• 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.

Rizific

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,948
I don't know what half of this shit even is. fXAA, MSA. All of that. That's why I'm just testing using the overall slider, instead of tooling around with the settings myself.
PC has been my main platform since 2009 and I STILL dont know what those are. I know they're AA methods, but I couldn't tell you how they differ. Same with AO, screen space reflections, sub surface scattering, and a bunch of other non sense terms. All I know is if I want more performance, I just start turning stuff off.
 

Doomguy Fieri

Member
Nov 3, 2017
5,263
Honestly if you want to play Rockstar junk just do it at almost 30fps on a console. That's how they design the experience.
 

PennyStonks

Banned
May 17, 2018
4,401
It's inconsistent. Sometimes the recommended is for 1080p/60 on medium and sometimes it's for 1080p/30 on high, etc.
Sorry; That was to make that point I guess. What do they target for recommended? I've seen a few games recently put out nice infographs of graphics settings like NVIDIA does, but the lack of a standard is why it is always a pain. And, the pc standard is likely to always be a bit higher than the console one.
 

Cenauru

Dragon Girl Supremacy
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,944
Why are companies still telling us "Recommended specs" without saying what performance "Recommended" is even aiming for? I don't see how this is in any way a player's fault for not being told anything.
 

Deleted member 17184

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,240
People here gotta understand not every PC player is an enthusiast and they don't have to be. It's not a requirement. I know people who run their PC at 1080p with really good hardware, and only play games on windowed mode. Not bordeless full screen - windowed, at a lower resolution. And they never go into the graphics settings either. It's just not something that they worry about. If people want to play on PC without having to tinker with settings, let them. The PC is supposed to be an open platform, isn't it?
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,888
Why are companies still telling us "Recommended specs" without saying what performance "Recommended" is even aiming for? I don't see how this is in any way a player's fault for not being told anything.

Everyone needs to do it like Ubisoft does.

servlet.ImageServer
 

Deleted member 8860

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,525
I'm new to PC gaming. I have an i7 8700k, 1080ti, 32gb ram, RDR2 on an ssd, and my monitor is 1440p gsync 165hz.. I'm having to lower my settings to like 25% on the slider to get a good frame rate.. like 90fps average on the bookmark. Still looks pretty and everything, but I feel like maybe I should be getting more out of it? I don't know. I don't know what half of this shit even is. fXAA, MSA. All of that. That's why I'm just testing using the overall slider, instead of tooling around with the settings myself.

Time to toss your rig in the trash and buy a 2080ti and i9-9900k.

Or just accept that you're going to get PS4 Pro-Pro level performance/graphics.
 

tuxfool

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,858
Why are companies still telling us "Recommended specs" without saying what performance "Recommended" is even aiming for? I don't see how this is in any way a player's fault for not being told anything.
Some companies do say what one should expect. Most don't, but there are plenty of resources on the web that can help you (provided you don't buy immediately on release).
 

Aztechnology

Community Resettler
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
14,134
Recommended specs doesn't mean Ultra settings.

Consoles tend to run on a mix of medium/high on Pro/X

That being said I agree with people that they should say what kind of settings to expect at recommended settings.
 

PlayBee

One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 8, 2017
5,531
The game will not perform well for me at higher resolutions regardless of what I do with the settings and resolution scale. GPU utilization stays below 50% meanwhile the framerate is in the 40s. I decided to drop the resolution to 1080p and it averages about 60 even at the max preset. This is on a 1080 Ti, so yeah there's something weird going on.
 

Surface of Me

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,207
I think a big problem with PC gaming right now is that many developers are advertising "recommended" specs that are too low.

I believe the GTX 1060 is the most common Steam survey GPU so they probably want to advertise that it will be enough for a great RDR2 performance when in reality it probably isn't.

Spec charts should be done like recent MS games. Gives you the specs and what you can aim for with those specs. IIRC Gears 5 recommended specs was for 1080p 60FPS and they had specs beyond that for what you need to get to 4K 60FPS.
 

Samaritan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,696
Tacoma, Washington
Ultra settings are rarely made to run on current hardware. They're aspirational settings and features for future hardware to take advantage of.

Not being able to run the game at 4K/60 ultra =/= a bad PC port.
 

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,666
The Milky Way
But the console versions of the game aren't 60fps either, and that's on low-medium equivalent settings. So I'm not sure how going back to console would help you.

To be fair a 1060 is pretty low end as far as PC is concerned, it's only as powerful as the GPU in the X. So you can't expect miracles in a game as demanding as this.
 

Sanctuary

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,203
Are i3 cpu? A i3 will bottleneck a 1060... Come on try hard.

I honestly don't know how that's happening with this game. In that video in particular, at 1080p the CPU utilization doesn't even hit 50%, and it only exceeds that once they lower the resolution to 720p. Meanwhile, the GPU is running at 100%.
 
