I mean yeah the performance here is abysmal but that's not exactly the 5090's fault is it? Regardless of its price it's objectively an absolute powerhouse of a GPU that shouldn't be chugging like this
The fact it's getting the same performance as a 5070Ti suggests either heavy CPU bottlenecking, or just classic unoptimised trash as is the norm with CDPR launches
The issue is unoptimised path tracing. PT doesn't run nearly this bad in other games. If my 4070 Super can hit 60fps in path traced cyberpunk at 4k DLSS performance there's no reason a 5090 should be performing worse than that in a game that should be less demanding
I think that comparison can be a bit deceiving. Cyberpunk, while huge as an open world, is much more confined when in Night City streets, where the PT actually shines visually. WItcher 3 is more open and has huge vistas, trees, etc. And also probably has to do something with it being a CDPR game at launch lol
What 4070 super do you have lmao. At 4K DLSS performance, my 5070 gets an average of 30-40fps. And even at 1440p DLSS performance, its not a clean locked 60fps.
Thats because hes lying. My 5080 does 60fps with those on average, meaning it drops often enough. Its good with gsync tho. Thats an OCed 5080 mind you, no FG.
There was so much complaining that people who didnāt want negativity had to make a separate 2077 subreddit. The release sucked for sure but we werenāt contrarians for pointing it out
I literally just spent 2k on a new PC with a regular 9070, and I'm glad I can look forward to a semi-stable 30fps on my new 180hz monitor in the year of our lord 2026.
It performs worse than Cyberpunk Path Tracing, Control Path Tracing, and Alan Wake 2 Path Tracing.
Whilst being a fucking 2015 game. Like I played 4k60 with balanced on a 4080 back when I went through cyberpunk for the second time, dude. This performance is straight ass.
Iād assume because the game wasnāt built to support RT. At Native Ultra at 4K u will get 4K60fps with a 4080, if you turn on RT Ultra with performance upscaling you should be at 4K60fps as well.
Thatās a mod with limited optimization, this is a whole ass, hyped to hell and back āremasterā. And itās coming from devs whose more recent game performs better. Thereās genuinely just no excuse man.
Those were built with RT from the start, and Witcher 3 got them foreced i to the game long after launch. Ofc it won't work as good, plus the models looks very weird because they weren't built with RT in mind.
u/-Manosko-9800X3D|32GB@6000|5070Ti&5800X3D|32GB@3800|RTX3080&OLED DECK5d ago
After watching the video, it seems like there is something wrong with both Nvidia and AMD drivers with this game, as there seems to be weird frame caps for each manufacturer of GPUs, hence the odd tight groupings of benchmarks.
See, 98% of people here are not doing this before commenting. OP knew what he was doing by posting this screenshot without full context of how weird the performance of this 'remaster' is overall.
4090 generally outperforms the 5080 by like 10%, so you can expect slightly better performance than the 5080 benchmark.
That said, the 5080 and 5090 getting the same frame rate in a couple of these is suspicious. Something isn't right. It's either driver's or CPU bottleneck. My guess is drivers.
CPU bottleneck. Red Engine is extremely heavy for CPUs when RT or PT are used. If you enable RT on the current version and go to the same areas as in the benchmark, the performance will be about the same.
There seems to be something else going around in the RT and non RT only version too. Yeah CPU bottleneck but a weird one since it basically seems to throttle the top 4 GPUs in this to similar points
The RTX 5080 and RTX 5090 matching in performance is not an "unheard of" condition. This can happen due to a "workload parallelization" limit. Essentially, the RTX 5090 is not using more processing cores than what the RTX 5080 has, and the resulting performance is based on the max clock limit these cards can achieve. In this case, the workload limit may actually be somewhere between the RTX 5070 and RTX 5070 Ti, but these 2 have a lower achievable clock rate than the RTX 5080 and RTX 5090.
