Hey Vex, Thanks for the info you put out there. Following ya now. Ever done a video on optimization settings in general? I am looking for a modern video explaining what features to turn down first that has the largest changes on performance with the least changes on visuals. I do a dance with most titles as I game at 4k with dlss on a 4070ti.
Tbh, I wish more games were like this, just so people would finally upgrade their 8 year old rigs so more devs could finally use newer technologies and push graphics somewhat. I've had enough of games looking the same for years and years without getting any closer to realism just because devs can't push anything because they have to sell most units to low end users.
@@sMooVe1982 until theres a generational leap in graphics no game should render cards more powerful than a pc damn near useless its horrible optimization the only downfall for this game is mesh requirements but not everyone can afford the latest and greatest graphics cards
@@saltykot582 Pretty much the driving force of graphics irony enough yet have people clinging to old hardware like he said. Since you'll be surprised how low some specs are compared to the current gen consoles that people still rocking...
No, the performance does not match the visuals. Technogies appart, we're tech guys but lets forget that for a moment. This game, at 1080P low, doesn't look as good as Resident Evil 2 remake at ultra, and it gets way shittier performance. I don't care how the lightning is made, how textures are drawn over mesh, I dont play with the games code, I play with the games visuals. So, short answer, no, this game doesn't do justice to its performance footprint.
This is a question I've been pondering for a little while now. What actually "looks better", a game like RE Village running at 4k with everything maxed out and still achieving 100+ fps without upscaling, or a game like AW2 on the same hardware running at 1080p or 1440p Low running at 60fps with upscaling. Like, which game ultimately provides a more enjoyable visual and gameplay experience? Sure, AW2 uses more advanced techniques, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell me it looks better at upscaled 1080p or 1440p low than RE Village does at 4K Ultra. I think because of the fact we're in the realm of diminishing returns, it's becoming harder and harder to make arguments in favor of wild hardware requirements when the visual result may be worse in some ways than a game from 2 years ago running maxed out at a higher resolution, because you have to make so many compromises in the newer game just to get it to run acceptably.
@@Kryptic1046 Completely share the sentiment, and I have to add that at least for my, nearing my 40's, graphics add almost jack shit to my experience. GTA IV / Half Life 2 is about as low as I can consider a modern experience, but I spent countless hours recently in Minecraft worlds, you can't really have anything thats more basic than Minecraft... I couldn't care less about nanite, lumen, ray reconstruction, dlss, I want my games to run ok and have decent graphics. Yesterday I was watching a video "the tragedy of Star Wars Battefront", man watch the SW BF 1 (2015 one) graphics runing on ultra. That thing at 1080P Ultra runs on a potato nowadays, one of the best lookings games I have ever seen, albeit its relatively small sized maps, its a technical marvel.
@@jtraimundo - I'm with you on all of that. The Battlefront games still look incredible even today. Recently I've seen people make the argument that art style matters more than graphical fidelity, and I tend to agree. This is why I think Bioshock Infinite is still such a great-looking game 10 years after its initial release, because it is so well-done artistically, and the graphical fidelity is still what I consider plenty good enough for its intended purpose. This is also why so many newer games that exceed Bioshock's level of graphical fidelity simply fade into obscurity, because they're bland and boring af to actually look at and play for long periods of time. As far as raytracing/lumen, they're nice but not essential. I only turn them on if I'm at my target resolution/framerate and I still have the GPU budget for them. I will generally not sacrifice resolution and framerate for raytracing, and I think in some ways raytracing is hurting the industry.
@@R3TR0J4NI mean ngl, if you cannot see the difference between mid settings and ray tracing, let alone path tracing, then Idk what to tell you. Even with shit textures, path tracing in cyberpunk looks better than anything I've ever seen.
@@R3TR0J4N That's fine, but even in 1.0 there was a significant difference between ray tracing and ultra settings without it. The reflections alone made a big impact and the lighting in certain areas just looked a lot better.
My problem here isn't that the performance is bad for what you get it's that we seem to be losing scalability in games, for a long time games were pretty scalable across different power GPUs you would just have to take a pretty good quality hit, now it seems like devs aren't putting in the time to make games scalable, which I 100% blame publisher release schedules for.
@@ironmaidenmetalgod If they want to go all RT or add whatever new features its fine with me as long as they give a clue certain GPUs will only be good for 1-3 years after you buy it so you don't end up having to buy again sooner than planned. Most people expect 5 years at $300+.
9:16 STOP DEFENDING UPSCALING! 9:30 Lots of people complained about the blurriness. Like you're roleplaying a character that has myopia or something and is in desperate need of glasses. 😠 Bruh. Upscaling, and fake frames, are there so that the shit companies can sell you less hardware for more money. And should ONLY be used by players who want more than 80 fps, because they have high-refresh monitors and are bothered by it. Or those who have low-end hardware and need an extra boost to at least hit 60. IT SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED by default when a game is launched, wtf?
That what I always say about souls games and elden ring the graphics aren't close to top notch but the artstyle and art direction makes them never age poorly,
As far as I’m concerned, the graphics of AW2 is not the most impressive aspect. Instead, it’s the clever intertwine of gameplay, horror elements and graphics that makes it unique, at least for me. Edit: by the first sentence, I’m saying the graphics is not the major reason why I like this game
I think the real issue here is that GPUs had a gigantic leap in performance last gen from the one prior (so from rtx 20/rx 5000 to rtx 30/rx 6000 series) and the top of the line cards from both manufacturers that were clearly planned first from this gen had a pretty big jump as well, and probably had their specs given to game devs before their release for them to sort of plan ahead in terms of how far they can push graphics and such, but the GPU manufacturers decided to pivot because of the crypto crash and other market constraints so their non-top of the line cards were severely cut back and almost parity with the cards the next tier up from the gen before. Game devs, on the other hand, expected performance uplift to be as significant as they were last gen across the board and the GPUs released. You can't expect hardware from 5+ years ago to play a game at a high resolution with settings turned up with super high framerates when you have visuals which require a higher-end GPU in the first place, especially with the heads up from the game devs that the game is going to be made specifically to target a certain level of graphics fidelity. If your GPU can't handle it at that point, with that kind of a warning, then don't buy the game(s).
Agreed. Most game developers have already dropped support of 8th gen consoles completely. But somehow the owners of PS4/Xbox One do not yell at them. They understand that if you want want to play next gen games, you need next gen console. So why don't PC gamers understand it too? Next gen game = next gen graphics card.
@@stangamer1151 Because this generation of GPU's completely sucks ass, and the PS4 and Xbox One are outdated as all hell? I wouldn't be surprised if the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 was quite a bit ahead of the 8th-gen consoles at this point.
@@stangamer1151 The PS4 came out in 2013, 10 years ago. The rx 5700 xt came out in 2019, 4 years ago. This game makes it obsolete. Also, a more direct comparison would be if a console (that cost 400 dollars in 2013) would cost 1,000 dollars today, which is more in-line with the price hikes GPUs got in the same time period. AND if consoles would be gimped in terms of RAM and performance, to ensure you'd buy a new gen that would be right around the corner, instead of several years away, like the successor to the PS5 is.
@@KnightofAgesSorry but in the entire history of GPUs, they were always outdated after 3-4 years. Also, a rx5700 wasn't highend, a 2080Ti was. And that one did cost 1,200USD.
I do recommend Higher than Low on Volumetric Lightshaft lighting, at low it shimmers a lot in motion with its reduced resolution at low, but low preset with High lightshafts is still running well. Low is too noticible and High doesnt cost too much more.
There is three thing in the settings tanking the FPS in my experience. Post processing, Volumetric lighting and shadow resolution, when first is set to low, and others two on medium, everything else can be set to high and game basically looks the same as high. I am getting 60-80fps at 2k dlss performance on 3070 in the heavy woods area. I do agree Volumetric supposed to be important, but comparing screens I can't say I see much of a difference. If those three things set to High it will tank FPS lower then 50...
Started it today with basically DF's PS5 performance settings, slightly upgraded (like global illumination on high and a few other s on medium that are low on PS5) with DLSS balanced on a 3070m frankendriver GPU and I got a solid 65 fps on the woods and 85 in indoor areas. It honestly felt quite good to me.
The problem is that it sets a dangerous precedent, if we allow game producers to set higher and higher minimum standards then where does it end? How long before your shiny new 4090 is obsolete at the next game release? For us as gamers, more options = better!
This is a moot point for the enthusiast the faster my 4090 is obsolete the faster I'm playing next gen graphics tbh. The 4090 lets me experience what I would imagine ps6/ps7 resolutions are going to be except right now being able to play stuff like cyberpunk and starfield at 5K lol
@@D3nsity_ Moat to you perhaps, the rest of us mere mortals aren't made of money and are perhaps buying a card such as that as a one time purchase with the intent of it lasting a few years.
Yea I don't mean it like that. I mean that warning "oh no when does it stop" for a 4090 owner is like actually a tease of candy rather than dread. I want extreme graphics and amazing visuals I don't care about how to get there. Just saying the idea it gets outdated that fast would be EXCITING and not disappointing. Its no secret that pc gaming has always been obnoxiously more expensive than consoles. Gaming in general is a hobby you must be made of money to enter in the first place. You are literally spending money to waste time. So save for longer and play harder later. I got lucky 1 singular time with the algorithm and it was enough to buy a 4090. I'm not made of money either. I had to save that money for 2 gpu generations before the 4090 tho.
Yeah the main point at which I am freaking out is that someone who owns 1000 dollar would never play on 1080p low to achieve 60fps all the time the optimization should be done by the developers to run with same settings for GTX 1660 super.Like is it really necessary to have 1000 dollar graphics card like 3080 or 4080 on lowest possible settings and the game barely looks better than resident evil 4.
And the reality is the following: it’s grainy die to mid-low settings set (for reflections especially) and blurry here and there due to that + 800p from dlss balance. Basically denoiser sucks, you can see that shit in the video. At the end of the day these gorgeus visuals covered in grain and blur. Game is good-lookin but you WON’T see it crisp clear
@@astrea555 nah Series X and PS5 are way better than your obsolete 3070 you aint even gonna be doing 1440p for long with a lousy 8gb VRAM even the 3080 with its 10GB VRAM is low end now. consoles are better optimized than PCs you try running one of those cards on a 144hz monitor your barely ever gonna reach 144fps and the game will look like a stuttery mess compared to 60fps with good frame pacing. If your playing on PC you need to be prepared to spend $3000 minumum now
I really think that they could've provided moar range for the graphics settings, where what is currently 'Low' should've been the 'Medium' preset, and then what should be 'Low' would actually juice the framerate. It looks to me like the most expensive things are the polycounts, global illumination, volumetric lighting, and that's pretty much the brunt of it. If they'd allowed polycounts to go a bit lower I think that would've gone a looooong way toward improving performance because less triangles means all of the other graphical FX will get a boost as well - only because this game has such high polycounts. In other games with lower poly counts you won't get much of a boost from reducing the number of triangles in meshes because it's not what's causing everything to choke - which instead is usually just either raw rasterization speed or memory bandwidth, or they have crazy arse material shaders and post-processing effects. I really believe that AW2 could see a huge perf boost if geometry was just allowed to have less triangles, it would improve performance on everything that touches triangles, all of the shadowing and lighting. I don't think I've ever seen a game that pushes this many triangles before.
I am fairly certain its always on software based UE5 features baked in. RT, Lumen, etc. I am not an expert in those and I may be wrong about what features are always on but I know this is not rasterization only.
@@fatidicusaeternus6498 Still using advanced features always on. Like I said I am no expert but this is not plain raster, something is baked in. I think Digital Foundry is saying the same now.
@bruhsusaltamash8141 Thanks, I heard they are saying that. I did not know what it was for sure but I knew it was not plain raster. Maybe a toggle will get patched in after the holiday profit season ends and we can all feel better about our 1 year old $600 GPUs.
they could but that costs a lot of money and very hard work, youre basically remaking the game. other games usually do that, starting low then use tessellation for higher-end hardware which just hogs the performance with for far less visuals. they couldnt do that for obv reasons, the visuals in this game is extremely important to the game if youve played it, it'd simply not work if it had mediocre visuals.
You know what's strange? Games these days don't always look better, but they sure do demand more from our hardware. Take The Last of Us 2, for example. It's got these mind-blowing graphics, motion capture, and environments, and yet it runs on half the system requirements of Alan Wake 2. And don't even get me started on Red Dead Redemption 2. That game is detailed AF and has a killer environment, way better than Starfield, but it doesn't need nearly as much power to run smoothly. It's like the industry is messing with us, making games that look same or worth but expect us to dish out big bucks for fancy GPUs. It's a bit frustrating, to be honest. i cant say how much angry i am with todays gaming industry
Devs now take the dlss and fsr shortcut and let the ai do the optimising whilst having low cpu usage because the upscaling will do it for you Rinse and repeat. It's only made worse when the community and youtubers like these just defend it by saying because it looks good but completely forget about older games that look better and have alot more going on but have lower requirements that are more optimised. This guy is in the beginning areas and is none the wiser that the games optimisation breaks further into the game you get I've finished it all and at first even after you get past the hurdle of needing a pc that cost over a thousand to get 60fps to render at sub 1080p and you put the right settings on it'll seem like at first that's it's okay but disappointing that you have to rely on upscsling but then you get a few hours in and start to notice cpu limitations due to the low core count the game uses and thats just one of the problems that start to appear which all these youtubers and the community conveniently leave out
@Lightsaglowllc well if you compare alan wake 2 and cyberpunk which both rely on upscaling and say if you turned rt on them both off cyberpunk still runs better A couple small things is that cyberpunk has a smt option and nvidia reflex, plus alan wake 2 has a memory leak problem And I wouldn't say it blows rdr2 out of the water you have to find a balance between performance and quality and rdr2 is a good balance of that It's not hard to make a game demanding and then rely on ai upscaling to fix it for you
@@papichuckleyou call out "this guy" (being Vex) yet your very first paragraph is crucial information he helped spread, about these games offloading important tasks to the GPU rather than the CPU
Before anyone says I'm a hater I'm probably going to get this game and I have a 7900xt which does fine with this game with RT off. But this is getting ridiculous. Visuals haven't been pushed since 2018 just system requirements.
