You can definitely push your luck there lol, a 2080 will do high and get over 60 fps at 1080p easily.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Red Dead Redemption II PC performance thread
- Thread starter GrrImAFridge
- Start date
You can definitely push your luck there lol, a 2080 will do high and get over 60 fps at 1080p easily.
What do I have to do to get rid of the mouse pointer in-game (like your normal windows mouse pointer icon which is separate from the games reticle, etc)? It is impossible to play like this as it's incredibly distracting and disorienting. I've tried all the mouse options in the settings.
The game is really a technical mess right now in just about all facets (it won't even launch in D12 mode for me).
Folks actually thought this was going to run maxed out with 60+ FPS due to the recommended specs? Yeah, prepare for disappointment.
The game is really a technical mess right now in just about all facets (it won't even launch in D12 mode for me).
Folks actually thought this was going to run maxed out with 60+ FPS due to the recommended specs? Yeah, prepare for disappointment.
They put this up but it doesn't help me one bit. https://support.rockstargames.com/a...d-Dead-Redemption-2-on-PC-exited-unexpectedly
They better not pretend this is the only possible cause since it still hasn't changed at all for me.
Hopefully folks react as bad as with Batman Arkham Knight and gets pulled from the market. We should not deal with unoptimized games. 4k 30 on a Rx 580 and an fx or bust. You know... Similar to the xbx.
I am not home but I see people are having stuttering with Vulkan but it seems to load quicker, in that case it sounds like the stutter is shader cache?
I bet my game does not even boot when I get home knowing my luck.
I bet my game does not even boot when I get home knowing my luck.
Ultra looks a lot better than PS4 Pro, but at 1080P on a 980Ti, the framerates are comparable (meaning under 30 pretty often). I haven't made it out of Chapter 1 yet, so we'll see how that fluctuates in the swamp around St. Denis or over in the densely forested areas. I imagine there are areas that will tank performance and I'll have to use those as the base level for optimization (like the forests in GTAV).
To be fair the PS4 version is a blurry mess. But man the Xbox version really was a fascinating and incredibly optimized port.
Can somebody else try to lower Water Physics and test it and then put it on max and test it again? So far that is what impacted my performance the most. I could put other settings to Low and still have issues but as soon as i lowered Water Physics to minimum i could crank everything else to Medium and some settings to High on my GTX 1060 6GB and get locked 50FPS.
Sorry in advance for a little offtopic
iam realy hoping that this will showcase the Optimization Edge consoles have over similar PC Hardware. So iam realy curious how that game will play on a HD 7850 (@1000Mhz and not like the 800 PS4 one has) and lets say a Phenom 2 CPU < (wich is still stronger than a Jaguar) .
This entire Gen People said the Consoles are shit and have actually no Edge over PC Hardware. Lazy Devs and or greedy Publishers are responsible for that by not (or minimal) using of GNM (the actual low Level API of PS4) but rather approach the PS4 Hardware over GNMX ( a easy Way like DX11).
If you do so you approach the PS4 Hardware as PC Hardware and off course in such a scenario PS4 will perform less good - its is downclocked Hardware in the end.
All AAA Exclusives Sony released actually locked stunning and did hold 30fps rocksolid - reason is that off course those devs used only GNM and did proper coding.
Rockstar however did for shure put the same or even more effort to optimize with allot of GNM use.
In the very Beginning People jumped on John Carmack for saying ps4 should be twice as powerfull as similar PC Hardware. Now we have RDR2 on PC demanding officially minimum PC hardware like GTX 770 or R9 280 - both around 3.3TF so almost twice as powerfull.
And actually not even RDR2 did use ALL of PS4s juices. Why ? There are 2 Reasons for that:
1. because the Xbox one was the smallest common denominator with 1.3 TF
2. its API is DX12 wich is a low level API but not as low level as GNM. Actually it stands no chance vs GNM in that regards.
So without Xbox Version it could look even better and then the PC Reqiuerments would be even higher.
Okay finish with the offtopic. This is not an attepmt to troll or derail the Thread or something. Just my Opinion.
iam realy hoping that this will showcase the Optimization Edge consoles have over similar PC Hardware. So iam realy curious how that game will play on a HD 7850 (@1000Mhz and not like the 800 PS4 one has) and lets say a Phenom 2 CPU < (wich is still stronger than a Jaguar) .