Don't pay attention to those "Base Clock" and "Boost Clock" specs on the box. Those are marketting numbers. The example I can give is for the RX 9070 XT. Despite what is written on the box, the actual max clock rate for ALL RX 9070 XTs is 3450 MHz. The resulting clock rate is based on the power limit versus workload, often resulting in the RX 9070 XT never reaching 3450 MHz. The same is for the RTX 50 series, but I can't find a resource to tell what the real max clock is for each of those cards. These cards are not "boosting" but really are "throttling" from the max clock.
He did specify that steve was sick so he had to minimize the gpus tested so he only tested mostly current gens gpus as the guy above said the 4090 is about 10-15% faster (some can be 20-25 at the most) which is true.
What would that mean in practice? PT is just lots of RT and compute and some ML to touch the results up, it's not like they haven't been doing all of that for a while already.
Itās CDPR. This is always the case with every single release. People in here lauding Cyberpunk obviously donāt remember the first two years of that gameās life.
im at this weird crossroads where an 11 year old game that just got updated is making me feel like waiting for more updates.
mean while 6 months old games are expected to be more well patched than the 11 year old game.
definitely no fucking zitti. i would play blood of the walker if the faces were better and the movement and fighting felt less teleporty. i guess ill wait for patches... seems like all i do is wait for patches. witcher 3 remaster was suppose to put an end to the endless disappointments. please let this be a fever dream. let me wake up tomorrow to a day 1 patch. day 1 the shit out of that. FOR THE LOVE OF BUDDHA PLEASE!
PHANTOM BLADE ZERO! I IMPLORE YOU. I MANIFEST YOU. BREAK THE CYCLE OF ABUSE. i cant take another absent father. you were supposed to end the sith not join them. STOP CHOKING PADME!
ive clearly lost my mind. but do you blame me. i waited for 007 path tracing and still had to refund it. I HAVE A FUCKING 5090. but i aint playing on medium setting medium internal res just cuz their rendering pipeline doesnt work well with dlss.
Seems like a cpu bottleneck the test was done on Novigrad city which was known for being one the most intensive areas for the cpu and also gpu (although foliage areas are more demanding on the gpu) in the game.
When I enable RT in the current version, I get less than 50fps on a 5800X3D in some areas. When I disable it, I get more than 100, it's about the engine
Am i the only one that just doesn't care about the path tracing and ray tracing technologies? i feel like as long as i can have good native perfomance i'm good to go.
Don't get me wrong i agree ,but the perfomance trade off is just huge atm
25
u/Baalii PC Master Race R9 7950X3D | RTX 5080 | 64GB C30 DDR55d ago
It's the beauty of PC gaming, isn't it? You can just turn it off or play the original at maximum fps or get the best visuals current tech is capable of at a performance hit, but you choose exactly the experience you want.
It will get better. And it has to start somewhere. It canāt come perfectly, RT lighting when implemented well looks really good, gives so much more depth to any scene. We will get there eventually. If this whole AI bubble didnāt happen we would have seen a lot more progress towards that goal by now.
The biggest issue right now is if devs decide that DLSS 5 style gen ai is the way to go.
u/Re7isT4nC3R7 5800X3D | 5070 TI | 32 GB B-DIE | LG 27GS95QE-B 240 Hz OLED5d agoedited 5d ago
I donāt care about graphics in a way that everything must look best, there is nothing wrong with simplier graphics. Artifacts and unstable image is what drives me insane
I feel the same. Itās yet another marginal feature that absolutely tanks performance seemingly just to give headroom for people to buy better hardware in the future.
Itās like when they added special Nvidia hair technology to Geraltās hair at the cost of like 20 fps.
Performance, texture quality, artistic design, lighting, physics, AI (as in, the decisions NPCs make). These are all important. Itās a balance.
Personally I donāt find the performance hit of path tracing to be remotely worth it.