"Visuals haven't been pushed since 2018" my dude, new rendering techniques and pipelines has since been very different from 2018 games, im surprised that mesh shading a feature from DX12 Ultimate API thats almost like 5 years now hasnt been used a few years ago and only recently applied because they dont want people with older hardware crying and whining about bad optimization when its just their old hardware
@ElegantSpy the tech is changing but I'm talking purely from looking at the screen, the improvements that have been made (except for maybe better reflections and shadows with ray tracing, tho not revolutionary by any means) have been very slim.
@@tmsphere then what do you suggest or implying my dude ? better texture so that the game will eat more vram while using the new engine ?? (so you dont have to use the argument of oh but rdr2 has better textures and uses normal vram usage)
@@Eleganttf2 I think he's saying for all the new Visual Rendering Pipe Techniques (or whatever) that had been invented, the visuals in AAA games have looked little better that previously but demanded a great deal more horsepower. In terms of visuals improvements / cost to see those improvements, things have greatly regressed imo. If this is the future of gaming, I personally don't want to be a part of it (and I believe I speak for a decent number of people as well)
In my opinion no. This game visual is not much better than RE4 Remake but it is more than twice demanding. I am talking without ray tracing. Ray tracing of this game is much better than RE4 Remake ray tracing.
@@IgorBozoki1989 But you can play this game with 60 fps on a 6700 on high. That's totally fine Imo. The game was made with maximum graphical fidelity from everything I read about it and that includes pathtracing. In RE4 it's only an add-on.
@@ashenzenden I haven't played the game so I can't tell personally but does it look that much better than let's say a plague tale requiem which is a visually stunning game but runs a lot better (without ray tracing). From what I have seen in benchmarks a 4070 at 1440p high WITH DLSS quality can barely make 60fps without any ray tracing.
As great as I think this game looks. I still think something like Read Dead 2 maxed out on PC with every bell and whistle looks just as good, if not better in many cases, and that game gets double the performance with identical card to card comparisons. Not including RT, obviously, since Read Dead doesn't use it. But, seriously, Alan Wake 2 doesn't look THAT mind-blowing even with RT, so I'd love to know just what the hell the engine is doing to demand all of this power. My 7900XTX gets 70-90fps depending on where I am in the game, and that's with no ray-tracing and FSR2 rendering at 1440p. Absolutely ridiculous! Again, the game looks good, but not so good to be chugging along at 30fps at native 4k with the top tier Nvidia and AMD card. Of course, the 4090 does get a bit higher fps, but this game doesn't look good enough to the point it should be bringing a 4090 to its knees.
One of the reasons being that even with disabled RT it uses RT slightly to make reflections a bit more realistic. I don't remember where exactly I heard it, one of the review videos stated that.
The forests in RDR2 looked great for its time but not even close in comparison to this game. The foliage density is much bigger and the trees itself have more realistic details.
@@TooBokoo a 4090 doesn't even melt at 4k pathtraced, what do you mean? No hardware in the world can run this without upscaling and you really want upscaling to use ray reconstruction.
ya thats why drives me crazy when ever someone talks about this game running well. Sure the game looks good but is the graphics and gameplay enough to justify it? Up to personal opinion but i personally don't think so. Its linear and basic world interactions(press X to do animation) game isnt even fast pace by any means. Like sure it looks good but it looks so slightly better then what other games have out right now( Which is incredibly debatable) that does it really justify 50% fps cut compare that to something like cyberpunk. Cyberpunk is Open world, way more interaction systems let that be destruction physics or cars so on and way more content and that runs incredibly well even on weaker hardware. Sure cyberpunk is "less" graphicly impressive but cyberpunk is doing all of that consistently while alan wake 2 is small zones and hallways with like 5 npc at ones (ik their more at a time im just giving a random number but its always a small amount of npcs at a time).it should be expected to look better with a smaller scope and even with that smaller scope it still runs way worse then many triple A games out rn even including that their using mesh shaders and i also believe i heard they use a version of nanite in their engine as well which both should of boosted the FPS dramatically. SO ya where is that fps going
I've been really critical about FSR and DLSS. I tried Baldur's Gate 3's FSR which is just FSR1, and my game looked like I was watching a wax cabinet show. But then later on I tried FSR2 in The Witcher 3, and it was miles better. Basically I could only tell the difference between native 1920x1200 and FSR2 Quality when I either took A/B screenshots, or if I concentrated really really hard. When actually playing the game I couldn't tell the difference. FPS went from 45 to a locked 60. This is on a GTX 1070 8Gb, 1920x1200, RT off and settings around the high mark (some medium, some Ultra+). So DLSS isn't supported with my card, but FSR2 is.
You're arguing with dumbasses or people who are deliberately negligent. How many times does it have to be stated that the game is really demanding because of path tracing which which is more demanding than that of Cyberpunk? The game without raytracing is very playable all the way down to the 6600xt, if you don't have a GPU which is at least as strong as that, you really have no room to complain when you can't run a game which has arguably one of the best graphics for any game released thus far.
@@wanshurst2416 i think the difference when your talking about super low ray counts is either non existant or extremely minimal between software and hardware implementations and a software implementation will be allow cards without hardware for it to atleast boot the game
This game proves hypocricy - when Deus Ex Mankind Divided released in 2016, game reviewers gave it a lower score for "demanding system requirements". But when Cyberpunk and Alan Wake 2 do the same shiet, they get a pass for some reason - probably signed a contract with Nvidia, to get a share of the profits from GPU sales, so instead of optimizing they made their games even more demanding. And then paid shill reviewers to say: "graphics justify the requirements" - how so? This game looks like a Forspoken in a horror game setting. I don't see the appeal - and i don't see the "revolutionary graphics." Games achieved dynamic lights like these since Source 2007, and fake godrays almost as good as RTX were a thing 10 years ago. Made some games look just as good, without needing a bitcoin mine GPU. Besides, even if the graphics do live up to the hype, it should still get a bad score, cuz for 95% of players with far less than a state of the art PC, the game will still look like a potato on low settings.
Talking bout early reviewers who either didn't play the game, or were handed a pristine condition special demo, and promoted the game as "living up to the hype" and "blew their mind" to convince people to pre-order it a month earlier, which helped it reach 8 mil pre-orders. Not that it stopped some people from kissing CDPR's arse after either - especially after the Edgerunners update, when the game turned positive suddenly.
If AW2 was a fast paced shooter it be terrible game but its not, its a slow pace narrative game with amazing graphics that still run on GPU's that are 3 generations and/or almost 5 year old. The real issue is not the requirements, but the price hike of more recent GPU's
It runs really well in my opinion (6800xt, 3440x1440), especially for how good it looks. My only problem with the game is forced FSR on AMD GPUs. FSR sucks as an AA solution, it's a flickering, shimmering, unstable mess. I would much prefer TAA.
i really dont think this is hard to run for a 2023 game, if you match the game to console settings, the 3060 can get 60fps on 1440p balanced. Or 4k 30fps on 4k balanced. All the ray trace and path trace options only add flavour to the image and doesnt change it dramatically, i honestly think those settings are for screenshots or for people from a generation or two in the future.
I play it on ryzen 3600 + rtx 3060 on high settings 1440p, DLSS balanced. I have stable 40fps outdoors and 60fps inside buildings. On native 1080p the game is unplayable. It's blurry and hurts my eyes.
developers can't even give a game that doesn't rely heavily on upscaling. it almost as if we can't make a game that can be played natively. I can't even blame them because they're using an engine that is more powerful than any graphics card, even 4090 is struggling to give decent fps. and I can't just forget about terrible driver supports.
This is the whole point of Nvidia upscaling tech so we can have better graphics in games. I see no difference in visual quality with DLSS Quality and Frame Generation turned on in this game but I do feel a huge performance loss when I turn them off. Im very happy Nvidia is developing this tech it’s going to be the future of gaming.
you're technically right. if a game is unplayable then upscaling is important. but the problem is company's are saying our upscaling is better with our graphics card which leads to user manipulation something that apple is doing for a while now. and it turns out to be working well. for them but not for us@@zdspider6778
I guess even with the RX 6600 players expect better image quality when it comes to resolution with overall lower graphic settings. More testing of the lowest setting (since low isn't the lowest setting possible) to retain a higher resolution on those mid to low-end cards would be interesting imo.
They intentionally made the rasterized shadows in this game game look terrible. That sign demo at 6:23 without RT is laughably bad. There is no way they look that bad by default. We had games from 2015 with better shadow quality than this. Just another ploy to sell nvidia 30-40 series cards since its a nvidia sponsored title.
I did a few screen shots and I can't find much difference from DLSSQ and DLSSB. I'm using medium setting with a few modifications, ultra textures, high texture filtering, low terrain quality and low scattered object density. I'm using RT medium, but I'm setting path tracing to low. I'm on a 3080-12g and i'm getting 30 to 40 fps in the forest, 60 to 70 fps in the cabin, and 50 to 60 fps in town at 1440p. I'm very happy with the game.
With 3080 and 5700x just barely hit 60fps in most regions of the game @1440p DLSSQ and 90% LOW settings. No RT, just LOW reflections. Turning RT on LOW cuts fps almost in half, so the place in the game you found and said that those settings are good for 60fps is overstatement. In the woods, GPU runs 100% and barely hits 60fps. But then again, you are on 5800X3D... So one more thing not adding up to average user
I won't even attempt to boot it on my GTX 1070, considering it gets like 18-20 fps on a 1080Ti which is loads faster than a shitty 1650/1660Ti (on which it works because they support mesh shaders). Remedy done fucked up. They released a tech demo not a game. NOBODY bought GPUs during crypto mining. Using technology introduced only 3-4 years ago was a very bad business decision, imo. And it's a sequel nobody asked for. Definitely skipping this one.
Well, another game that I will buy in 3 years at 90% discount when my "old" at that point AMD 8000 / nVidia 5000 GPU will run this at full detail no problem. This is really just become my standard. Either get games for free on epic games or buy em at heavy discounts. Buying RTX 4090 at 1.7K and burning the cables to run games that are in alpha states just isn't for me. To be fair, Crysis 1 was also unplayable when it launched (and on steam you cant even run it with the default 32 bit exe file).
Only I have this feeling or others think like me that the environment and graphics of the game have no difference between low and high settings unless we activate rate racing.
Im one of the lucky ones with a Rtx 4070 but there should be an option to either use Mesh shaders or not it would of been more work but it would be more compatible for older gpu's.
Mesh shadders are a 5 y.o. technology being used properly for the first time. Expecting a 7 y.o. card to run everything it's delusional. Get a ps5 or upgrade.
@@ironmaidenmetalgod It would be nice for people to have the option to switch from mesh shadrs not many people could afford to upgrade and as it says in my post i have a 4070 so no need to upgrade and buy a ps5 hahaha a console never in a million years.
Going through the graphics options was actually really cool as they gave useful information with things like Gamma and HDR, even recommended an HDR calibration app and different monitor settings. I feel like they really want people to have the best experience possible, thus the high recommended hardware, and low settings still being really good.
Its definitely demanding! My 3070 has been struggling pretty badly when you compare it to any other game I've played and I own pretty much own all of the AAA games on PC!
exactly.. they can't seem to scale resolutions of things when they use software ray tracing for multiple things like shadows. This is also a problem in most UE5 games.
It barely uses my cpu and just bottlenecks everything. I still get drops below 60fps at 1440p dlss balanced with no rt medium settings on a 3090 oc strix. Alot these reviewers need to get further into the game as it become more unoptimised further in and also it definitely has a memory leak Even at 1440p native my 3090 usage dosent even stay at 90% usage its very unstable in this game. All these alan wake 2 videos only test the beginning forest area and bright fall town area that's it so it comes across as having no problems and being perfect. It's apparently so demanding that it barely uses my cpu,ram and has unstable gpu usage on top of having a memory leak and even traversal stutter. If you come across these type of videos that seem like nvidia sponsored it make sure its not some guy with the best hardware thats only got 30 minutes into the game. This guy completely left out the memory leaking, unstable gpu usage, low cpu usage that becomes a bottle neck later on in the game, low ram usage but apparently "its demanding" and the traversal stutter when its obviously loading in new areas become more common later in the game. You'll notice and for anyone thats actually played more of the game when you get more obvious cpu intensive moments the fps can still drop below 60 regardless of resolution or settings, i even noticed just some bland walls in certain rooms where if i looked at it and wiggled the camera I'd drop below 60 then i could look away at a building covered in lights and glass etc and then shoot up to 80fps. If you make a game have all these bells and whistles but then refuse to use 8 cores or more ofcourse it becomes demanding when it has rare moments it actually uses 4 cores I even tried it at 1080p with dlss ultra performance all low settings and it doesn't get rid of the performance issues, on a 3090 oc strix just to remind you
@tablettablete186 amd ryzen threadripper 3990x (game mode) Game isn't even using 8 cores even though on the spec sheet they released the ryzen 7 3700x is an 8 core 16 thread The amd ryzen threadripper 3990x in game mode is 16 core 32 thread amongst some speed and timing changes if I'm correct This game needs the smt setting from cyberpunk I give the devs permission to use more cores to increase game performance
@@papichuckle unfortunately that isn't a very good CPU for gaming. You want 6-8 very fast cores, but you have 8 slow cores. Sorry man, but yeah, significant CPU bottleneck. I'm on a 5600 non X and getting max GPU usage on a 4070ti 95 percent of the time, sometimes it dips when I've sampled performance.
