• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

nullref

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,052
Ultra settings are rarely made to run on current hardware. They're aspirational settings and features for future hardware to take advantage of.

I don't feel like that's been broadly true for quite a while now. It's more common for "Ultra" to be very doable on higher-end current hardware in most games, in my experience. (I've mostly been doing so on a GTX 1080 for the past 3 years, with occasional exceptions.)

It's become more common to label truly futuristic settings as "Insane" or "Extreme" or whatever for that reason, to avoid this kind of mismatch from customer expectations. If it's the case that RDR2 scales well and performs reasonably for the actual quality on offer, furor about the quality of the port (bugs and other issues aside, of course) will die down as people determine optimal settings and adjust expectations.
 
Last edited:

Jersa

Member
Oct 27, 2017
973
Boston, MA (USA)
I think people's expectations are a bit overblown with this one. I'm away from my main computer right now, but testing it out with a 1080 Max-Q laptop (about the equivalent of a 1070) at recommended settings and 1920x1080, I was able to avg 67 FPS during the benchmark.

Not going to be able to max out all the bells and whistles on every computer.
 

kaisere

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,283
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.

OP's PC is far from what is considered "high-end", so this is a terrible example.

Ultra section...

tenor.gif

it's a 1060... you're not buying a 1060 to run games on Ultra.
 

northnorth

Member
Dec 4, 2017
1,676
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.

Hhaha! Yeah! All that stuff too. I have NO idea what I should be able to run on high and still get good performance.
 

Deleted member 52407

User requested account closure
Banned
Jan 23, 2019
178
PC game is not for you.

And if you tolerate 30 fps u should play on consoles.

You are trying everything on ultra. Try high settings and see the magic happen.

And remember consoles(even one x) is a mix of low and medium.

No its not. I'm pretty sure the X version is a mix, but leans more towards a mix of medium to ultra settings with most settings between medium and high on average at 4k.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,935
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.
If RDR2 was designed around the modern feature set of a Zen 2 desktop processor (including things like AVX/2 and wider 8c16t+ cpu support), it would've been easier to design the game around 60fps or even 120fps.




Look at that CPU usage compared the GPU usage, while recording a 4k video to boot.
 

MXG

Member
Oct 29, 2018
308
In this game,

Low = Very High,
Medium = Ultra
High = Extreme

Ultra = Try Again in 2-3 years

People need to stop obsessing over graphics settings. Stop thinking low settings are an attack on your self esteem.
 

XR.

Member
Nov 22, 2018
6,582
I might be wrong here but going by the OP it sounds like your issue is with Rockstar, not PC-gaming specifically?

That's not to say there are things you might legitimately dislike within the platform, but being disappointed with performance is, of course, possible no matter the platform.

One thing I really wish more developers would implement is a setting for "original" quality, i.e. intended settings if you will. Or a "console preset". The naming scheme for graphical settings is completely arbitrary in the end so it would help a lot if they represented something I could relate to. Ultra/Extreme/Very High doesn't tell me anything specific at all and those settings might as well be completely out of reach with current technology, but are offered for good measure and to let people choose themselves whether they'd want to use it now or in the future with a stronger PC.

So it's not optimal, and I understand if you're not interested in dealing with a settings menu at all, but I do hope this can be evolved and implemented better; everything from minimum specs to the different settings available.
 
Last edited:

Dommo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,687
Australia
I'm just being honest. If the guy don't like to mix with settings and don't bother about 30 fps he should play on consoles.

In 2019, this is largely gatekeeping nonsense. Sure, building a computer is obviously a lot more tinkery than buying a console, but once you've got everything setup, gaming on PC can be generally as straightforward as gaming on a console, with an obvious improvement to picture quality and performance. If you don't like to tinker and play with settings but notice the general improvement PC gaming brings, it's still absolutely a viable option for you.
 

MXG

Member
Oct 29, 2018
308
No its not. I'm pretty sure the X version is a mix, but leans more towards a mix of medium to ultra settings with most settings between medium and high on average at 4k.

Absolutely not, mixture of mostly low with some medium settings on X1X with texture being high. All consoles versions ( base ps4, ps4 pro, base X1, X1X) share same graphics preset, only difference is the resolution.

This is the true next gen game on PC.
 

Komo

Info Analyst
Verified
Jan 3, 2019
7,110
Why is this always the first thing that gets fixated on, even if it's not actually the real problem? Many are having problems even with everything at medium settings. I'm also rereading the OP, and I don't see the word "ultra" anywhere in it.
I mean this just proves the game is hella unoptimized.
 

Chettlar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,604
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.

Yup.

Durante always has to show up in this kind of situation.

Like dude. This is a gorgeous looking game, and you're trying to run it at Ultra 1080p 60 fps. Like you're going to need decent hardware to do so.

A 1060 has been middle of the road for several years now. Considering you can just lower a few settings (HINT: TRY SHADOWS IN MOST GAMES) to get great performance in a great looking game like

like


like

THIS IS WHY PC GAMING IS GOOD. You can make the game meet you whereever you are at and have a good experience. PC gaming is more than just the latest and greatest giving you the ultimate premium experience. You can still have an experience far better than console and far more customizable even with a PC that doesn't match recommended settings.

How OP is twisting this into a negative is beyond me.
 

TSM

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,823
Hopefully DF makes a comprehensive PC performance video and we'll see exactly which settings are worthwhile and which are just performance hogs.
 

Chettlar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,604
OP's PC is far from what is considered "high-end", so this is a terrible example.



it's a 1060... you're not buying a 1060 to run games on Ultra.

Er not exactly true. A 1060 will run most games at ultra 1080p60 pretty handily. But we are coming to the end of a generation with a PC port with many improvements specifically added so higher end PCs can take advantage of them. In that sort of instance, no a 1060 will not do it well.

Instead you will probably want at least a 1070.

But for most games ultra or nearly ultra will get you 1080p60 pretty handily. Only the very most demanding games won't.

Not that that's a problem since you can often just like, idk drop shadows, maybe switch your AA to a different type, find some odd setting that taking down doesn't even make the game look better at all, etc. and you're golden.
 

catpurrcat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,790
As a relative newcomer and recent convert to pc gaming after several start-stops from AWFUL pc experiences multiple times over the past 10 years, things have been going so smoothly on my new build until today. Game won't even start. After a 100GB+ download. After another half-hour of "decrypting" the video game - whatever that means. The launcher "exits" unexpectedly nonsense.

This type of thing has to go away permanently in pc gaming. EVERY game should at least launch, with MINIMUM settings for the first launch, simple as that.

The wasted time people are putting up with...disabling AV, disabling firewall, reinstalling, updating bios, rolling back drivers, it's ridiculous.
 

Lashley

<<Tag Here>>
Member
Oct 25, 2017
59,983
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'd say 40 fps is quite good with those specs

No its not. I'm pretty sure the X version is a mix, but leans more towards a mix of medium to ultra settings with most settings between medium and high on average at 4k.
lmao, nah bro, not even close
 

catpurrcat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,790
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.

Fantastic post^
 

Deleted member 52407

User requested account closure
Banned
Jan 23, 2019
178
Absolutely not, mixture of mostly low with some medium settings on X1X with texture being high. All consoles versions ( base ps4, ps4 pro, base X1, X1X) share same graphics preset, only difference is the resolution.

This is the true next gen game on PC.

Gears 5

Screen-space reflections:
PC = Ultra +
Base Xbox One = High
Xbox One X = Ultra + (Similar to Ultra+ on PC)

Motion Blur:
PC = Ultra +
One X = "Similar" but loses "ultra reflections for high"

DF: Gears 5 on Xbox One X is comparable to the higher-end PC version DF: Gears 5 Tech Test

Xbox One X is awesome. Ultra high-end PC hardware is underutilized and is far more futureproof. Still, Xbox One X isn't giving up a lot to high end PCs with current games even if there is some visual difference.

Next gen we'll see the 2080 and Ti really show their value IMO.
 

Lakeside

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,218
i would say that attitudes like this is why some people still hate PC gaming, not recommended specs

Do console players never make dumb posts? It seems silly to point at something like this.

Even if this game has issues it doesn't need to be painted as a representation of PC gaming. Now I'm tempted to buy it so I can see how it runs.

Edit: I was thinking if someone picked a game that runs terrible on Switch and made a similar post..
 
Last edited:

CthulhuSars

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,906
1060 this day and age is not going to get you to the places you dream of without some video changes in the options menu. it is a mid tier card from a couple of years ago.
 