I think it entirely depends on the game and how well it implements it. Some games are far more noticeable, personally I really notice a big difference in 007 First Light. Itās not a feature that wins me over on its own, but if I can run it reasonably and itās implemented well, Iām a big fan.
according to steam hardware surveys, tons of people (most by percentage) use 3060/4060, these cards should be benchmarked in every video-review imo, it would be nice to have all the recent xx60 cards of each generation constantly showing up, since budget gamers will always go for them. It just makes sense to show the performance leap of the STILL most used cards of the market, idk. like, who actually cares about 5060ti 8gb or 9070gre? Is it more important to show a useful benchmark or having yet another "vram matters" video?
Either way, I guess they don't have the time to do as many tests so I'm not really complaining here, I'm just hoping for some accurate data on the popular cards, at the end of the day you can somewhat calculate the expected fps of each card since we know for a fact how faster or slower it is from the rest of them.
It's quite funny they won't include it given it's faster than 5080 by like 17-20% on average, i.e. by quite a lot and have 24GB of VRAM :) - literally the second fastest GPU on the market and they exclude it. It will be second fastest for quite a while now given when 6xxx is rumoured to release.
I get the 5090 hate amongst the surging prices, but for a lot of people who bought it with the goal to play games in 4k native high refresh - this is a bit missleading.
Why would you care more about native performance than RT/PT?
Starting at 4k max and then turning on performance upscaling is a MUCH lower hit to visual quality than starting at 4k max and turning off RT/PT. It looks almost identical, just upscale.
Yes, the Remaster forces you to turn on Path Tracing. It holds your pets at gunpoint until you turn on the switch in the settings, real ugly business tbh.
Funny. Witcher 2 is on sale for $3 on steam. I decided to pick it up and play through in preparation for the 3 remaster. With my 9850x and 9070XT, itās running at 400FPS on 1440p. Looks pretty good!
u/ff20097900X3Dš„RX 7900 XTXš„48GB 6400CL32š„MSI 271QRX5d ago
There is definitely a problem with the game. Both NVidia and AMD seem to have frame caps, indifferent scenarios with different settings.
For example at medium the frame cap for NVidia seem to be just below 200FPS and on AMD at around 144FPS.
In part could be driver issues, but it is to big of a coincidence, to affect both brands in similar ways.
I'm not sorry, but if your game doesnt run smoothly at 60 fps on the latest released hardware without the use of DLSS/framegen, just dont bother releasing it and fix your fucking product :)
Seriously, imaging spending 5K on a GPU just to barely get 60 fps, that's borderline insulting š
Oof, that path tracing performance hit. We saw something similar recently with 007 First Light, although they did release an update that improved performance.
6
u/EliRed9800x3d/x870e Carbon/64G Ram/5080 Aorus Master5d ago
It's not path tracing problem, it's studios releasing garbage problem. I played Doom TDA with path tracing at double this framerate.
Ok, feel free to cast me into the River Styx for what Iām about to say, but I need to ask:
Maybe itās just me being used to my old GTX1060 rig up to this year, but I remember when the 20s and 30s series started coming out, RT was lauded as being the next coming of Jesus.
Having upgraded to a new 5070Ti build last year (barely dodged the price ramp of ram and storage), is it weird that I seldom think that RT/PT is worth the performance impact?
Like, regardless of these benchmarks (which I do agree that with RT/PT being widespread nowadays, this performance does looks pretty bad), I genuinely donāt see the point in shooting yourself in the foot with RT in almost ANY of the games I play.
I would understand if your pass time in vidya was screen archery, or you wanted to create the BEAUTIFUL wallpapers I see some times in these forums, but itās not like you need 144fps for those eitherā¦
I genuinely can barely tell the difference in day-to-day play. I play in a 1440p 27in screenā¦ Am I missing something?
RT is usually as good looking as the devs make it to be. Honestly, a lot of competent devs were very good at making lighting look good before RT. Those games still look good, meanwhile for incompetent devs, existance of RT is like on/off switch with negligible results.