It's not that amazing looking unless your in the city or town parts at night or in dark areas with lighting when raytracing is enabled, The game runs pretty good without it aswell as look as good. When patch 1.08 came out, It fixed so much issue with the raytracing, Performance on a 2080ti was really bad and now its really great, The game is definately overated on demand it needs, The game just needed and needs alot better optimization, Look at the last of us part 1, That looks way better as games go, And that runs well on most modern systems with raytracing enabled.
I actually would not be pissed with Nvidia's overpriced GPUs if my wages had actually kept up with inflation. Adjusted for inflation, a top-tier gaming PC with a 4090 in it is the same as a color television set price wise in the early 1970s, with the main difference being that accounting for inflation, the average American pretty much had a six figure salary back then, which is why I get mad whenever I hear that generation talk about bootstrapping. It was easy to live vicariously when low wages paid what was basically ninety-grand today. Back on topic, the PC industry had pricing trends that were ridiculous from time to time, but the difference was that people did not really complain about it because they literally made more money. Once Intel is competitive with Nvidia, Nvidia will lower their price points. Before you say they ditched gaming for AI, newsflash, Nvidia had always prioritized the needs of the corporate sector before gamers. First, it was workstations for engineers and hollywood CGI artists, now it's AI. Gaming always was, and always will be, a side hustle for Nvidia. I am not even concerned for gaming at this point, I am concerned for the future of the overall economy of American and European nations right at this moment, as the whole economy is driven by two things: middle class/poor people blowing their disposable income on overpriced consumer crap and military spending. Once the economy implodes, which it will because the Middle class is dying, we're headed for the great depression 2.0 and perhaps WWIII after that. It might even be communism versus fascism like it was in WWII, seeing as how those ideologies tend to gain popularity when people cannot put food on the table
Oh give me a break. Top Tier PC's have always been expensive. Just look at computer ads from the 90's. An equivalent PC back then was $5,000 adjusted for inflation, and look at what our PC's can do now. We literally have million dollar supercomputers compared to then...an RTX 4090 has 80+ Teraflops of compute power. The most powerful computer on the planet in 1996 was the ASCI Red with only 1.3 teraflops of compute power and cost $70 Million to build.
@badpuppy3 I know. I have seen PCs from around the 90s period, as my dad had built a top tier PC with Voodoo 3 gpus in it for $2500 in 1990s money. Again, I was not upset with Nvidia like some people are these days, I was upset with how our economy is being ran into the ground by our governments. I have nothing against immigration, but letting them in when the demand for housing outstrips supply four times over is just pouring a Jerry can onto the fire. In the Peaple's Republic of Canada, a lot of people my age, the 20-40 age range, need to live with their parents or their friends to have any disposable income whatsoever to afford any hobbies. That was what I was saying, that it was the currently shit economy that is pricing people out of PC, and to a lesser degree, console gaming, not Nvidia. I live with my parents, and I make $60,000 a year before taxes. The economy is in the dumpster right now, due to the pandemic and many issues before that.
I've got a 6600XT and have it running at 1440p with a lot of settings set to Medium (with a few things set to a mix of Low, High and even Ultra) and FSR Quality. Been having a fantastic time so far. Wonderful game too, been waiting a long time for this one.
When everybody just talks about how demanding your game is (spec wise) and nothing about the game itself. I'm sorry but its a bad game. I dont think it looks that good either.
You do understand what optimization is right? Right? This game is not Optimized. Proof is in the pudding. Town has much higher frames than the forest. Games that lack optimization have bad frame timing too. Why don't you quickly turn around in your benchmarks.
This game's presets don't make any sense, going from high to low, only gives me 15% of performance back, that's insane. There should definitely be an ultra low or something. Game looks amazing though, specially with RT on low with RR and it isn't that demanding. PT is just for the 4090 though.
I think from artist's perspective, it's totally fine. They don't want their game to look "ugly" so they're willing to take the hit in sales, which to be honest is not all that much when you really think about it. As time goes on and relative performance gets cheaper, a good game will continue to sell as those markets open up.
@@MaxIronsThird 4060 and 4060 ti you'd make compromises and could argue it's not worth it but you certainly can path trace with the 4070 and up thanks to DLSS, which is mandatory for path tracing with this generation.
As a graphics programmer I wouldn't say there's anything that would require specific hardware features like mesh shaders with no alternatives. You can achieve pretty much the same look in Unreal engine 5 with Nanite (Mesh shaders are already used by Nanite for larger triangles on hardware that supports them) and some cinematic post processing and color grading.
In regards to the 3070 debacle: I have a Ryzen 3700K 16GBs RAM and a RTX 3070. 1440P NO RAYTRACING DLSS -> Quality Shadow, Volumetric and Fog settings on Medium rest high. Forced FPS limit to 60 via RivaTuner Best experience possible constant 60FPS 90% of the time
the implementation of dlss in this game is crazy, I was playing with all in high+RThigh and with 1080p DLSS quality, so I start test the images in a 1080p monitor and I barely can see a difference between dlss quality and performance mode in 1080p it's realy crazy for me, I never think about playing a game in 540p upscaling for 1080p, but in this game the upscaling is so good u barely see the difference between quality and performance EVEN in 1080p I"m using a 1080p monitor btw, so I'm playing with 60 fps all high+rthigh in 1080p(my monitor resolution) with dlss performance and the game look's so good u barely see any artifacts, I REALLY recommend people to test the performance mode in 1080p this game is very different then others.
I think that the low should’ve been the medium settings and the actual low settings should’ve been such that a wider range of gpus could run this game. The low doesn’t at all look like low, it looks like ultra compared to other games.
It's been 3 years since PS5 release, so new games will have it's hardware in mind to develop new games. PS5 uses sub-medium with FSR balanced for 60 fps in 1440p. No, not gonna happen.
The game looks amazing on low/medium settings... but it looks WAY better on higher settings... but unless you have a $1,500 graphics card with other high end hardware, you will not reliably get over 60FPS in this game unfortunately.
You have completely misrepresented DF's take on this "controversy". Alex actually made that video to PROVE that it's not that demanding, to prove that people are bitching about it unjustifiably. He focused on rasterized performance in that video and that when you tweak the settings on par of what PS5 uses in performance mode, you can have a great time even on aging GPUs like 3070 - much higher frame-rates than what PS5 outputs. He will make a video focusing on RT / PT later this week. I hate when people twist words to fit their narrative.
It's really not that demanding to me. Idk, I have a 4070 laptop, and I run the game at 1920x1200, dlss quality, frame generation on, highest settings, and I get 100fps. If I turn raytracing and pathtracing on and set to high, I'm still getting 60-70fps. Seems pretty standard for a graphically intense AAA title.
Upscaling should honestly be for old hardware, not required to get good performance for newer hardware. That doesn’t sound like good optimization, especially since this isn’t exactly open world.
I believe that this is a testing period for these new technologies, those who buy today are like beta testers, I don't think that for the average consumer it is the right time to buy a new PC. Just my opinion.
@@TooBokoo - I think this is the main problem most people have with this current slate of super-demanding games. Some people bring up Crysis like that's the end-all argument for a game like AW2, but back when Crysis released, the highest-end card to run it (8800GTX) was $350, not $1600+. Even when adjusted for inflation, that's a huge difference. $350 for the top-end card in 2007 would be like paying $550 for a 4090 today. Instead, we're in a situation where most mid-range cards cost as much or more than 2007's halo card. People wouldn't be as mad about the lack of performance in newer games if the mid to high-end GPU's didn't cost as much as an entire mid-range computer did 6 or 7 years ago. I don't put the blame entirely on developers, because Nvidia & AMD and their greed have certainly had a hand in this current sh!tshow too.
And on the fact it's Epic exclusive, ESG funded and they hired sensitivity proof readers from Sweet Baby to make it safe for the modern audience, i can see it being given away free within a year.
@@DDD-xx4mgWell I have some of the best hardware and still think that games like this that can only run on PCs like mine( not even able to get 60fps unless you use upscaling or turn everything on low). Are kinda silly I shouldn't have to already use upscaling on a $1600 GPU.
@9:39 I swear dude, at 50yo I heard this arguments 4 or 5 times already in my lifetime, It seems this conversation is caught up in the Dark Place loop, as well. The real world however, it doesn't care and just keeps moving on forward.
@@LTNetjakWell, maybe my memory is a bit better than yours because, I remember Glide API and I remember when Hardware T&L support for PC was introduced. And I can go on remembering...
Let me say it again, the most people are still gaming on 1080p. I am and I don't plan to go any higher, because on your typical PC monitor ranging from 22-27" you don't really see much difference unless you move in so close that you can't see the entire screen at once anymore. Don't really know if I'll ever play this game, because I still haven't played the first one since I got a key with the GPU I bought in 2013 and didn't use anymore since 2016. Always thought the concept sounded interesting but got too many things I actually wanted to play getting in the way that I forgot about it. I'm more of a niche gamer and don't care that much for AAA.
@@footballtalk4857 I'm just saying I wouldn't see any difference on typical monitor sizes and most people see it exacly like me. I don't see it becoming "the standard" unless >60% of players start connecting their PCs to a tv that's bigger than 32" and sit like more than 3m away while playing. But with a normal distance of 60-90cm from screen to face, you don't really need more than a 27" with 1080p!
@@skyknight0408 All I'm saying it's more of standard than you think and yes alot of people might not can tell the difference but on the flip side more and more people are getting used to 1440 especially with consoles support higher quality, so I do agree with your points but I also don't if that makes sense.
@@footballtalk4857 I get what you're saying. It just doesn't make sense to me to use a higher resolution on a screen that small. When I started playing on PC, 14" CRTs with 640x480 were standard. So FHD is already way better than I ever thought it would get and I kinda see it as the sweet spot for regularly sized screens if that makes sense. And even if more people start using a higher resolution now, I still think that most people don't really need more. There is a reason why 1080p is still the most popular resolution in the Steam surveys, right? It's right now at 61,17% of all players using it, while only 16,61% use 1440p, so can you really say it's mainstream already?
@@skyknight0408 Well you got to kept in mind the benchmarks test you see are played on a larger monitor, the whole steam thing you got to remember because it's pc gaming not all the games are on steam and most just have one game that they always play for example Valorant or Fornite that's on Epic story just giving example I know it's not the most popular.
Why nobody mentions that the cpu is at 40% max most of times and the gpu is full working? Also there are some commands in the ini file for PC that you could change to remove vignette, lens distortion and depth of field BUT there is also a command for sharpening as there is none in the graphics menu when turn on DLSS. DLSS is good for resolutions from 1440p and beyond. In 1080p im playing with DLAA . The low settings to high do have a difference but not all of them . Textures for example when gaming in 1080p has no difference from low to high. RT is a real performance killer and setting it to low it does make the game much better as you said in the video but the cost is gr8!
It’s amazing how well dlss works at 4k. I’m currently playing Alan Wake maxed out on my 4080 with dlss set to “performance” and the image quality is shockingly great.
The Quarry has set camera angles so the developers can cheese the graphical power for those predetermined setups. It's completely different than making a full open world where characters can move about and view all lighting from any conceivable angle.
For all the low budget builds for example I built a build with a I7 4790 1660 super 16gb ram running AW2 @ 1080p 55 to 60 fps high textures some settings low and medium high, This game is well optimized
Yes, It can be run with lower end or older GPUs, but please note the 1% Lows. Most of the time they are well below 30 fps (into the lower 20 fps), so this is the metric used for the recommended specs sheet from Remedy in my opinion. The 1% Lows are even more important than average fps because the games feels laggy with lower amount of them, even tough the average maybe in the 40s or 50s.
I think the game should run the framerates it actualy does but without upscaling! 70 FPS @ 4K High Settings with RT with a 4090 would be acceptable but in this game you are forced to enable DLSS Quality+Framegen to achieve these framerates.....i think thats way to demanding even if this game is beautyful.... And yes i think that it is an Nvidia upscaling tech demo/sponsored game. Go buy Nvidia 4000!!😂💸
In games where the artistic presentation is a huge part of the game, I can understand the argument of not wanting lower settings, but the "lowering settings barely does anything" part has been far too common in far too many games in recent years, even in games that don't have nearly the emphasis on artistic vision. "It still looks good at low settings" is not a compliment unless it still gives a substantial performance boost at the same time. People with lower end system usually care about one thing: "Can I run it at a playable framerate?" If the visuals start looking worse, that's secondary for a lot of them.
Hello, I have a 3080Ti, I play in 1440p without Ray Tracing the Saga parts and with Ray Tracing in medium configuration in the Alan parts, with dlss in Quality, and it reached 60fps all the time with vsync active, the game sure is demanding , but it is the first test of next gen that we received, and from a supposedly old engine. CDPR blamed the CP77's problems on its engine and Bethesda did the same with Starfield, saying "my old mule is no longer what it was" and I love that Remedy can demonstrate with Northlight that that is a lie, you can always iterate on a graphics engine and renew it to use new technologies.
The game performs better than i thought. Usually they over estimate the performance on the low end but this time, thats an actually reasonable low end spec performance
We’re at another “can it run Crysis” point in the gaming industry and people need to accept that keeping their current GPU for 5-6+ years may be a thing of the past, unless you play older AAA titles. I think with AW2 they catered for a minimum fps at certain resolutions e.g. 30fps …. But at times you’re still peaking at ~70fps, averaging 45fps. If specs listed an RTX 4080 as a 1440p medium settings at average ~60fps ….. people would’ve been spitting chips and heavily criticising the game to the point nobody would buy it. Devs did it justice as AW2 low graphics settings are equal to at least high only a few years ago! Also, the $50USD piece is vg considering how good the graphics, performance and story is.
Every single " rasterized " setting is so good, that even low or medium, look great, beside shadows and reflections. For those I may suggest using on high. I wouldn't go over path tracing set to " medium " and that's valid only, for those that have capable hardware. Otherwise, forget about PT and go for a mix of low&medium settings, those will be fine. Thanks for this video and hope we can soon, start to speak again about gameplay and storyline, since I see too much dedication on visuals and gradually, less and less on making actual good games. Being a fan of the first game, hope this will not disappoint me ( I did some tests to find the best settings for my PC but still, I wasn't able to fully lose myself into the game ). Good evening/night to everyone.
I mean, I really want to buy this game. Sadly I am not sure this game can run 4k native 60fps+ even on low settings on my 6950xt, and I cant stand upscalers I am on 4k for image stability and clarity and upscalers just takes a huge dump on image quality for me. So if I could have a demo to test how the game runs before buying it I might have considered it, but sadly I dont have that so I wont gamble. I would say I would put this in my list of games to play in the future but I will most likely forget about the game by the time the industry have proper performance - cost uplift and affordable hardware (as in I dont have to pay more for a gpu then I did for my fking car wtf industry how much profit margins do you need?)
when low and high dont look much different that suggests bad optimization to me. i mean, it could also mean the exact opposite depending on how you look at it. but at the end of the day, low should mean low. so it should look like shit, because they have had to remove polygons etc to get it to run that well. which then makes it more playable on lower end hardware. we get it, its pc gaming. nobody is going to complain if the high setting looks amazing and the low setting looks like playstation 3 as long as the low setting car run on a playstation 3 equivalent pc. or maybe they should have kept things exactly as they are but also had a very low setting. or an object quantity setting with a slider to increase or decrease the amount of objects etc. i guess it runs and looks ok to me. although with dlss even on quality i see those same weird grainy artifacts almost like there is a grainy mesh, or screen door or something. i saw it in the control game back in the day too. although that was on a 2070 super. this is on my 3080 ti. i dont use ray tracing. and with some config tweaks you can get it to 60fps native 4k on low settings. until it rains then its 25fps. so i had to use dlss for the first time. i am not happy about that. the lowest settings not working on a 4k card is crazy. then again, as others have said. low still looks pretty good. not much different from high. most of the time it doesnt look anything special, but im also not going to complain, the graphics are certainly not bad. this was a stupid ramble and i should just delete this comment.
People have tested the game with 1650 and settings set at 1080p or720p with FSR performance its playable in 35 fps with dips to 23 fps in extensive areas.
Honestly, I said it last time that the game will be broken as hell, on my GTX 1660S I can make medium 1080p for about 50 fps. It maybe low framerate but its smooth frame rate. No stuttering, no glitches, no texture issues. So I wouldn't say its unoptimized, id say its super demanding (with actual next generation graphics) which is a shame cuz this video game is one of the games of all time. What this game needs now is FSR Frame generation not just AFMF.
Remember when Quantum Break came out and nobody could run it? Well that was 8 years ago and now it runs at ultra settings 100fps on a decent rig and it looks GREAT...like as good as any modern game. I expect AW2 to be much the same.
I play at 1440p DLSS quality + high preset (RT off) and post processing set to low and the framerate can be anywhere from 30 to 120 depending on the area. This is with an RTX 3070. I think the crazy system requirements are actually pretty accurate if you want to hit 60fps at all times, but most of the time the game runs way better than that.
im just sad its not actually Jake Gyllenhal. This whole time I thought that was actually him like how they put that one cool actor from boondock saints into death stranding
I'm someone who has a GTX 1060. I honestly couldn't believe I couldn't run Alan Wake 2 of all games. I know someone with a $3000 pc is going to tell me how old my kit is, but the truth is I run anything I want. A lot of games I buy still default to high setting with this card and there is zero chance im dropping $800 on a new gpu to play Alan Wake 2. I was excited, but not that excited.
I play at 30 FPS 1080p on 3070 TI on my television, medium w/ low raytracing, DLSS quality, and it's smooth and the most beautiful game I've seen so far, like omg. It's not a shooter, so it doesn't matter
Crysis was a LOT more demanding in 2007, there wasn't a single card that could run it at more than 30ish fps. People have become complacent without upgrading their hardware in years, buying a midrange system 8 years ago and expecting it to run modern games still. That's because of the old console hardware (ps4 era) running on hardware from 2012 and games more often than not being developed for super old hardware running cross-platform. The question is, should games be very demanding? That depends. If the graphics look insanely good and if that can only be achieved with the newest and best hardware, then yes. A good example is Cyberpunk 2077 with pathtracing (yes, it's 3 years old by now but the path traced version is new). Does Alan Wake II look better than Cyberpunk? Hard to tell from just watching youtube videos due to compression, but if it does, then I would say the hardware demand is in line with how good it looks.
The crysis comparison is bad.. Example fallout 3 was released in 2008 one year AFTER crysis and it looks like absolute garbage. Today you can't point at 2 AAA games and see the same difference because most modern AAA games now boast high-quality graphics. Crysis was revolutionary.There was literally no other game that came close to it's level of graphical fidelity even a few years AFTER it was released. Meanwhile alan wake looks like most AAA games released in the LAST 3 years but it's also more demanding than most of them. I've seen the word "realistic" being used to describe this game .. This is realistic: ruclips.net/video/IK76q13Aqt0/видео.html Why add the graphical settings if there's no difference between high and low ?! what's the point ? That's why people buy high end GPUs, to see a difference in visual quality when playing on ultra or switch to low and play at high fps. There has to be a difference in fps and visual quality if there is none then the game is UNOPTIMIZED FOR PC. (i've seen people defend unoptimized games for the last 3 years and it's usually people playing on a laptop at lass than 30 fps saying "it runs fine 60 fps" meanwhile they're not using any fps/frametime monitoring software. So the crysis comparison is bad
@@Alexul2007 So because Fallout 3 looks like absolute garbage today and ran on a lot more hardware than crysis did, that proves...what exactly? That some games look like shit after a while but others still look good? I can still look at Far Cry 4 from 8 years ago and today, it looks really really dated. Back then it was one of the pinnacles of graphics. As said before, games 20 years ago didn't look anywhere close to what real life looks like, even crysis didn't. But made a huge jump on the way and in certain scenarios could look very realistic. Games today look a LOT better than crysis did (when they are well done and aiming for realism) but because they're often still using rasterization, they cannot get much closer to real life and thus, graphics fidelity without ray tracing has mostly come to a standstill. There are certain areas in which you can still try to improve, but textures- which used to be one of the main things devs used to improve - are already at the highest quality, so new, more demanding technologies need to be introduced - namely path- and raytracing. Additionally, just like with crysis, this game seems to be CPU bottlenecked so we need faster cpus as well. There are proper unoptimized games (examples include stuttery messes like Starfield or Hogwart's) and then there are games that just have higher hardware demands but run smoothly if you run them on better hardware. This game seems to run stable on all hardware but gives you more fps on higher end hardware. You just don't like the crysis comparison because you visually see a bigger difference between other titles released around the same time and Alan Wake II when in fact there still is a big difference between say Alan Wake II and stuff like Call of Duty or other mass-appeal games which are designed to "run on pretty much anything".
yo
Yo
aYo!
eh
Hey Vex,
Thanks for the info you put out there. Following ya now.
Ever done a video on optimization settings in general?
I am looking for a modern video explaining what features to turn down first that has the largest changes on performance with the least changes on visuals. I do a dance with most titles as I game at 4k with dlss on a 4070ti.
yoyo
Yes, please, add more graphics candy so we can run our games on low and upscaled.
Tbh, I wish more games were like this, just so people would finally upgrade their 8 year old rigs so more devs could finally use newer technologies and push graphics somewhat. I've had enough of games looking the same for years and years without getting any closer to realism just because devs can't push anything because they have to sell most units to low end users.
@@sMooVe1982people don't have the money you know
@@sMooVe1982 u realize consoles exist right?
@@sMooVe1982 until theres a generational leap in graphics no game should render cards more powerful than a pc damn near useless its horrible optimization the only downfall for this game is mesh requirements but not everyone can afford the latest and greatest graphics cards
@@saltykot582 Pretty much the driving force of graphics irony enough yet have people clinging to old hardware like he said. Since you'll be surprised how low some specs are compared to the current gen consoles that people still rocking...
No, the performance does not match the visuals. Technogies appart, we're tech guys but lets forget that for a moment.
This game, at 1080P low, doesn't look as good as Resident Evil 2 remake at ultra, and it gets way shittier performance.
I don't care how the lightning is made, how textures are drawn over mesh, I dont play with the games code, I play with the games visuals.
So, short answer, no, this game doesn't do justice to its performance footprint.
This is a question I've been pondering for a little while now. What actually "looks better", a game like RE Village running at 4k with everything maxed out and still achieving 100+ fps without upscaling, or a game like AW2 on the same hardware running at 1080p or 1440p Low running at 60fps with upscaling. Like, which game ultimately provides a more enjoyable visual and gameplay experience? Sure, AW2 uses more advanced techniques, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell me it looks better at upscaled 1080p or 1440p low than RE Village does at 4K Ultra.
I think because of the fact we're in the realm of diminishing returns, it's becoming harder and harder to make arguments in favor of wild hardware requirements when the visual result may be worse in some ways than a game from 2 years ago running maxed out at a higher resolution, because you have to make so many compromises in the newer game just to get it to run acceptably.
@@Kryptic1046 Completely share the sentiment, and I have to add that at least for my, nearing my 40's, graphics add almost jack shit to my experience. GTA IV / Half Life 2 is about as low as I can consider a modern experience, but I spent countless hours recently in Minecraft worlds, you can't really have anything thats more basic than Minecraft...
I couldn't care less about nanite, lumen, ray reconstruction, dlss, I want my games to run ok and have decent graphics.
Yesterday I was watching a video "the tragedy of Star Wars Battefront", man watch the SW BF 1 (2015 one) graphics runing on ultra. That thing at 1080P Ultra runs on a potato nowadays, one of the best lookings games I have ever seen, albeit its relatively small sized maps, its a technical marvel.
@@jtraimundo - I'm with you on all of that. The Battlefront games still look incredible even today. Recently I've seen people make the argument that art style matters more than graphical fidelity, and I tend to agree. This is why I think Bioshock Infinite is still such a great-looking game 10 years after its initial release, because it is so well-done artistically, and the graphical fidelity is still what I consider plenty good enough for its intended purpose. This is also why so many newer games that exceed Bioshock's level of graphical fidelity simply fade into obscurity, because they're bland and boring af to actually look at and play for long periods of time.
As far as raytracing/lumen, they're nice but not essential. I only turn them on if I'm at my target resolution/framerate and I still have the GPU budget for them. I will generally not sacrifice resolution and framerate for raytracing, and I think in some ways raytracing is hurting the industry.
the 2kliksphillip "ultra settings suck" video explains it very well. modern games low setting to medium settings still look very good
actually my Cyberpunk experience. i was in mid and textures and AO on high, since other settings were LOD and eye candy. edit: was back V1.2 👋sorry
@@R3TR0J4NI mean ngl, if you cannot see the difference between mid settings and ray tracing, let alone path tracing, then Idk what to tell you. Even with shit textures, path tracing in cyberpunk looks better than anything I've ever seen.
@@sMooVe1982 oh this was back V 1.2 sorry forgot to add that
@@R3TR0J4N That's fine, but even in 1.0 there was a significant difference between ray tracing and ultra settings without it. The reflections alone made a big impact and the lighting in certain areas just looked a lot better.
@@sMooVe1982 true that, add up Ray Traced are already better over prebaked graphics/lighting
My problem here isn't that the performance is bad for what you get it's that we seem to be losing scalability in games, for a long time games were pretty scalable across different power GPUs you would just have to take a pretty good quality hit, now it seems like devs aren't putting in the time to make games scalable, which I 100% blame publisher release schedules for.
Because it was cross gen. The devs are FINALLY dropping 10 y.o. hardware support in favor of graphical progress
Time to upgrade that old PC.
