Red Dead Redemption 2

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS rows reveal a steep and consistent penalty as resolution climbs, and the shape of that curve tells a clear story about where the bottleneck lives in this pairing. At 1080p Low, the combo produces 88.8 FPS; stepping up to 1440p Low drops that to 64.3 FPS, a 27.6% reduction; and at 4K Low, the average falls to 43.4 FPS, which is 51.1% below the 1080p Low figure. That scaling is far from linear — the drop from 1440p to 4K is proportionally larger than the drop from 1080p to 1440p, which is a classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario at the higher resolutions.

Look at the High preset specifically: 55.9 FPS at 1080p, 44.1 FPS at 1440p, and 29.5 FPS at 4K. The 1080p-to-1440p drop is 21.1%, while the 1440p-to-4K drop is 33.1%. This accelerating degradation strongly implies that the Intel Arc B580's rendering resources — its 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs — are being saturated as pixel count rises, and the Ryzen 5 5600's six Zen 3 cores are not the primary constraint at these higher resolutions. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the FPS to hold more steady across resolutions, especially at Low settings where the GPU load is lighter.

The Ultra preset is where the scaling becomes almost punishing: 42.6 FPS at 1080p, 28.5 FPS at 1440p, and just 17.6 FPS at 4K. That 4K Ultra figure is only 41.3% of the 1080p Ultra value, and it falls below the 30 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for playability. The data suggests that this combo is never truly CPU-limited in Red Dead Redemption 2; even at 1080p Low, where the CPU would typically have the most headroom, the 88.8 FPS result is respectable but not exceptional, indicating the GPU is still doing heavy lifting. The takeaway: if you want higher frame rates, lowering resolution yields immediate and predictable gains, but the GPU is the component that will dictate the ceiling.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

The measured presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — offer a clear hierarchy, and the data points to Medium as the sweet spot for most users, with High as a viable alternative depending on resolution priorities. At 1080p, Medium delivers 68.9 FPS, which is 23.3% higher than High's 55.9 FPS and only 19.9 FPS below Low's 88.8 FPS. That 68.9 FPS figure is comfortably above the 60 FPS target, and the visual uplift from Medium to High is typically more noticeable than the gain from Low to Medium in open-world titles like this. The gap between Medium and Low at 1080p is 19.9 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 13.0 FPS — so Medium offers a balanced trade-off.

At 1440p, Medium produces 48.3 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS mark but still playable, while High drops to 44.1 FPS and Low reaches 64.3 FPS. If smoothness is the priority at 1440p, Low is the only preset that clears 60 FPS, but Medium at 48.3 FPS is likely the better visual compromise for those willing to accept a lower frame rate. At 4K, the situation is dire for anything above Low: Medium yields 36.1 FPS, High drops to 29.5 FPS, and Ultra plummets to 17.6 FPS. Only Low at 4K, with 43.4 FPS, approaches a playable experience, and even that is below the 60 FPS standard.

The data suggests that Ultra is not a practical choice at any resolution for this combo — even at 1080p it only manages 42.6 FPS, which is 26.3 FPS lower than Medium. The most efficient path is Medium at 1080p for a smooth experience, or Low at 1440p if you prioritize resolution over fidelity. High is a middle-ground option at 1080p, but the 13.0 FPS penalty over Medium may not justify the visual gains for most players. The measured rows do not include a "Very High" or custom preset, so the analysis is limited to these four, but the pattern is unambiguous: Medium is the performance-per-visual winner, and Ultra should be avoided.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B580 brings 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, with 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and the measured FPS data suggests that this memory configuration is sufficient for Red Dead Redemption 2's demands at the tested settings, but the GPU's compute capabilities are what ultimately limit performance. The B580's boost clock is 2670 MHz, and its FP32 throughput is rated at 13.67 TFLOPS, which is a modest figure for a modern discrete GPU. The 4K Ultra result of 17.6 FPS is particularly telling — it indicates that the GPU's 80 ROPs and 2560 shading units are overwhelmed by the combination of high resolution and Ultra settings, which likely include heavy draw distances, shadow quality, and texture filtering that strain the pixel and texture throughput.

The memory bandwidth of 456.0 GB/s is ample for 1080p and 1440p, where the FPS drops are more gradual, but at 4K the bandwidth may become a secondary constraint. The 12 GB VRAM capacity is unlikely to be a bottleneck at these settings, as Red Dead Redemption 2's textures are typically well within that allocation at 1080p and 1440p, and even at 4K the game rarely exceeds 8-10 GB in practice. The GPU's 20 RT cores and Xe2-HPG architecture are present, but this game is not ray-traced in the measured rows, so those cores are likely idle; the primary load falls on the rasterization units.