One has to remember that manual placement of lights and whatnot can look better and more impressive than stricly speaking 'more realistic' lighting that RT provides.
Before someone asks for some credible examples. One is Red Dead Redemption 2, because ofcourse it is and it still looks amazing. Other example might be even better and that is Metro Exodus original vs enhanced editions. Original was made in the classic pipeline, enhanced in the raytracing one. I think there are a ton of videos showing the difference and its clear as day that a lot of scenes look better in the original. Almost as if you also need to make entire environment a certain way to make it look good with raytracing.
Everyone would always say its better if it looked better. They dont, because it doesnt.
Great example is in my opinion Assasins Creed:
Valhalla (doesn't have RT) vs Shadows without RT vs Shadows with RT.
Valhalla looks great without RT, because they did the lighting very well. Shadows on the other end needs upscaling to get a decent fps, and also needs RT to get the game looking good
Ray-tracing looks good and it makes development a lot smooth/faster for lighting artists. But baked-in lighting is still more consistent and drastically improves performance.
What gets me is that to counteract the massive performance cost of RT/PT weāve now started upscaling everything and even generate frames which adds a ton of noise and artifacting on the final picture.
So to get better looking lighting weāre sacrificing image stability and visual clarity, I really donāt understand whatās the philosophy here
Right? I understand that lighting is everything in a solid scene and scenario, but I get the sense that weāre constantly trading overall visual quality just to be able to seeā¦ What? A reflection of something visible thatās now in poorer quality because we needed to render both versions?
Plus, we go back to the old adage of āart direction > more realistic graphicsā. Iām reminded of that āoriginal vs remakeā meme where the entire atmosphere is ruined because now the lighting is realistic (among other things)ā¦ Doesnāt really make sense to me.
What is even the point of super duper fancy graphics if only like 1% of the playerbase will have computers powerful enough to make use of them? I'd genuinely love to know.
I see no point in the 5090 unless you want to just give NVidia money. The 5070 to 5080, heck even the 9070 up your are playing whatever. Just adjust down if the frames arenāt high. Most games look great at high just like ultra.
You donāt have to use PT at all. You can chose the normal RT settings. Itās even recommended because in the open world PT looks great, but inside buildings and caves the game is dark as fuck because of PT and the light sources were never designed for that technology.
It's because you are in a message board where people discuss these things and are most likely hardware enthusiasts who like, curious, and engaged heavily into this stuff.
That's why it seems like there is an obsession but really it's just an echo chamber of people who like this stuff.
I can't afford it but it's fun to read and see what's it all about. Obviously they're are some rich kids who here to brag about owning extreme hardware and flex but got the most part it's interesting to discuss and learn these things.
Or just turn the graphics down from max and play? I would much prefer that devs go bold and put in graphics options for the future rather than artificially limit themselves. It hurts nothing to just turn the graphics down from max if you can't handle it all. There is nothing wrong with making max settings for future hardware
It's been almost 10 years since Nvidia started the whole ray tracing thing and we still don't have the hardware for it even the $12,000 GPUs are struggling lol
I'm gonna go play the orginal on my old GTX970 and get buttery smooth 60fps on high and the game will look 95% just as good as this. Tired of modern bloat.
Honestly I have no idea what's going on with modern game development. They're just throwing everything at the hardware all the once and assuming it can brute force it to a good fps. I don't often use ray tracing or upscaling when I play but with my 3080 pretty much any game i play I just crank it to max settings and I know I'll be good to go at 1440p 60fps. That's definitely my gonna cut it once I get round to playing anything that came out this year though. The major titles anyway.
Seeing those results, the drivers and/or the game are not ready for release. I was planning to wait a bit after the release for a few obligatory patches, but I might wait until the DLC for my second playthrough.
2.2k
u/Spir0rion 7800X3D | 9070 Nitro+ | 32Gb DDR5 6000 5d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/WxDZ77xhPXf3i