Console Settings from the Video and important gameplay advise at the end: Texture: Ultra Anistropic: 4x Lightning: Low Global : Low Shadow: High Far Shadow: High SSAO: Medium Reflections: Low Mirror: High Water: Medium Volumetric: Custom Particles: Medium Tesselation: Medium TAA: Medium FXAA: Off MSAA: Off Graphics API: Vulkan Near Volumetric: Low Far Volumetric: Low Volumetric Light: High Unlocked Volumetric: Off Particle: Low Soft Shadows: High Grass Shadows: Low Long Shadows: Off Full Res SSAO: Off Water Refractions: Medium Water Reflections: Medium Water physics: Mid Res Scale: Off TAA Sharpening: Off Motion Blur: On Reflection MSAA: Off Geometry LOD: FULL Grass LOD: 1/5 Tree Quality: Low Parallax: Medium Decal: Medium Fur: Medium And an important tip to my fellow PC gamers: (minor not story related spoiler) If a guy asks you to follow him into a dark alley at night in St. Denis for a job offer: don't follow him, like at all. He has a red shirt and black bowler hat with a white ribbon. Shoot him at sight. Trust me. Been through that on PS4 Pro. Biggest regret i ever had in a video game in 31 years.
@@paul2609 It's because of lower bandwidth on consoles' GPUs, or something like this. They kinda explained it on The Outer Worlds' analysis, if I'm not mistaken.
@@PetrisonRocha Yup...consoles have a common memory for both cpu & gpu....AF doesnt require processing power but requires more bandwidth .... hence it is limited mostly it is always at x4
This is xbox one x graphic setting ps4 pro and other consoles have lower than that. And one x run this game on nativ 4k and hdr10 and dolby atmos sound.
@@Nwovance Indeed. Previous Digital Foundry videos regarding RDRII said that Xbox one X did native 4k at "nigh-on locked 30fps" Can't be many £350 PCs that can do that. (Also PC user)
I'm glad you guys showed a quad-core for a few seconds at least. There's still plenty of us 4c/4th gamers out here. I'd love to see you guys go more in-depth on lower end builds in general.
@@KittenLord4TWENTY It works on 4 cores. The i5-2500K is listed as the minimum. DF shown a few seconds of RDR2 running on an Ryzen 3 2200G (paired with a 1060 iirc). The 2200G is basically a R3 1300X (3.5/3.7ghz) w/integrated graphics. I have an i5-7400 (3.0/3.5ghz). If I had to take a total guess I'd say that your 4670K would do a bit better than the 2200G while my 7400 would probably perform closer to the 2200G. Idk what gpu you have. But, I have a 1060 3gb. So, I'd have to pair back the settings quite a bit. The minimum rec gpus are GTX 770 2gb/R9 280 3gb. ...I'm probably going to hold of on RDR2 until I upgrade next year. But, I have been able to squeeze a good bit of performance out of my little pre-built.
@@KittenLord4TWENTY as long as you have the GPU horsepower(lol cowboy joke) to run it, your 4670k should be fine. What gpu do you have? I can put my old 4770k back in my rig to see how it runs
Jerad Burns That CPU was my daily driver for five years. I basically sidegraded to a 2600X for the extra cores/threads. If I was you I’d overclock it and perhaps shoot for a 30fps lock with the best PQ your GPU can output. Otherwise stutter might become overwhelming.
I got late on this RDR2 thing. Wasn't being able to play a lot while studying and working in the last 4 years, so I had to try this graphical gem of our time. It's definitely a milestone in gaming. This is like what an open, breathing world should be. Getting above sixty in 1080p around 50 fps in 1440p (ultra textures, FSR:B and mixed settings) with a highly overclocked version of the RX 580. Both the game and the graphic card aged like fine wine. Thanks for the amazing video, as always.
Download ‘process lasso’ and set cpu affinity to 98% on the RDR2 process (easy to do) and this reduces freezing significantly making the game playable again. Basic issue is that your cpu is overloaded (hitting 98-100% cpu utilisation.)
I've been really looking forward to this one. Can't wait to see Alex's console comparison. Thanks, y'all are the single best graphics enthusiast channel on youtube.
Just a quick note to say that TH-cam's video encoding backend is still working on the higher quality 1080p version of this video. Watch now for the info, or check back later for improved playback quality.
First time disliking ur video. I'm not an expert, u sure are,but man c'mon the Xbox One X runs this at almost stable 30fps at a native 4k and high-low settings with a RX580 like GPU and a fucking Jaguar AMD school calculator. Then on a RTX 2080ti it can't reach 60 fps on ultra not even at 1800p, RTX 2060 can't run It at 60fps at 1080p ultra... If u try any 4 or 6 core cpus, u'll get a lot of 5 sec freezes . Truth Is RockStar was spending his time spending the money they made and letting all the PC players crying while laughing apparently
@@Kekmit That same thing happened in dying light, where they culled their view distance settings because people would max it out and refuse to turn it down. Citing "bad performance"
Same. Would be a crying shame. They gave us what I'd consider to be a true PC game. Everything you could want customization and settings wise for graphics and controls...albeit with some launch issues, and at least half of what idiots are bitching about is spawned by ignorance. It really sucks.
Even GTAV's Ultra Grass preset is still doing enough to drop frames on even modern powerful cards. I thought I could turn it up after going from a 970 to a 2060 but I still saw the exact same drops below 60FPS in certain areas just because of that one setting on Ultra.
It's the grass settings combined with other settings like shadow quality and especially MSAA (if you have it turned on) that kills the framerate. It really makes me wish they went the extra mile and added specific settings for grass shadow quality and grass anti aliasing so you could choose to turn them down without turning everything else down in the process.
I'll be playing RDR2 at 4k 60fps Ultra in a few years on a budget PC. I never buy games on release. I bought GTA V about 4 years after release and I play on max settings. I'll be playing 2019/2020 games on my next budget PC in a few years time, all at max settings.
Thank you for including older cards for a change. Its so rare to get good actual gameplay comparisons with older cards that it makes it difficult to really judge just how much of a benefit upgrading might be from one card to another. Sure new cards will always be an improvement, but determine the cost to performance improvement when you have to guess as your card isn't represented anymore is harder. I still find my GTX 970 copes pretty well with most games I play, though I was tempted to upgrade this gen, but in the end I decided to wait till next gen to see what happened with RTX.
@@Whizzer i went from mid 50s to low 60s going from 16x to 8x with a 580 on more or less high some very high settings at 1080p. Edit: on shadow. Can't remember for rise but is was similar mid 70s to low 80s
There are games that tie Tesslation distance and Parallax occlusion mapping to Anisotropic filtering distance. So AF have a way higher impact than the usual.
@@lightmyfire88 Most of RPCS3's graphical glitches were gone last I tried, but framerate still isn't quite there. Xenia is more playable FPS wise, but the audio can be glitchy and more importantly, missions are. With that being said, I said very close...we aren't there yet. But we most certainly will get there eventually.
It's not a fair way of looking at it. RDR2 can be very taxing even on high-end cards. But as compared to Crysis it's able to run on also simple cards. A five year old enthusiast card such as the GTX 970 can run the game rather well, and even a very old and inexpensive GPU such as GTX 750 Ti can push it over 30 fps at 720p. Compare this to Crysis in which even the very best cards of the day such as the 8800 GTX had a hard time running it at much more than 720p/40-45 fps. And that card was a true monster as compared to everything else available at that time.
I have an rtx 2080 with a 1080p 144hz monitor. I copied your console settings, and then turned anything set to low up to medium. 110fps average, and still looks great. I'm using an i9 9900k, and I noticed my cpu usage was very high. It would often hit 70% usage on ALL 16 threads simultaneously, and for extended periods of time. This game definitely requires a strong CPU to play at higher frame rates, especially when it comes to core and thread count. I imagine some people might not be getting the performance they expect from their GPU because their CPU might be holding them back.
This is kind of what I'd been thinking in the wake of all the "RDR2 on PC is poorly optimised!" headlines. The Rage engine isn't perfect, it still runs into issues with high framerates and low thread count CPUs without SMT, much like GTA5 before it, and RDR2 itself isn't the most *stable*, but the graphical settings in RDR2 are meant to scale onto more powerful hardware in the future. Almost like they're ready and waiting for a next-gen console release, wouldn't you think?
The problem is those "Next Gen" hardware are already available for consumers on PC. Nevertheless, I've heard AMD is already confirming for Ryzen 4000 this 2020 1st quarter
I see your point! While it most definitely is a demanding game, there's no doubt in my mind that this game hasn't received all of the optimization it can as of yet. There were some huge gains made with GTA V, so I'm expecting there to be some large gains here as well! I recall there being claims of SLI (something we haven't seen yet), so it's (seemingly) apparent that not everything is finished just yet! I'd give it a few months and a few GPU drivers before we make any conclusions!
