Red Dead Redemption 2 Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis

[W1zzard]

Red Dead Redemption 2 is the best-looking game ever released. You're getting a huge graphics upgrade over the console version. As expected, impressive visuals come with high hardware requirements. We tested the game on 23 graphics cards, at three resolutions, and took a closer look at DirectX 12 vs. Vulkan, too.

Show full review

 

[TheLostSwede]

Clearly not optimised for 4K...

 

[mgilbert]

Why isn't anyone testing this game at lower settings, for those of us that don't have $1,200 video cards???

 

[cucker tarlson]

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.

 

[Vya Domus]

Remember when everyone said the 3GB variant of the 1060 was fine ? Yeah ...

Why isn't anyone testing this game at lower settings, for those of us that don't have $1,200 video cards???

Probably it's one of those cases when going just one tier below in quality results in a major boost in performance. This game ran on a Xbox One, it can't be that bad.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Remember when everyone said the 3GB variant of the 1060 was fine ? Yeah ...

an they recommended 570 4GB instead,yeah.....

 

[Tartaros]

After all the fuss GTA V made on pc with all the micro transaction money they make because it is still popular, I supposed they would release a better port this time. It's shameless.

 

[Chomiq]

Why isn't anyone testing this game at lower settings, for those of us that don't have $1,200 video cards???

Never knew that 1060 3G is a $1,200 video card.

 

[PerfectWave]

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.

pascal sucks in DX12 and vulcan

 

[cucker tarlson]

pascal sucks in DX12 and vulcan

it's doing good in games that nvidia put some effort to optimize.
they took time to improve pascal pefromance in doom and hitman and the improvements were huge.1070 even outperformed Vega 56 at 4K

MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Gaming review

We review the MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Gaming edition. The new Ti is aimed at and against the Radeon Rx Vega 56 from AMD and obviously sits in-between the GeForce GTX 1070 and 1080. In this review, we ... Vulkan: DOOM (2016)

www.guru3d.com

before the driver optimization

AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB review

In this review we take the 399 USD Radeon RX Vega 56 with 8GB graphics memory for a spin. This more affordable AMD graphics card might actually be the better proposition value for money wise. ... Vulkan: DOOM (2016)

www.guru3d.com

+14% peformance with just the driver

 

[Vya Domus]

I supposed they would release a better port this time. It's shameless.

Why would they, they know everyone is going to eat up whatever garbage they spit out. I wouldn't touch anything Rockstar makes on the PC, I for one am not willing to pay 60$ for a game that was already released a while ago just because they want to squeeze out every penny out of a shitty port. It is truly unforgiving for a game that broke records in profit to be delivered like this.

 

[64K]

Definitely one of the best games out there right now. If Rockstar hadn't been Rockstar and released the PC version along with the console version then I would gladly pay full price for this game but they made me wait for a year so I will wait for a sale. The PC version will also be patched by then. I'm patient.

 

[mgilbert]

Never knew that 1060 3G is a $1,200 video card.

You obviously misunderstood my point. Everyone is testing this game at Ultra settings only, and the only cards that can reach a solid 60 FPS at ultra settings are expensive cards. I want to see the game tested at 1080p with high, medium, and low settings. I'm sure I'm not the only person out there running a 480/580/1060, etc. We would like to know what settings we'd have to use to make the game playable, if indeed, it can even be played on an average, two or three year old card.

 

[Xuper]

different between Vega 56 and 590 is massive and it's just ported to PC ,Without any optimization ,Now Think If this game was ported from PS5 to PC, it would be nightmare.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Nvidia is pissed right now lol.

 

[ZeppMan217]

Curious about the lack of 1660 Super from the results.

 

[lemkeant]

I played this on XboneX and loved it. The story is amazing, but W1zzard nailed it harping on the controls and the "horse riding simulator".

I might grab this on PC in the future, but have way too many hours in the console version to want to play it all over again

 

[tussinman]

Will wait till at least next month when it launches on Steam. Should have at least 1 if not 2 patches/driver updates by then.

Remember when everyone said the 3GB variant of the 1060 was fine ? Yeah ...

Yeah seems fine to me. Despite being over 3 years old (and being on the lower side of mid tier) it's still running games well.......

 

[TheGuruStud]

Will wait till at least next month when it launches on Steam. Should have at least 1 if not 2 patches/driver updates by then.

Yeah seems fine to me. Despite being over 3 years old (and being on the lower side of mid tier) it's still running games well.......

I must be in a different universe.

 

[kings]

So, we need a $650~$700 GPU to play at 1440p 60fps average... 1080p 60fps requires a 1080Ti/2070 Super/RX 5700XT...

Man, this thing is the new Crysis, eating GPUs for breakfast.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I must be in a different universe.

you are.

 

[tussinman]

I must be in a different universe.

I guess so. It's not gonna shatter records but for a 3.5 year old lower mid-tier card it still runs most recent games on high settings 1080p (recent techpowerup reviews of gears 5 and yesterdays COD benchmark it was getting over 50FPS on ultra).

 

[W1zzard]

Curious about the lack of 1660 Super from the results.

Will include it in future articles I think, but generally wondering if it's worth including all those SKUs that have only small differences

 

[TheGuruStud]

I guess so. It's not gonna shatter records but for a 3.5 year old lower mid-tier card it still runs most recent games on high settings 1080p (recent techpowerup reviews of gears 5 and yesterdays COD benchmark it was getting over 50FPS on ultra).

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.

It was a scam card and dummies fell for it in droves. Not to mention fewer SPs...

 

[ShurikN]

Why isn't anyone testing this game at lower settings, for those of us that don't have $1,200 video cards???

Both Hardware Unboxed and Gamers Nexus tested at high. Although GN did some tinkering with the settings. Check their site for details.

Will include it in future articles I think, but generally wondering if it's worth including all those SKUs that have only small differences

Ti and a regular 1660 are enough. We all know the super follows the same pattern in almost every game, being a couple % behind the Ti.