Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
Corsair H100i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
Corsair K95 RGB PLATINUM XT review
AORUS Radeon RX 5700 XT 8G review
Endgame XM1 gaming mouse review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - December 2019
Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Posted by: on: 11/05/2019 06:08 PM [
263 comment(s) ]
We take a look at Red Dead Redemption II (2019) in our usual in-depth ways. That would be tested on the PC 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 > »
SpajdrEX
Senior Member
Posts: 2127
Senior Member
Posts: 2127
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:21 PM
There is a missing benchmark picture for
There is a missing benchmark picture for
Graphics card performance 1440p
EDIT.: nevermind, it's together with 1080p resolution
EDIT.: nevermind, it's together with 1080p resolution
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:22 PM
This game sure is demanding on GPU power. Though oddly enough, not especially demanding on VRAM. I'm sure performance will get better over time. Not sure how it looks compared to consoles either.
This game sure is demanding on GPU power. Though oddly enough, not especially demanding on VRAM. I'm sure performance will get better over time. Not sure how it looks compared to consoles either.
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 12221
Senior Member
Posts: 12221
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:22 PM
Insane system req. Its anew gpu killer.
Amd is doing better though. 580 faster than 1070, vega56 faster than 1080 and 5700xt faster than 2070S.
Insane system req. Its anew gpu killer.
Amd is doing better though. 580 faster than 1070, vega56 faster than 1080 and 5700xt faster than 2070S.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36770
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36770
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:27 PM
Roger, on it, yeeaahaw.
@Hilbert Hagedoorn@SpajdrEX - 1440p results are on the wrong page.
Roger, on it, yeeaahaw.
AcidSnow
Senior Member
Posts: 418
Senior Member
Posts: 418
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:34 PM
I'm REALLY glad I just bought an 5700 XT, because I had considered buying a used Vega 56 for $150 (@ 1080p gaming) but I thought to myself that if Borderlands 3 @ Ultra was already taxing a 5700 XT today then imagine what games will be like next year and beyond...
I'm REALLY glad I just bought an 5700 XT, because I had considered buying a used Vega 56 for $150 (@ 1080p gaming) but I thought to myself that if Borderlands 3 @ Ultra was already taxing a 5700 XT today then imagine what games will be like next year and beyond...
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 12221
Senior Member
Posts: 12221
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:36 PM
5.2gb vram usage on 1080p is not demanding? Its basically showing people should be looking at 8gb cards and forget about something like 1660super.
This game sure is demanding on GPU power. Though oddly enough, not especially demanding on VRAM. I'm sure performance will get better over time. Not sure how it looks compared to consoles either.
5.2gb vram usage on 1080p is not demanding? Its basically showing people should be looking at 8gb cards and forget about something like 1660super.
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 7651
Senior Member
Posts: 7651
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:37 PM
From Rockstar
Minimum Specifications:
OS: Windows 7 - Service Pack 1 (6.1.7601)
Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-2500K / AMD FX-6300
Memory: 8GB
Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 2GB / AMD Radeon R9 280 3GB
HDD Space: 150GB
Sound Card: DirectX compatible
Recommended Specifications:
OS: Windows 10 - April 2018 Update (v1803)
Processor: Intel® Core™ i7-4770K / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
Memory: 12GB
Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB / AMD Radeon RX 480 4GB
HDD Space: 150GB
Sound Card: DirectX compatible
Why my 1060 so slow Boss? ....need new Drivers?
From Rockstar
Minimum Specifications:
OS: Windows 7 - Service Pack 1 (6.1.7601)
Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-2500K / AMD FX-6300
Memory: 8GB
Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 2GB / AMD Radeon R9 280 3GB
HDD Space: 150GB
Sound Card: DirectX compatible
Recommended Specifications:
OS: Windows 10 - April 2018 Update (v1803)
Processor: Intel® Core™ i7-4770K / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
Memory: 12GB
Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB / AMD Radeon RX 480 4GB
HDD Space: 150GB
Sound Card: DirectX compatible
Why my 1060 so slow Boss? ....need new Drivers?
