• 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.

VaporSnake

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,603
Man, this really is reminding me of the Crysis days, same ignorances rearing their heads.
Was able to find a mix of medium and high settings that works for me on my 1070 at 3440x1440. Capped it at 45 fps and with gsync, it feels just fine. The game is unbelievably jaw droppingly gorgeous, one of the scenes that you stroll through on the trip to chapter 2 had me gasping, havent seen this level of fidelity before, it's unbelievably dense.
 

Nooblet

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,636
crysis 2 was fine, Crysis 1 was pretty much like this but if I remember correctly it wasnt even like this, this is a whole new level
Actually Crysis 1 had significant differences between high and very high, not just in terms of better detail but also in terms of rendering features that were completely absent in high. Like Object motion blur was actually accurate and not faked, PoM didn't exist in high, the colourgrading was entirely different (Very high had this warm sunny look that was totally absent in high), the water had proper deformation using FFT. IIrc volumetric lighting was also absent in high (may be wrong about this one).

Back when Crysis 1 came out games basically had different effects used for different settings rather than just using different precision/quality version of the same effect. The low setting basically makes the game look like Farcry 1, instead of a lower quality Crysis 1. We simply don't get that anymore as from Crysis 2 onwards the difference between low and max became more about the quality of the rendering feature itself.
 

RoboitoAM

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,117
n1mj4me2zvw31.jpg


E X T R A T H I C C B O A H
 

Slammey

Member
Mar 8, 2018
323
7940X
Strix 2080Ti @2025-2100
32 Gb DDR4 3000 CL14
Alienware Ultrawide 34" 3440x1440 Gsync 120 hrz

RGL Version :

Nvidia Control Panel :

Ultra Low Latency option activated.
AF 16x (Deactivated in game)
GPU Prefered Maximum Performance
Tripple Buffering / Vsync ON ( Deactivate both in game)
Texture Quality : Quality

Vulkan Driver, did not try DX12 yet but will.
Everything mostly on Ultra/High Id say 70/30 Most sliders all the way up except water at 3/4 and the others on high. Everything else activated TAA Sharpening maxed, MSAA 2x

From the beginning up to where you use your lasso for the first time, I am averaging 70 fps, sometimes low 60's even mid 50's but barely and sometimes up unto 90. Very smooth, no real hiccups or noticeable stuttering.

Very Happy on my side. Had a few crashes but since I start the game from the launcher now, it seems to load great more often then not.

Still going to fiddle with the settings but it's really fun the way it is now!!

Really enjoying this after deciding to skip ps4 version after 2 hours in knowing it would one day come. :)

I am pissed for a lot of you which are having issues. Good luck to you all!
 

Necromanti

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,550
Hmm, well it looks like I'd get 1080p/60 FPS with medium-ish settings on my 980 Ti based on the Youtube videos that are up... Only issue is that some of the textures are absolutely ghastly. Guess I'll pick up the game in a few years.
 
Jan 15, 2018
840
Is there any known fix for the game launching in the wrong resolution? the game launches and I can't see any of the edges of the screen which prevents me from seeing any menu options.
 

Pwnz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,279
Places
Okay, playing a bit there's a clear upgrade in IQ and lighting. The benchmark scenes didn't see it as clearly. The consoley stuff are assets like trees, I guess my expectations were too high.
 
Last edited:

SleepSmasher

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,094
Australia
The fuck is up with a 2060 being faster than a 1080 TI? This smells like straight up bullshit from Nvidia to force Turing adoption. We need to escalate this shit, make no sense.
 

Pargon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,022
I know that things aren't any better in the console space, since they're limited to 30 FPS which I cannot abide, but I am so done with these awful PC ports of late.
It's really making me reconsider whether it's actually going to be worthwhile to pay for a next-gen upgrade. I feel like things never really recovered since the release of Dishonored 2, which was the first large budget game of this generation I can think of that ran poorly on everything no matter what you did with the settings.
Maybe it's just the games I am playing, but it feels like a rarity now if there's a PC release which is actually well-optimized and doesn't have other serious issues like awful mouse control.

Can't confirm. I got Nvidia sharpening enabled and the launcher has no bugs or artifacts for me.
It's definitely caused by enabling NVIDIA Sharpening on the global profile.
It's possible that NVIDIA Sharpening behaves differently depending on whether or not you have a Turing GPU (I don't) and the problem seemed to get progressively worse over time rather than always being there.

Thanks for this. I downloaded Rivatuner Statistics Server and it's great.
RTSS is one of the best frame rate limiters out there as far as frame-pacing is concerned.
But it's still trying to present 30 frames evenly in 60 refreshes, so frame-pacing issues are still possible.
Half-Refresh V-Sync forces the game to present 30 frames in 30 refreshes and it should be nearly impossible for there to be frame-pacing issues.