This entire Gen People said the Consoles are shit and have actually no Edge over PC Hardware. Lazy Devs and or greedy Publishers are responsible for that by not (or minimal) using of GNM (the actual low Level API of PS4) but rather approach the PS4 Hardware over GNMX ( a easy Way like DX11).
If you do so you approach the PS4 Hardware as PC Hardware and off course in such a scenario PS4 will perform less good - its is downclocked Hardware in the end.
All AAA Exclusives Sony released actually locked stunning and did hold 30fps rocksolid - reason is that off course those devs used only GNM and did proper coding.
Rockstar however did for shure put the same or even more effort to optimize with allot of GNM use.
In the very Beginning People jumped on John Carmack for saying ps4 should be twice as powerfull as similar PC Hardware. Now we have RDR2 on PC demanding officially minimum PC hardware like GTX 770 or R9 280 - both around 3.3TF so almost twice as powerfull.
And actually not even RDR2 did use ALL of PS4s juices. Why ? There are 2 Reasons for that:
1. because the Xbox one was the smallest common denominator with 1.3 TF
2. its API is DX12 wich is a low level API but not as low level as GNM. Actually it stands no chance vs GNM in that regards.
So without Xbox Version it could look even better and then the PC Reqiuerments would be even higher.
Okay finish with the offtopic. This is not an attepmt to troll or derail the Thread or something. Just my Opinion.
Good to know, i would be more than happy with high at 1080p, my main reason to play on PC is 60FPS anyways.
Including options that are too hard to run on current hardware isn't the same as releasing an unoptimised game. Plus I'm very interested to find out what the console equivalent settings are.
There's always one with a PC powered by magical pixie dust, just ignore it.
Yeah, this is crazy. Why can't I run the benchmark more than once without having to restart the game? Seems like a pretty glaring bug that you'd think that they'd catch.
Interesting. But only if you compare at 30 fps when PC gamers complain a lot about not hitting 60 fps at the least so it's a higher standard. Also it's possible they could mess up a PC port, it's happened many times before.
Yeah or you could just start at the top and lower settings. Playing on medium after investing in a 2080? Lmao.
I just need to know what to set for a smooth experience at 4k60 with a 6700k and 2080Ti. Of course, I may get home and just have the launcher crash issue. Who knows?! Exciting!
The game has massive issues beyond just performance, you don't have to set everything to "Ultra" for problems to begin. Future-proofing concerning settings is for another discussion.
Benchmark with a 2080/2700x combo @ 3400x1440:
The game defaulted to "balanced":
Min:20
Max:129
Avg:67
Everything on High(Ultra textures):
Min:15
Max:128
Avg:57
Everthing on Ultra:
Min:10
Max:109
Avg:45
I don't think the game is unoptimized at all, I just think they've added a ton of sliders and features the console versions don't have and people are pretending it's a like for like situation. Having said that, the amount of stuff you have to turn down to get it running well, while still looking really good from a foot away, compared to 8 feet away on the X, makes the game seem less impressive. If the damn console version had decent controls (tbd on PC) I'd shelf this version and play on my X.
The game defaulted to "balanced":
Min:20
Max:129
Avg:67
Everything on High(Ultra textures):
Min:15
Max:128
Avg:57
Everthing on Ultra:
Min:10
Max:109
Avg:45
I don't think the game is unoptimized at all, I just think they've added a ton of sliders and features the console versions don't have and people are pretending it's a like for like situation. Having said that, the amount of stuff you have to turn down to get it running well, while still looking really good from a foot away, compared to 8 feet away on the X, makes the game seem less impressive. If the damn console version had decent controls (tbd on PC) I'd shelf this version and play on my X.
Last edited:
1080 ti
i7 8700k (nonclocked)
32RAM
SSD
3440 x 1440
Everything ramped up I get 30 - 40 frames in the mountains. Can't imagine what'll it be in towns.
Do we have information which settings are the heaviest hitters on performance? Thinking of dropping only the biggest ones.
i7 8700k (nonclocked)
32RAM
SSD
3440 x 1440
Everything ramped up I get 30 - 40 frames in the mountains. Can't imagine what'll it be in towns.
