Back to Today's Deal

Red Dead Redempion 2 finally coming to PC!


DX12 is smoother, Vulkan is higher FPS I think.

Yeah. This game doesn’t run very well.


Aw, sad to hear it’s badly optimized and glitchy, but I at least hope @M00 is having fun! I’ve always wanted to play the original too so I definitely hope they patch the port.


It’s working great for me. That’s all I can say. I do have the occassional crash though, like 3 in 2 days.



Do share tons of screenshots! I’m wondering why they went a route where a $1,500 GPU + $500 CPU couldn’t even run the game on high (of course I know why but still). xD


My specs:



I do play on a 720p samsung tv though (which is a bummer; I plan on getting a 32’’ 1080 monitor once i get to keep some money myself instead of giving it all to schools for my kids), which is why i keep vsync on so it keeps 59 fps steady and i dont get any screen tearing

my fps:


note that that minimum fps in the benchmark must be while it’s changing benchmark settings, because there’s no drops whatsoever during the scenes itself, nor while playing btw

and for good measure:



What is your graphics card? I mean that 720p monitor is going to bottleneck you greatly, but that is certainly a beefy enough processor. The articles all said that a $1,500 card couldn’t even run it on max, but I’m seeing a very different story here. Unless they meant 4k @ stable FPS without Day 1 GPU driver support? :thinking:


gtx 1080, which apparently goes for $600 according to the first Google search result

sry, thought I’d mentioned it, will add it now


The GTX 1080 is still a formidable GPU, it still competes with the RTX 2080, especially when overclocked. So either, as I suspected, the gaming articles spreading that information was embellishing to spread certain information (e.i, to get people to buy hardware they don’t need, such as an RTX card) or they were just beyond incompetent. :laughing:


it isn’t; i dont know anything about PCs except I’d be way too scared something breaks when doing something like that


It is best to leave that for when your GPU is barely able to play games, anyhow. Only enthusiasts should overclock, in my opinion, straight off the bat. Or people who buy overclockable hardware on the cheap due to budget and need the extra push.




You have to remember that now RTX gets better driver support than the GTX series now, and just because the 1080 does not directly compete with the RTX 2080 at the exact same levels, which I never claimed, does not mean it doesn’t compete when it is $300-400 cheaper and delivers what is usually 20fps difference (at most, 30). It isn’t about what you believe, it is about what is in the performance against its price.

Real world application:


That graph was from when it launched.

To me this reads as if you are saying they are directly comparable. Phrasing.

20 FPS at high refresh isn’t much. 20 FPS at low refresh is massive. Hence why I posted a percentage chart.

The RTX 2080 was not great price to performance, correct. But the 1080 also has the additional advantage of having used parts bringing down the price while the RTX does not.

Because none of the games in Hardware Unboxed’s graph are real world.

I dunno, 35 games worth of empirical data saying it’s 29% faster doesn’t seem like believing to me. If we really want to drive down the price to performance ratio road, then talking NVIDIA isn’t the way to go. That’s AMD’s ballgame.

Do I think Moo needs an upgrade? No. The GTX 1080 performs well enough to not justify an upgrade.


now that’s insane level of detail

frikkin love this game; trying to contain myself and not just proclaim it the best open-world game ever, but I think I’ll eventually have to just do that

u know what else is rly realistic in this game? My complete panic and total lack of reaction when a bear suddenly charged me the first time. I did a bit better the second time around; the bear eventually died and I survided, but only cuz it’s a video game…

(also, that shit is rly graphic and in yr face; i think i have ptsd a little)


That was in reference in my video, which was an attempt at a more recent recording of real world application. Admittedly I only looked through youtube for a moment, there could be more from the last month or so, it was meant to show you that even with RTX driver support being superior, the GTX 1080 is still running behind the RTX Super (a more powerful model of the 2080) by 20-30 fps.

That is not what it implies at all, my phrasing is just fine. Directly competes and competes are completely different things, especially when one considers pricing.

Though a card that almost directly competes with each other performance wise is the GTX 1080 and the RTX 1660 TI (at most, 11 fps loss, 1440p).

I’m not sure I understand. I never advocated buying the GTX 1080 because it was cheaper due to being used (in fact, I never suggest buying used unless you are absolutely desperate). I was simply stating that the GTX 1080 is still formidable against the RTX 2080 and showed performance, which is absolutely is, especially when it is overclocked. A real world application performance difference of, at most, 30 fps means little to a cost difference of nearly $500-600.

??? I’m sensing some hostile energy here and I don’t understand why. YOu seem to think I posted “real world application”…against you? You posting something that was never disputed, that the 2080 is in fact faster than the 1080, was never relevant. The original comment I made was that the 1080 competed fairly well against a newer, most expensive and better supported beast [and basically that it was doing really well in Red Dead Redemption II].

Again…no one argued that the issue that the RTX is faster than the GTX, only that the GTX competes well with it. :laughing:


Oh my god that is insane levels of detail. I first thought that was a picture of a man (on the bottom)! Is the game truly open world, or semi-open world?


From what I see it’s truly open world, though I suspect you might not be able to go back to the mountains where the tutorial takes place, not sure. But besides that, afaik it’s one giant map.

pretty sure map-wise it plays exactly the same as GTA V.


I can’t remember if the first game played like a GTA open world game, but if the second does, that sure sounds amazing.

You can go in the water, right, or does it sort of “desync” you like it used to in the old Assassin’s Creed games? :laughing:

Also, got any screenshots? Would love to see more of the game. :slight_smile:


you can swim, that i know cuz i fell in a river, lol, and i quickly tried to go under water then but didn’t seem to be able to do that, or at least i wouldn’t know how

i saw a huge lake yesterday, next time I’ll see it I’ll try and see if i can go in it

honestly, I tried to take some pictures in-game, with their own in-game camera, and wanted to upload those, but for some reason those look a lot worse than the game itself when it’s running, no idea why, so maybe I’ll try and get some screenshots while playing (no idea when I’ll be able to), but again I play on a 720p tv, so it’s not going to look that great at all compared to what it can look on good monitors


Details are good but rockstar really have unhealthy fetish with them.

Again this might sound like i;m bashing RDR2 or dont like it which is really incorrect, i think it’s a milestone of a game and i really liked it very much BUT.

Games are supposed to be fun and to me personally too much unnecessary detail ( like in RDR2 ) really takes away from it. For example how Arthur takes so long to search a dead enemy for stuff… yes it’s realistic but does it add anything to the game? Nah, just wastes your time.