I just posted about this on Reddit. I play the game on a GTX 1080, i5 9600K, 16GB of DDR4 and a 27" 2K 144Hz G-Sync panel. I play with a mix of high and ultra settings at a LOCKED 30fps and I love it. I get those of you who want 60fps, I really do, and I know my rig can handle it easily, but right now I'm having an experience equal or greater to the one I had on my base PS4 a year ago and I couldn't be happier. 60 fps isn't always the answer, in my opinion. I'd rather have a consistent 30fps that looks incredible than a fluctuating 60-144fps on a mix of low and medium.
Rockstar should have put the console settings on the PC menu, and some screenshots with the changes Some players are saying it is unoptimized, but this would just make them understand how much they are getting.
Well its debatable, us older PC gamers have always just "assumed" some custom tweaking will be required to hit that optimal IQ to performance balance even when owning the top GPU, and trying to use "full Ultra" all the time is for the noobies. I know PC gaming is superior for graphics, why do I care about what matches console settings?
To be fair, not allowing you to lower or even turn off stuff like Volumetric lighting is definition of unoptimised. Most games let you turn demanding things like that off even if the game looks janky just so more people can enjoy the game even on low end hardware. People are comparing this to Crysis, but imagine if Crysis didn't allow you to turn off demanding settings.
Not really. If I put out something that was this messed up I’d probably be fired, or at the very least I’d be looking for a new job out of personal pride in my work. I hope someone got it in writing that they were forced to release this in such a state. If you just say people need to take a deep breath you are encouraging accepting lower standards which is not a good idea. That said, I should heed the advice of a manager I reported to which was “don’t lower your standards, just learn to be comfortable with people not meeting them.”
I've been trying to get the message out on the subreddit haha. Being generous the Xbox One X has a GTX 1070, which is almost exactly 50% of a 2080Ti stock. So you would expect the 2080Ti can do 4k/60 at Xbox One Visuals right? Well it does better!, Med/High/Ultra that looks far better than the X while getting 2x the FPS from 2X the Power! That's good optimization for me.
They were wrong about GTA 4 if they said that. Unlike this game it ran bad even on lower settings on cards of the time, infact it ran bad on anything really.
Ive always had great computers, and played all games on highest settings, highest settings should not be playable on a pc from 1500 dollars, comon man,
If they capped most of the settings out at "potato" quality and called that "ultra," no one would be complaining about how "poorly optimized" this game is.
Been able to run most things on high on an aging Maxwell Titan X and 4790k, and luckily without any of the bugs and crashes others have unfortunately faced. I played so many hours of the game on a base PS4, and yet the increase in framerate was like rediscovering how beautiful it was all over again.
I've been running on the excellent brand new G Sync compatible LG OLED, jaw firmly planted on the floor. With everything maxed I can easily stay in the 40-60hz range at 4k on the 2080ti. Very good looking stuff!
YES. i just got the b9. I found out i enjoy less than 4k at 80-90 fps. g-sync of course. i never thought id need framerate above 60 but i have to say 90 fps at 1440p or above nicer than 4k60 for a lot of games......deliver us the moon not so much:)
Looking at the settings and the performance, it looks like medium offers more or less console like visuals which doesn't look that demanding even for mid range cards with a few tweaks to the settings, as for ultra settings, they seem to be for future hardware or maybe crossfire/SLI hardware. It also looks like you can easierlly do this game at 30fps even on cheap hardware. With all that said, it looks like it needs a patch or two to fix some of the bugs and crashes and performance is likely to just get better with patch updates and driver updates.
+Jordie Evans That's because the game doesn't run at any settings comparable to PC's ultra on consoles, and runs very few of them at PC's high, as was stated in the video. Regardless, the only way you'd probably achieve any kind of proper match between them would be by changing the ini files on PC.
@@LukeSparrow221 As a developer I would also lower certain settings as low as I could while maintaining some form of quality given the very limited resources on console (which is both a strength and a weakness). Though I do find current consoles very underwhelming compared to things like the PS2 & Gamecube which had very distinct features that could pull off some very interesting graphical effects at next to no cost (at the expense of being fixed feature stuff, so none programmable & predefined to some extend). The worst is not having a better performing preset on console though. 30 fps while acceptable has to be absolutely locked for me. Most console games fail in that regard by pushing too much graphics instead of "playability" (a personal preference, not an absolute fact).
@@waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaluigi Fallen Order is a fun game and all, but doesn't look "twice as well"; not even close mate. When playing Fallen Order I iffed about the graphics multiple times. Especially fucking wookies.
Properly future proofed. This I can respect. Also immensely pleased by the fact that Vulkan is hitting the big leagues and surely realizing its potential. Superb video as always Richard.
Perhaps for a few settings; but had you not been told, you'd have accepted what was there. After all, A beautiful game is a beautiful game. Now stop using elitism as a crutch for your insecurities.
@@joshuafubu31 The fact that you took the mention of 'some' lower than low settings as the basis of your comment, one could have easily have said high settings on console, as there were 'some' of those too means you're trolling for attention. Great job
Enable Async Compute for less stuttering in Vulkan. Usefull especially for AMD cards Polaris/Vega/Navi. Go to Documents\Rockstar Games\Red Dead Redemption2\Settings\System.xml Open system.xml with notepad and find asyncComputeEnabled value="false" Change it to asyncComputeEnabled value="true" and save it. That's all 👍
Not been on this for ages, but I booted it up last night and was surprised how smooth the game was, I went into settings thinking I was playing at 1080p to discover I was playing at 4k, I could only get 25fps before with a gtx1080. Seems they have done some good optimisation in recent time.
Big up for you guys. Im glad you have the insight to do what most people overlook. Which is to test the console equivalent settings on pc on various builds. This is exactly what i was looking for
DF: DX12 stutters more than Vulkan HUB: Vulkan stutters more than DX12 GN: DX12 stutters more than Vulkan Me: My Brain stutters more than before I watched the videos
I have issue on Vulcan when using shift/ctrl/alt keys stuttering is happening but if I will use any direction key D for example it goes away. Also have issues with custom ultra- settings at 1080p with Xeon X5660 Oc'ed and GTX 1070 which was crashing to the desktop on DX12. I was playing online and it happening pretty randomly, sometimes after 10-15 mins sometimes after 1-2hrs. So I tried Vulcan right now and was able to play over 2hrs without any crash. Just that stutter when u using sprint is kinda frustrating when u play some pvp but it's better than losing 15mins of gameplay when crash occur during mission :D. BTW X5660 4,35ghz 12gb DDR3 1650mhz GTX 1070 factory OC and with mine settings averaging 44fps in build in benchmark with DX12. Can't complain I think :D.
Well... to be frank: A big settings menu is a nice thing to have, but it's also the developer's job to have some decent presets for the users who don't want to fiddle around with graphics settings for ages. That would have probably helped with the negative press. On the other hand, most issues I've read about so far were about the game crashing or not even starting up to begin with, so....
Bro, i got mix of medium to high graphics and i can't get 60 fps, i got gtx 1060 and ryzen 5 2600, gtx 1060 is in recomended specs so it shoulda be able to handle this game at that graphics, for refrence i get 90 fps in gta 5 on highest graphics. Not even rtx 2060 or 2070 can get constant 60 fps. This port is really unoptimized, yes i realise that gtx 1060 is 2 year old gpu but its not that bad, new cod MW i can run at highest settings 60+ fps.
Thank you for this video DF, I have been arguing with people over and over again over this entire point of video. Well optimized does not mean ultra is required to run on a low or mid range graphics card at 1080p. Also, there are so many uneducated or fanboys flooding the topic of the PC version not looking any better than consoles at ultra settings which couldnt be further from the truth, one because they are only comparing compressed TH-cam videos to compare or two they dont have the hardware to push ultra on their own systems to see for themselves. I will recommend this video to anyone and everyone whether they argue against the topic or are on the fence performance wise and if that's keeping them from purchasing the game on pc. Thank you for all the hard work you do to educate those who just dont know any better.
Darryl Campbell Well said. “Why can’t my three year old, last gen architecture card play this new game at ultra 1440p?” “Why is my GTX 1060 getting low frame rates? I have an Intel i3...”
It's actually kind of amazing how it's not common knowledge at this point that "ultra" generally means screenshot quality while high and lower are the gameplay/playable settings. The fact that moving the quality slider to the very top doesn't ramp all the settings up to ultra should be a dead giveaway.
I've been waiting since release for your video on RD2. Absolutely thorough and well presented. As usual Digital Foundary delivers. Fantastic, well done guys.