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:41 PM
Considering the framerate, no, it's not that bad. I'd expect higher memory usage from such a demanding game.
Keep in mind that games nowadays come with very high-res textures. When you set the texture settings to the highest level and you're playing at 1080p, there's a good chance you can barely see any difference at all compared to medium settings, but it's soaking up all your VRAM. For a game like RDR2, you could probably drop down to medium textures, save yourself 2GB of VRAM, and barely be able to notice any thing changed at all (especially if you have AA on). The only time you'll really notice a difference is if you bring an object impractically close to the camera.
5.2gb vram usage on 1080p is not demanding? Its basically showing people should be looking at 8gb cards and forget about something like 1660super.
Considering the framerate, no, it's not that bad. I'd expect higher memory usage from such a demanding game.
Keep in mind that games nowadays come with very high-res textures. When you set the texture settings to the highest level and you're playing at 1080p, there's a good chance you can barely see any difference at all compared to medium settings, but it's soaking up all your VRAM. For a game like RDR2, you could probably drop down to medium textures, save yourself 2GB of VRAM, and barely be able to notice any thing changed at all (especially if you have AA on). The only time you'll really notice a difference is if you bring an object impractically close to the camera.
mohiuddin
Senior Member
Posts: 779
Senior Member
Posts: 779
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:48 PM
Thanks a ton dude. Was waiting for this.
Thanks a ton dude. Was waiting for this.
ladcrooks
Senior Member
Posts: 369
Senior Member
Posts: 369
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:49 PM
thank you Hilbert, I least I know can buy this game in ten yrs time, then there will be card cheap enough to able to play in 4k mode at 60fps :p
thank you Hilbert, I least I know can buy this game in ten yrs time, then there will be card cheap enough to able to play in 4k mode at 60fps :p
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36770
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36770
Posted on: 11/05/2019 06:54 PM
Remember, we tested with close to best image quality settings here in this first test run of the article. This is a massively huge open world game with ultra quality textures enabled, so no that 5 GB is not something extreme at all, even at Full HD. Tomorrow I'll look at lowering quality settings which will lower that vram usage one way or the other, there is a sweet-spot setting that nearly doubles the framerate.
5.2gb vram usage on 1080p is not demanding? Its basically showing people should be looking at 8gb cards and forget about something like 1660super.
Remember, we tested with close to best image quality settings here in this first test run of the article. This is a massively huge open world game with ultra quality textures enabled, so no that 5 GB is not something extreme at all, even at Full HD. Tomorrow I'll look at lowering quality settings which will lower that vram usage one way or the other, there is a sweet-spot setting that nearly doubles the framerate.
jbscotchman
Senior Member
Posts: 3483
Senior Member
Posts: 3483
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:04 PM
Loving this game. It's gorgeous and the production value is through the roof! Never played any RDR game so I'm in heaven right now.
Loving this game. It's gorgeous and the production value is through the roof! Never played any RDR game so I'm in heaven right now.
AndroidVageta
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:11 PM
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. The 2060 Super faster at 1080p than a 1080Ti? Please!
If Nvidia performance doesn't balance out more I'd be inclined to think they're gimping last-gen GPU performance, not like they haven't done similar before.
Pretty disappointing so far performance wise as a 1080Ti owner. Disappointed as in it makes no sense.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. The 2060 Super faster at 1080p than a 1080Ti? Please!
If Nvidia performance doesn't balance out more I'd be inclined to think they're gimping last-gen GPU performance, not like they haven't done similar before.
Pretty disappointing so far performance wise as a 1080Ti owner. Disappointed as in it makes no sense.
kanenas
Member
Posts: 34
Member
Posts: 34
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:24 PM
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. The 2060 Super faster at 1080p than a 1080Ti? Please!
If Nvidia performance doesn't balance out more I'd be inclined to think they're gimping last-gen GPU performance, not like they haven't done similar before.