@@ironmaidenmetalgod The 5600XT released in Jan 2020. If a person bought one 6 months later they have had it about 3 years, not 10 years.
@@ironmaidenmetalgod If they want to go all RT or add whatever new features its fine with me as long as they give a clue certain GPUs will only be good for 1-3 years after you buy it so you don't end up having to buy again sooner than planned. Most people expect 5 years at $300+.
9:16 STOP DEFENDING UPSCALING!
9:30 Lots of people complained about the blurriness. Like you're roleplaying a character that has myopia or something and is in desperate need of glasses. 😠 Bruh.
Upscaling, and fake frames, are there so that the shit companies can sell you less hardware for more money. And should ONLY be used by players who want more than 80 fps, because they have high-refresh monitors and are bothered by it. Or those who have low-end hardware and need an extra boost to at least hit 60. IT SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED by default when a game is launched, wtf?
when a game finds its own art style or visual style as its identity its timeless, graphics are great but it gotta have its own charm.
That what I always say about souls games and elden ring the graphics aren't close to top notch but the artstyle and art direction makes them never age poorly,
@@lordofcinder8884Cyberpunk 2077 is an anomaly when it has godlike graphics and artstyle.
@@saricubra2867most of it comes down to engine and setting though
@@saricubra2867 the Witcher 3 is the same it had great graphics for its time but what made age like a fine wine is the artstyle and art direction
As far as I’m concerned, the graphics of AW2 is not the most impressive aspect. Instead, it’s the clever intertwine of gameplay, horror elements and graphics that makes it unique, at least for me.
Edit: by the first sentence, I’m saying the graphics is not the major reason why I like this game
I think the real issue here is that GPUs had a gigantic leap in performance last gen from the one prior (so from rtx 20/rx 5000 to rtx 30/rx 6000 series) and the top of the line cards from both manufacturers that were clearly planned first from this gen had a pretty big jump as well, and probably had their specs given to game devs before their release for them to sort of plan ahead in terms of how far they can push graphics and such, but the GPU manufacturers decided to pivot because of the crypto crash and other market constraints so their non-top of the line cards were severely cut back and almost parity with the cards the next tier up from the gen before.
Game devs, on the other hand, expected performance uplift to be as significant as they were last gen across the board and the GPUs released.
You can't expect hardware from 5+ years ago to play a game at a high resolution with settings turned up with super high framerates when you have visuals which require a higher-end GPU in the first place, especially with the heads up from the game devs that the game is going to be made specifically to target a certain level of graphics fidelity. If your GPU can't handle it at that point, with that kind of a warning, then don't buy the game(s).
Agreed. Most game developers have already dropped support of 8th gen consoles completely. But somehow the owners of PS4/Xbox One do not yell at them. They understand that if you want want to play next gen games, you need next gen console.
So why don't PC gamers understand it too? Next gen game = next gen graphics card.
@@stangamer1151 Because this generation of GPU's completely sucks ass, and the PS4 and Xbox One are outdated as all hell? I wouldn't be surprised if the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 was quite a bit ahead of the 8th-gen consoles at this point.
@@stangamer1151 The PS4 came out in 2013, 10 years ago. The rx 5700 xt came out in 2019, 4 years ago. This game makes it obsolete. Also, a more direct comparison would be if a console (that cost 400 dollars in 2013) would cost 1,000 dollars today, which is more in-line with the price hikes GPUs got in the same time period. AND if consoles would be gimped in terms of RAM and performance, to ensure you'd buy a new gen that would be right around the corner, instead of several years away, like the successor to the PS5 is.
Most Pc gamer who are playing for at least 10-15 years should know that eventually you have to buy new hardware.
@@KnightofAgesSorry but in the entire history of GPUs, they were always outdated after 3-4 years. Also, a rx5700 wasn't highend, a 2080Ti was. And that one did cost 1,200USD.
I will never experience AW2, because it's an Epic Games exclusive
Your missing out it’s great
@@DDD-xx4mg Remedy doesn't want my money 🤷🏻♂️
@@rob4222 no it will do just fine without it
@@DDD-xx4mg And I will do fine without Epic Games Store
I do recommend Higher than Low on Volumetric Lightshaft lighting, at low it shimmers a lot in motion with its reduced resolution at low, but low preset with High lightshafts is still running well. Low is too noticible and High doesnt cost too much more.
There is three thing in the settings tanking the FPS in my experience. Post processing, Volumetric lighting and shadow resolution, when first is set to low, and others two on medium, everything else can be set to high and game basically looks the same as high. I am getting 60-80fps at 2k dlss performance on 3070 in the heavy woods area. I do agree Volumetric supposed to be important, but comparing screens I can't say I see much of a difference. If those three things set to High it will tank FPS lower then 50...
Started it today with basically DF's PS5 performance settings, slightly upgraded (like global illumination on high and a few other s on medium that are low on PS5) with DLSS balanced on a 3070m frankendriver GPU and I got a solid 65 fps on the woods and 85 in indoor areas. It honestly felt quite good to me.
That's some solid performance. People are blowing this way out of proportion.
@@cunt5413well it's not blown out of proportion when dlss balanced is needed, but on a laptop screen you don't notice much
no bro, its on a desktop, using a 3070m. Look it up lol@@GeneralS1mba
@@GeneralS1mba Sucks for people like me who play on a 1080p monitor. Even quality mode has some noticeable blurriness, but I guess it could be worse
@@Subsandwich981 yeah
The problem is that it sets a dangerous precedent, if we allow game producers to set higher and higher minimum standards then where does it end? How long before your shiny new 4090 is obsolete at the next game release? For us as gamers, more options = better!
They want to make your GPU obsolete so you buy another one 😂
@@Sam-fq5qu This was of course my point. Devs and GPU manufacturers working together to ensure profit.
This is a moot point for the enthusiast the faster my 4090 is obsolete the faster I'm playing next gen graphics tbh. The 4090 lets me experience what I would imagine ps6/ps7 resolutions are going to be except right now being able to play stuff like cyberpunk and starfield at 5K lol
@@D3nsity_ Moat to you perhaps, the rest of us mere mortals aren't made of money and are perhaps buying a card such as that as a one time purchase with the intent of it lasting a few years.
Yea I don't mean it like that. I mean that warning "oh no when does it stop" for a 4090 owner is like actually a tease of candy rather than dread. I want extreme graphics and amazing visuals I don't care about how to get there. Just saying the idea it gets outdated that fast would be EXCITING and not disappointing. Its no secret that pc gaming has always been obnoxiously more expensive than consoles. Gaming in general is a hobby you must be made of money to enter in the first place. You are literally spending money to waste time. So save for longer and play harder later. I got lucky 1 singular time with the algorithm and it was enough to buy a 4090. I'm not made of money either. I had to save that money for 2 gpu generations before the 4090 tho.
NOBODY IN THIS WORLD WHO SPENT 1000$ WILL USE FSR PERFORMANCE AT 1080P, NOBODY !!!!!!!!!!!
Literally I would jump if o use fsr on my 7900 xtx
Yeah the main point at which I am freaking out is that someone who owns 1000 dollar would never play on 1080p low to achieve 60fps all the time the optimization should be done by the developers to run with same settings for GTX 1660 super.Like is it really necessary to have 1000 dollar graphics card like 3080 or 4080 on lowest possible settings and the game barely looks better than resident evil 4.
yes, it is VERY demanding. It's pretty blurry on the current gen consoles and anything below 3080
No it isn't, the 3070 destroys the PS5 in both perf and image quality. If it's too blury just use a bit of sharpening.
Runs fine and not blurry on my 6700xt @ default sets so...????
Average “i use dlss balance and don’t see how it is any different from the native” in chat☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻
And the reality is the following: it’s grainy die to mid-low settings set (for reflections especially) and blurry here and there due to that + 800p from dlss balance. Basically denoiser sucks, you can see that shit in the video.
At the end of the day these gorgeus visuals covered in grain and blur. Game is good-lookin but you WON’T see it crisp clear
@@astrea555 nah Series X and PS5 are way better than your obsolete 3070 you aint even gonna be doing 1440p for long with a lousy 8gb VRAM even the 3080 with its 10GB VRAM is low end now. consoles are better optimized than PCs you try running one of those cards on a 144hz monitor your barely ever gonna reach 144fps and the game will look like a stuttery mess compared to 60fps with good frame pacing. If your playing on PC you need to be prepared to spend $3000 minumum now
I really think that they could've provided moar range for the graphics settings, where what is currently 'Low' should've been the 'Medium' preset, and then what should be 'Low' would actually juice the framerate. It looks to me like the most expensive things are the polycounts, global illumination, volumetric lighting, and that's pretty much the brunt of it. If they'd allowed polycounts to go a bit lower I think that would've gone a looooong way toward improving performance because less triangles means all of the other graphical FX will get a boost as well - only because this game has such high polycounts. In other games with lower poly counts you won't get much of a boost from reducing the number of triangles in meshes because it's not what's causing everything to choke - which instead is usually just either raw rasterization speed or memory bandwidth, or they have crazy arse material shaders and post-processing effects. I really believe that AW2 could see a huge perf boost if geometry was just allowed to have less triangles, it would improve performance on everything that touches triangles, all of the shadowing and lighting. I don't think I've ever seen a game that pushes this many triangles before.
I am fairly certain its always on software based UE5 features baked in. RT, Lumen, etc. I am not an expert in those and I may be wrong about what features are always on but I know this is not rasterization only.
@@bodasactrathe engine is northlight, not UE5
@@fatidicusaeternus6498 Still using advanced features always on. Like I said I am no expert but this is not plain raster, something is baked in. I think Digital Foundry is saying the same now.
@bruhsusaltamash8141 Thanks, I heard they are saying that. I did not know what it was for sure but I knew it was not plain raster. Maybe a toggle will get patched in after the holiday profit season ends and we can all feel better about our 1 year old $600 GPUs.
they could but that costs a lot of money and very hard work, youre basically remaking the game. other games usually do that, starting low then use tessellation for higher-end hardware which just hogs the performance with for far less visuals. they couldnt do that for obv reasons, the visuals in this game is extremely important to the game if youve played it, it'd simply not work if it had mediocre visuals.
Performance seems good on this game. I'm well above 4k 60 with a 3080 on balanced DLSS. And it looks incredible.
What CPU are you pairing with that out of interest
@@jonathanphang 13600k
It looks amazing with balanced DLSS I didn't think they could pull that off with this game .....Cheers! 😸🍻
You know what's strange? Games these days don't always look better, but they sure do demand more from our hardware. Take The Last of Us 2, for example. It's got these mind-blowing graphics, motion capture, and environments, and yet it runs on half the system requirements of Alan Wake 2. And don't even get me started on Red Dead Redemption 2. That game is detailed AF and has a killer environment, way better than Starfield, but it doesn't need nearly as much power to run smoothly. It's like the industry is messing with us, making games that look same or worth but expect us to dish out big bucks for fancy GPUs. It's a bit frustrating, to be honest. i cant say how much angry i am with todays gaming industry
Devs now take the dlss and fsr shortcut and let the ai do the optimising whilst having low cpu usage because the upscaling will do it for you
Rinse and repeat.
It's only made worse when the community and youtubers like these just defend it by saying because it looks good but completely forget about older games that look better and have alot more going on but have lower requirements that are more optimised.
This guy is in the beginning areas and is none the wiser that the games optimisation breaks further into the game you get
I've finished it all and at first even after you get past the hurdle of needing a pc that cost over a thousand to get 60fps to render at sub 1080p and you put the right settings on it'll seem like at first that's it's okay but disappointing that you have to rely on upscsling but then you get a few hours in and start to notice cpu limitations due to the low core count the game uses and thats just one of the problems that start to appear which all these youtubers and the community conveniently leave out
agreed
Alan Wake 2 blows RD2 and The Last of Us 2 out of the water. It ain’t close.
@Lightsaglowllc well if you compare alan wake 2 and cyberpunk which both rely on upscaling and say if you turned rt on them both off cyberpunk still runs better
A couple small things is that cyberpunk has a smt option and nvidia reflex, plus alan wake 2 has a memory leak problem
And I wouldn't say it blows rdr2 out of the water you have to find a balance between performance and quality and rdr2 is a good balance of that
It's not hard to make a game demanding and then rely on ai upscaling to fix it for you
@@papichuckleyou call out "this guy" (being Vex) yet your very first paragraph is crucial information he helped spread, about these games offloading important tasks to the GPU rather than the CPU
Cities Skylines 2 looked at Alan Wake II performance and said hold me beer.
One question should suffice: Does it look better than Red Dead Redemption 2? No, Does it run far worse than RDR2? Yes.
Before anyone says I'm a hater I'm probably going to get this game and I have a 7900xt which does fine with this game with RT off. But this is getting ridiculous. Visuals haven't been pushed since 2018 just system requirements.
"Visuals haven't been pushed since 2018" my dude, new rendering techniques and pipelines has since been very different from 2018 games, im surprised that mesh shading a feature from DX12 Ultimate API thats almost like 5 years now hasnt been used a few years ago and only recently applied because they dont want people with older hardware crying and whining about bad optimization when its just their old hardware
@ElegantSpy the tech is changing but I'm talking purely from looking at the screen, the improvements that have been made (except for maybe better reflections and shadows with ray tracing, tho not revolutionary by any means) have been very slim.