I say nvidia is behind it too! They should release a new driver for better performance on their older cards but it seems like they want to push people to buy 2000 series cards
Oh but AMD GPUs have an immense computational throughput. Rx580 6.2 TFlops, Rx590 7.1 TFlops, GTX1070 6.5 TFlops. In most real-world uses, AMD GPUs have issues that usually limit their real-world performance compared to theoretical performance, such as higher group penalty on branching, higher driver overhead, etc, and the spec TFlops performance is for the faster FP16 data, while NVidia has no particularly fast data type, it's all the same there. That AMD punch above their price class in this title is an indication that this game works around these issues very well. I don't think there's anything left to optimise on Pascal.
Everyone talks about the rtx cards but no one talks about the tesla p40. That card costs $6,000 and has like 24 gb of vram. If that card cant run rdr2 at 4k ultra settings with 60 fps ill be damned as fuck.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
@Johnny Fire it cant bro really game optimization needs to be good
Unfortunately you really can't get 60fps without stutters unless you have more than 4 threads. Even i5s will have to settle for 30fps to get a non-stuttery experience
I have a old i5 6500 and a rx480! Am soo happy to play it at 30fps with kinda high settings, amd super resolution set to 1440p and msaa off! 👌🏻Such a beautiful game! ❤️
Thank you so much! I've had a feeling, that the settings might be misunderstood. Assuming that a RTX2080ti would run this game at 4k with 60 FPS. I remembered Kingdom Come Deliverence. The developers clearly said, that Ultra settings are meant for future hardware, when the 1080ti was the hot thing. And maybe that's the time we ended up in. No need for remasters, because with all the tools available today, you can make a game future ready and getting better with each generation of hardware. At the end of the day, that's not a bad thing. I'm not defending the rough start of RDR2 on PC. But because there are more launcher updates, than game updates, I assume the problems are launcher related. That thing is brand new and in my opinion not ready. Now they have to fight at two fronts. Not saying, it's not their fault! There are more issues for sure. And it would have helped, if they spent more effort on that graphic menu. Ubisoft set the standard with comparison pictures in addition to the description. And those are not always very well written in RDR2. Until yesterday, I was also very disappointed. Had some crashes during benchmarks, (still) freezes in the store scene with vulkan, and it was hard to get into the graphic settings. And with all the anger on the internet, I felt also angry and pointing on Rockstar for a bad port. I hope they fix the problems, because if the game runs, it is far from being a bad port. After benchmarking setting by setting, I think I figured out the differences and impacts on performance, at least on my PC. I started with all at medium and battled my way to a mix of mostly high and some medium and ultra settings, ending up with a solid 60 FPS in the snow scene and between 65 and 75 in the rest of the benchmark. That's in 1080p. Going more for medium and some high and you can set the resolution to 1440p. Like in the video, Vulkan gives me a great FPS win, but the frametimes are all over the place and freezings in the store scene of the benchmark. Cannot wait for your take on the settings, because I am a noob and even if my settings look great and work, I know I missed a lot :P Thanks for Digital Foundry. You make every tweak of a game an experience and a lot easier. i5 8600k GTX 1070ti 16GB RAM
I wouldn't compare this game to KC:D too much, because KC:D does have some fairly large optimization problems when you try to scale it up to higher frame rates with powerful hardware and/or lower settings. It simply starts to become bottlenecked and GPU utilization starts to drop and higher FPS cannot be achieved, at least last time I played it this was the case. Real shame for someone that enjoys a nice high framerate. Meanwhile I've managed to get RDR2 up to ~100FPS average with quite decent settings, with no signs of any sort of the same optimization issues. I'm confident that with my setup I could push it to 120 or even 144fps fairly constantly with no GPU utilization issues, if I was willing to sacrifice more settings.
This bizzare expectation of what we generically term "ultra" settings should always be doable at 60fps+ on current hardware started about 5-7 years ago, I believe due to TH-cam channels using "ultra" as a baseline for benchmarking. PC gamers have always asked developers to give us the best possible graphics and allow us to tweak settings, its a cornerstone of PC gaming so it annoys me when kids slide settings to full ultra and then complain in fourms "the game is unoptimized".
@@Battleneter To be fair, a lot of games have normalized that behavior due to not really putting many, if any settings in that wouldn't work well when fully maxed on high end cards. So a lot of the time these days, when a game doesn't run at 60+fps on a 2080Ti, it probably is unoptimized. BL3 runs very poorly, especially for how it looks, and is most certainly unoptimized. RDR2 is obviously a different story, but people have gotten accustomed to that...they've also gotten accustomed to not thinking for themselves so it's really not a surprise at all, as sad as it is to say.
@@soulshot96 I agree some games "are" poorly optimsed no question but the term is heavily over used as a lot of people simply don't know what they are looking at from a graphics point of view.. If can tweak a game to lets say "generally" high with some ultra settings and maybe a few medium settings, and hit 90-100fps at 3440x1440@120, I know the game is pretty well optimised even if it runs like garbage at "full ultra". There is no exact science here.
Alex : What does it take to run RDR2 in 60 fps My computer : What does it take to turn on in less than 1 minute and run minecraft on lowest settings in 30 fps.
There should be these settings in the Volumetrics sections: Ultra : CRISP Very High : Still Crisp High : kinda crisp Medium : little bit Blurry Low : Blurry Dithery Console : Dither-y , Low res-y and blurry mess
Maybe it's too early to make a final conclusion of the performance in the GTX 1060 6G (which I own). I hope with proper Driver optimization and futures updates in the game, solve this unoptimized mess. For now, I don't wanna buy this game at the current state.
1000 series doesn't have proper hardware support for things like asyncronous compute which the newer low level APIs make proper use of. (AMD has had for a while, hence the good 290 performance and the latest 2000 Nvidia cards also have it). If all things were equal on the driver side the 580 is always going to outperform the 1060 so that comparison shouldn't be used to determine if the game is un-optimized or not. Either way I imagine future drivers will improve performance still. (Edit: Also Nvidia have ligher/better drivers in DX11 but I think the newer APIs level the playing field somewhat)
@ValenShephard in this game its horrendous to play it under 60 though, I beat it on ps4 a few months ago, and went back to it last night. Its atrocious to me. The full second of input lag I cant stand.
@ValenShephard because they havent ever played it above the 25-30 fps it runs at on console, and good for them. After experiencing games at 60 and above I wont go back, I wish I could.
I appreciate this guide but I feel like you guys really missed the mark on showing people what settings impact the game the most. This was pretty much just a test to see the minimum GPU spec for 60fps. I think you said there was going to be another video with a settings breakdown though? I sure hope so, being someone that has I high spec machine I just want to know what I can live with reducing that will impact performance the most. Looking to get into the 90 to 100fps range with a 1080ti, and currently at about 75-80fps with a mix of settings.
Finally bought a 3080 a few months back. This game maxed with soft shadow down a to high/ssao shadows to off and graphics scaler scaled down just a tad..... looks breathtaking. I get about 56 fps at night in my camp with fog, smoke and beautiful glowing shadows. It really is astonishing. In another 3 years hopefully I'll replay it again with the 4080 and finally have max everything at 60 fps.
bro, you should be running it maxed out. I'm on an 1080 GTX running at 1440p(barely) and I have most settings maxed out. Lower your trees to high/medium, they only affect the long distance trees but have a huge impact on framerates. Medium = 50 fps, high = 40 fps in the same area with no visual difference(except for like 3 extra super distant trees in a forest you can't even notice because theres enough trees around them that they blend in). Consider disabling tree Parallax Mapping just so you can enable other things. Tree parralax = 10 fps and you can only see it up close, other settings that you can see all the time everywhere might be more worthwhile to turn on instead(like shadows and SSAO which is visible everywhere you turn). Consider dropping the grass slider to 2/3 orso. It helps with fps quite a bit and if you keep it above 2/3 the grass range is still ridiculous, you'll see grasses on hillsides far far away. I have all shadows, SSAO, etc on Ultra so you definitely can run it too. The only thing I have on high is "Reflections" because they eat FPS. 45 fps in camp, up to 60 fps in the world. enough for me to enjoy on my ancient hardware. Also, DLSS/AMD FSR can really help boost FPS. FSR 2.0 is the only reason i can run on Ultra, otherwise I would have to lower settings. OH AND WATER PHYSICS. If you drag the water physics bar all the way to the end it kills your FPS, i go from 60 to 30 and that's nowhere near water. Leave it at 2/3.
@@0xsergy Thank you for the suggestions man. The only problem I have is at night, specifically in my camp where all the fog and smoke from the fires glow and light flickers off each other. That's the only time it chugs to 50 fps and I have to turn something down a smidge to keep 60 fps. During the day nothing makes my fps drop to below 59 on max everything. The shadows are just incredible at 4k. Also, yeah the water hits pretty hard on max. I have the slider down a couple notches and can't tell any diff in quality. Thx again.
