ND4SPD
Premium
- 8,479
- Guelph ON
- JeffZ28
- Jeff C6R
@PletdeKoe apparently CDPR abandoned calling it an rpg a little while back.
CyberPunk 2077
- Thread starter II-zOoLoGy-II
- 790 comments
- 76,248 views
- 15,375
- TRAPPIST-1g
- ProjectWHaT
The PS5 runs at 1188p at 60 fps. Seems to be using the same graphical preset as the PS4 Pro so there's a decrease in the size of the crowd and the lighting draw distance is quite poor. The game runs almost always at 60 fps. It can drop to the mid 50s every now and then.
The Xbox Series X in quality mode runs between 1512p and 1728p at a stable 30fps. Quality mode has ambient occlusion. In performance mode it maxes out at 1080p and runs at 60 fps with drops to the low 50s. It does not hold 60 fps as much as the PS5. The crowd density is higher in the Series X than the PS5. The Series X also seems to sometimes completely freeze for a few seconds when trying to load in assets
The Xbox Series S maxes at 1296p. Despite it running at a higher resolution, it still looks poor, because of the T-AA. The Series S also has ambient occlusion so this probably means the game is running with the Series X quality mode preset but targeting at a lower resolution. It runs mostly at 30 fps with some asset loading hitches which causes the game to drop frames.
For a constant 60 fps, the PS5 does better. For better visuals, the Series X is better. For a cheap good experience, the Series S does it.
As a reminder, these consoles are only running the backwards compatibility version. A future free update will come to add next gen console features, such as ray tracing.
It seems like other than the raw performance needed to run, the asset streaming is a huge bottleneck, especially when driving. This is a huge issue for the last gen consoles, because they don't have the performance to run the game normally, but when driving, the slow hard drive and old CPU causes the game to run even worse than it already is. The new consoles all use SSDs and the newest Ryzen CPUs which allows it to not drop frames as much.
The Xbox Series X in quality mode runs between 1512p and 1728p at a stable 30fps. Quality mode has ambient occlusion. In performance mode it maxes out at 1080p and runs at 60 fps with drops to the low 50s. It does not hold 60 fps as much as the PS5. The crowd density is higher in the Series X than the PS5. The Series X also seems to sometimes completely freeze for a few seconds when trying to load in assets
The Xbox Series S maxes at 1296p. Despite it running at a higher resolution, it still looks poor, because of the T-AA. The Series S also has ambient occlusion so this probably means the game is running with the Series X quality mode preset but targeting at a lower resolution. It runs mostly at 30 fps with some asset loading hitches which causes the game to drop frames.
For a constant 60 fps, the PS5 does better. For better visuals, the Series X is better. For a cheap good experience, the Series S does it.
As a reminder, these consoles are only running the backwards compatibility version. A future free update will come to add next gen console features, such as ray tracing.
It seems like other than the raw performance needed to run, the asset streaming is a huge bottleneck, especially when driving. This is a huge issue for the last gen consoles, because they don't have the performance to run the game normally, but when driving, the slow hard drive and old CPU causes the game to run even worse than it already is. The new consoles all use SSDs and the newest Ryzen CPUs which allows it to not drop frames as much.
Last edited:
- 8,426
- Rockay City
If the PS5/XBSX/S are already having trouble maintaining frame rates, then I'm a little concerned for the 'next-gen' (we should stop using this term as it's now the current-gen) update which will add RT among things, which is a notorious performance killer.
On another note: playing this through Geforce Now and I really wasn't expecting cloud-gaming to be this smooth, yet here we are.
On another note: playing this through Geforce Now and I really wasn't expecting cloud-gaming to be this smooth, yet here we are.
Last edited:
- 29,983
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
I'm getting zero slowdowns runing on Ray Tracing Medium settings, that's runining from an M.2 SSD and RTX 3080 mind, it does seem like you'll need beffy hardware to run it well but trust me, it's excellent when you do.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,393
- Texas
I'm a bit on the wall. Game's fun, but it throws so much at you. Haven't really figured out the hacking mechanic, been going more gun-ho. But, the shooting mechanic in this game feels weird (doesn't help the crosshair is tiny unless there's a bigger option I'm missing in the options) & the cover mechanic doesn't help much considering it's not like most games where it kind of places you into cover and you shoot from it; Cyberpunk's cover is a lot more... open & at your discretion. Not bad, just something to adjust to.
