Deepcool CL500 chassis review
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G Renoir APU review
CORSAIR iCUE LT100 Smart Lighting Towers Review
Gigabyte B550 Aorus Pro review
Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ review
be quiet! Pure Rock 2 review
Fractal Design Define 7 Compact review
Lian Li Galahad 360 liquid cooler review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - July 2020
Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 3600 MHz (64GB) review
Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics benchmark review (revisited)
Posted by: on: 07/24/2020 12:16 PM [
53 comment(s) ]
We take a renewed 2020 look at Red Dead Redemption II. We have retested almost 30 graphics cards on the Windows PC platform gaming-wise relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVIDIA graphics card drivers. Multiple graphics cards are being tested and benchmarked. We have a look at performance with the newest graphics cards and technologies.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
DannyD
Member
Posts: 55
Member
Posts: 55
Posted on: 07/24/2020 02:39 PM
Looking forwards to this, thanks!
Looking forwards to this, thanks!
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 13141
Senior Member
Posts: 13141
Posted on: 07/24/2020 02:47 PM
Nice work , thank you.
Seems like previus gen is a suprise, Vega 64 just a few fps lower then 1080ti and the gtx 1080 is a bit lower then expected.
Game favors AMD cards. 5700XT is doing mighty fine for a 400$ gpu.
Nice work , thank you.
Seems like previus gen is a suprise, Vega 64 just a few fps lower then 1080ti and the gtx 1080 is a bit lower then expected.
Game favors AMD cards. 5700XT is doing mighty fine for a 400$ gpu.
haste
Senior Member
Posts: 1006
Senior Member
Posts: 1006
Posted on: 07/24/2020 02:50 PM
Maximum quality tests are pretty much pointless in RDR2. Most of ultra settings are the same shaders with unjustified oversampling, huge performance impact and minimal visual improvements. The only ultra quality setting (except textures of course) I'd definitely keep is the lighting quality. It pushes lights range limits much further and also allows multiple shadowing and doesn't limit moon/sun light in larger towns etc.. it's very demanding at night but it's worth it.
Maximum quality tests are pretty much pointless in RDR2. Most of ultra settings are the same shaders with unjustified oversampling, huge performance impact and minimal visual improvements. The only ultra quality setting (except textures of course) I'd definitely keep is the lighting quality. It pushes lights range limits much further and also allows multiple shadowing and doesn't limit moon/sun light in larger towns etc.. it's very demanding at night but it's worth it.
IceVip
Senior Member
Posts: 732
Senior Member
Posts: 732
Posted on: 07/24/2020 04:00 PM
So what exactly are you saying? That Hilbert's tests were straight up pointless because he followed the most common benchmark review format(just max it out)? And that he should make custom settings so that people get even more confused because they think he maxed it out but he actually didn't because he followed his visuals-to-performance instincts?
Maximum quality tests are pretty much pointless in RDR2. Most of ultra settings are the same shaders with unjustified oversampling, huge performance impact and minimal visual improvements. The only ultra quality setting (except textures of course) I'd definitely keep is the lighting quality. It pushes lights range limits much further and also allows multiple shadowing and doesn't limit moon/sun light in larger towns etc.. it's very demanding at night but it's worth it.
So what exactly are you saying? That Hilbert's tests were straight up pointless because he followed the most common benchmark review format(just max it out)? And that he should make custom settings so that people get even more confused because they think he maxed it out but he actually didn't because he followed his visuals-to-performance instincts?
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 507
Nice work , thank you.
Seems like previus gen is a suprise, Vega 64 just a few fps lower then 1080ti and the gtx 1080 is a bit lower then expected.