@@TheCrain definitely worth trying FSR on 4k my dude, you have enough pixels that the visual drop wouldn't be noticeable but you'd be able to max it out cause FSR is a 15 fps boost in itself and looks identical to the stock TAA. use the "quality" setting.
@@razoo911 and less durable if u really calculate that the lifespan of gtx is 2x durable you will spend more money while another one is still using gtx but if want a really good deal with a gpu during more and still capable of running future games the rtx 2080ti is the best option for not spending more money to get 100fps in future games Seco'd u tell 300$ more for just 50fps, i've got a 144hz and if i ever go down to 70/80fps it's like playinh 30fps on a 60hz
@@zobkey everybody know amd gpu age better compared to nvidia....did you see old r9 390 aka r9 290?? 20% faster then gtx 1060 in this video....now just imagine what can do compared to his competitor gtx 780
Has anyone else noticed on more recent drivers, using NV Inspector; if you show all settings, there's a relatively new option there 'COLORCOMPRESSENABLE' it's a binary (1 or 0) setting. It's very interesting, considering NV is kind of known for their optimized(aggressive) compression. Would be great if DF was interested in testing :p
![[4K] Red Dead Redemption 2: The Digital Foundry Tech Analysis!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Dnzuh6I8gnM/mqdefault.jpg)
They should've renamed "Ultra" to "try again in a few years"
or try again when better optimized
Nvidia 8nm next summer
@@hjembrentkent6181 7nm*
rename to "ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT"
When they cant sell price gouged 2080tis anymore by exploiting consumer ignorance.
Console Settings from the Video and important gameplay advise at the end:
Texture: Ultra
Anistropic: 4x
Lightning: Low
Global : Low
Shadow: High
Far Shadow: High
SSAO: Medium
Reflections: Low
Mirror: High
Water: Medium
Volumetric: Custom
Particles: Medium
Tesselation: Medium
TAA: Medium
FXAA: Off
MSAA: Off
Graphics API: Vulkan
Near Volumetric: Low
Far Volumetric: Low
Volumetric Light: High
Unlocked Volumetric: Off
Particle: Low
Soft Shadows: High
Grass Shadows: Low
Long Shadows: Off
Full Res SSAO: Off
Water Refractions: Medium
Water Reflections: Medium
Water physics: Mid
Res Scale: Off
TAA Sharpening: Off
Motion Blur: On
Reflection MSAA: Off
Geometry LOD: FULL
Grass LOD: 1/5
Tree Quality: Low
Parallax: Medium
Decal: Medium
Fur: Medium
And an important tip to my fellow PC gamers:
(minor not story related spoiler)
If a guy asks you to follow him into a dark alley at night in St. Denis for a job offer: don't follow him, like at all. He has a red shirt and black bowler hat with a white ribbon. Shoot him at sight. Trust me. Been through that on PS4 Pro. Biggest regret i ever had in a video game in 31 years.
I don't understand why consoles rarely have Anistropic at full x16. It's always either 8x, 4x or OFF.
Those are still better than console setting cause some of them are below low setting and on pc you can not lower it below low setting
@@paul2609 It's because of lower bandwidth on consoles' GPUs, or something like this. They kinda explained it on The Outer Worlds' analysis, if I'm not mistaken.
@@PetrisonRocha Yup...consoles have a common memory for both cpu & gpu....AF doesnt require processing power but requires more bandwidth .... hence it is limited mostly it is always at x4
This is xbox one x graphic setting ps4 pro and other consoles have lower than that. And one x run this game on nativ 4k and hdr10 and dolby atmos sound.
Wouldn't it be funny that when you hit 60 fps, it unlocks an achievement? :D
Lmao😂😂
And for consoles? hahaha
@@david0712 31 fps ?
Easy just look at the sky and boom 90 fps
My mid range gaming laptop gets about 35fps with mid graphics setting coming from 1650 user, it doesn’t look horrible either
Red Dead Redemption 2 PC: What Does It Take To Run -At- -60fps- ?
well, you can play it on a 2200g at 720p.
@@eugkra33 Try 2400G instead, 2200g is..... not enough.
I can run it just fine. I bet you hated Andromeda too since some random TH-cam person said the eyes were SLIGHTLY off. Git gud.
@@StarwindAmada1 bruh
+Vzmaster run @1620p/3K Ultra Settings!
You skipped step 1, "how to get past the launcher"
cleverjaja THIS
Old news.... next!!!
My $600 prebuilt machine runs it with no problems. Git gud.
step 1 - learn how to PC
There ya go buddy.
@@CrAzYpOtHeAd420time leave it to a neck beard to ignore the reality of the situation.
"Some of consoles settings are lower than PC's low and therefor cannot be replicated" oof.
To be fair the cost of a console versus a full pc build p4p is pretty impressive (pc user)
Some of PC freezes are PC's exclusives feature and therefor cannot be replicated
@@Nwovance Indeed. Previous Digital Foundry videos regarding RDRII said that Xbox one X did native 4k at "nigh-on locked 30fps"
Can't be many £350 PCs that can do that.
(Also PC user)
@@GAmbrose Used hardware PC's are capable easily, with new parts yeah it's challenging :D.
@@96Bialy used*
I'm glad you guys showed a quad-core for a few seconds at least. There's still plenty of us 4c/4th gamers out here. I'd love to see you guys go more in-depth on lower end builds in general.
So does the game just not work on 4 cores? I have an i5-4670k... I really didn't excpect to HAVE to upgrade it to play this game.
@@KittenLord4TWENTY It works on 4 cores. The i5-2500K is listed as the minimum. DF shown a few seconds of RDR2 running on an Ryzen 3 2200G (paired with a 1060 iirc). The 2200G is basically a R3 1300X (3.5/3.7ghz) w/integrated graphics. I have an i5-7400 (3.0/3.5ghz). If I had to take a total guess I'd say that your 4670K would do a bit better than the 2200G while my 7400 would probably perform closer to the 2200G. Idk what gpu you have. But, I have a 1060 3gb. So, I'd have to pair back the settings quite a bit. The minimum rec gpus are GTX 770 2gb/R9 280 3gb. ...I'm probably going to hold of on RDR2 until I upgrade next year. But, I have been able to squeeze a good bit of performance out of my little pre-built.
@@KittenLord4TWENTY as long as you have the GPU horsepower(lol cowboy joke) to run it, your 4670k should be fine. What gpu do you have? I can put my old 4770k back in my rig to see how it runs
Jerad Burns That CPU was my daily driver for five years. I basically sidegraded to a 2600X for the extra cores/threads. If I was you I’d overclock it and perhaps shoot for a 30fps lock with the best PQ your GPU can output. Otherwise stutter might become overwhelming.
Put everything on lower than low
Alex will rename those "High" and "Ultra" settings to "Über" and "Mein Leben"!
haha like in woolfvschenstein
Actually some games use custom name for these settings(like The Coalition for Gears Series).
@@erikheijden9828 VULFENSHTOYN
Fvolfenschttein
*Deutschland intensifies*
"what do we need to run the game at 60 fps on ultra?"
Dutch: voice cracks "we NEED a 3080ti and MORE money. Have a little faith"
Dutch we just robbed a 2080 now you want a 3080?????
Mr Nice Guy ORTHUR?! R U DOUBTING ME?!
@@mullemeck5015 HAVE SOME GODAMMED FAITH
@@mrniceguy7168 Yeah boss, this 2080Ti boy is worth less than a 3070.
Well Dutch, we did it.
I got late on this RDR2 thing. Wasn't being able to play a lot while studying and working in the last 4 years, so I had to try this graphical gem of our time. It's definitely a milestone in gaming. This is like what an open, breathing world should be. Getting above sixty in 1080p around 50 fps in 1440p (ultra textures, FSR:B and mixed settings) with a highly overclocked version of the RX 580. Both the game and the graphic card aged like fine wine. Thanks for the amazing video, as always.
RDR2: *freezes for five seconds every minute*
my pc, to me: “I gave you all I had...”
You need atleast 8 threads otherwise your poor cpu will suffocate with seconds long freezes.
The struggle is real. R.I.P. mainstream PC.
Run in borderless windowed and change mouse settings to Xinput, that solved it for me
try async compute on the settings file.
Download ‘process lasso’ and set cpu affinity to 98% on the RDR2 process (easy to do) and this reduces freezing significantly making the game playable again.
Basic issue is that your cpu is overloaded (hitting 98-100% cpu utilisation.)
I've been really looking forward to this one. Can't wait to see Alex's console comparison. Thanks, y'all are the single best graphics enthusiast channel on youtube.
Nxgamer is just as good
@@HugoStiglitz88 Ah no ! I just looked , they seem to be console exclusive !
@@HugoStiglitz88 You're hilarious guy
you know hes taking his time with it. Should be comprehensive as hell.