It also seems like maybe I've gotten lost whilst trying to progress the story along because even on normal difficulty, some of the enemies can really overwhelm you. A couple tries, they've quickly killed me, most times I can eventually take them down. Basically, after a few hours, I'm still trying to adjust to this game's controls & mechanics.
Other than that, I really like the story so far. It has a hell of a prologue & the plot really picks up once Silverhand & V's lives meet, imo. I haven't had any crashes, definitely seen a few bugs, nothing game shattering though. Playing with ray tracing on minimum, the game plays very smooth. Only been a couple times where the game slows a bit, mostly been during a close up of an opposite character. Probably going to spend next time playing doing side quests and leveling up before continuing on the story. Judging by 1 part I'm at, I'll likely need higher levels to tackle the main plot's requirements easier.
It also seems like maybe I've gotten lost whilst trying to progress the story along because even on normal difficulty, some of the enemies can really overwhelm you. A couple tries, they've quickly killed me, most times I can eventually take them down. Basically, after a few hours, I'm still trying to adjust to this game's controls & mechanics.
Other than that, I really like the story so far. It has a hell of a prologue & the plot really picks up once Silverhand & V's lives meet, imo. I haven't had any crashes, definitely seen a few bugs, nothing game shattering though. Playing with ray tracing on minimum, the game plays very smooth. Only been a couple times where the game slows a bit, mostly been during a close up of an opposite character. Probably going to spend next time playing doing side quests and leveling up before continuing on the story. Judging by 1 part I'm at, I'll likely need higher levels to tackle the main plot's requirements easier.
Last edited:
- 29,983
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Yes, that's the entire point of my comment really, it might take something like an RTX 3080 to run the game smoothly on the higher settings. The game has a lot of bugs and glitches, but trust me raw power can make it look butter smooth and glorious.
It might be poorly optomised for last gen consoles and graphics cards etc. But current gen kit works, or at least mine does.
It doesn't get rid of the bugs and glithes though, but I've onkly experienced one really frustating one so far that I had to google a workaround and that was not being able to enter Lizzies bar between 6pm and 6am.
I had to skip past 6am then get told the bar was closed then skip back to 6pm and managed to get inside.
Last edited:
- 8,426
- Rockay City
On PS4/XB1 there are objective performance issues, e.g. 10-20FPS at 720p-ish is not ok, especially after what was promised/shown.
PC is a whole different ballpark though. You definitely don't need an RTX 3080 to play this game smoothly. A 1070 is just fine for running this at 1080p/60 (ish) FPS with high (ish) settings. The problem is mostly that CDPR is listing some very low system recommendations which are just not true. A GTX770 to run this? Forget about it.
PC is a whole different ballpark though. You definitely don't need an RTX 3080 to play this game smoothly. A 1070 is just fine for running this at 1080p/60 (ish) FPS with high (ish) settings. The problem is mostly that CDPR is listing some very low system recommendations which are just not true. A GTX770 to run this? Forget about it.
- 29,983
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
No I'm not missing the point, I'm simply responding to you directly quoting me.
It's clearly aimed at beefier hardware, I happen to be running it on a 3080 but if it runs fine on a 1080Ti or 1070 as @NLxAROSA said, I don't really see a huge issue for PC players, but you'll have to be the judge of that not me.
The 1080 is a 4 year old card now and if it runs ok on a 1080Ti it will probably run fine on a 3060, possibly ok even on a 2060. Both significantly cheaper than a 1080Ti or a 3080. If it runs fine on a 1070 then there's a whole bunch of cards players will be fine with. Obviousely stock on the 3060's and above is a problem right now but it won't be for that much longer.
Performance on consoles is a bigger issue because console players don't have an alternative right now, the next gen version isn't out and you can't upgrade a console like a PC. So they're stuck with how it is.
Last edited:
- 29,983
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
I've seen that and that just confirms it's aimed at befier hardware. I really don't see where the issue with anything I've said? Cyberpunk 2077 is far from the first game that can't be maxed out on current gen hardware. It's not even the first to be released recently, doesn't Flight Simulator 2020 have the same issue.
You call it poor optomisation, which may or may not be true, but it doesn't change the fact it's aimed at beefier hardware. I'm running at 4k RT Medium and it's flawless.