The fuck is up with a 2060 being faster than a 1080 TI? This smells like straight up bullshit from Nvidia to force Turing adoption. We need to escalate this shit, make no sense.
It's likely Turing's architectural improvements being utilized. Haven't there been a few games where this was the case now?
The same thing happens with most GPU generations. Cards that perform similarly in older games start to pull ahead once newer releases start taking advantage of their new features.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,275
crysis 2 was fine, Crysis 1 was pretty much like this but if I remember correctly it wasnt even like this, this is a whole new level
Crysis ran at 20-30fps at 1080p on the best GPUs around that time. It was way worse.

The fuck is up with a 2060 being faster than a 1080 TI? This smells like straight up bullshit from Nvidia to force Turing adoption. We need to escalate this shit, make no sense.
Async compute is part of the reason. It's the same reason why AMD cards are much better in this game than Nvidia cards. Basically when you see AMD GPUs do well in a game you should expect Turing to pull ahead of Pascal as it usually has the same cause.
 

exodus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,951
Stop quoting that shit Guru3D benchmark. It's running on the highest settings, which is incredibly taxing to performance.

While performance is not as good as I would like it, it's not bad at all. I've got a mix of medium, high, and ultra...mostly high. Running at 1080p with a 1.5x resolution scale (2880 x 1600 effective), and I'm getting mostly ~65-70fps.

This is with a 2070 Super and i7 6700K.

1080p just doesn't do this game justice, especially with TAA and FXAA enabled. Supersampling brings out so much more detail in the world.

I'm sure things will get better once we get some performance guides. That's Rockstar's biggest fault here: not adequately providing a performance guide for the game. I'm sure I could turn a few settings down a notch with no noticeable loss to IQ and gain a bit more performance. Ideally I'd like to hover around 80+.

My settings:

9hIYeVH.png


sLzkOxk.png


E8PkTsi.png


Vo7CTJ3.png


p51xQsw.png


FEhrehc.png
 

Qassim

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,532
United Kingdom
I set to one of the upper 'balanced' presets on a 1080Ti, 4770k (@ 4.5Ghz), 1440p (144hz / gsync) and I'm mostly above 60. The few dips below 60 aren't super noticeable and frametimes, whilst not as consistently low as I'd like, are consistent - so that's okay.

I'd like the performance to be a bit better, but I'm definitely having a pretty good technical experience with it so far. I'm looking forward to really digging into the settings and tweaking to how I'd like it. The only real bugs I've encountered is the menu glitching out every so often - but since changing to the graphics preset I'm on at the moment, I haven't experienced it..

It feels good to play this at 60fps.
 

krg

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,901
Judging by all your comments plus a couple videos I watched on YT, I'm definitely passing on this one since it runs like total ass.
May try it when PS5/Xbox Two come out.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,275
This thread is a good example of why so many devs don't try to futureproof their games. Runs badly at max settings = unoptimized piece of shit.
 

exodus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,951
Oh, and here's the same shot with no resolution scale.

My real world FPS is higher than the shots show. For some reason the framerate drops a tad when I take a screenshot. The screenshots above were just over 70fps. This one here is at 94 fps:

wttoGgt.png
 

mordecaii83

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
6,862
It's likely Turing's architectural improvements being utilized. Haven't there been a few games where this was the case now?
The same thing happens with most GPU generations. Cards that perform similarly in older games start to pull ahead once newer releases start taking advantage of their new features.
That would make sense if it was the 2070 or something matching a 1080 Ti since they weren't super far apart with old games, but a 2060? There's too much raw power difference for it to make sense. I'd guess Nvidia prioritized getting their newest generation to run well with the driver and may or may not improve it in a driver or two.
 

justjim89

Member
Nov 16, 2017
2,959
I still can't get rid of the mouse cursor in the middle of the damn screen. And trying to find a way eliminate the freezing since DX12 doesn't seem to launch at all.
 

SleepSmasher

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,094
Australia
It's likely Turing's architectural improvements being utilized. Haven't there been a few games where this was the case now?
The same thing happens with most GPU generations. Cards that perform similarly in older games start to pull ahead once newer releases start taking advantage of their new features.
Completely understand it, but I don't believe a 2060 has ever performed better than a 1080 TI before this.
 

SleepSmasher

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,094
Australia
I set to one of the upper 'balanced' presets on a 1080Ti, 4770k (@ 4.5Ghz), 1440p (144hz / gsync) and I'm mostly above 60. The few dips below 60 aren't super noticeable and frametimes, whilst not as consistently low as I'd like, are consistent - so that's okay.

I'd like the performance to be a bit better, but I'm definitely having a pretty good technical experience with it so far. I'm looking forward to really digging into the settings and tweaking to how I'd like it. The only real bugs I've encountered is the menu glitching out every so often - but since changing to the graphics preset I'm on at the moment, I haven't experienced it..

It feels good to play this at 60fps.
How does it look at your settings compared to the Pro/One X?
 

NuMiQ

Member
Oct 25, 2017
599
The Netherlands
This happened to me when I tried to run the game in DX12 mode as the game won't start because of the error. My settings defaulted to Vulcan as the API though and it works fine.

