• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

icecold1983

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
4,243
Note: This is not the full PC video. Dictator will have a more detailed video coming soon.






Notes:

- This is NOT the full PC video. Just a brief look at what it takes to get the game running at 60 FPS at visual settings closest to the consoles.

- XBX has some settings equivalent to PC's high (though not many), a few mediums and several low and even lower than low .. toggles which aren't even possible on PC.

- Vulkan seems to be better for performance on lower-end cards like 1060 while not much of a difference in 4K in 2080 level cards.

- Vulkan is generally better on both AMD and NVidia with DX12 even causing stutters.

- AMD cards generally have a performance advantage over NVIDIA in 580 vs 1060. 580 has up to 10~14 FPS advantage in St. Denis.

- 970 vs R9 390 is a close competition and 970 holds surprisingly well compared to 1060.

- 1660 and 1660 Ti have 35 and 52 % improvements over 1060.

- RX 590 very similar to 1070 and with a tiny lead over 1660.



These are Rich's settings where he thinks he can get the game to look as close to XBX as possible (keeping in mind some settings aren't possible because consoles do lower than PC's low) and Alex might have some different settings in his video:




Your bullet points are rather misleading WRT nvidia performance deficit. 970 v 390 is far from close. 390 is 20% faster than 1060. 580 is almost 30% faster than 1060.
 
Last edited:

Pipyakas

Member
Jul 20, 2018
549
I see the console settings as the "best bang for your buck" settings most of the time. Sure you can scale beyond that but often times settings are so performance heavy that people opt to lower them to hit 60. I think people just object to a preset like this due to blind fanboysim and seeing consoles as inferior when in reality this would be a really nice feature
MGS V did this and it was awesome to just boot up the game and see if your machine can do the "intended look" for the game. Of course I would change things up later, but having a baseline that's already there gives up nothing and clear up all the fanboy bs when it comes to graphics
 

Pipyakas

Member
Jul 20, 2018
549
So? What does it take? Because this video wasn't enlightening at all concerning settings that won't affect quality too much and will increase performance.
This is not the best video DF put out by a longshot, hopefully their follow-up actually has something useful to tell to people that want to run this game while not having the best hardware.
RX 580/GTX 1660 Ti at 1080p and roughly X1X settings. The key point is the settings - people doesnt understand or see the differences in graphical settings, yet they aim for high/ultra anyway and blame that the game is poorly optimized and can reach double the framerate on consoles
 

inner-G

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
14,473
PNW
My laptop with a 6gb 1060 runs it at 60fps with low-medium ish settings, if I drop resolution scale to 5/6. :/ it looks surprisingly decent though. I turned up the TAA sharpening for whatever that does.

At least my desktop beasts it.
 

J_ToSaveTheDay

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
18,790
USA
The whole "you can't match console presets because some of the presets on console are even lower than the settings on offer here" really contextualizes things differently for me, as an observer of the conversation surrounding this port so far. I haven't bought the PC version yet but knowing that even the best console -- which already output fantastic image with RDR2 -- has some settings that are even lower than the lowest possible on PC is ... remarkable.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,003
We needed this.

Was tired of seeing so many people calling it a bad port due to not being capable of playing it at 60fps with specs worse than current gen consoles. And people convinced that the XBX version was using ultra settings.
Heh yeah I saw that and then the talk how Gears 5 is proof for how close consoles and PCs are in general. :P
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,800
I see the console settings as the "best bang for your buck" settings most of the time. Sure you can scale beyond that but often times settings are so performance heavy that people opt to lower them to hit 60. I think people just object to a preset like this due to blind fanboysim and seeing consoles as inferior when in reality this would be a really nice feature

We already talked about this in the other thread. People have to understand that console settings make no sense for anything other than that particular console or a PC that shares the exact same hardware specification. If you have a PC with a relatively modern CPU and you decide to use, say, PS4 pro settings, you'll be wasting a ton of potential CPU power by using settings designed to ease the burden off the archaic Jaguar CPU. If you have a strong graphics card with not that much VRAM and you decide to use X1X settings you will be crippling your performance by exceeding the VRAM limit even though your machine could be doing much better with just a small reduction in image quality.

Settings are there so that a game can adapt to different hardware configurations. Console settings are not "best bang for your buck" settings, they are the settings that make the most sense based on the limitations of that particular hardware.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,889
We already talked about this in the other thread. People have to understand that console settings make no sense for anything other than that particular console or a PC that shares the exact same hardware specification. If you have a PC with a relatively modern CPU and you decide to use, say, PS4 pro settings, you'll be wasting a ton of potential CPU power by using settings designed to ease the burden off the archaic Jaguar CPU. If you have a strong graphics card with not that much VRAM and you decide to use X1X settings you will be crippling your performance by exceeding the VRAM limit even though your machine could be doing much better with just a small reduction in image quality.

Settings are there so that a game can adapt to different hardware configurations. Console settings are not "best bang for your buck" settings, they are the settings that make the most sense based on the limitations of that particular hardware.

This is what people need to understand.

1:1 console to PC settings is probably easy to look at on paper, but it just doesn't work that way.
 

CreepingFear

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
16,766
I'm drunk. Please tell me settings to use when the Steam version comes out to get 60 fps @1080p with 9900k and 1080 TI FTW 3
 

Mecha Meister

Next-Gen Guru
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,802
United Kingdom
Gamers Nexus doing the deep dive we wanted from the DF vid (a la their Forza Horizon 4 vid)

He runs thru all the main options you'd wonder about




Awesome! Gamers Nexus are one of my favourite YouTube channels! I know this stuff already but I think this is a really informative video for people!
I'm going to make a thread so it can get more visbility.