Oct 27, 2017
9,420
People here gotta understand not every PC player is an enthusiast and they don't have to be. It's not a requirement. I know people who run their PC at 1080p with really good hardware, and only play games on windowed mode. Not bordeless full screen - windowed, at a lower resolution. And they never go into the graphics settings either. It's just not something that they worry about. If people want to play on PC without having to tinker with settings, let them. The PC is supposed to be an open platform, isn't it?

Not sure I know what you mean when you say open platform in that regards.
 

Dommo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,687
Australia
As someone who's grown up predominantly a PC player and whose days of tinkering with settings and ini files are long behind me, I find PC to be refreshingly straightforward in 2019, and probably at its most streamlined and user friendly as its ever been. Is it quite as straightforward as console gaming? No, but that doesn't mean it's particularly difficult for the average person to pickup either.

The notion that a few games are poorly optimized is not unique to PC. The only difference is that with PC, if you so choose, there's further settings you can tinker with that aren't available to console gamers. Console games, on the whole, look and play poorly, at 30fps, sometimes sub-1080p, and just because a game comes around every now and then for PC that play similarly poorly as their console counterpart is not damning.

As rough as the RDR port seems to be, I can give an equally glowing example in the form of Sekiro. Buy on Steam, start downloading without a hitch, enter the game without a hitch. Set all settings to high, have a quick glance at what the AA solution is and that's pretty much it and I'm immediately getting way better performance than consoles without doing much of anything more complicated. I too, have a GTX1060, and running Sekiro at a stable 1080p60fps is an absolute dream compared to Xbox One's 900p30fps. Or even XB1X's version of the game, running at sub-4k and sub-60fps without the option to lower resolution to improve framerate would frustrate me a lot more. And this is my experience time and time again these days even with my relatively modest hardware. Buy, download, play with immediately satisfactory performance. It's that easy.

The days of bugs, manual patches, .exe errors, troubleshooting on forums is long behind me. I don't have the patience for tinkering these days, and fortunately PC Gaming delivers exactly what I want: stable, reliable performance and image quality across 90% of games right out of the gate.
 
Last edited:

Firefly

Member
Jul 10, 2018
8,621
And what makes it the player's fault for not being told?
Absolutely its the developer's fault as well. But read the OP again, he/she is just mad that the Recommended spec they own cannot run the game at 60fps at a resolution and visual settings they would like. Did he/she try turning down the wealth of options included in the game? Developer needs to communicate better but its on the player if they are gonna complaint about a mid range GPU not performing like a $1000 one based on their own arbitrary expectations.
 

Hooks

Member
Oct 27, 2017
566
Because everyone keeps trying to crank it up to ultra and get shocked when it performs badly?

Sure it has a few bugs, and Rockstar needs to fix it, but being shocked that a game needs high-end gear for ultra is silly.
Ultra settings are rarely made to run on current hardware. They're aspirational settings and features for future hardware to take advantage of.

Not being able to run the game at 4K/60 ultra =/= a bad PC port.
No, I can barely run the game above 40fps on low to medium with a 1070.
 

Deleted member 17184

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,240
Not sure I know what you mean when you say open platform in that regards.
Where people can build the hardware they want (or buy a PC already made), as well as go as high as they want to be, depending on current options, budget, and goals. Then, they can run a game on a variety of possible settings, as long as it's not incompatible with their hardware. Consoles, on the other hand, are always the same (original/slim and Pro/equivalent). Performance doesn't really change between Pro models, for example.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,888
You're going to need the RTX 3080 Ti and Ryzen 4900X at 5.5 GHz to take full advantage of RDR2's offerings on PC.
 

kaisere

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,283
I honestly don't know how that's happening with this game. In that video in particular, at 1080p the CPU utilization doesn't even hit 50%, and it only exceeds that once they lower the resolution to 720p. Meanwhile, the GPU is running at 100%.



This video is pretty interesting because it is running the same GPU but a CPU with twice as many threads, maybe this game likes being multi-threaded?
 
Dec 15, 2017
1,590
The way I see it, part of the problem is game studios still announcing the PC specs like it's 1997. They should move from Minimum and recommended and instead include:

* 720p 30 FPS LOW - Bare minimum to play
* Console like experience specs (moving target as years pass, may be high settings first , medium settings later)
* 1080p 60 High settings specs - Mainstream PC gaming Specs
* Ultra settings specs: 1080p 60
* Enthusiast specs: 4k 60 high detail (if possible)

Shouldn't take long and would manage everyone's expectations. You see, for old pc gamers like me the words "low settings" carry a negative connotation.. Because I started pc gaming when the difference between low an ultra was a whole generation of consoles, where low settings would mean downright atrocious graphics and Ultra would be a glimpse to the next generation of gaming.