2080 ti 1800p 😂
Xbox x 4K 👍
Just a quick note to say that TH-cam's video encoding backend is still working on the higher quality 1080p version of this video. Watch now for the info, or check back later for improved playback quality.
Been waiting for this video
Where's the switch port ?
@@UnknownUser-fg3fs dude.......stop.
@@PhillipLemmon 😂
First time disliking ur video. I'm not an expert, u sure are,but man c'mon the Xbox One X runs this at almost stable 30fps at a native 4k and high-low settings with a RX580 like GPU and a fucking Jaguar AMD school calculator. Then on a RTX 2080ti it can't reach 60 fps on ultra not even at 1800p, RTX 2060 can't run It at 60fps at 1080p ultra... If u try any 4 or 6 core cpus, u'll get a lot of 5 sec freezes . Truth Is RockStar was spending his time spending the money they made and letting all the PC players crying while laughing apparently
Honestly even at medium settings, Red Dead Redemption 2 looks stunning. You really don't need the ultra settings to appreciate it's beauty.
it looks good but not stunning in medium.
Textures need to be ultra
@@drebodollaz3504 and upscaling to 1.5x. It's important to see stitch lines on Arthur's clothes.
You most definitely need Ultra or at least High-Ultra preset. You must have pretty low standards to consider Medium stunning, its decent at best
02:43 "I mean, how cheap is a RX580 these days?"
Yyyyeah...
It takes two of Richards finest hand animations to run at 60fps locked.
But you NEED to use Alex’s Optimised Settings.
Even with Alex's optimization, raytracing is out the window if you want 60fps hand animations locked 🤣
NoRussian we gotta get John Linneman in here. Perhaps CRT and a lower resolution could be the solution ;)
@@3dgelord187 Alex himself is raytraced.. so you know what to do..
And John's CRT monitor for that perfect motion clarity!
@@sherlockholmes7630 Alex also has TressFX enabled, but he had to dial down his settings a little bit to maintain a good frame rate.
I hope all the rage (some warranted) doesn’t make devs shy away from adding more scalability to games
> all the rage
what you did there, I see it
(rage is rockstar's game engine used for gtav and rdr2)
@@Kekmit That same thing happened in dying light, where they culled their view distance settings because people would max it out and refuse to turn it down. Citing "bad performance"
Same. Would be a crying shame. They gave us what I'd consider to be a true PC game. Everything you could want customization and settings wise for graphics and controls...albeit with some launch issues, and at least half of what idiots are bitching about is spawned by ignorance.
It really sucks.
@@eldarmusayev7653 thats just a coincidence you idiot
Soulshot96 I laugh at them idiots who keeps buying overpriced hardware even Nvidia said you can’t max out the game r
Even GTAV's Ultra Grass preset is still doing enough to drop frames on even modern powerful cards. I thought I could turn it up after going from a 970 to a 2060 but I still saw the exact same drops below 60FPS in certain areas just because of that one setting on Ultra.
It's the grass settings combined with other settings like shadow quality and especially MSAA (if you have it turned on) that kills the framerate. It really makes me wish they went the extra mile and added specific settings for grass shadow quality and grass anti aliasing so you could choose to turn them down without turning everything else down in the process.
Thanos : I ran RDR2 at 4k 60fps Ultra
Gamora: What did it cost?
Thanos: Everything
Im pretty sure if you used a card like the tesla p40 it could run at that. but uh I wouldnt spend $6k to play rdr2 at 4k high settings with 60 fps
@@OutlawedPoet no, but the best single card would be the titan rtx, but THE best setup would be 2x 2080 ti.
I'll be playing RDR2 at 4k 60fps Ultra in a few years on a budget PC. I never buy games on release. I bought GTA V about 4 years after release and I play on max settings. I'll be playing 2019/2020 games on my next budget PC in a few years time, all at max settings.
@@MarkLikesCoffee860 smart move
There is no GPU yet that can do that. Come back in 4-5 years lmao
Thank you for including older cards for a change. Its so rare to get good actual gameplay comparisons with older cards that it makes it difficult to really judge just how much of a benefit upgrading might be from one card to another. Sure new cards will always be an improvement, but determine the cost to performance improvement when you have to guess as your card isn't represented anymore is harder. I still find my GTX 970 copes pretty well with most games I play, though I was tempted to upgrade this gen, but in the end I decided to wait till next gen to see what happened with RTX.
I don't get why anyone would set anything less than 16x AF on a PC. AF hasn't been a performance factor for PC GPUs probably in a decade.
Ya haven't played rise or shadow of the tomb raider on have pc yet?
@@knowerofnought2007 Could you let us know what the performance impact is in those games?
@@Whizzer i went from mid 50s to low 60s going from 16x to 8x with a 580 on more or less high some very high settings at 1080p.
Edit: on shadow. Can't remember for rise but is was similar mid 70s to low 80s
There are games that tie Tesslation distance and Parallax occlusion mapping to Anisotropic filtering distance.
So AF have a way higher impact than the usual.
Not really. Depending on location in a game, and GPU, 16xAF vs 4xAF on some slower GPUS can take 3-5 fps.
The new PC gamer question: “Can it run RDR2?” :p
It sure can't run RDR 1
@@lightmyfire88 Emulators would like a word. Both the 360 and PS3 ones are getting very close to console framerates in RDR1.
GF playing with glitches. XENIA has audio glitches while RPCS3 has some pretty glitchy graphics
@@lightmyfire88 Most of RPCS3's graphical glitches were gone last I tried, but framerate still isn't quite there. Xenia is more playable FPS wise, but the audio can be glitchy and more importantly, missions are.
With that being said, I said very close...we aren't there yet. But we most certainly will get there eventually.
It's not a fair way of looking at it. RDR2 can be very taxing even on high-end cards. But as compared to Crysis it's able to run on also simple cards. A five year old enthusiast card such as the GTX 970 can run the game rather well, and even a very old and inexpensive GPU such as GTX 750 Ti can push it over 30 fps at 720p. Compare this to Crysis in which even the very best cards of the day such as the 8800 GTX had a hard time running it at much more than 720p/40-45 fps. And that card was a true monster as compared to everything else available at that time.
I've been chomping at the bit for this. Now to wait for Alex's guide.
MarioMan “chomping at the bit.” lmao 😂
jesus christ man
Despite the freezing issue which I fixed by turning off two cores, I’m still getting decent enough fps to have a great gaming experience.
8 core cpu?
I have an rtx 2080 with a 1080p 144hz monitor. I copied your console settings, and then turned anything set to low up to medium. 110fps average, and still looks great. I'm using an i9 9900k, and I noticed my cpu usage was very high. It would often hit 70% usage on ALL 16 threads simultaneously, and for extended periods of time. This game definitely requires a strong CPU to play at higher frame rates, especially when it comes to core and thread count. I imagine some people might not be getting the performance they expect from their GPU because their CPU might be holding them back.
It's amazing how everybody are Usain Bolting through this game that is so beautiful and packed with details
Not me. But maybe people just want to play the campaign to get used to the game before investing in online mode.
Maybe people care more about, you know, actual gameplay instead of useless details
Anglo-Saxophone Then you are lost.
that's the fucked up culture we live in. Everything fast , everything now. No one bothering to appreciate beauty.
As Arthur would say "What a mess we've made!"
Listening to you explaining every detail is fascinating... Absolutely love the analysis videos !! Amazing work !
This is kind of what I'd been thinking in the wake of all the "RDR2 on PC is poorly optimised!" headlines. The Rage engine isn't perfect, it still runs into issues with high framerates and low thread count CPUs without SMT, much like GTA5 before it, and RDR2 itself isn't the most *stable*, but the graphical settings in RDR2 are meant to scale onto more powerful hardware in the future. Almost like they're ready and waiting for a next-gen console release, wouldn't you think?
The problem is those "Next Gen" hardware are already available for consumers on PC. Nevertheless, I've heard AMD is already confirming for Ryzen 4000 this 2020 1st quarter
it has way more problems than the framerate
tl;dr - they pulled a Crysis
I see your point! While it most definitely is a demanding game, there's no doubt in my mind that this game hasn't received all of the optimization it can as of yet. There were some huge gains made with GTA V, so I'm expecting there to be some large gains here as well! I recall there being claims of SLI (something we haven't seen yet), so it's (seemingly) apparent that not everything is finished just yet! I'd give it a few months and a few GPU drivers before we make any conclusions!
Digital Foundry stepping in again to help people understand which settings are overkill. Good shit, I love you bois.
01:47 "Lower than low" - How low can you get?
OFF
? Because devs have far greater granular control than just a few notches in a game's menu that a player has.
