• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Red Dead Redemption 2, GPU Benchmark, What You'll Need To Play!

TNA said:
Lol :D

One guy was saying that the animals look to real now that he cannot bring himself to harm any of them.
Click to expand...

I hate killing the animals, it's horrific :(

More so when you slap it on back of your horse and it's all dangling there dead dripping blood into the snow.
 
JediFragger said:
Agreed, many a time I just have to keep reminding myself that it's just all zero's and ones!!

I might just have to get this game, looks so so good!! Is the scaler you're using an internal one? I might need 0.75 with my res too!
Click to expand...

Yes the one in game, at 0.75 I can't see any difference from native 4K. Looks exactly the same but makes it playable.
 
Thought I post this here as well, since it is GPU benchmark of the game.. well, sort off ! :p

So, having been tinkering around with the graphics I think I finally found a relatively good mixture.

I'm playing on a UW 3400x1400 monitor with a Vega 64 at stock settings. On the latest Wind 10 build, but not the latest Radeon Software, I'm using 19.20 (and a bit worried to update incase it break things) and 32GB ram.

For some reason though the Video Memory in the Graphic Menu reports I have 6.903 GB, even if Vega is 8 GB ? :confused: In any case, it says I am using 3904 / 6903 MB video memory. The only thing I am not to happy about is the fact the GPU is maxed out almost constantly. :(

pRULE82.jpg


Got that by following the suggestions in the Joker Productions video that a member posted in the RDR2 thread over at the Game Section of the Forum and then fine tuning it with the suggestions from Game Debates article: Red Dead Redemption 2 Most Important Graphics Options - Every Setting Benchmarked


In the spoiler below is the present settings I'm using, if anyone has any suggestions to improve things then I be more then happy to hear them ! :D

@JediFragger If you scroll down in the below image, almost at the bottom you can see Resolution Scale, it's between two bars and mine is set at 3/4 [x0.750].

HGxoKc2.jpg

For a bit of fun I reset everything to Game Recommended Settings and then everything on the lowest possible settings. The only 'difference' between these three settings was that the Video Memory was lesser. Custom Settings 3904 - Game Recommended 3430 - Lowest Possible 2195. All that was doing was giving me 90% usage of the GPU in lowest, where in the other two the GPU was maxed out. Ohh and the Resolution Scaling was turned down to 0.75 in the custom, where in the other two it was not used.

This was just in the benchmarking though, I have not been running around in the game world with them.

Here is the benchmark results for the three different runs. Got to admit, the difference on the lowest and my settings are a bit laughable. :p

d7gkmMk.jpg


(Can provide the full screen shoot settings of lowest and game rec, if anyone want to see those too.)
 
Apparently there is a setting in "Settings.ini" file that helps with AMD GPU's. It's called "Asyncronous compute" or something, changing that from false to true improves the minimum FPS a lot for AMD cards.

I haven't tested it myself, since I don't have the game, but it's worth a try.
 
TNA said:
0_0.jpg



0_0.jpg



0_0.jpg



PB5VgoOh.jpg


These are from the thread in PC Gaming section. Metro does not come close to these imo.
Click to expand...

Squirrel shot is nice but the rest look awful (water/reflections looks good though), is there some kind of filter on? Looks like the contrast or something is messed up with a vignette effect applied as there is a lot of black crush happening.... Colours in general just look wrong.
 
Grim5 said:
Taking no hostages, as you'll see below the best console (Xbox One X) doesn't come close to the PC version
Click to expand...

Can't say I'm blown away by the differences - mostly better filtering and some slight lighting tweaks - only some odd stuff like water has actual higher quality or more advanced materials/shaders used. They could have taken the opportunity to do things like increased vegetation diversity, extended long distance detail (to significantly higher than console), improved sky rendering with better volumetric clouds and atmospheric effects etc.
shankly1985 said:
Like I said this is Rockstar pushing the game way beyond what most devs do. They put themselves in a no win situation here it would seem going from what the community is saying. Poor optimisation? NO, Just pushing the game to new levels that today's hardware is struggling to push at its maximum settings. I say good on Rockstar for taking this gamble, people are so fast to complain when PC games are not getting the extra push they deserve and can you blame devs? if this is what feedback they get?

Poor optimisation! Rushed Port bah bah bah

I would agree if the game looked worst or the same as the console version but its not its way better than what the console version is its just that Rockstar has done an excellent job already for the console to make you think you not getting much more. Wait for DigitalFountry next video to be proven wrong!
Click to expand...

Can't say I totaly agree with you - yes the game does push the boat out in terms of rendering tech employed looks way better than most games out but it still tends to err towards brute force rendering on the PC - kind of like the engine used in Hitman where they basically just "thread all the things" even though it isn't always the most optimal way to get performance out of what you are rendering. The jump from console performance to PC isn't that great really when mostly it is doing the same thing just a little better filtering quality and the odd shader upgrade like water.

(Hence why it tends to be less penalised performance wise on GPUs that tend to be harder to fully load up effectively normally).

Ultimately though I'd rather have the boat pushed out visually with so-so optimisation than a supremely optimised game that looked like arse.
 
Rroff said:
Can't say I'm blown away by the differences - mostly better filtering and some slight lighting tweaks - only some odd stuff like water has actual higher quality or more advanced materials/shaders used. They could have taken the opportunity to do things like increased vegetation diversity, extended long distance detail (to significantly higher than console), improved sky rendering with better volumetric clouds and atmospheric effects etc.
Click to expand...

Looks pretty significant to me, new shadows, higher draw distance, better reflections, thicker foliage, better lighting, higher quality tesselation, proper anti aliasing and proper 4k textures

4z1rbp32.ofh.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom