RDR 1 PC Optimization

[Dario]

I saw that the new game will have better draw distance, better shadows, better shadow distance, and generally improved mesh quality. So yeah, it has better overall draw distance. I saw support for DLSS, FSR, and I don’t know about FG, along with higher resolutions. Ultra-wide doesn’t make a game a remake, remaster, or definitive edition; that’s why they didn’t call it definitive or a remaster.

Regarding the price, I bought the game because I need to test it, but generally, I wouldn’t buy it for myself. I mean, they are not forcing us, that’s true, but the price is not what concerns me. What concerns me is optimization. I don’t know what to think about that, but recommending an RTX 2070 is too much. Double Eleven is working on the port, they ported Goat Simulator to consoles, Rust, etc., so optimization will probably not be the best, and I think that’s even worse than the price. What’s the point of 4K ultra-wide and all those other features if an RTX 4090 wouldn’t be able to run it at more than 60 FPS at native resolution?

[Average Doge Meme Appreciator]

These are all questions you should be asking rockstar or double 11

[FasterThanFTL]

You have 14 days to refund the game if it turns out to have horrible performance. But I think it will run incredibly well on all kinds of PC configurations and you will not be needing to refund it. As for me even if its the worst port ever I am keeping it and will be contend with it being a native PC version at least.

[Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser]

We won't know what performance or stability look like until release of course. That's why I'm not personally purchasing until after launch. That said, the specs are not unreasonable when placed in context, and are not a means of predicting poor optimization. My reasoning for that:

The minimum requirements list two GPUs that are around 200% apart from one another in terms of raw performance. The GTX 960 and the R7 360 are not even close to comparable. What they have in common though, is that they both have full DX12 feature level 12_0 support. The R7 360 is on par with GPUs like the GTX 285 and the old 650 Ti. Basically below entry level hardware. It makes no sense for it to be listed alongside the GTX 960, unless the requirement cutoff has more to do with API feature level requirements than performance.

So, let's assume hypothetically that the R7 360 is able to deliver 1080p 60Hz in the game. Well, we know this release will support up to 4K 144Hz. A raw pixels per second conversion from 1080p 60 fps to 4K 144 fps is 9.6x more pixels per second. In reality, the performance hit is never that directly linear, but it gives you a ballpark idea of what would be reasonable or unreasonable optimization. 9.6x more performant than the R7 360 would be something like the 2080 Ti. That would be really absurd, obviously, but that's not what we see thankfully.

The recommended RTX 2070 and 5700 XT in the recommended specs are both right around 650% more performant than the R7 360. So that's... actually pretty reasonable. Especially when you consider that the recommended specs are likely intended for max use case, which means DLSS as well. So it could simply be that the 2070 is the lowest end card that will give you 4K 144Hz and that natively supports hardware DLSS for those who want it. Like maybe in their testing, the 2060 doesn't quite give you 144 fps at 4K, etc.

And that's the other thing, they're not listing exhaustive specs. They're only listing specs their testing shows provides intended use case. And aren't specifying what that use case is. Specs are always just guidelines.

Given that min spec is on par with below entry level hardware, I really don't think we need to worry about the game being particularly intensive. I suspect the min spec requirements are only as "high" as they are for API feature level reasons, and the recommended specs are only as high as they are for max use case scenarios (4K 144Hz) and provision of DLSS in the 2070's case.