Last_colossi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
4,252
Australia
As a relative newcomer and recent convert to pc gaming after several start-stops from AWFUL pc experiences multiple times over the past 10 years, things have been going so smoothly on my new build until today. Game won't even start. After a 100GB+ download. After another half-hour of "decrypting" the video game - whatever that means. The launcher "exits" unexpectedly nonsense.

This type of thing has to go away permanently in pc gaming. EVERY game should at least launch, with MINIMUM settings for the first launch, simple as that.

The wasted time people are putting up with...disabling AV, disabling firewall, reinstalling, updating bios, rolling back drivers, it's ridiculous.

I spent 2 hours this morning troubleshooting literally everything I could possibly think of that would cause this, nothing's worked, I've sent a ticket through rockstars support but they're going to be able to do jack shit until rockstar releases a patch, if this isn't fixed by tomorrow I'm going to request a refund and might pick it up on sale for steam later on.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,760
Opinion: a good number of PC gamers are clueless and obsessed with high and ultra settings. If a developer makes a game that is relatively easy on GPUs, it's crap that's held back by consoles, but if said developer chooses to push even the best hardware available with forward-looking features, out come the conspiracy theorists, bitching about optimization.

Also, this:


No its not. I'm pretty sure the X version is a mix, but leans more towards a mix of medium to ultra settings with most settings between medium and high on average at 4k.

We'll see in a few days, but I'm inclined to think you're way off base. This is a game meant to make high end GPUs sweat. 1X has nothing of the sort.
 

Cenauru

Dragon Girl Supremacy
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,967
Opinion: a good number of PC gamers are clueless and obsessed with high and ultra settings. If a developer makes a game that is relatively easy on GPUs, it's crap that's held back by consoles, but if said developer chooses to push even the best hardware available with forward-looking features, out come the conspiracy theorists, bitching about optimization.

Also, this:

So why isn't this communicated at all by Rockstar? Why are companies still giving out vague spec lists without telling us what they're even aiming for?
 

Poimandres

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,867
Sorry OP, you shouldn't expect 60fps with your PC (which is basically identical to mine) without making some sacrifices. But, you will handily outperform consoles.
 

JahIthBer

Member
Jan 27, 2018
10,382
Honestly it seems to run fine on everything BUT pre RTX Nvidia cards, for that reason ill be waiting for the Steam release, i hope they patch it up by then.
But a big AAA game by Rockstar shouldn't fucking run at 50fps at 1080p on a GTX 1080 Ti, a GPU that's likely above even next gen consoles, fuck off with that shit, a quick look at Steam shows you Nvidia GPU's like the 1060 are among the most popular GPU's, yet they get poor optimisation.
 

Lashley

<<Tag Here>>
Member
Oct 25, 2017
59,983
Opinion: a good number of PC gamers are clueless and obsessed with high and ultra settings. If a developer makes a game that is relatively easy on GPUs, it's crap that's held back by consoles, but if said developer chooses to push even the best hardware available with forward-looking features, out come the conspiracy theorists, bitching about optimization.

Also, this:




We'll see in a few days, but I'm inclined to think you're way off base. This is a game meant to make high end GPUs sweat. 1X has nothing of the sort.
Agreed, on both counts
So why isn't this communicated at all by Rockstar? Why are companies still giving out vague spec lists without telling us what they're even aiming for?
Nobody knows except them
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,760
So why isn't this communicated at all by Rockstar? Why are companies still giving out vague spec lists without telling us what they're even aiming for?

That's a larger issue, I agree. It's rare to things broken down in a such a way as to allow you to get a decent idea of what to expect well before release. I wish that weren't the case, but R* is far from being the only offender.
 

Deleted member 21709

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
23,310
The difference is if the games optimization is wack I can work around the settings and make it stable and 60 with a PC game.

a console game I have to tolerate the awful performance n such. Especially rockstar shit.

RDR2 looks and plays beautifully on Xbox One X.

Sorry. No. It is a mix of low and medium. And sub 30 fps with sections around ~20 fps

Come on, there are no performance issues on X. It is as stable as it gets considering the scope.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,118
RDR2 looks and plays beautifully on Xbox One X.

What about the consoles that 98% of people actually own. Fact is on console people don't care as much because they can't do anything about it. On PC most of the time you can fix or improve issues with a little bit of patience and tinkering.
 