Am afraid is true.
Pretty disappointing so far performance wise as a 1080Ti owner. Disappointed as in it makes no sense.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. The 2060 Super faster at 1080p than a 1080Ti? Please!
If Nvidia performance doesn't balance out more I'd be inclined to think they're gimping last-gen GPU performance, not like they haven't done similar before.
Am afraid is true.
Pretty disappointing so far performance wise as a 1080Ti owner. Disappointed as in it makes no sense.
asturur
Senior Member
Posts: 476
Senior Member
Posts: 476
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:25 PM
Yes i was expecting better from the 1080ti.
How can a xbox oneX run this at native 4k? is the first post correct?
Yes i was expecting better from the 1080ti.
How can a xbox oneX run this at native 4k? is the first post correct?
IceVip
Senior Member
Posts: 689
Senior Member
Posts: 689
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:25 PM
2060 on top of 1080 ti, nvidia please.. can't you be less obvious
2060 on top of 1080 ti, nvidia please.. can't you be less obvious
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12471
Senior Member
Posts: 12471
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:28 PM
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. The 2060 Super faster at 1080p than a 1080Ti? Please!
If Nvidia performance doesn't balance out more I'd be inclined to think they're gimping last-gen GPU performance, not like they haven't done similar before.
Pretty disappointing so far performance wise as a 1080Ti owner. Disappointed as in it makes no sense.
They haven't done similar before.
There can be a hundred different reasons why Turing performs better than Pascal in this particular game that's not related to Nvidia artificially gimping performance.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. The 2060 Super faster at 1080p than a 1080Ti? Please!
If Nvidia performance doesn't balance out more I'd be inclined to think they're gimping last-gen GPU performance, not like they haven't done similar before.
Pretty disappointing so far performance wise as a 1080Ti owner. Disappointed as in it makes no sense.
They haven't done similar before.
There can be a hundred different reasons why Turing performs better than Pascal in this particular game that's not related to Nvidia artificially gimping performance.
thepath64
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:29 PM
You only tested vulkan vs DX12 on 5700XT
What about nvidia GPU. How does vulkan compared to DX12 ?
In this website, they said that nvidia got higher 5 fps on vulkan
You only tested vulkan vs DX12 on 5700XT
What about nvidia GPU. How does vulkan compared to DX12 ?
In this website, they said that nvidia got higher 5 fps on vulkan
mackintosh
Senior Member
Posts: 244
Senior Member
Posts: 244
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:32 PM
Wouldn't be the first time nvidia pulled something like this, they have quite the track record, after all. I don't trust them one bit.
Wouldn't be the first time nvidia pulled something like this, they have quite the track record, after all. I don't trust them one bit.
thepath64
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:34 PM
Yes i was expecting better from the 1080ti.
How can a xbox oneX run this at native 4k? is the first post correct?
Do you even know what setting the xbox one x using ?? it could be running low to medium which give almost double fps compared to higher settings.
The division 2 also runs native 4K on xbox one x, but according to digital foundary, terrain quality runs lower the lowest setting on PC
So, it not surprise that the game run native 4K when some setting are even lower than low, and runs only 30fps
Yes i was expecting better from the 1080ti.
How can a xbox oneX run this at native 4k? is the first post correct?
Do you even know what setting the xbox one x using ?? it could be running low to medium which give almost double fps compared to higher settings.
The division 2 also runs native 4K on xbox one x, but according to digital foundary, terrain quality runs lower the lowest setting on PC
So, it not surprise that the game run native 4K when some setting are even lower than low, and runs only 30fps
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12471
Senior Member
Posts: 12471
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:35 PM
They've never pulled anything like this. Stop spreading misinformation.
Wouldn't be the first time nvidia pulled something like this, they have quite the track record, after all. I don't trust them one bit.
They've never pulled anything like this. Stop spreading misinformation.
AndroidVageta
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:41 PM
They haven't done similar before.
