Gaming Tests: Red Dead Redemption 2

It’s great to have another Rockstar benchmark in the mix, and the launch of Red Dead Redemption 2 (RDR2) on the PC gives us a chance to do that. Building on the success of the original RDR, the second incarnation came to Steam in December 2019 having been released on consoles first. The PC version takes the open-world cowboy genre into the start of the modern age, with a wide array of impressive graphics and features that are eerily close to reality.

For RDR2, Rockstar kept the same benchmark philosophy as with Grand Theft Auto V, with the benchmark consisting of several cut scenes with different weather and lighting effects, with a final scene focusing on an on-rails environment, only this time with mugging a shop leading to a shootout on horseback before riding over a bridge into the great unknown. Luckily most of the command line options from GTA V are present here, and the game also supports resolution scaling. We have the following tests:

  • 384p Minimum, 1440p Minimum, 8K Minimum, 1080p Max

For that 8K setting, I originally thought I had the settings file at 4K and 1.0x scaling, but it was actually set at 2.0x giving that 8K.  For the sake of it, I decided to keep the 8K settings.

For our results, we run through each resolution and setting configuration for a minimum of 10 minutes, before averaging and parsing the frame time data.

AnandTech Low Resolution
Low Quality
Medium Resolution
Low Quality
High Resolution
Low Quality
Medium Resolution
Max Quality
Average FPS
95th Percentile

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

Gaming Tests: GTA 5 Gaming Tests: Strange Brigade
Comments Locked

339 Comments

View All Comments

  • Spunjji - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link

    IO die is the same between all of them - they probably just haven't churned enough chiplets out yet. Those top-end chips probably need a high bin to reach their intended clocks and power levels, too.
  • lmcd - Monday, November 9, 2020 - link

    That seems like a mistake then -- should've released a 5890 and 5940 with lower clocks. At some point professionals are buying for IPC, thread count, and base clock speed.
  • Qasar - Tuesday, November 10, 2020 - link

    how is that a mistake ? if no need to change the IO die yet, why change anything ?
  • Spunjji - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link

    On launch? Not really.

    If they're still unavailable a month or two from now, I'll be greatly disappointed.
  • Machinus - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    Looks like a great set of chips for anyone who gets one mailed to them directly from AMD.

    Good luck buying one in a store.
  • danbob999 - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    480p Low quality gaming benchmarks? Really? Someone really play Civ6 with those settings?
    What's the point? Who cares if CPU X has 454 fps while Y only does 322?
  • Hxx - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    those are unrealistic scenarios just to showcase the IPC gains over prev gen and competition. But yeah normally you would pick the resolution you are playing at and go from there. In this case at 1080p / 1440p it trades blows with Intel in most titles.
  • silverblue - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    I'm not sure why the test revolves around frame rate, and not turn time. To use Gamers Nexus as a source, the 5950X completes a turn in 26.6 seconds, whereas the 10900K does it in 30.9 (29.3 OC to 5.2GHz), and the 3950X in 32.4. So, in this one test, the 10900K takes 16% longer, and the 3950X 22%.
  • Spunjji - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link

    Yeah, I was a bit confused by not seeing turn times for Civ as that's the really big drag in late game scenarios.
  • ExarKun333 - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link

    Zen 3 feels a lot lot Core 2 ~ 14 years ago. Wow, very impressive.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now