember had a setting required a 256mb or 512mb graphics card which at that time the gpus only had 128mb
crysis with 8800gtx also struggled heck even the 9800gtx also struggled released after...
the witcher 2 : assassinations of kings also had a setting that current gen gpu at its time couldnt run nicely

new PC games and current gpu couldn't run well at its max settings is not new to pc gaming

 

[JustBenching]

require 165 fps at 165hz 1440p 27" and no dips in fps for ultimate immersion. Playing the old Batman games now like this and wow seeing the action with no blur is a sight to behold.

Then you can't play like 99% of AAA games out there.

In 1080p it can give a lil more than 60 fps
Of course personally I have nothing against whom loves to see a good coming book...

Ah, just checked your sig, now it makes sense. Sure buddy, whatever makes you feel better

 

[TheGuruStud]

The blur is TAA. Get rid of that vaseline LOL (or max out sharpening and hope it doesn't artifact snow).


I've never seen anything more ugly than PT. Just wow. And it eats performance....with that IQ LMFAO