A "2080 Ti" eh. makes me wonder about the next gen.
ray-tracing isn't even included in this. I wonder if the next gen will be targeting native 4k.
or be sub 4k machines.

the X handled this game at native 4k. but that does pose an interesting question about the next gen.
games will still have to be built with 4k in mind. 

Yes, even at 1080p and High settings, the game demands a lot. And it's not just GPU, but the CPU has high usage too. It's better to wait for Digital Foundry's article and a few other publications, but the PC version has a lot more going on for it than the Xbox One X one. Unless one can get very similar graphics settings to Xbox One X, it's hard to compare both.

However, Rockstar is the technical powerhouse developer. I've been saying that they are even above Naughty Dog for years now, because they are a multiplatform developer and they achieve the same and sometimes even better level of quality as Naughty Dog. So it's not surprising that they did some "voodoo magic" with the Xbox One X version.

Still, Gears 5 is a tech showcase for the Xbox One X and the PC version is one of the best PC ports of all time. Gears 5 Xbox One X uses a mixture of low, medium and high settings of the PC version, with settings that would require a lot of CPU power being affected the most.

It's early to tell what are the best settings and how far current GPUs can go, but the PC version is clearly one rooted in the future and will be a tech benchmark for GPUs and CPUs for many years to come.

I'm glad i didn't bought this. A lot of people experience freezes/ or can't even launch it.

It's all a matter of balancing. PS5 can render games at native 8K resoultion but then we would see less details of course. Also have a look at this little article I wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/dlg24p/do_we_really_need_4k_or_8k_resolution/

I am sure patches will come soon.

This graphics card is still unannounced by Nvidia. It struggles even though it is from the future ^^

Best GPU there is. :)

Considering game runs at native 4K on X1X this is just pathetic. Guess this is another lazy port from Rockstar. GTAIV here we go.

You're not wrong, but not completely right either. Rockstar did make a great PC version when it comes to scalability with 50 graphical options - can't even remember last PC version that gave so many options, probably GTA 5.

However, this version also has many optimization and technical problems that will need to be fixed with future patches. As well as launcher problems, thankfully I didn't get those, but some people are having to reset their BIOS to factory settings or update it just to play, which is absolutely fucking unacceptable.

RDR2: Launch issues megathread!:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PCRedDead/comments/drzhs5...

Stutter / Freeze Temporal Fix Red Dead Redemption 2 (Process Lasso does it better):
https://www.reddit.com/r/PCRedDead/comments/ds3kk4...

EuroGamer - Rockstar scrambles to patch launcher after Red Dead Redemption 2 PC woes:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-11-06-rock...

It is a great looking game. To be honest if this is mainly Ultra settings it just looks like a refinement of console visuals. This game will always look good, just as GTAV did this gen, but definitely expecting more in terms of geometry and quality of rendering for next gen.

It's hard to say if it's a good or bad port yet. Someone needs to do a comparison with settings equal (or close to) the X1 version. "Ultra" settings can be so many things. In my experience going from High (or even medium) to Ultra with many settings in different games can result in a huge hit to performance, while almost impossible to see any difference. Often a case of extremely diminishing returns.

Hey, what do you have against The Boys!?! I will let you know the crew kicks ass, superheroes' asses to be more precise. They also occasionally blow them up. :P

Master troll!

Why shouldn't we expect the game to run well on 1200$ GPU (the price of 3xX1X) even on ultra settings? While X1X handles it at native 4K30 with RX580 inside.

Are PC's ultra settings superior that much in terms of picture quality? Honestly, I can't see that from your video. All I see is choppy unstable picture. And this is with 66% internal res which is not even 1440p, running with low-level APIs DX12 and Vulkan.

I doubt the X1 runs the game with settings similar to "Ultra". As i said, Ultra settings usually have extreme diminishing returns as in you can get half the framerate and not really see the difference without using a microscope. There are some +10 year old games that supported supersampling from extreme resolutions where you still can get the latest GPU's to crawl. Because there's a slider to do it doesn't mean you have to max it out. If Rockstar had cut out the Ultra settings and just renamed Med/High to Ultra giving you 2x performance, i think there wouldn't be any complains :)

MelmothI well aware of that but game runs poorly on other settings too. RX580 can't maintain 60fps at 1080p on high settings. And recommended GPU is RX480, lol. If it's not bad optimization, then what is it?

I did some quick reading and seems many people have performance issues with the game. Would be interesting to see performance with 30fps lock. Could be a CPU issue. Waiting for some more in-depth analysis of the game.

I do agree with you that the system requirements are very, very wrong. It takes a RTX 2060 to 1080p@60fps at High Settings. So having "Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB / AMD Radeon RX 480 4GB" as "Recommended Specifications" is really dumb and deceiving.


From Guru3D's "Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review": a GTX 1060 achieves 30-32 fps at 1080p with High settings. While "Recommended" can mean many things unless specified, I can't remember the last time a PC version used recommended for 1080p@30fps for High settings. It's not a higher resolution, it's not 60fps and it's not Ultra quality. Even RTX 2060 only gets 57-59 fps at 1080p with High quality.

Guru3D - Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/red_dead_red...

Which to me is where a lot of complaints are coming from, of people who saw the requirements and felt that they were good and would be able to play the game at great quality and performance. So the game comes out and those system requirements are very, very wrong. I'm not saying the game isn't beautiful at 1080p and/or High settings, but people expected more. Even Nvidia recommends Medium-High settings for 2160p@60fps with a RTX 2080 Ti.

Even the minimum requirements are kinda dubious. I still haven't been able to find any video of the game running with a "GTX 770 2GB / AMD Radeon R9 280 3GB", I'm very curious to see if they even manage to reach 1080p@30fps at Low settings, or if they need to go 720p at Low settings to reach 30fps.

Then you add all the technical bugs and issues with the game's launcher and the game itself, and it's very easy to see why there's been many people asking for refunds. There's validity to many of the complaints.

Rockstar should have done what The Coalition did with Gears 5 for PC, there's Low, Medium, High, Ultra and Insane. Insane breaks many powerful GPUs, but it's designed with future GPUs in mind. However, the system requirements should have stated which resolution, framerate and quality settings each class represents. I've seen many games do this and it's great for consumers, they get more info about how their systems will do.

Anyway, the game is great. But needs a few patches to make it a smooth experience. For anyone having freezes because of high CPU usage, use "Process Lasso", it works flawlessly.