Question Reasonable to expect ~99 FPS in Red Dead Redemption 2?

viivo

Diamond Member
May 4, 2002
3,344
32
91
I want to get into RDR2 but want to ask first about others' experience with the game's performance. With this hardware and low-med quality settings, is 99 FPS at 2560x1440 likely?

3900x
ASUS TUF X570
16GB C14-14-14 3600 (or 32GB C14 3400) if more RAM would help)
5700 XT
nvme drives for OS and games
Win10 x64 v2004

Thanks for any help.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
29,043
41,727
136
2019-11-06-image-2-p.webp

it would be close i think?


 

viivo

Diamond Member
May 4, 2002
3,344
32
91
Thanks. Interesting that it appears DX12 runs better than Vulkan on AMD GPUs.

edit: Decided to check it out. It's run very well so far with mostly medium settings, though I'm still in the snowy parts at the beginning. I hope once it gets to wide open areas framerates don't tank.
 
Last edited:

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
13,443
2,083
126
why


then you answer something and i say "if you have stable 40+ fps you will not see the difference". Yeah ok there is the occasional tearing because framerate dips are a thing but unless you are moving your screen frantically (are you?) you won't need it. And, that's 40fps we're talking about, it could be more, it can easily be 60fps, but i seeeeeriously doubt anyone can play RDR2 at 80fps and think "ermagherd this is so laggy".

it will be fine. there will not be any lag. the actual number of frames does not matter.
 

viivo

Diamond Member
May 4, 2002
3,344
32
91
It's personal preference. I, personally, don't like stuttery or slow movement at any camera speed, just like I wouldn't want to watch a movie that shifts from 24 frames to 14 to 12 to 18 to 20 every 5 seconds.

It's just subjective. I'd love to not notice framerate and frametime drops or for sub-100 framerates to not feel laggy but it is what it is. What it isn't is the point of this thread.