@@tmsphere then what do you suggest or implying my dude ? better texture so that the game will eat more vram while using the new engine ?? (so you dont have to use the argument of oh but rdr2 has better textures and uses normal vram usage)
@@Eleganttf2 I think he's saying for all the new Visual Rendering Pipe Techniques (or whatever) that had been invented, the visuals in AAA games have looked little better that previously but demanded a great deal more horsepower. In terms of visuals improvements / cost to see those improvements, things have greatly regressed imo. If this is the future of gaming, I personally don't want to be a part of it (and I believe I speak for a decent number of people as well)
Considering they probably started making this game years ago, I wonder if GPU manufacturers over promised how powerful their GPUs would be by now.
The question is do they look that much better to be so demanding?
beeter
In my opinion no. This game visual is not much better than RE4 Remake but it is more than twice demanding. I am talking without ray tracing. Ray tracing of this game is much better than RE4 Remake ray tracing.
@@IgorBozoki1989 But you can play this game with 60 fps on a 6700 on high. That's totally fine Imo. The game was made with maximum graphical fidelity from everything I read about it and that includes pathtracing. In RE4 it's only an add-on.
visual style baby 👩🍳💋@@IgorBozoki1989
@@ashenzenden I haven't played the game so I can't tell personally but does it look that much better than let's say a plague tale requiem which is a visually stunning game but runs a lot better (without ray tracing). From what I have seen in benchmarks a 4070 at 1440p high WITH DLSS quality can barely make 60fps without any ray tracing.
As great as I think this game looks. I still think something like Read Dead 2 maxed out on PC with every bell and whistle looks just as good, if not better in many cases, and that game gets double the performance with identical card to card comparisons. Not including RT, obviously, since Read Dead doesn't use it. But, seriously, Alan Wake 2 doesn't look THAT mind-blowing even with RT, so I'd love to know just what the hell the engine is doing to demand all of this power. My 7900XTX gets 70-90fps depending on where I am in the game, and that's with no ray-tracing and FSR2 rendering at 1440p. Absolutely ridiculous! Again, the game looks good, but not so good to be chugging along at 30fps at native 4k with the top tier Nvidia and AMD card. Of course, the 4090 does get a bit higher fps, but this game doesn't look good enough to the point it should be bringing a 4090 to its knees.
One of the reasons being that even with disabled RT it uses RT slightly to make reflections a bit more realistic. I don't remember where exactly I heard it, one of the review videos stated that.
The forests in RDR2 looked great for its time but not even close in comparison to this game. The foliage density is much bigger and the trees itself have more realistic details.
@@n.erdbeer Alan Wake's forests do look great, just not what I'd call so incredible that a 4090 should be melting at 4k and low/med ray-tracing.
@@TooBokoo a 4090 doesn't even melt at 4k pathtraced, what do you mean? No hardware in the world can run this without upscaling and you really want upscaling to use ray reconstruction.
ya thats why drives me crazy when ever someone talks about this game running well. Sure the game looks good but is the graphics and gameplay enough to justify it? Up to personal opinion but i personally don't think so. Its linear and basic world interactions(press X to do animation) game isnt even fast pace by any means. Like sure it looks good but it looks so slightly better then what other games have out right now( Which is incredibly debatable) that does it really justify 50% fps cut compare that to something like cyberpunk. Cyberpunk is Open world, way more interaction systems let that be destruction physics or cars so on and way more content and that runs incredibly well even on weaker hardware. Sure cyberpunk is "less" graphicly impressive but cyberpunk is doing all of that consistently while alan wake 2 is small zones and hallways with like 5 npc at ones (ik their more at a time im just giving a random number but its always a small amount of npcs at a time).it should be expected to look better with a smaller scope and even with that smaller scope it still runs way worse then many triple A games out rn even including that their using mesh shaders and i also believe i heard they use a version of nanite in their engine as well which both should of boosted the FPS dramatically. SO ya where is that fps going
I've been really critical about FSR and DLSS. I tried Baldur's Gate 3's FSR which is just FSR1, and my game looked like I was watching a wax cabinet show. But then later on I tried FSR2 in The Witcher 3, and it was miles better. Basically I could only tell the difference between native 1920x1200 and FSR2 Quality when I either took A/B screenshots, or if I concentrated really really hard. When actually playing the game I couldn't tell the difference. FPS went from 45 to a locked 60. This is on a GTX 1070 8Gb, 1920x1200, RT off and settings around the high mark (some medium, some Ultra+). So DLSS isn't supported with my card, but FSR2 is.
FSR2 is pretty grainy, quality preset is def the only usable one
This game is using software ray tracing if you disable path tracing. It’s the main reason why the game is demanding.
Shouldn't hardware RT (not pathtracing) run better than Software RT?
How to disable it why they force it?
You're arguing with dumbasses or people who are deliberately negligent. How many times does it have to be stated that the game is really demanding because of path tracing which which is more demanding than that of Cyberpunk? The game without raytracing is very playable all the way down to the 6600xt, if you don't have a GPU which is at least as strong as that, you really have no room to complain when you can't run a game which has arguably one of the best graphics for any game released thus far.
@@MerhabaBenMertThere is no way to disable it, it is an integral part of the game.
You can only choose between Software RT or Hardware RT.
@@wanshurst2416 i think the difference when your talking about super low ray counts is either non existant or extremely minimal between software and hardware implementations and a software implementation will be allow cards without hardware for it to atleast boot the game
This game proves hypocricy - when Deus Ex Mankind Divided released in 2016, game reviewers gave it a lower score for "demanding system requirements". But when Cyberpunk and Alan Wake 2 do the same shiet, they get a pass for some reason - probably signed a contract with Nvidia, to get a share of the profits from GPU sales, so instead of optimizing they made their games even more demanding. And then paid shill reviewers to say: "graphics justify the requirements" - how so? This game looks like a Forspoken in a horror game setting. I don't see the appeal - and i don't see the "revolutionary graphics." Games achieved dynamic lights like these since Source 2007, and fake godrays almost as good as RTX were a thing 10 years ago. Made some games look just as good, without needing a bitcoin mine GPU. Besides, even if the graphics do live up to the hype, it should still get a bad score, cuz for 95% of players with far less than a state of the art PC, the game will still look like a potato on low settings.
Are you on the same timeline as me? Cyberpunk got completely ass blasted by reviewers and users at launch.
Talking bout early reviewers who either didn't play the game, or were handed a pristine condition special demo, and promoted the game as "living up to the hype" and "blew their mind" to convince people to pre-order it a month earlier, which helped it reach 8 mil pre-orders. Not that it stopped some people from kissing CDPR's arse after either - especially after the Edgerunners update, when the game turned positive suddenly.
Eh. I didn't pay $750 on a current gen gpu to be forced to use upscaling. So imma just bow out on AW2.
Hope those who do llay enjoy it tho.
If AW2 was a fast paced shooter it be terrible game but its not, its a slow pace narrative game with amazing graphics that still run on GPU's that are 3 generations and/or almost 5 year old.
The real issue is not the requirements, but the price hike of more recent GPU's
Just stop playing unoptimised games.
It runs really well in my opinion (6800xt, 3440x1440), especially for how good it looks. My only problem with the game is forced FSR on AMD GPUs. FSR sucks as an AA solution, it's a flickering, shimmering, unstable mess. I would much prefer TAA.
Well this is Nivida sponsored title they don’t give sht about amd gpu running it’s only for the 4000 series with frame generation
i really dont think this is hard to run for a 2023 game, if you match the game to console settings, the 3060 can get 60fps on 1440p balanced. Or 4k 30fps on 4k balanced. All the ray trace and path trace options only add flavour to the image and doesnt change it dramatically, i honestly think those settings are for screenshots or for people from a generation or two in the future.
I don't know man, FSR ruins an image for me. Turning down shadows or something is always better for me. I can't stand the artifacting of FSR
30 fps is awful. It shouldn't be the minimum spec. I don't care how good the graphics are. It takes more than eye candy to keep gamers' attention.
I play it on ryzen 3600 + rtx 3060 on high settings 1440p, DLSS balanced. I have stable 40fps outdoors and 60fps inside buildings. On native 1080p the game is unplayable. It's blurry and hurts my eyes.
developers can't even give a game that doesn't rely heavily on upscaling. it almost as if we can't make a game that can be played natively.
I can't even blame them because they're using an engine that is more powerful than any graphics card, even 4090 is struggling to give decent fps.
and I can't just forget about terrible driver supports.
"they're using an engine that is more powerful than any graphics card"
That doesn't make any sense at all
This is the whole point of Nvidia upscaling tech so we can have better graphics in games. I see no difference in visual quality with DLSS Quality and Frame Generation turned on in this game but I do feel a huge performance loss when I turn them off. Im very happy Nvidia is developing this tech it’s going to be the future of gaming.
@@DDD-xx4mg The "whole point" of upscaling is so that Nvidia can sell you less hardware for more money.
upscaling is not the issue. it's a good thing but the fact that game can't run natively is concerning. @@DDD-xx4mg
you're technically right.
if a game is unplayable then upscaling is important.
but the problem is company's are saying our upscaling is better with our graphics card which leads to user manipulation something that apple is doing for a while now. and it turns out to be working well. for them but not for us@@zdspider6778
I guess even with the RX 6600 players expect better image quality when it comes to resolution with overall lower graphic settings. More testing of the lowest setting (since low isn't the lowest setting possible) to retain a higher resolution on those mid to low-end cards would be interesting imo.
For real, I can't find any video or reddit thread that shows the performance of the lowest possible settings.
@@YeaButCanUDoABackflpthey always treated my rx 6600 high gpu by turn the graphics high possible to see performance
They should have a very low preet 😉
They intentionally made the rasterized shadows in this game game look terrible. That sign demo at 6:23 without RT is laughably bad.
There is no way they look that bad by default. We had games from 2015 with better shadow quality than this. Just another ploy to sell nvidia 30-40 series cards since its a nvidia sponsored title.
yep
I did a few screen shots and I can't find much difference from DLSSQ and DLSSB. I'm using medium setting with a few modifications, ultra textures, high texture filtering, low terrain quality and low scattered object density. I'm using RT medium, but I'm setting path tracing to low. I'm on a 3080-12g and i'm getting 30 to 40 fps in the forest, 60 to 70 fps in the cabin, and 50 to 60 fps in town at 1440p. I'm very happy with the game.
With 3080 and 5700x just barely hit 60fps in most regions of the game @1440p DLSSQ and 90% LOW settings. No RT, just LOW reflections. Turning RT on LOW cuts fps almost in half, so the place in the game you found and said that those settings are good for 60fps is overstatement. In the woods, GPU runs 100% and barely hits 60fps. But then again, you are on 5800X3D... So one more thing not adding up to average user
I won't even attempt to boot it on my GTX 1070, considering it gets like 18-20 fps on a 1080Ti which is loads faster than a shitty 1650/1660Ti (on which it works because they support mesh shaders).
Remedy done fucked up. They released a tech demo not a game. NOBODY bought GPUs during crypto mining. Using technology introduced only 3-4 years ago was a very bad business decision, imo. And it's a sequel nobody asked for. Definitely skipping this one.
Well, another game that I will buy in 3 years at 90% discount when my "old" at that point AMD 8000 / nVidia 5000 GPU will run this at full detail no problem.
This is really just become my standard. Either get games for free on epic games or buy em at heavy discounts.
Buying RTX 4090 at 1.7K and burning the cables to run games that are in alpha states just isn't for me.
To be fair, Crysis 1 was also unplayable when it launched (and on steam you cant even run it with the default 32 bit exe file).
Yeah at this point people who aren't made of money should either get a console or get a PC but play games that are a few years old.
@@nou4605 I am still happy that games are getting better, even if I have to wait a while.
@@nou4605that's pretty much everyone, a lot of people are in debt
Only I have this feeling or others think like me that the environment and graphics of the game have no difference between low and high settings unless we activate rate racing.
Im one of the lucky ones with a Rtx 4070 but there should be an option to either use Mesh shaders or not it would of been more work but it would be more compatible for older gpu's.
Mesh shadders are a 5 y.o. technology being used properly for the first time. Expecting a 7 y.o. card to run everything it's delusional. Get a ps5 or upgrade.
@@ironmaidenmetalgod It would be nice for people to have the option to switch from mesh shadrs not many people could afford to upgrade and as it says in my post i have a 4070 so no need to upgrade and buy a ps5 hahaha a console never in a million years.
Going through the graphics options was actually really cool as they gave useful information with things like Gamma and HDR, even recommended an HDR calibration app and different monitor settings. I feel like they really want people to have the best experience possible, thus the high recommended hardware, and low settings still being really good.
Its definitely demanding! My 3070 has been struggling pretty badly when you compare it to any other game I've played and I own pretty much own all of the AAA games on PC!
Yeah I’m mostly low to medium and zero ray tracing with a 3080ti 1440
To me, it doesn't look that good to justify the requirements
If the graphics settings hardly scale from low to ultra, why have them? Just do away with all graphics settings apart from DLSS and RT then.
exactly.. they can't seem to scale resolutions of things when they use software ray tracing for multiple things like shadows. This is also a problem in most UE5 games.
They do scale when it comes to VRAM especially.
Seems Potato PCs getting triggered 😂
No video card at the price of $400 or more should ever need to enable upscaling technology until years of use.