@@paul2609 lmfao pretty much
Kim Kardashian
GTA 5
I just posted about this on Reddit. I play the game on a GTX 1080, i5 9600K, 16GB of DDR4 and a 27" 2K 144Hz G-Sync panel. I play with a mix of high and ultra settings at a LOCKED 30fps and I love it. I get those of you who want 60fps, I really do, and I know my rig can handle it easily, but right now I'm having an experience equal or greater to the one I had on my base PS4 a year ago and I couldn't be happier. 60 fps isn't always the answer, in my opinion. I'd rather have a consistent 30fps that looks incredible than a fluctuating 60-144fps on a mix of low and medium.
Rockstar should have put the console settings on the PC menu, and some screenshots with the changes
Some players are saying it is unoptimized, but this would just make them understand how much they are getting.
Well its debatable, us older PC gamers have always just "assumed" some custom tweaking will be required to hit that optimal IQ to performance balance even when owning the top GPU, and trying to use "full Ultra" all the time is for the noobies. I know PC gaming is superior for graphics, why do I care about what matches console settings?
To be fair, not allowing you to lower or even turn off stuff like Volumetric lighting is definition of unoptimised. Most games let you turn demanding things like that off even if the game looks janky just so more people can enjoy the game even on low end hardware. People are comparing this to Crysis, but imagine if Crysis didn't allow you to turn off demanding settings.
@@axayd Well no that's specifically missing a possible IQ scaling setting, thats not what unoptised means. That said I agree it should be there.
If I play games at console settings I would be getting beyond 144fps
I agree, low-medium settings with textures on high look fantastic as is and are nearly console equivalent
2 days waiting!
LOL I WAS going to say the same thing lol
you must return it.
In my head, I was just picturing Alex struggling to all hell just to get the game running at all.
Answer: Everything..
Thanks for weighing in on this, DF. Everybody clearly needs to take a deep breath on this
Not really. If I put out something that was this messed up I’d probably be fired, or at the very least I’d be looking for a new job out of personal pride in my work. I hope someone got it in writing that they were forced to release this in such a state.
If you just say people need to take a deep breath you are encouraging accepting lower standards which is not a good idea.
That said, I should heed the advice of a manager I reported to which was “don’t lower your standards, just learn to be comfortable with people not meeting them.”
I've been trying to get the message out on the subreddit haha.
Being generous the Xbox One X has a GTX 1070, which is almost exactly 50% of a 2080Ti stock.
So you would expect the 2080Ti can do 4k/60 at Xbox One Visuals right? Well it does better!, Med/High/Ultra that looks far better than the X while getting 2x the FPS from 2X the Power!
That's good optimization for me.
Oh my God! The video I was looking for!
"This is a game built to scale into the future"
People said the same thing about GTA 4 and it was still running badly on hardware made 10 years later.
Ok, so you just took the piss out of the video instead of trying the settings they recommended for 60fps.
They were wrong about GTA 4 if they said that. Unlike this game it ran bad even on lower settings on cards of the time, infact it ran bad on anything really.
Ive always had great computers, and played all games on highest settings, highest settings should not be playable on a pc from 1500 dollars, comon man,
@@abeidiot i run on ultra 2080ti
Welcome to Rockstar games. They're all terribly made in terms of performance.
The Ultimate Question is: How does it look on CRT monitor? :)
It's a beautiful shade of blue and I like the fine definition around the emoji " :( "
Saint Denis has ghost town levels of population density in that benchmark, I'd imagine the actual in-game city will be far more demanding.
@Digital Foundry
You can enable Async Compute in the config files for the game, may help with AMD performance
Finally ! Been waiting to hear what you had to say about this.
Rosses are red,
violets are blue,
but can it run Red dead redemption 2?
@Phallus Dominus actually, it doesn't on the xbox one x.. it just runs like shit.
Yes but you'll Need to dump your entire college savings into a PC build.
@@Foxfire_forty-nine you can get a pretty smackin gaming pc for about 2 grand.. I hope you have more than that in your college savings lol
Amd is red
Intel is blue
But can it run red dead redemption 2?
Roses are red, violets are blue
But can it start Red Dead Redemption 2?
I fucking love you Digital Foundry.
2:43 that did not age well
If they capped most of the settings out at "potato" quality and called that "ultra," no one would be complaining about how "poorly optimized" this game is.
Run at 60fps? Isn't the challenge getting the game to stop crashing?
the challenge is opening the launcher
Certain hardware have a problem. I have played 2 hours each night since it came out. 0 crashes or problems
I've had zero crashes after 15 hours. Freezing every 10-20 minutes for about 2-5 seconds though, hopefully they fix it.
No crashes yet. I had to make exceptions for the game in my antivirus software to get it to launch, but smooth as silk so far since.
So aim for 1fps and work your way up!
finally!!! part 1 of the only video that I was hoping since its release.
Thanks for making a focus on mainstream and older cards and builds, too many channels are obsessed with the highest end tier leaving many alienated.
Been able to run most things on high on an aging Maxwell Titan X and 4790k, and luckily without any of the bugs and crashes others have unfortunately faced. I played so many hours of the game on a base PS4, and yet the increase in framerate was like rediscovering how beautiful it was all over again.
Awesome video as always!! Still impressed on how this game looks on Xbox one X, what an achievement!
Can't wait to play it on Switch and Psp
When is it coming out on Switch?
@@Exoamylase next week
Dont forget the Soulja Boy console
@@Exoamylase last week
Lol
I've been running on the excellent brand new G Sync compatible LG OLED, jaw firmly planted on the floor. With everything maxed I can easily stay in the 40-60hz range at 4k on the 2080ti. Very good looking stuff!
YES. i just got the b9. I found out i enjoy less than 4k at 80-90 fps. g-sync of course. i never thought id need framerate above 60 but i have to say 90 fps at 1440p or above nicer than 4k60 for a lot of games......deliver us the moon not so much:)
I always look forward to your in-depth technical analysis on new games, keep up the great work
Thank you Digital Foundry finally fair benchmark for RDR2!
So, after many years, we have a new "Can it run Crysis", Can it run RDR2 Ultra??
The difference here is that Crysis was not designed for multi-core CPUs, so this game will see a lot of performance improvements with next-gen CPUs.
Witcher 2 Ubersampling says hi
Cyberpunk says hello
What will it take to run it on PC..... - a Miracle.
What will it take to run on PC @4k/60fps.. A Miracle and a Masters Degree in Computer Science.
@prophet 😆
I'd just like it to launch on my PC.
Looking at the settings and the performance, it looks like medium offers more or less console like visuals which doesn't look that demanding even for mid range cards with a few tweaks to the settings, as for ultra settings, they seem to be for future hardware or maybe crossfire/SLI hardware.
It also looks like you can easierlly do this game at 30fps even on cheap hardware.
With all that said, it looks like it needs a patch or two to fix some of the bugs and crashes and performance is likely to just get better with patch updates and driver updates.
Yes we all watched the video.
@Jordie Evans console has no high/ultra, there's no configuration there whatsoever. Something I'd really like to see happen in the near future.
@@MLWJ1993
What Jordie is saying is that console has a number of settings set above medium.
Also some set below low, which is fascinating.
+Jordie Evans That's because the game doesn't run at any settings comparable to PC's ultra on consoles, and runs very few of them at PC's high, as was stated in the video. Regardless, the only way you'd probably achieve any kind of proper match between them would be by changing the ini files on PC.
@@LukeSparrow221 As a developer I would also lower certain settings as low as I could while maintaining some form of quality given the very limited resources on console (which is both a strength and a weakness). Though I do find current consoles very underwhelming compared to things like the PS2 & Gamecube which had very distinct features that could pull off some very interesting graphical effects at next to no cost (at the expense of being fixed feature stuff, so none programmable & predefined to some extend).
The worst is not having a better performing preset on console though. 30 fps while acceptable has to be absolutely locked for me. Most console games fail in that regard by pushing too much graphics instead of "playability" (a personal preference, not an absolute fact).
Love how in detail you guys went with this.
Keep it up!
This game is a prime example on why people are clueless when it comes to PC ports.
So why does Fallen Order look just as good if not better while running twice as well as RDR2?
@@waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaluigi Because it doesn't.
@@waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaluigi Fallen Order is not an Open World Game....
@@waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaluigi fallen order doesn't look that good. Not even close to RDR2.
@@waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaluigi Fallen Order is a fun game and all, but doesn't look "twice as well"; not even close mate. When playing Fallen Order I iffed about the graphics multiple times. Especially fucking wookies.
Properly future proofed. This I can respect. Also immensely pleased by the fact that Vulkan is hitting the big leagues and surely realizing its potential.
Superb video as always Richard.
Agreed, the vulkan rendering api provides so much more performance compared to things like open gl and direct x 12.
The fact that an Xbox One X (Jaguar CPU!) can run such a beautiful and dynamic game at a locked 4K/30fps is amazing.
