Both CPU and GPU can be demanding in Red Dead Redemption 2, depending on the specific tasks and settings.
Both CPU and GPU can be demanding in Red Dead Redemption 2, depending on the specific tasks and settings.
I've got an 8086k OC'd to 5GHZ system with a 1080ti Asus Strix OC Edition on a PG279q 1440p display. I'm a bit behind schedule and wanted to know if the game relies more on GPU power or CPU performance. I'm considering a future upgrade to a non-reference 3080ti and am curious if that would help boost my results. My goal is to hit ultra settings, but I'm unsure if that's realistic given RDR2's requirements. If I reach Ultra, would the new GPU suffice, or would I need another CPU upgrade? Also, can I expect 144fps+ without compromising too much on frame quality?
It looks like you're expressing confidence in working with the 8086K despite modern graphics advancements. Just to clarify, you seem to think it's still capable even with next-gen GPUs, but you're skeptical about using Ultra.
Ultra is designed for high-resolution systems but also supports 1440p configurations to handle demanding performance.
I just downloaded the graph from Guru3D's performance review of RDR2 here: https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/re...iew,1.html. I also checked out HUB's video on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYudE7kAEHo). They've created a few more follow-up videos about optimized settings that maintain good visual quality.
Rockstar's engine struggles with high frame rates, especially above 150fps. It caps around 255 FPS or so and feels more suited for a 30-60fps console experience. In 1440p, even with a heavily overclocked 6c/12t X5765 and a GTX1080, performance stays in the low to mid-40s singleplayer and mid-50s online. On a 6600k with the same GPU, it becomes nearly unplayable due to steep FPS drops. It handles multithreading okay but lacks smoothness at higher settings. A faster CPU helps, but a better GPU makes a big difference. Modern Intel 14nm chips with hyperthreading are sufficient; aim for something above a 3600 MHz if you want the best results. Spend about an hour tuning settings to balance visuals and performance. Many adjustments boost little, while some tweaks make a huge impact.
Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad you found the videos helpful. Regarding your question, the impact of upgrading a GPU versus a CPU depends heavily on the specific workload and hardware configuration. For games or tasks that demand high parallel processing, a CPU with more cores (like quad-core vs 6-core) can significantly improve performance because it handles more threads simultaneously. In contrast, a GPU upgrade would be more beneficial when the game or application relies heavily on graphics processing power rather than raw computational throughput. So yes, the difference can be substantial based on what you're running.
RDR2 in 1440p mainly depends on your GPU power unless your CPU lacks sufficient cores or threads, causing stutters and significant FPS drops. Your 8086k performs better than a Ryzen 3600 for today’s titles, though Rockstar tends to favor Intel chips. At higher resolutions it will still be constrained by the GPU. Upgrading from an 8086k to a 10700k usually only gives a modest 2-3% boost in most games, while switching to a 3900x can actually reduce performance by the same margin. This varies widely per game, but it’s a solid rule of thumb for RDR2. Invest heavily in a new GPU, improve cooling if needed, push overclocking, and fine-tune settings. You could likely beat stock 10th gen CPUs in benchmarks with optimized memory and stable temperatures. If GPU upgrades aren’t enough, look into good NVMe storage—prices have dropped significantly this year, with options like the SX8200 or E12 drives offering 1-2TB at reasonable costs.