Do we have information which settings are the heaviest hitters on performance? Thinking of dropping only the biggest ones.
Hmmm. I was getting 60 frames per second at 1440p with my 2080 RTX and 6700k and switched from Vulkan to DX12 and when I logged back in it was a sluggish mess at 12-20 FPS. Wth?
-EDIT- This was with Nvidia GeForce experience recommended settings before and after, But after switching back to Vulkan, It appears that my crap frames per second or a result of the starting collector area. Something about the lighting here is killing my frames.
-EDIT 2- Now my frames are at 21 and below regardless. Restarting my PC to see if that fixes anything. Newest Nvidia drivers as well
-EDIT- This was with Nvidia GeForce experience recommended settings before and after, But after switching back to Vulkan, It appears that my crap frames per second or a result of the starting collector area. Something about the lighting here is killing my frames.
-EDIT 2- Now my frames are at 21 and below regardless. Restarting my PC to see if that fixes anything. Newest Nvidia drivers as well
Last edited:
Completely with you on that, I should have been more specific. Not loaded the game myself yet, but I was more just commenting on those who think Medium is a sign of weakness (not that there are many).
Has there been any comment on an incoming emergency patch to solve some day-0 issues?
Is that at max settings? I have a similar build (cept I have a 3700x), so that'll be close to what I get too. Was hoping at least 60 fps at 3440x1440 though
my friend hits 40-45 fps with gtx 970 and i7 2600k at 1080p on medium settings with high textures. 60 fps would probably be attainable with lowered resolution scale, or setting some settings on low, i reckon.
I put in a refund request through epic because of the mouse thing. I couldn't take it any longer. Hopefully it's a valid excuse.
After tweaking for a while have settled for a pretty stable 4K/30 at the moment on my 1080 with mostly high settings, with a few on medium (shadows) but with textures on ultra. Looks amazing so far.
Will be interesting to see what settings hammer the game most as seems very taxing in general. Going from pretty much all ultra settings to all medium settings only gained me about 10-15fps on average. Imagine the console settings must have most been low and some mediums.
Will be interesting to see what settings hammer the game most as seems very taxing in general. Going from pretty much all ultra settings to all medium settings only gained me about 10-15fps on average. Imagine the console settings must have most been low and some mediums.
Vulkan is stutter town for me. Dx12 also does but to a much lesser extent.
DX12 and Vulkan should both allow for pretty low level API programming if needed. Whether developers want to learn and do that is another question as talented graphics programmers aren't a huge pool of developers in the first place. Likewise higher level APIs should be pretty highly optimized with Nvidia, AMD and MS providing support for developers. In the same way I would expect Sony exclusives to get better support from people who know the system inside and out.
You have to also remember that PC graphics are an upgraded version of what is on consoles, usually aiming for 60 rather than 30 fps. We will have to wait for Digital Foundry or some other outlet to test PC against consoles when using the approximate same settings (I'm guessing a mix of medium and low) and see how they fare.
That... does not sound good.
4TF GPU to match base PS4 1.8TF + 15fps bonus? That is with a good CPU as well.
Would be great to get comparison pics and info on what settings consoles are running at.
I'm guessing console settings are all medium, there's no way a $600 gpu can't run the game at 4k smoothly, when a 1060/70 console equivalent can do it...
As i said going from Water Physics Ultra to Low doubled my framerate.
im getting 80 fps consistently but sometimes it will drop and stay at 20 for no reason and just hold at 20...
if I reload the game or fast travel, back to 80...
if I reload the game or fast travel, back to 80...
Everything maxed. No where near 60. Its "a cinematic experience" running like this. Wondering what I should drop to get some framerates. Ultra textures is one, I don't think I need it to be fair. I'm more concerned about the lighting effects etc.
tbh framerate doesnt scale in a linear fashion - ps4 is likely already at its absolute limits with rdr 2, it drops below 30 quite often.
Having played the ps4 version so long this game feels weird at 60 fps, simply because it seems like the animations have been sped up or something. Like to me, it doesn't feel like going 30 fps console to 60 fps PC in GTAV, that game seemed normal at high frame-rates, here it just looks strange and "to fast" (to me). (Not one of those "cinematic fps is awesome" posts, I'm just saying that in the code / behind the scenes it feels like they just increase how fast the game runs etc.)