It barely uses my cpu and just bottlenecks everything.
I still get drops below 60fps at 1440p dlss balanced with no rt medium settings on a 3090 oc strix.
Alot these reviewers need to get further into the game as it become more unoptimised further in and also it definitely has a memory leak
Even at 1440p native my 3090 usage dosent even stay at 90% usage its very unstable in this game.
All these alan wake 2 videos only test the beginning forest area and bright fall town area that's it so it comes across as having no problems and being perfect.
It's apparently so demanding that it barely uses my cpu,ram and has unstable gpu usage on top of having a memory leak and even traversal stutter.
If you come across these type of videos that seem like nvidia sponsored it make sure its not some guy with the best hardware thats only got 30 minutes into the game.
This guy completely left out the memory leaking, unstable gpu usage, low cpu usage that becomes a bottle neck later on in the game, low ram usage but apparently "its demanding" and the traversal stutter when its obviously loading in new areas become more common later in the game.
You'll notice and for anyone thats actually played more of the game when you get more obvious cpu intensive moments the fps can still drop below 60 regardless of resolution or settings, i even noticed just some bland walls in certain rooms where if i looked at it and wiggled the camera I'd drop below 60 then i could look away at a building covered in lights and glass etc and then shoot up to 80fps.
If you make a game have all these bells and whistles but then refuse to use 8 cores or more ofcourse it becomes demanding when it has rare moments it actually uses 4 cores
I even tried it at 1080p with dlss ultra performance all low settings and it doesn't get rid of the performance issues, on a 3090 oc strix just to remind you
Doesn't sound right at all. What CPU?
Yeah what CPU are you running that 3090 on?
Just leaving a comment here to see which CPU 👀
@tablettablete186 amd ryzen threadripper 3990x (game mode)
Game isn't even using 8 cores even though on the spec sheet they released the ryzen 7 3700x is an 8 core 16 thread
The amd ryzen threadripper 3990x in game mode is 16 core 32 thread amongst some speed and timing changes if I'm correct
This game needs the smt setting from cyberpunk
I give the devs permission to use more cores to increase game performance
@@papichuckle unfortunately that isn't a very good CPU for gaming. You want 6-8 very fast cores, but you have 8 slow cores. Sorry man, but yeah, significant CPU bottleneck. I'm on a 5600 non X and getting max GPU usage on a 4070ti 95 percent of the time, sometimes it dips when I've sampled performance.
It's not that amazing looking unless your in the city or town parts at night or in dark areas with lighting when raytracing is enabled, The game runs pretty good without it aswell as look as good. When patch 1.08 came out, It fixed so much issue with the raytracing, Performance on a 2080ti was really bad and now its really great, The game is definately overated on demand it needs, The game just needed and needs alot better optimization, Look at the last of us part 1, That looks way better as games go, And that runs well on most modern systems with raytracing enabled.
I actually would not be pissed with Nvidia's overpriced GPUs if my wages had actually kept up with inflation. Adjusted for inflation, a top-tier gaming PC with a 4090 in it is the same as a color television set price wise in the early 1970s, with the main difference being that accounting for inflation, the average American pretty much had a six figure salary back then, which is why I get mad whenever I hear that generation talk about bootstrapping. It was easy to live vicariously when low wages paid what was basically ninety-grand today. Back on topic, the PC industry had pricing trends that were ridiculous from time to time, but the difference was that people did not really complain about it because they literally made more money. Once Intel is competitive with Nvidia, Nvidia will lower their price points. Before you say they ditched gaming for AI, newsflash, Nvidia had always prioritized the needs of the corporate sector before gamers. First, it was workstations for engineers and hollywood CGI artists, now it's AI. Gaming always was, and always will be, a side hustle for Nvidia.
I am not even concerned for gaming at this point, I am concerned for the future of the overall economy of American and European nations right at this moment, as the whole economy is driven by two things: middle class/poor people blowing their disposable income on overpriced consumer crap and military spending. Once the economy implodes, which it will because the Middle class is dying, we're headed for the great depression 2.0 and perhaps WWIII after that. It might even be communism versus fascism like it was in WWII, seeing as how those ideologies tend to gain popularity when people cannot put food on the table
Oh give me a break. Top Tier PC's have always been expensive. Just look at computer ads from the 90's. An equivalent PC back then was $5,000 adjusted for inflation, and look at what our PC's can do now. We literally have million dollar supercomputers compared to then...an RTX 4090 has 80+ Teraflops of compute power. The most powerful computer on the planet in 1996 was the ASCI Red with only 1.3 teraflops of compute power and cost $70 Million to build.
@badpuppy3 I know. I have seen PCs from around the 90s period, as my dad had built a top tier PC with Voodoo 3 gpus in it for $2500 in 1990s money. Again, I was not upset with Nvidia like some people are these days, I was upset with how our economy is being ran into the ground by our governments. I have nothing against immigration, but letting them in when the demand for housing outstrips supply four times over is just pouring a Jerry can onto the fire.
In the Peaple's Republic of Canada, a lot of people my age, the 20-40 age range, need to live with their parents or their friends to have any disposable income whatsoever to afford any hobbies. That was what I was saying, that it was the currently shit economy that is pricing people out of PC, and to a lesser degree, console gaming, not Nvidia. I live with my parents, and I make $60,000 a year before taxes. The economy is in the dumpster right now, due to the pandemic and many issues before that.
I've got a 6600XT and have it running at 1440p with a lot of settings set to Medium (with a few things set to a mix of Low, High and even Ultra) and FSR Quality. Been having a fantastic time so far. Wonderful game too, been waiting a long time for this one.
When everybody just talks about how demanding your game is (spec wise) and nothing about the game itself. I'm sorry but its a bad game. I dont think it looks that good either.
You do understand what optimization is right? Right? This game is not Optimized. Proof is in the pudding. Town has much higher frames than the forest. Games that lack optimization have bad frame timing too. Why don't you quickly turn around in your benchmarks.
I can't tell the difference between low and high with my eyes you need a snapshot even then it's hard to tell and the game looks great .
This game's presets don't make any sense, going from high to low, only gives me 15% of performance back, that's insane.
There should definitely be an ultra low or something.
Game looks amazing though, specially with RT on low with RR and it isn't that demanding.
PT is just for the 4090 though.
I think from artist's perspective, it's totally fine. They don't want their game to look "ugly" so they're willing to take the hit in sales, which to be honest is not all that much when you really think about it. As time goes on and relative performance gets cheaper, a good game will continue to sell as those markets open up.
PT is for the 4000 series :)
@@_godsl4yer_ No, just the 4090
@@MaxIronsThird 4060 and 4060 ti you'd make compromises and could argue it's not worth it but you certainly can path trace with the 4070 and up thanks to DLSS, which is mandatory for path tracing with this generation.
@@_godsl4yer_ I'm talking about 60fps here, I'm not buying a 4080 to play games at 30fps
As a graphics programmer I wouldn't say there's anything that would require specific hardware features like mesh shaders with no alternatives. You can achieve pretty much the same look in Unreal engine 5 with Nanite (Mesh shaders are already used by Nanite for larger triangles on hardware that supports them) and some cinematic post processing and color grading.
yeah but buzzwords man
In regards to the 3070 debacle:
I have a Ryzen 3700K 16GBs RAM and a RTX 3070.
1440P
NO RAYTRACING
DLSS -> Quality
Shadow, Volumetric and Fog settings on Medium rest high.
Forced FPS limit to 60 via RivaTuner
Best experience possible constant 60FPS 90% of the time
You are getting dips all the time, especially in the forest areas
I play with i3 12100f and rx 6600 got high 40s to 50s in forest area with High presets and FSR Quality. Very playable for me
the implementation of dlss in this game is crazy, I was playing with all in high+RThigh and with 1080p DLSS quality, so I start test the images in a 1080p monitor and I barely can see a difference between dlss quality and performance mode in 1080p it's realy crazy for me, I never think about playing a game in 540p upscaling for 1080p, but in this game the upscaling is so good u barely see the difference between quality and performance EVEN in 1080p I"m using a 1080p monitor btw, so I'm playing with 60 fps all high+rthigh in 1080p(my monitor resolution) with dlss performance and the game look's so good u barely see any artifacts, I REALLY recommend people to test the performance mode in 1080p this game is very different then others.
I think that the low should’ve been the medium settings and the actual low settings should’ve been such that a wider range of gpus could run this game. The low doesn’t at all look like low, it looks like ultra compared to other games.
I think I should be able to run Cyberpunk maxed out with RTX overdrive and 2000 fps as well but I can't.
@@sMooVe1982 I bet my 10090 super ti could do it on 69k resolution easily
It's been 3 years since PS5 release, so new games will have it's hardware in mind to develop new games. PS5 uses sub-medium with FSR balanced for 60 fps in 1440p. No, not gonna happen.
@@VORASTRAVery true, I wish more people understood that.
The game looks amazing on low/medium settings... but it looks WAY better on higher settings... but unless you have a $1,500 graphics card with other high end hardware, you will not reliably get over 60FPS in this game unfortunately.
You have completely misrepresented DF's take on this "controversy". Alex actually made that video to PROVE that it's not that demanding, to prove that people are bitching about it unjustifiably. He focused on rasterized performance in that video and that when you tweak the settings on par of what PS5 uses in performance mode, you can have a great time even on aging GPUs like 3070 - much higher frame-rates than what PS5 outputs. He will make a video focusing on RT / PT later this week. I hate when people twist words to fit their narrative.
The techtuber space is literally grasping for any content. This dude makes stuff up for content. Core count settings video that comes default off
It's really not that demanding to me. Idk, I have a 4070 laptop, and I run the game at 1920x1200, dlss quality, frame generation on, highest settings, and I get 100fps. If I turn raytracing and pathtracing on and set to high, I'm still getting 60-70fps. Seems pretty standard for a graphically intense AAA title.
Upscaling should honestly be for old hardware, not required to get good performance for newer hardware. That doesn’t sound like good optimization, especially since this isn’t exactly open world.
I like it when games push the limits of visuals, I want a pc game to use the most performance it can. Alan wake 2 looks amazing.
I believe that this is a testing period for these new technologies, those who buy today are like beta testers, I don't think that for the average consumer it is the right time to buy a new PC. Just my opinion.
GPUs aren't improving yet games continue to get even more demanding
No, GPU's are improving, what sucks is that they are getting more and more expensive for the same performance tier.
GPUs are improving. Unfortunately, each tier costs three times as much as they did a few years ago.
@@TooBokoo - I think this is the main problem most people have with this current slate of super-demanding games. Some people bring up Crysis like that's the end-all argument for a game like AW2, but back when Crysis released, the highest-end card to run it (8800GTX) was $350, not $1600+. Even when adjusted for inflation, that's a huge difference. $350 for the top-end card in 2007 would be like paying $550 for a 4090 today. Instead, we're in a situation where most mid-range cards cost as much or more than 2007's halo card.
People wouldn't be as mad about the lack of performance in newer games if the mid to high-end GPU's didn't cost as much as an entire mid-range computer did 6 or 7 years ago. I don't put the blame entirely on developers, because Nvidia & AMD and their greed have certainly had a hand in this current sh!tshow too.
I dono the 4090 was significant improvement over 3090 and leaks suggest the 5090 is going to be beast too.
@@obeliskt1024 which is the sad part
how much people in the world have PC that can run Alan Wake 2? 5-10%? Good luck with sales
And on the fact it's Epic exclusive, ESG funded and they hired sensitivity proof readers from Sweet Baby to make it safe for the modern audience, i can see it being given away free within a year.
This is the future of gaming. If you can’t run the game it’s a you problem get better hardware
@@DDD-xx4mgi will get a better hardware, and pirate the games
@@DDD-xx4mgWell I have some of the best hardware and still think that games like this that can only run on PCs like mine( not even able to get 60fps unless you use upscaling or turn everything on low). Are kinda silly I shouldn't have to already use upscaling on a $1600 GPU.
@9:39 I swear dude, at 50yo I heard this arguments 4 or 5 times already in my lifetime, It seems this conversation is caught up in the Dark Place loop, as well. The real world however, it doesn't care and just keeps moving on forward.
@@LTNetjakWell, maybe my memory is a bit better than yours because, I remember Glide API and I remember when Hardware T&L support for PC was introduced. And I can go on remembering...
Let me say it again, the most people are still gaming on 1080p. I am and I don't plan to go any higher, because on your typical PC monitor ranging from 22-27" you don't really see much difference unless you move in so close that you can't see the entire screen at once anymore.
Don't really know if I'll ever play this game, because I still haven't played the first one since I got a key with the GPU I bought in 2013 and didn't use anymore since 2016. Always thought the concept sounded interesting but got too many things I actually wanted to play getting in the way that I forgot about it. I'm more of a niche gamer and don't care that much for AAA.
Well it is becoming more more people are going to 1440p for single player games, it's becoming more of standard rather 1080p
@@footballtalk4857 I'm just saying I wouldn't see any difference on typical monitor sizes and most people see it exacly like me. I don't see it becoming "the standard" unless >60% of players start connecting their PCs to a tv that's bigger than 32" and sit like more than 3m away while playing. But with a normal distance of 60-90cm from screen to face, you don't really need more than a 27" with 1080p!