There can be a hundred different reasons why Turing performs better than Pascal in this particular game that's not related to Nvidia artificially gimping performance.
The 10 series seems to just be down all around here, even vs. AMD's offerings...what's this game doing differently than every other game out there?
They haven't done similar before.
There can be a hundred different reasons why Turing performs better than Pascal in this particular game that's not related to Nvidia artificially gimping performance.
The 10 series seems to just be down all around here, even vs. AMD's offerings...what's this game doing differently than every other game out there?
SpajdrEX
Senior Member
Posts: 2127
Senior Member
Posts: 2127
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:43 PM
little offtopic, RTX2060 SUPER is also on par with GTX1080Ti in Call of Duty : Modern Warfare
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/5.html
little offtopic, RTX2060 SUPER is also on par with GTX1080Ti in Call of Duty : Modern Warfare
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/5.html
JonasBeckman
Senior Member
Posts: 15934
Senior Member
Posts: 15934
Posted on: 11/05/2019 07:44 PM
Efficiency perhaps, I don't know the improvements in Turing compared to Pascal however but if it relates to improvements for D3D12 or Vulkan that might be part of it.
Comparably the Vega GPU's and Radeon VII from AMD should be stronger than Navi but they aren't due to shortcomings and limitations though it's a bit different with Navi starting a new architecture after GCN.
Add driver optimizations and improvements that might allow newer hardware to scale even better and that might explain it although I'm certainly no expert on what the specifics are.
EDIT: Ah but I see the VII's actually holding it's own here edging out just ahead of the Navi, not bad though the gap is pretty close between the two.
Efficiency perhaps, I don't know the improvements in Turing compared to Pascal however but if it relates to improvements for D3D12 or Vulkan that might be part of it.
Comparably the Vega GPU's and Radeon VII from AMD should be stronger than Navi but they aren't due to shortcomings and limitations though it's a bit different with Navi starting a new architecture after GCN.
Add driver optimizations and improvements that might allow newer hardware to scale even better and that might explain it although I'm certainly no expert on what the specifics are.
EDIT: Ah but I see the VII's actually holding it's own here edging out just ahead of the Navi, not bad though the gap is pretty close between the two.
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 231
OS: Windows 10 v1909 Pro for Workstation
Processor: i7-9900K, all cores 5.0GHz
RAM: 16GB DDR4 4133MHz
GPU: RTX 2080Ti Watercooled
Resolution: 3440x1440@100Hz, G-Sync
Settings: Enabled the recommended settings in GeForce Experience and adjusted everything that was set to below high to high. So pretty much everything is set to high besides textures that are set to Ultra. Running Windowed Borderless, disabled TAA and FXAA as it makes thing look way too blurry. Enabled 2x MSAA instead, not ideal would need at least 4x to get rid of all the jagginess but performance is just not good enough for more than 2x.
FPS: Seems to be stable 60 FPS on average according to the benchmark. In-game it seems more like 70 FPS. The benchmark dips to 34 FPS and I don't really know why.
Didn't really know what to expect, but this isn't all that impressive to me. Looks similar to my Xbox One X, just more jagginess due to not having native 4K downscaled to 2560x1440. 3440x1440 with 2x MSAA looks worse in-terms of aliasing compared to Xbox One X with native 4K and TAA downscaled to 2560x1440. Besides that the details seems to be somewhat the same.
So I finally have ultrawide and 60 FPS, but aliasing is worse and running textures on ultra and everything else on high don't seem to provide any noticeable improvements when compared to the Xbox One X.
Barely pegs my CPU at all so seems to be crazy GPU bound. My 2080 Ti doesn't provide much else than ultrawide (which is still lower resolution than native 4K on Xbox One X) and 60 FPS instead of 30 FPS. Should be room for much better optimisation here. I would expect my 2080 Ti to be capable of running this at 100 FPS at 3440x1440 with the same overall settings as the Xbox One X. That's clearly not the case here.