If Rockstar just stated: "PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE LOW PRESET IS EQUIVALENT TO CONSOLES, HIGH and ULTRA PRESETS ARE TO FUTURE PROOF THE GAME" The PC performance thread would be 1/3 as long as it's right now.
 

joeblow

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,928
Laker Nation
The OP's situation (apparently backed up by other owners of the game) actually argues against a particular, frequent request for next gen consoles that we hear from some gamers: the 60fps standard.

If even high end PCs have problems achieving that impossible goal across the board (such as with this game), why would anyone think it is achievable in any console generation?

As long as there is some fancy new software-driven tech to add to future games, there will always be developers who will use it even if it sacrifices the frame rate to 30fps (or below). 60fps will *never* be a standard for any platform other than VR, and even that's simply because of health concerns.
 

Nzyme32

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,245
'Low' in this game is like High in any other game, and scales up from there (reminded of of Crysis 2 where the lowest setting was 'High', and went up to EXTREME). But some people are somehow offended when they have to run a game on Low.

This is pretty much what it's looking like so far. Outside of the Rockstar launcher and game startup issues.

I'm very curious how low a spec machine can play the game at say 720p with the lowest settings and maintain 30fps, just to get a ball park understanding of where that is at. The high end setting are awesome for IQ but tank perf hard, which is really what I want - the ability to reap ridiculous IQ amongst other options, in the future.
 

Ploid 6.0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,440
That's why you wait to buy PC ports, and that's why there's a performance thread on era for popular games as well. You'd have dodged games like Batman Arkham Knights at launch, GTAIV, Saints Row 2, and RDR2. Some publishers allow games to release on PC in horrible states, especially if they don't value the platform.
 

Conkerkid11

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
13,946
The game can't even manage a consistent 30fps on an Xbox One X.

Ya'll have higher expectations for rigs with lower specs than a current gen console. That's the biggest problem here.
 

Hooks

Member
Oct 27, 2017
566
what resolution are you running it at?
Damn at what resolution?
What processor and resolution? On a 1070/8700k at medium with a few high settings at 1080p I'm getting around 55-65 fps.
1440p
gtx 1070
8700k @ 4.5ghz

I got a refund I'm happy, I'll wait for some optimization if not I'll repurchase when I eventually upgrade. I know the 1070 is coming to it's end at 1440p, But this is the only game that runs this poorly for me.
 

Qudi

Member
Jul 26, 2018
5,318
I absolutely hate wasting time in menus/settings to find the sweet spot for performance. This console generations has been a blessing in terms of stable framerates compared to the ps3/xbox360 era.
 

Dunlop

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,469
Should be a great game to give a approximation of what to expect from Stadia, can it do high, mid or low range for PC specs
 

newmoneytrash

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,981
Melbourne, Australia
1440p
gtx 1070
8700k @ 4.5ghz

I got a refund I'm happy, I'll wait for some optimization if not I'll repurchase when I eventually upgrade. I know the 1070 is coming to it's end at 1440p, But this is the only game that runs this poorly for me.
I think getting 40fps at 1440 on a 1070 is actually pretty decent

but if you're not happy, you're not happy! glad you could easily get a refund
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,932
I think a big problem with PC gaming right now is that many developers are advertising "recommended" specs that are too low.

I believe the GTX 1060 is the most common Steam survey GPU so they probably want to advertise that it will be enough for a great RDR2 performance when in reality it probably isn't.
Why are companies still telling us "Recommended specs" without saying what performance "Recommended" is even aiming for? I don't see how this is in any way a player's fault for not being told anything.
The way I see it, part of the problem is game studios still announcing the PC specs like it's 1997. They should move from Minimum and recommended and instead include:

* 720p 30 FPS LOW - Bare minimum to play
* Console like experience specs (moving target as years pass, may be high settings first , medium settings later)
* 1080p 60 High settings specs - Mainstream PC gaming Specs
* Ultra settings specs: 1080p 60
* Enthusiast specs: 4k 60 high detail (if possible)

Shouldn't take long and would manage everyone's expectations. You see, for old pc gamers like me the words "low settings" carry a negative connotation.. Because I started pc gaming when the difference between low an ultra was a whole generation of consoles, where low settings would mean downright atrocious graphics and Ultra would be a glimpse to the next generation of gaming.

If Rockstar just stated: "PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE LOW PRESET IS EQUIVALENT TO CONSOLES, HIGH and ULTRA PRESETS ARE TO FUTURE PROOF THE GAME" The PC performance thread would be 1/3 as long as it's right now.
Pretty much all of these is how I feel. There is a substantial power gap here.

The Official Specs:
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/red-dead-redemption-2-pc-specs-and-system-requirem/1100-6470445/

Nvidia verified configurations for 60fps:
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/red-dead-redemption-2-pc-nvidia-recommended-gpus/


This $60 game seems to be unstable for whatever reason right now and that stinks, but it'll be fixed with some time. Can't fix the Xbox One and PS4 versions being an unstable 30fps.