Game settings are stored in "Documents" so maybe delete everything in the settings folder (it will regenerate when starting the game) and see what happens.
Thanks for the suggestion, but sadly, its not working. Took me a while to be able to check as I was reinstalling to my root drive, to see if that might help. This is kind of annoying, as I've got to write a review on this version. That's lining up to be a doozy :P
 

Xiaomi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,237
RTX 2080@1845 MHz
8700k @ 4.7 GHz
Vulkan
1440p all high, except Ultra textures:

rdr2bench69k02.png


In Chapter 1 it seems largely to run just above 60, with some dips to high 40s/low 50s as best as I can tell without an fps counter.
 

Deleted member 11276

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,223
So does it really run only at 1080p60 at high settings with a RTX 2060 like what Nvidia stated? Expected far more, seems like this is a bad port. A RTX 2060 should be easily able to get 60 FPS at high settings in WQHD, since it's just a straight port from the weak consoles and not much has changed...
 

PieOMy

Member
Nov 15, 2018
617
Boston
It hurts to hear everyone is using TAA it absolutely kills imagine quality in my experience.

Is there no DX11 option?

See y'all in a month when its on Steam and I have whatever new parts I pick up during black friday.
 

Alvis

Saw the truth behind the copied door
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,232
Spain
Anyone tried the game yet on a laptop with a i7 9750H + RTX 2070 or similar? How does the game run?

Ugh I can't wait for this and my new laptop
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,119
Chapter 1 is also a pretty poor example of how the game will run overall. Once you get into real open world and towns that's where the real stuff is.
 

DonMigs85

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
2,770
Looks like it's pretty well-optimized for AMD, perhaps likely due to DX12/Vulkan. An RX 580 slightly outperforms a 1070 (just hope it's not a case of Nvidia starting to neglect Pascal)

index.php
 

TSM

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,823
That would make sense if it was the 2070 or something matching a 1080 Ti since they weren't super far apart with old games, but a 2060? There's too much raw power difference for it to make sense. I'd guess Nvidia prioritized getting their newest generation to run well with the driver and may or may not improve it in a driver or two.

The thing is that with DX12 and Vulkan performance is supposed to be determined by the programmers as there isn't a driver in the same way there is with DX 9 or 10. DX12/Vulkan games are supposed to bypass the normal driver structure and manage the hardware directly. So if the programmers do some stuff that performs poorly on 10 series cards I'm not sure there is anything Nvidia can do to correct it unless they start doing per game hacks like they do with DX 9/10 games. They'd likely have to help Rockstar optimize the game on their end if they wanted to help improve 10 series performance, and that's assuming they haven't already been doing so during development.
 
Last edited:
Jul 26, 2018
2,386
LOL... good thing I bought the RTX 2080 Super... but oh boy.. these results...

I think they may be the only game where I will cap it on 4K, 30FPS. Unless I take ultra off.
 

DonMigs85

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
2,770
It hurts to hear everyone is using TAA it absolutely kills imagine quality in my experience.

Is there no DX11 option?

See y'all in a month when its on Steam and I have whatever new parts I pick up during black friday.
Radeon Image Sharpening works wonders with TAA-using games, like this and Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 2
 

Coolade

Member
Oct 27, 2017
430
80 fps at 1080p on a $1200 card. What a joke.
Those benchmarks are at "ultra" though which is an entirely arbitrary label when it comes to performance cost vs noticeable visual changes. It's not really indicative of real world performance with better setting selections so I wouldn't read too much into it.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,119
Have you all seen what the game looks like with TAA completely off? The aliasing on foliage is absolutely disgusting even after downsampling.
 

HugoMadMax

Member
Nov 5, 2019
1
Guys can you help me out. I got a GTX 1050 with 2 gb my textures are on low and I cant even select medium because the game won't allow it because of my limited graphic card space. I do have a 60 fps at these graphical settings but it looks utter shit. It seems that in the settings, the fps cap is locked at 60. I cant change it. Would it help if I selected a lower frame rate cap? If so how can I do that. Thank you in advance I would be very happy to play at medium textures lmao
 

exodus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,951
I think I'm liking 1.25 resolution scale. Acceptable trade off of IQ/performance, until I can figure out what settings to drop. Ideally I'd be running at 1.5 scale (2880x1660 resolution), but I want 80+ fps.

This is 1.25 scale (2400x1350). Actual framerate in this shot is 84 fps:
b67WT1Q.png
 

Xiaomi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,237
I'm looking forward to seeing comparison images for different settings. I can't right now tell the difference between high and ultra shadows, or high/ultra global illumination.
 

Pwnz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,279
Places
It needs some patching, I get clipping rendering in the pause menu.

It's definitely a huge upgrade over PS4 Pro but at an obscene hardware cost and the base assets for a lot of models are console.

With some patches and a settings guide this could be very good. I'm done for today, will fuck around with it tomorrow night.