I'm drunk. Please tell me settings to use when the Steam version comes out to get 60 fps @1080p with 9900k and 1080 TI FTW 3

I haven't properly experimented with the highest settings possible for 1080p 60 fps, but with the settings I currently use for 1440p 60 fps, I can get an average of around 90 fps at 1080p. So there's plenty of headroom here. I plan to expand on this in another video and a guide!

 
Last edited:

Dictator

Digital Foundry
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
4,930
Berlin, 'SCHLAND
These are Rich's settings where he thinks he can get the game to look as close to XBX as possible (keeping in mind some settings aren't possible because consoles do lower than PC's low) and Alex might have some different settings in his video:


These are Incomplete and inaccurate btw as rich's video was in production as I was still finalising the settings - the final list will be found in my Video out late today.
And yet the water physics option is completely broken. Zero difference to visual quality yet has a huge performance cost

This is what you would think, but there are differences. Ultra just is just more tesellated of a mesh.
 

Arkaign

Member
Nov 25, 2017
1,991
Getting 70-100+ with virtually all ultra (besides AA, which I usually keep relatively low, I hate blur more than anything) on a 34" Ultrawide 1440p Gysnc. 2080ti AMP, 5.2Ghz 8086k. Tried my spare 1080/240hz display just to see, and it has some erratic behavior past 150ish FPS, and looks way worse than 1440p. Also tried 4k/60, but I can't be without VRR.

I expect big gains from the next patches and driver updates.
 

CreepingFear

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
16,766
Awesome! Gamers Nexus are one of my favourite YouTube channels! I know this stuff already but I think this is a really informative video for people!
I'm going to make a thread so it can get more visbility.



I haven't properly experimented with the highest settings possible for 1080p 60 fps, but with the settings I currently use for 1440p 60 fps, I can get an average of around 90 fps at 1080p. So there's plenty of headroom here. I plan to expand on this in another video and a guide!


Thanks. I'll use your video as a base.
 

nelsonroyale

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,126
Of course I've still seen people claiming it barely looks any different from the X version.

Can you point me too footage where it looks significantly different though? It still has the same 'weaknesses' as the console versions, i.e., notibicibly simple geometry in cliffs, fairly simple landscape geometry that is very well populated
 

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,667
The Milky Way
We needed this.

Was tired of seeing so many people calling it a bad port due to not being capable of playing it at 60fps with specs worse than current gen consoles. And people convinced that the XBX version was using ultra settings.
But it's Rockstar's fault for poor communication IMO.

They'd do better to take a leaf out of The Coalition's book and create an "Insane" label for those settings which are uber-ultra and highly taxing for current gen GPUs. That way they avoid upsetting those with Ultra entitlement :)
 

DonMigs85

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
2,770
Having under 6GB VRAM seems to heavily penalize max performance as well. And I'm guessing the console roots may explain AMD's huge advantage. I mean, an RX 580 comes very close to a GTX 1070
 

JahIthBer

Member
Jan 27, 2018
10,377
But it's Rockstar's fault for poor communication IMO.

They'd do better to take a leaf out of The Coalition's book and create an "Insane" label for those settings which are uber-ultra and highly taxing for current gen GPUs. That way they avoid upsetting those with Ultra entitlement :)
I think PS4/Xbox settings should be a thing too, maybe call them performance mode or something, calling them PS4 mode & setting some to low would probably catch the stink eye from the console manufacturers.
Cryengine 3 had a PS3/Xbox 360 level option for settings in the editor & it was removed, so i think it's something people have thought of at least.
 
Having under 6GB VRAM seems to heavily penalize max performance as well. And I'm guessing the console roots may explain AMD's huge advantage. I mean, an RX 580 comes very close to a GTX 1070
Is that not because and hardware is better for low level apis or designed around them or whatever. I know dx12/vulkan stuff usually better on amd. DX11 is not even an option on this game.
 

Nzyme32

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,245
Oh hey Digital Foundry supports a "console" preset for PC games that so many on this forum scoffed at. Would really be nice to have something like that as a base to work off of

a bit disingenuous to not mention the full context - "simply for expectation management if anything"; and that's the crux of the problem.

You have both the console guys and some of the PC folk cramming into that thread with their own agenda, and not willing to entertain the notion of a highly scalable game - a matter that several people brought up from the start - regardless of other technical issues

The issue is one of educating the audience imo, especially those so entrenched in console warring / dick waving.

I personally rather have this sort of scalability in the game - and I don't need a console metric as a baseline. IF the presets encompassed in the quality bar, were correctly scaling performance and quality, that is all I would need to make my own choices and understand performance costs. Perhaps that need better labelling, but that's all.

The attitude that, "it has x component / is Xb1x so settings must be x" is a stupid one, as it's never been consistent for anything
 

SixelAlexiS

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,724
Italy
I can list a lot of games with better graphics than rdr2 on consoles.
Rysen , the order, horizon, uncharted 4 and lost legacy, god of war...
lmao... nope... not at that scale.
GoW especially is flat as hell for the most part, with section that are just ugly:

82asBpt.png


Only comparable game with RDR2 on console in Horizon ZD.