Lower than low settings 😂😂
Perhaps for a few settings; but had you not been told, you'd have accepted what was there. After all, A beautiful game is a beautiful game. Now stop using elitism as a crutch for your insecurities.
4k...but textures in medium. I prefer 1440p in pc than 4k in console. But I'm amazed to.
@@joshuafubu31 The fact that you took the mention of 'some' lower than low settings as the basis of your comment, one could have easily have said high settings on console, as there were 'some' of those too means you're trolling for attention. Great job
@@bigjus3751 some high, some lower than low, still average at low-medium settings on console.
Enable Async Compute for less stuttering in Vulkan. Usefull especially for AMD cards Polaris/Vega/Navi.
Go to Documents\Rockstar Games\Red Dead Redemption2\Settings\System.xml
Open system.xml with notepad and find asyncComputeEnabled value="false"
Change it to asyncComputeEnabled value="true" and save it.
That's all 👍
Does that do anything for the Nvidia cards?
@@Thishandlemakesnosense i wonder so....
@@Thishandlemakesnosense must do for 2000 series and nope for older once
Not been on this for ages, but I booted it up last night and was surprised how smooth the game was, I went into settings thinking I was playing at 1080p to discover I was playing at 4k, I could only get 25fps before with a gtx1080. Seems they have done some good optimisation in recent time.
Big up for you guys. Im glad you have the insight to do what most people overlook. Which is to test the console equivalent settings on pc on various builds. This is exactly what i was looking for
Rdr2 : You can’t run with 60fps at high
PC : yes I do
*runs rdr2 at 60fps with high graphics*
Rdr2 : what did it cost?
PC : everything
DF: DX12 stutters more than Vulkan
HUB: Vulkan stutters more than DX12
GN: DX12 stutters more than Vulkan
Me: My Brain stutters more than before I watched the videos
I have issue on Vulcan when using shift/ctrl/alt keys stuttering is happening but if I will use any direction key D for example it goes away. Also have issues with custom ultra- settings at 1080p with Xeon X5660 Oc'ed and GTX 1070 which was crashing to the desktop on DX12. I was playing online and it happening pretty randomly, sometimes after 10-15 mins sometimes after 1-2hrs. So I tried Vulcan right now and was able to play over 2hrs without any crash. Just that stutter when u using sprint is kinda frustrating when u play some pvp but it's better than losing 15mins of gameplay when crash occur during mission :D. BTW X5660 4,35ghz 12gb DDR3 1650mhz GTX 1070 factory OC and with mine settings averaging 44fps in build in benchmark with DX12. Can't complain I think :D.
Seriously, I don't know what to think now. Guess I should check for myself or just use Vulkan since 2 out of 3 say Vulkan is better.
For me Vulkan stutters, DX not even once for hours. O_O'
None of the issues with this game are consistent.
Vulkan gave me better performance overall
Ryzen 5 1600,16gb Ram, RX 570 4gb all medium with ultra textures and i get 60 fps stable. Vulkan btw
enabled Async compute ?
@@brunogm Yes
@@techdude5942 Yeah it works pretty well
Well... to be frank: A big settings menu is a nice thing to have, but it's also the developer's job to have some decent presets for the users who don't want to fiddle around with graphics settings for ages. That would have probably helped with the negative press. On the other hand, most issues I've read about so far were about the game crashing or not even starting up to begin with, so....
You guys need to do merch. I would totally rock a DF hoodie. Great job guys!
Sorry, who said the game was un-optimized?
Sounds like people just like to go overboard on the graphic settings.
everything on medium and cant get 60+ fps.
Exactly. 2080ti buyers that thought they could just max everything at 4k.
Ariton what’re your specs
Bro, i got mix of medium to high graphics and i can't get 60 fps, i got gtx 1060 and ryzen 5 2600, gtx 1060 is in recomended specs so it shoulda be able to handle this game at that graphics, for refrence i get 90 fps in gta 5 on highest graphics. Not even rtx 2060 or 2070 can get constant 60 fps. This port is really unoptimized, yes i realise that gtx 1060 is 2 year old gpu but its not that bad, new cod MW i can run at highest settings 60+ fps.
@@nix538 did you saw the video and the 1060 performance?
Thank you for this video DF, I have been arguing with people over and over again over this entire point of video. Well optimized does not mean ultra is required to run on a low or mid range graphics card at 1080p. Also, there are so many uneducated or fanboys flooding the topic of the PC version not looking any better than consoles at ultra settings which couldnt be further from the truth, one because they are only comparing compressed TH-cam videos to compare or two they dont have the hardware to push ultra on their own systems to see for themselves. I will recommend this video to anyone and everyone whether they argue against the topic or are on the fence performance wise and if that's keeping them from purchasing the game on pc. Thank you for all the hard work you do to educate those who just dont know any better.
Darryl Campbell Well said. “Why can’t my three year old, last gen architecture card play this new game at ultra 1440p?” “Why is my GTX 1060 getting low frame rates? I have an Intel i3...”
It's actually kind of amazing how it's not common knowledge at this point that "ultra" generally means screenshot quality while high and lower are the gameplay/playable settings. The fact that moving the quality slider to the very top doesn't ramp all the settings up to ultra should be a dead giveaway.
They should have renamed it to: “HOW TO EVEN GET THE GAME TO LAUNCH.”
Great video and what a game on pc !
I've been waiting since release for your video on RD2. Absolutely thorough and well presented. As usual Digital Foundary delivers. Fantastic, well done guys.
I say nvidia is behind it too! They should release a new driver for better performance on their older cards but it seems like they want to push people to buy 2000 series cards
Yeah, new AAA titles could run on a GT340 easily.. they just choose not to!!!! /s
They need to optimize for Pascal . There's no freaking way a Rx 580 or 590 equals to GTX 1070 performance.
daniel ortega I run it on a RX 580 and while it looks great, I have to agree.
Oh but AMD GPUs have an immense computational throughput. Rx580 6.2 TFlops, Rx590 7.1 TFlops, GTX1070 6.5 TFlops. In most real-world uses, AMD GPUs have issues that usually limit their real-world performance compared to theoretical performance, such as higher group penalty on branching, higher driver overhead, etc, and the spec TFlops performance is for the faster FP16 data, while NVidia has no particularly fast data type, it's all the same there. That AMD punch above their price class in this title is an indication that this game works around these issues very well. I don't think there's anything left to optimise on Pascal.
lovely, reasoned content to set some of RDR2's best elements straight while we wait for Alex's deeper dive. thanks, Richard.
Your channel is super awesome. Congrats
I wish more games would have the overall graphics slider. It's so hard to figure out what the trade offs on quality to performance are
If the 3080 Ti won't give you 60fps on this, I give up on pc gaming
Everyone talks about the rtx cards but no one talks about the tesla p40. That card costs $6,000 and has like 24 gb of vram. If that card cant run rdr2 at 4k ultra settings with 60 fps ill be damned as fuck.
@Johnny Fire it cant bro really game optimization needs to be good
Then go back to consoels and get stuck at 30 fps
Holy moly the 580 absolutely demolish the 1060 here, AMD offers more for less money in this range
@@iStrong113 nope, watch some benchmarks
Unfortunately you really can't get 60fps without stutters unless you have more than 4 threads. Even i5s will have to settle for 30fps to get a non-stuttery experience
4 cores 4 thread is outdated
@@Crimsongz thanks
I have a old i5 6500 and a rx480! Am soo happy to play it at 30fps with kinda high settings, amd super resolution set to 1440p and msaa off! 👌🏻Such a beautiful game! ❤️
These violent delights have violent ends.
Me: *Cranks settings on ultra*
My PC: ''I don't feel too well...''
Me: ''Have some faith!''
My PC: *Implodes* ''
GPU has a plan, have some goddamn faith!
Thank you so much! I've had a feeling, that the settings might be misunderstood. Assuming that a RTX2080ti would run this game at 4k with 60 FPS.
I remembered Kingdom Come Deliverence. The developers clearly said, that Ultra settings are meant for future hardware, when the 1080ti was the hot thing. And maybe that's the time we ended up in. No need for remasters, because with all the tools available today, you can make a game future ready and getting better with each generation of hardware. At the end of the day, that's not a bad thing.
I'm not defending the rough start of RDR2 on PC. But because there are more launcher updates, than game updates, I assume the problems are launcher related. That thing is brand new and in my opinion not ready. Now they have to fight at two fronts. Not saying, it's not their fault! There are more issues for sure. And it would have helped, if they spent more effort on that graphic menu. Ubisoft set the standard with comparison pictures in addition to the description. And those are not always very well written in RDR2.
Until yesterday, I was also very disappointed. Had some crashes during benchmarks, (still) freezes in the store scene with vulkan, and it was hard to get into the graphic settings. And with all the anger on the internet, I felt also angry and pointing on Rockstar for a bad port. I hope they fix the problems, because if the game runs, it is far from being a bad port.