JahIthBer

Member
Jan 27, 2018
10,382
What about the consoles that 98% of people actually own. Fact is on console people don't care as much because they can't do anything about it. On PC most of the time you can fix or improve issues with a little bit of patience and tinkering.
You know how the internet works, everyone has a RTX 2080 Ti on PC & every Console gamer has a XBX with a 4K HDR OLED.
 

Bosch

Banned
May 15, 2019
3,680
Gears 5

Screen-space reflections:
PC = Ultra +
Base Xbox One = High
Xbox One X = Ultra + (Similar to Ultra+ on PC)

Motion Blur:
PC = Ultra +
One X = "Similar" but loses "ultra reflections for high"

DF: Gears 5 on Xbox One X is comparable to the higher-end PC version DF: Gears 5 Tech Test

Xbox One X is awesome. Ultra high-end PC hardware is underutilized and is far more futureproof. Still, Xbox One X isn't giving up a lot to high end PCs with current games even if there is some visual difference.

Next gen we'll see the 2080 and Ti really show their value IMO.
What gears 5 has to do with rdr2 ? Really? Wtf are u doing? Gears5 is another game don't mix things.
 

J_ToSaveTheDay

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
18,819
USA
Yup, OP is a big reason I quit PC gaming.

I spent a lot of time trying to learn what the gamut of common settings do — how they impact the picture quality and performance of the game. Sources like Digital Foundry did pretty good at educating me.

But engines that power games are themselves quite different and those settings can impact performance quite differently, so maybe something like tessellation has relatively low performance impact in one game and completely tanks it in another. It's not straightforward: tessellation implementation might be far more robust in one game over the other but it's still labeled "tessellation."

Then you run into graphics features that are hardware specific, and I feel like as a consumer when I'm told that my hardware is capable of a specific feature, then I can't help but feel tempted to use it. Look at RTX and ray-tracing right now, and even by extension, the addition of ray tracing to some GTX models. Yeah, I can buy an RTX 2060 on a budget and I can toggle on ray tracing but it's very rarely a pleasant game experience — the takeaway I get from that is "I should have saved up more and sprung for the the 2080." And that feeling just constantly comes up with every piece of PC hardware because it's always better than the last thing and I really hate having my expensive, self-planned and self-assembled hardware feel like it's relatively behind already (see folks' frustration with enhanced spec consoles in some titles). But on PC it happens like once every year and a half and usually costs about the same as one game console to keep up.

And yes, it is the bleeding edge for the hardcore enthusiast and has the benefit of much more precise control, but every single AAA game I buy is this delicate tweaking and testing phase that has to account for a hugely dynamic array of hardware that's relentlessly refreshed and mixed up with higher applications of familiar features and whole new ones you have to learn about.

and I'm just like

a) I wanna be a game player, not a game scientist

and

b) even when I find the tech very amusing to follow, I feel like I don't have enough money to stay in that realm of exploration — this stuff is really rad , I hope they can cram it into the next cycle of consoles!
 

JahIthBer

Member
Jan 27, 2018
10,382
Gears 5

Screen-space reflections:
PC = Ultra +
Base Xbox One = High
Xbox One X = Ultra + (Similar to Ultra+ on PC)

Motion Blur:
PC = Ultra +
One X = "Similar" but loses "ultra reflections for high"

DF: Gears 5 on Xbox One X is comparable to the higher-end PC version DF: Gears 5 Tech Test

Xbox One X is awesome. Ultra high-end PC hardware is underutilized and is far more futureproof. Still, Xbox One X isn't giving up a lot to high end PCs with current games even if there is some visual difference.

Next gen we'll see the 2080 and Ti really show their value IMO.
I don't think this is true, XBX has a lot of settings on High/a couple Medium, it's not Ultra/Extreme. The draw distance of the grass in the opening level is a lot lower on XBX. Textures are also worse on XBX.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,760
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.

Isn't it Ubisoft that's been doing this? I haven't bought one of their games day one in more than a year, but I think I've seen them do something like that with the latest Ghost Recon.
 

Strakt

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,159
I mean... it just sounds like bad optimization on Rockstar's part. Shoulda waited to see impressions first before rushing to buy it especially with that graphic card.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,118
I don't think this is true, XBX has a lot of settings on High/a couple Medium, it's not Ultra/Extreme. The draw distance of the grass in the opening level is a lot lower on XBX.

On the X it's not even close to PC on Insane settings, especially with the SSR. 1X also doesn't even run at native 4K or locked 60 either.