@@skyknight0408 All I'm saying it's more of standard than you think and yes alot of people might not can tell the difference but on the flip side more and more people are getting used to 1440 especially with consoles support higher quality, so I do agree with your points but I also don't if that makes sense.
@@footballtalk4857 I get what you're saying. It just doesn't make sense to me to use a higher resolution on a screen that small. When I started playing on PC, 14" CRTs with 640x480 were standard. So FHD is already way better than I ever thought it would get and I kinda see it as the sweet spot for regularly sized screens if that makes sense.
And even if more people start using a higher resolution now, I still think that most people don't really need more. There is a reason why 1080p is still the most popular resolution in the Steam surveys, right? It's right now at 61,17% of all players using it, while only 16,61% use 1440p, so can you really say it's mainstream already?
@@skyknight0408 Well you got to kept in mind the benchmarks test you see are played on a larger monitor, the whole steam thing you got to remember because it's pc gaming not all the games are on steam and most just have one game that they always play for example Valorant or Fornite that's on Epic story just giving example I know it's not the most popular.
My GTX980 has a stroke everytime I try playing Starfield
Why nobody mentions that the cpu is at 40% max most of times and the gpu is full working? Also there are some commands in the ini file for PC that you could change to remove vignette, lens distortion and depth of field BUT there is also a command for sharpening as there is none in the graphics menu when turn on DLSS. DLSS is good for resolutions from 1440p and beyond. In 1080p im playing with DLAA . The low settings to high do have a difference but not all of them . Textures for example when gaming in 1080p has no difference from low to high. RT is a real performance killer and setting it to low it does make the game much better as you said in the video but the cost is gr8!
It’s amazing how well dlss works at 4k. I’m currently playing Alan Wake maxed out on my 4080 with dlss set to “performance” and the image quality is shockingly great.
You surprised that the game works well using dlss on your new 1200 dollars expensive card?!
@@zorancvetkovic7204 lol these people man...
@@zorancvetkovic7204 considering dlss “performance” has an internal resolution of 1080…yeah. I’m surprised at how sharp the image looks.
@@zorancvetkovic7204 you got him well there
no, he is suprised how good dlss perfomance looks without any artifact@@zorancvetkovic7204
The Quarry looks as good or even sometimes better in my opinion with less demanding hardware.
The Quarry has set camera angles so the developers can cheese the graphical power for those predetermined setups. It's completely different than making a full open world where characters can move about and view all lighting from any conceivable angle.
running over 100 FPS at 4k with my 7900 xtx merc... with high settings.. and no path tracing and no ray tracing...game looks AMAZING!
I'm getting the same FPS on my "i5 4690k"@.4.6, RX 6700. lol...this game doesn't care about the CPU at all.
For all the low budget builds for example I built a build with a I7 4790 1660 super 16gb ram running AW2 @ 1080p 55 to 60 fps high textures some settings low and medium high, This game is well optimized
Im running that game full specs raytracing and pattracing maxed aswell on a qhd 3440 ×1440p 144hz and having avg of 90 fps dlss quality ❤❤❤❤
With a rtx 4070ti msi gaming x trio custom overclocked
Yes, It can be run with lower end or older GPUs, but please note the 1% Lows. Most of the time they are well below 30 fps (into the lower 20 fps), so this is the metric used for the recommended specs sheet from Remedy in my opinion. The 1% Lows are even more important than average fps because the games feels laggy with lower amount of them, even tough the average maybe in the 40s or 50s.
I think the game should run the framerates it actualy does but without upscaling!
70 FPS @ 4K High Settings with RT with a 4090 would be acceptable but in this game you are forced to enable DLSS Quality+Framegen to achieve these framerates.....i think thats way to demanding even if this game is beautyful....
And yes i think that it is an Nvidia upscaling tech demo/sponsored game.
Go buy Nvidia 4000!!😂💸
In games where the artistic presentation is a huge part of the game, I can understand the argument of not wanting lower settings, but the "lowering settings barely does anything" part has been far too common in far too many games in recent years, even in games that don't have nearly the emphasis on artistic vision.
"It still looks good at low settings" is not a compliment unless it still gives a substantial performance boost at the same time.
People with lower end system usually care about one thing: "Can I run it at a playable framerate?"
If the visuals start looking worse, that's secondary for a lot of them.
I was expecting a timestamp with something along the lines of 'How I fixed it'
Hello, I have a 3080Ti, I play in 1440p without Ray Tracing the Saga parts and with Ray Tracing in medium configuration in the Alan parts, with dlss in Quality, and it reached 60fps all the time with vsync active, the game sure is demanding , but it is the first test of next gen that we received, and from a supposedly old engine. CDPR blamed the CP77's problems on its engine and Bethesda did the same with Starfield, saying "my old mule is no longer what it was" and I love that Remedy can demonstrate with Northlight that that is a lie, you can always iterate on a graphics engine and renew it to use new technologies.
They make a game 90% of the players can’t play because 90% of these players can’t afford a 1200 graphic card😂
The game performs better than i thought. Usually they over estimate the performance on the low end but this time, thats an actually reasonable low end spec performance
We’re at another “can it run Crysis” point in the gaming industry and people need to accept that keeping their current GPU for 5-6+ years may be a thing of the past, unless you play older AAA titles. I think with AW2 they catered for a minimum fps at certain resolutions e.g. 30fps …. But at times you’re still peaking at ~70fps, averaging 45fps. If specs listed an RTX 4080 as a 1440p medium settings at average ~60fps ….. people would’ve been spitting chips and heavily criticising the game to the point nobody would buy it. Devs did it justice as AW2 low graphics settings are equal to at least high only a few years ago! Also, the $50USD piece is vg considering how good the graphics, performance and story is.
Every single " rasterized " setting is so good, that even low or medium, look great, beside shadows and reflections. For those I may suggest using on high. I wouldn't go over path tracing set to " medium " and that's valid only, for those that have capable hardware. Otherwise, forget about PT and go for a mix of low&medium settings, those will be fine. Thanks for this video and hope we can soon, start to speak again about gameplay and storyline, since I see too much dedication on visuals and gradually, less and less on making actual good games. Being a fan of the first game, hope this will not disappoint me ( I did some tests to find the best settings for my PC but still, I wasn't able to fully lose myself into the game ). Good evening/night to everyone.
The graphics dont justify the gpu requiments for this game, it looks good but its not something thats groundbreaking imo.
The GPU requirements are extreme overkill. The game does not run as the requirements suggest. Remedy was playing it extra safe.
I mean, I really want to buy this game. Sadly I am not sure this game can run 4k native 60fps+ even on low settings on my 6950xt, and I cant stand upscalers I am on 4k for image stability and clarity and upscalers just takes a huge dump on image quality for me. So if I could have a demo to test how the game runs before buying it I might have considered it, but sadly I dont have that so I wont gamble. I would say I would put this in my list of games to play in the future but I will most likely forget about the game by the time the industry have proper performance - cost uplift and affordable hardware (as in I dont have to pay more for a gpu then I did for my fking car wtf industry how much profit margins do you need?)
Another day, another game that needs upscaling tech to reach stable 60fps. 🙄
when low and high dont look much different that suggests bad optimization to me.
i mean, it could also mean the exact opposite depending on how you look at it.
but at the end of the day, low should mean low. so it should look like shit, because they have had to remove polygons etc to get it to run that well. which then makes it more playable on lower end hardware. we get it, its pc gaming. nobody is going to complain if the high setting looks amazing and the low setting looks like playstation 3 as long as the low setting car run on a playstation 3 equivalent pc.
or maybe they should have kept things exactly as they are but also had a very low setting. or an object quantity setting with a slider to increase or decrease the amount of objects etc.
i guess it runs and looks ok to me. although with dlss even on quality i see those same weird grainy artifacts almost like there is a grainy mesh, or screen door or something. i saw it in the control game back in the day too. although that was on a 2070 super. this is on my 3080 ti.
i dont use ray tracing. and with some config tweaks you can get it to 60fps native 4k on low settings. until it rains then its 25fps. so i had to use dlss for the first time. i am not happy about that. the lowest settings not working on a 4k card is crazy.
then again, as others have said. low still looks pretty good. not much different from high. most of the time it doesnt look anything special, but im also not going to complain, the graphics are certainly not bad.
this was a stupid ramble and i should just delete this comment.
People have tested the game with 1650 and settings set at 1080p or720p with FSR performance its playable in 35 fps with dips to 23 fps in extensive areas.
Honestly, I said it last time that the game will be broken as hell, on my GTX 1660S I can make medium 1080p for about 50 fps. It maybe low framerate but its smooth frame rate. No stuttering, no glitches, no texture issues.
So I wouldn't say its unoptimized, id say its super demanding (with actual next generation graphics) which is a shame cuz this video game is one of the games of all time.
What this game needs now is FSR Frame generation not just AFMF.
I'll be honest, the game doesn't look THAT good. Especially for how demanding it is.
Remember when Quantum Break came out and nobody could run it? Well that was 8 years ago and now it runs at ultra settings 100fps on a decent rig and it looks GREAT...like as good as any modern game. I expect AW2 to be much the same.
I play at 1440p DLSS quality + high preset (RT off) and post processing set to low and the framerate can be anywhere from 30 to 120 depending on the area. This is with an RTX 3070. I think the crazy system requirements are actually pretty accurate if you want to hit 60fps at all times, but most of the time the game runs way better than that.
im just sad its not actually Jake Gyllenhal. This whole time I thought that was actually him like how they put that one cool actor from boondock saints into death stranding
I'm someone who has a GTX 1060. I honestly couldn't believe I couldn't run Alan Wake 2 of all games. I know someone with a $3000 pc is going to tell me how old my kit is, but the truth is I run anything I want. A lot of games I buy still default to high setting with this card and there is zero chance im dropping $800 on a new gpu to play Alan Wake 2. I was excited, but not that excited.
I play at 30 FPS 1080p on 3070 TI on my television, medium w/ low raytracing, DLSS quality, and it's smooth and the most beautiful game I've seen so far, like omg.
It's not a shooter, so it doesn't matter
Crysis was a LOT more demanding in 2007, there wasn't a single card that could run it at more than 30ish fps. People have become complacent without upgrading their hardware in years, buying a midrange system 8 years ago and expecting it to run modern games still. That's because of the old console hardware (ps4 era) running on hardware from 2012 and games more often than not being developed for super old hardware running cross-platform.
The question is, should games be very demanding? That depends. If the graphics look insanely good and if that can only be achieved with the newest and best hardware, then yes. A good example is Cyberpunk 2077 with pathtracing (yes, it's 3 years old by now but the path traced version is new). Does Alan Wake II look better than Cyberpunk? Hard to tell from just watching youtube videos due to compression, but if it does, then I would say the hardware demand is in line with how good it looks.
Crysis was really demanding for nearly a decade. Some would say.
@@furynotes That's true, but at that point the limitation was no longer the GPU but the CPU, since it was heavily single-threaded xD
@@sMooVe1982Crysis still has better physics and AI than current games, even the remasters are very CPU intensive
The crysis comparison is bad..
Example fallout 3 was released in 2008 one year AFTER crysis and it looks like absolute garbage. Today you can't point at 2 AAA games and see the same difference because most modern AAA games now boast high-quality graphics.
Crysis was revolutionary.There was literally no other game that came close to it's level of graphical fidelity even a few years AFTER it was released.
Meanwhile alan wake looks like most AAA games released in the LAST 3 years but it's also more demanding than most of them.
I've seen the word "realistic" being used to describe this game ..
This is realistic:
ruclips.net/video/IK76q13Aqt0/видео.html
Why add the graphical settings if there's no difference between high and low ?! what's the point ? That's why people buy high end GPUs, to see a difference in visual quality when playing on ultra or switch to low and play at high fps.
There has to be a difference in fps and visual quality if there is none then the game is UNOPTIMIZED FOR PC. (i've seen people defend unoptimized games for the last 3 years and it's usually people playing on a laptop at lass than 30 fps saying "it runs fine 60 fps" meanwhile they're not using any fps/frametime monitoring software.
So the crysis comparison is bad
@@Alexul2007 So because Fallout 3 looks like absolute garbage today and ran on a lot more hardware than crysis did, that proves...what exactly? That some games look like shit after a while but others still look good?
I can still look at Far Cry 4 from 8 years ago and today, it looks really really dated. Back then it was one of the pinnacles of graphics. As said before, games 20 years ago didn't look anywhere close to what real life looks like, even crysis didn't. But made a huge jump on the way and in certain scenarios could look very realistic. Games today look a LOT better than crysis did (when they are well done and aiming for realism) but because they're often still using rasterization, they cannot get much closer to real life and thus, graphics fidelity without ray tracing has mostly come to a standstill. There are certain areas in which you can still try to improve, but textures- which used to be one of the main things devs used to improve - are already at the highest quality, so new, more demanding technologies need to be introduced - namely path- and raytracing.
Additionally, just like with crysis, this game seems to be CPU bottlenecked so we need faster cpus as well. There are proper unoptimized games (examples include stuttery messes like Starfield or Hogwart's) and then there are games that just have higher hardware demands but run smoothly if you run them on better hardware. This game seems to run stable on all hardware but gives you more fps on higher end hardware.
You just don't like the crysis comparison because you visually see a bigger difference between other titles released around the same time and Alan Wake II when in fact there still is a big difference between say Alan Wake II and stuff like Call of Duty or other mass-appeal games which are designed to "run on pretty much anything".