After benchmarking setting by setting, I think I figured out the differences and impacts on performance, at least on my PC. I started with all at medium and battled my way to a mix of mostly high and some medium and ultra settings, ending up with a solid 60 FPS in the snow scene and between 65 and 75 in the rest of the benchmark. That's in 1080p. Going more for medium and some high and you can set the resolution to 1440p. Like in the video, Vulkan gives me a great FPS win, but the frametimes are all over the place and freezings in the store scene of the benchmark.
Cannot wait for your take on the settings, because I am a noob and even if my settings look great and work, I know I missed a lot :P
Thanks for Digital Foundry. You make every tweak of a game an experience and a lot easier.
i5 8600k
GTX 1070ti
16GB RAM
ai-mods i have the same specs as yours, can you please give me your settings ?
I wouldn't compare this game to KC:D too much, because KC:D does have some fairly large optimization problems when you try to scale it up to higher frame rates with powerful hardware and/or lower settings. It simply starts to become bottlenecked and GPU utilization starts to drop and higher FPS cannot be achieved, at least last time I played it this was the case. Real shame for someone that enjoys a nice high framerate.
Meanwhile I've managed to get RDR2 up to ~100FPS average with quite decent settings, with no signs of any sort of the same optimization issues. I'm confident that with my setup I could push it to 120 or even 144fps fairly constantly with no GPU utilization issues, if I was willing to sacrifice more settings.
This bizzare expectation of what we generically term "ultra" settings should always be doable at 60fps+ on current hardware started about 5-7 years ago, I believe due to TH-cam channels using "ultra" as a baseline for benchmarking. PC gamers have always asked developers to give us the best possible graphics and allow us to tweak settings, its a cornerstone of PC gaming so it annoys me when kids slide settings to full ultra and then complain in fourms "the game is unoptimized".
@@Battleneter To be fair, a lot of games have normalized that behavior due to not really putting many, if any settings in that wouldn't work well when fully maxed on high end cards. So a lot of the time these days, when a game doesn't run at 60+fps on a 2080Ti, it probably is unoptimized. BL3 runs very poorly, especially for how it looks, and is most certainly unoptimized.
RDR2 is obviously a different story, but people have gotten accustomed to that...they've also gotten accustomed to not thinking for themselves so it's really not a surprise at all, as sad as it is to say.
@@soulshot96 I agree some games "are" poorly optimsed no question but the term is heavily over used as a lot of people simply don't know what they are looking at from a graphics point of view.. If can tweak a game to lets say "generally" high with some ultra settings and maybe a few medium settings, and hit 90-100fps at 3440x1440@120, I know the game is pretty well optimised even if it runs like garbage at "full ultra". There is no exact science here.
Alex : What does it take to run RDR2 in 60 fps
My computer : What does it take to turn on in less than 1 minute and run minecraft on lowest settings in 30 fps.
I’ve been waiting for this video all week
There should be these settings in the Volumetrics sections:
Ultra : CRISP
Very High : Still Crisp
High : kinda crisp
Medium : little bit Blurry
Low : Blurry Dithery
Console : Dither-y , Low res-y and blurry mess
Maybe it's too early to make a final conclusion of the performance in the GTX 1060 6G (which I own). I hope with proper Driver optimization and futures updates in the game, solve this unoptimized mess. For now, I don't wanna buy this game at the current state.
I'd suggest waiting for the Steam release.
@@solarstrike33 Will it ever come out on steam?
@@senseishu937 December.
1000 series doesn't have proper hardware support for things like asyncronous compute which the newer low level APIs make proper use of. (AMD has had for a while, hence the good 290 performance and the latest 2000 Nvidia cards also have it). If all things were equal on the driver side the 580 is always going to outperform the 1060 so that comparison shouldn't be used to determine if the game is un-optimized or not. Either way I imagine future drivers will improve performance still. (Edit: Also Nvidia have ligher/better drivers in DX11 but I think the newer APIs level the playing field somewhat)
@@senseishu937 confirmed at december
I would like to see how the mid-range GPUs fare with sort of "Quality Mode" settings, so 1080p locked to 30 fps but with the settings ramped up
@ValenShephard in this game its horrendous to play it under 60 though, I beat it on ps4 a few months ago, and went back to it last night. Its atrocious to me. The full second of input lag I cant stand.
My rx580 can run at 1080p with a mix of high and ultra at 30fps.
@ValenShephard because they havent ever played it above the 25-30 fps it runs at on console, and good for them. After experiencing games at 60 and above I wont go back, I wish I could.
@@kevinragsdale6256 is that with a controller though? The disconnect when using a mouse to aim is real, with a stick it's clumsy no matter what.
RX 580 with a bit of overclock can do locked 30FPS at Ultra/1080p.
I appreciate this guide but I feel like you guys really missed the mark on showing people what settings impact the game the most. This was pretty much just a test to see the minimum GPU spec for 60fps. I think you said there was going to be another video with a settings breakdown though? I sure hope so, being someone that has I high spec machine I just want to know what I can live with reducing that will impact performance the most. Looking to get into the 90 to 100fps range with a 1080ti, and currently at about 75-80fps with a mix of settings.
You guys have so much work just today both AAA games RDR2 and DT nice job
Finally bought a 3080 a few months back. This game maxed with soft shadow down a to high/ssao shadows to off and graphics scaler scaled down just a tad..... looks breathtaking. I get about 56 fps at night in my camp with fog, smoke and beautiful glowing shadows. It really is astonishing. In another 3 years hopefully I'll replay it again with the 4080 and finally have max everything at 60 fps.
bro, you should be running it maxed out. I'm on an 1080 GTX running at 1440p(barely) and I have most settings maxed out.
Lower your trees to high/medium, they only affect the long distance trees but have a huge impact on framerates. Medium = 50 fps, high = 40 fps in the same area with no visual difference(except for like 3 extra super distant trees in a forest you can't even notice because theres enough trees around them that they blend in).
Consider disabling tree Parallax Mapping just so you can enable other things. Tree parralax = 10 fps and you can only see it up close, other settings that you can see all the time everywhere might be more worthwhile to turn on instead(like shadows and SSAO which is visible everywhere you turn).
Consider dropping the grass slider to 2/3 orso. It helps with fps quite a bit and if you keep it above 2/3 the grass range is still ridiculous, you'll see grasses on hillsides far far away.
I have all shadows, SSAO, etc on Ultra so you definitely can run it too. The only thing I have on high is "Reflections" because they eat FPS. 45 fps in camp, up to 60 fps in the world. enough for me to enjoy on my ancient hardware. Also, DLSS/AMD FSR can really help boost FPS. FSR 2.0 is the only reason i can run on Ultra, otherwise I would have to lower settings.
OH AND WATER PHYSICS. If you drag the water physics bar all the way to the end it kills your FPS, i go from 60 to 30 and that's nowhere near water. Leave it at 2/3.
@@0xsergy Thank you for the suggestions man. The only problem I have is at night, specifically in my camp where all the fog and smoke from the fires glow and light flickers off each other. That's the only time it chugs to 50 fps and I have to turn something down a smidge to keep 60 fps. During the day nothing makes my fps drop to below 59 on max everything. The shadows are just incredible at 4k. Also, yeah the water hits pretty hard on max. I have the slider down a couple notches and can't tell any diff in quality. Thx again.
@@TheCrain definitely worth trying FSR on 4k my dude, you have enough pixels that the visual drop wouldn't be noticeable but you'd be able to max it out cause FSR is a 15 fps boost in itself and looks identical to the stock TAA. use the "quality" setting.
Father is home. Everyone listen up!
580 sounds like a good deal
Good joke
@@zobkey he s right cheaper and faster then 1060
@@razoo911 and less durable if u really calculate that the lifespan of gtx is 2x durable you will spend more money while another one is still using gtx but if want a really good deal with a gpu during more and still capable of running future games the rtx 2080ti is the best option for not spending more money to get 100fps in future games
Seco'd u tell 300$ more for just 50fps, i've got a 144hz and if i ever go down to 70/80fps it's like playinh 30fps on a 60hz
@@zobkey everybody know amd gpu age better compared to nvidia....did you see old r9 390 aka r9 290?? 20% faster then gtx 1060 in this video....now just imagine what can do compared to his competitor gtx 780
Enjoy your toaster
PC gamers rejoice! Our lords and saviors Richard and Alex have arrived!
Has anyone else noticed on more recent drivers, using NV Inspector; if you show all settings, there's a relatively new option there 'COLORCOMPRESSENABLE' it's a binary (1 or 0) setting. It's very interesting, considering NV is kind of known for their optimized(aggressive) compression. Would be great if DF was interested in testing :p
Finally someone that knows what's up, and proper testing
Awesome