Last edited:
- 45
- Colombia
You are mixing the need for a good pc for some games and bad optimization yes the game is aimed for machines more powerful than the last gen consoles but were are talking pc here and the performance reports are very random, cyberpunk even if it looks great is not a current gen game, flight simulator 2020 it's a complete different monster, you may be ok with that performance but me? I would expect High setting with RT for an RTX 3080, wait for the hotfixes and you will see, just the last one improved my framerate somehow, I mean did you even check the picture i posted? based on that you should be rocking ULTRA SETTINGS RT ENABLED.
Last edited:
- 2,312
- Michigan
- FuriousDemon
No need to argue guys. They released this thing too early and there is another 6 months of work on optimization and bug fixing left, so hopefully it will run according to the system specs in that time frame.
- 8,426
- Rockay City
Notice that the chart conveniently does not mention a framerate. 
I think I agree with @Dave A in the sense that the game is aimed at beefier hardware. Whether that was completely intentional or not can be debated, because I also think the chart is a bit too optimistic. (If we assume that 30FPS is the baseline it makes a bit more sense, thought it's still wrong). I think the requirements slid over development time and this is where they ended up. I don't expect optimization to bring back 25-50% of performance (PC or consoles). More stable framerates in problematic areas maybe, and I expect some RT optimizations.
But even on LOW settings this game is gorgeuous. Ran it on a 970 and it's absolutely amazing with low/medium settings, though 30-40 FPS tops.
Sidenote: if the current PS5/XBSX/XBSS already firing on all cylinders with the PS4/XB1 version, imagine what will happen once they add raytracing and all those other goodies?
I think I agree with @Dave A in the sense that the game is aimed at beefier hardware. Whether that was completely intentional or not can be debated, because I also think the chart is a bit too optimistic. (If we assume that 30FPS is the baseline it makes a bit more sense, thought it's still wrong
). I think the requirements slid over development time and this is where they ended up. I don't expect optimization to bring back 25-50% of performance (PC or consoles). More stable framerates in problematic areas maybe, and I expect some RT optimizations.But even on LOW settings this game is gorgeuous. Ran it on a 970 and it's absolutely amazing with low/medium settings, though 30-40 FPS tops.
Sidenote: if the current PS5/XBSX/XBSS already firing on all cylinders with the PS4/XB1 version, imagine what will happen once they add raytracing and all those other goodies?
Last edited:
- 29,983
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
No I'm not, I made a comment about needing beefier hardware, which certainly appears to be true. You're drawing attention to optomisation, which is fine, but that does not require proving my comments wrong in any way. There was and continues to be no reason for you to need to pick an argument with what I initially said
.I have no issue with someone thinking the game could be better optomised, but I do take issue with someone saying I'm wrong with no basis. Maybe you might not understand but the two can be true at the same time, it can be aimed at beefier systems and badly optomised. I've already implied as much but you failed to take the hint. You on the other hand seem to take issue with the notion it's aimed at beefier systems. I suggest you end this nonsense now.
As for the settings I havent tinkered yet, it runs smooth enough, haven't seen a single stutter or encountered a bottlneck yet. I'm sure I can push them higher, but I've been enjoying playing rather than tinkering because I plan to do some overclocking later this week anyway.
Last edited:
- 45
- Colombia
Look i'm not saying you are wrong in everything you say, it was just the solution you suggested "runs bad? get a better pc it will be great with a really expensive video card" true but kinda miss the point.No I'm not, I made a comment about needing beefier hardware, which certainly appears to be true. You're drawing attention to optomisation, which is fine, but that does not require proving my comments wrong in any way. There was and continues to be no reason for you to need to pick an argument with what I initially said
I have no issue with someone thinking the game could be better optomised, but I do take issue with someone saying I'm wrong with no basis. Maybe you might not understand but the two can be true at the same time, it can be aimed at beefier systems and badly optomised. I've already implied as much but you failed to take the hint. You on the other hand seem to take issue with the notion it's aimed at beefier systems. I suggest you end this nonsense now.
As for the settings I haven't tinkered yet, it runs smooth enough, haven't seen a single stutter or encountered a bottlneck yet. I'm sure I can push them higher, but I've been enjoying playing rather than tinkering because I plan to do some overclocking later this week anyway.
- 29,983
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
No worries, that's not what I was trying to say though. I was literally just stating that it appears to be aimed at beefy hardware (at least in it's current state). Not that the optomisation is fine etc. I don't disagree that it probably could be improved a lot, I just think our wires crossed
.
Last edited:
- 15,375
- TRAPPIST-1g
- ProjectWHaT
I honestly don't think any sort of optimization will be able to make the game runnable with lower end PCs and consoles. There's no way they'll be able to pull 10+ fps out of nothing. The game world is just too dense. There's just too many things to load and render. Unless they're planning on lowering the level of detail and removing things, I think this is what the frame rate will be for a while.
The only things they can do now is to fix the graphical and physics bugs. Although personally, I haven't really had any of these issues. I think I've had like 3 graphical bugs that were only slightly distracting but definitely not game breaking. Meanwhile, I've seen people having a lot of issues, but I personally haven't had any.
The only things they can do now is to fix the graphical and physics bugs. Although personally, I haven't really had any of these issues. I think I've had like 3 graphical bugs that were only slightly distracting but definitely not game breaking. Meanwhile, I've seen people having a lot of issues, but I personally haven't had any.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,209
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
Notice that the chart conveniently does not mention a framerate.
...
Sidenote: if the current PS5/XBSX/XBSS already firing on all cylinders with the PS4/XB1 version, imagine what will happen once they add raytracing and all those other goodies?
I did assume 30FPS for the chart. 60 FPS would be way off with what we see now. That's also why I ruled out playing it on PC with my current graphics card.
I'm curious what the next gen patch ends up with. 4K seems like it would definitely be a struggle. Maybe 1080P with raytracing and 4K without? As I mentioned in another thread, I would prefer a solid 1080P mode with good effects rather than stretched 4K mode. I'm not the biggest pixel peeper and a solid 30FPS would be fine with me.
- 2,312
- Michigan
- FuriousDemon
I think for next gen they can do 1080p 60fps with High/Ultra settings and maybe Low RT and 1440p or so with Medium/High Medium RT and 30fps. We have to remember that BC versions are not using full clocks and are not using any RDNA2 features as well as RT hardware. As we know, PS5 GPU is around 2070 Super or so in performance without RT and maybe 2060 Super in terms of RT capability. They have lots to work with here for next gen patch.
- 15,375
- TRAPPIST-1g
- ProjectWHaT
That's a good point. PC ray tracing is only supported on Nvidia's implementation at the moment which is only playable using DLSS which lowers the internal resolution. Additionally, AMD's architecture, RDNA2, currently does not have a feature similar to DLSS. According to this website, the PS5 and Xbox Series X consoles are most similar to the RTX 2070. Since Nvidia's Turing and Ampere architectures are very from RDNA2, we can't really compare them. The closest would be the new RX 6800 which performs better than the RTX 2070.
In the RT game Control, the RX 6800 was able to achieve 60 fps at 1080p with maximum ray tracing. Taking account that the RX 6800 is more powerful than what is in the new consoles and Control is less computationally heavy than Cyberpunk, I believe the new consoles will probably achieve 30 fps at 1080p with ray tracing.
- 8,426
- Rockay City
I think this is a good educated guess. Those that expect 4k/60FPS/RT at the same time are going to be in for a disappointment. I think that could be something for the mid-life update in about 2-3 years.
- 3,600
- Middelburg
Probably 'old news' for most of us --> If you want to see beautiful photo mode combined with the creativity of the players have a look at
Twitter and search #Shutterpunk2077 Enjoy!
Twitter and search #Shutterpunk2077 Enjoy!
MagpieRacer
Premium
- 17,274
- Wymondham, Norfolk
- Seagull_Racer
Couple hours in on Xbox One X. Very impressed so far. Been avoiding chatter as much as possible and just let the game take me in. Such a cool world to explore and it feels so alive, gonna spend a lot of time with this one.
- 196
- Canada
Is it true that fps for the outgoing generation consoles is hampered to 20fps?
Haven't bought the game yet.
Haven't bought the game yet.
- 3,600
- Middelburg
Heavy
- 8,426
- Rockay City
I'd hold off if you have a base PS4 or XB1, at least until the the big patches mentioned in the post above are out. FPS is only one problem on those platforms at the moment.
- 196
- Canada
- 3,780
- Brisbane, Australia
- Chameleon9000
This game seems to absolutely eat the base last gen consoles, some scenes hitting as low as 15fps in action sequences and the game spending significantly more time under the cap that on it. A lot of people are claiming that its close to unplayable unfortunately. Better on the pro/X, but far from perfect.