The comparison to the B580's nearest rivals puts its average benchmark score at 23021, which is 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (23181) and 0.1% above the AMD Radeon 760M (22999). This places the B580 in a tight cluster, but the in-game results are what matter: the 29.5 FPS at 4K High shows that the GPU is stretched thin at the highest resolution. The pixel rate of 213.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 427.2 GTexel/s are theoretical maxima that the game's workload approaches but does not fully utilize, given the measured FPS. For this title, the B580 behaves like a capable 1080p and entry-level 1440p card, with 4K being a stretch goal that only Low settings can partially meet.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The full measured dataset provides a comprehensive view of this combo's performance across twelve configurations. At 1920x1080, the average FPS ranges from 42.6 (Ultra) to 88.8 (Low), with Medium at 68.9 and High at 55.9. The spread between Low and Ultra is 46.2 FPS, which is the largest absolute range of any resolution, indicating that settings have the most impact at 1080p. At 2560x1440, the values are 64.3 (Low), 48.3 (Medium), 44.1 (High), and 28.5 (Ultra). The Low-to-Ultra spread narrows to 35.8 FPS, but the relative penalty for Ultra is steeper, with Ultra being 55.7% below Low at 1440p compared to 52.0% below at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the average FPS is 43.4 (Low), 36.1 (Medium), 29.5 (High), and 17.6 (Ultra). The Low-to-Ultra spread is 25.8 FPS, but the Ultra result is a mere 40.6% of the Low figure, the worst ratio across all resolutions. The 1080p Medium result of 68.9 FPS is the second-highest overall, trailing only 1080p Low, and it exceeds all 1440p and 4K results, including 1440p Low's 64.3 FPS. This reinforces that resolution is the dominant factor: dropping from 1080p Medium to 1440p Medium costs 20.6 FPS, while dropping from 1440p Medium to 4K Medium costs 12.2 FPS.

The data also shows that the High preset at 1080p (55.9 FPS) is nearly identical to 1440p Low (64.3 FPS) in terms of frame rate, but the visual quality difference would be substantial. The Ultra preset at 1440p (28.5 FPS) is only marginally better than 4K High (29.5 FPS), which is an unusual inversion — the 4K High result is actually 1.0 FPS higher than 1440p Ultra, suggesting that the Ultra preset's additional settings at 1440p are more demanding than the resolution jump to 4K with High settings. This is a quirk worth noting: the game's Ultra preset may include settings that disproportionately affect GPU load, such as higher shadow resolution or volumetric effects, which outweigh the pixel-count increase.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for smooth gameplay with this combo?

A: The data shows that 1080p with Medium settings achieves 68.9 FPS, which is the highest frame rate above the 60 FPS threshold. At 1440p, only Low (64.3 FPS) clears 60 FPS, while 4K does not reach 60 FPS at any settings, with the best being Low at 43.4 FPS.

Q: Is the Ultra preset usable at any resolution?

A: No. The measured Ultra results are 42.6 FPS at 1080p, 28.5 FPS at 1440p, and 17.6 FPS at 4K. Even at 1080p, Ultra falls below the 60 FPS target, and at 4K it is effectively unplayable.

Q: How much does the GPU matter compared to the CPU in this game?

A: The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K is steep and consistent (e.g., Low drops from 88.8 to 43.4 FPS), which indicates the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU's six cores and 12 threads are sufficient to feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but the GPU's 13.67 TFLOPS and 456.0 GB/s bandwidth are what cap performance at higher settings.

Q: Does the 12 GB VRAM cause any issues in this game?

A: The measured data does not show any VRAM-related stutters or crashes, and the FPS figures are consistent across settings. The 12 GB capacity is likely sufficient for the tested presets, as the bottleneck appears to be compute throughput rather than memory capacity.

Q: How does this combo compare to the GPU's nearest rivals in terms of FPS?

A: The B580's average benchmark score is 23021, which is 0.7% below the RTX 4060 (23181) and 0.3% above the NVIDIA P106-100 (22950). In-game, the B580's performance aligns with this positioning, being neither a clear win nor loss against these rivals.

Q: What settings should I choose for a 1440p monitor?

A: The data shows Medium at 1440p yields 48.3 FPS, which is below 60 FPS but playable. Low at 1440p gives 64.3 FPS, which is smoother but with reduced visual quality. High (44.1 FPS) is a middle option, but Medium offers the best balance of visual uplift and frame rate.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600 is a six-core, 12-thread processor based on Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 4,150 million transistors on a 7 nm process give it solid single-thread and multi-thread capabilities, as reflected in its Cinebench R23 scores of 18309 (multi-core) and 2584 (single-core). The CPU's percentile rank of 79 puts it above average among all tested CPUs, and its average benchmark score of 21765 places it within 0.6% of the Intel Xeon D-1746TER (21635) and 0.9% below the Intel Core i7-11700F (21957).

In the context of Red Dead Redemption 2, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with draw calls and game logic. The measured FPS data shows that the combo is GPU-limited at higher resolutions, but at 1080p Low, the 88.8 FPS result suggests the CPU is capable of driving frame rates well above 60 FPS when the GPU is not the bottleneck. The 3DMark scores provide additional context: the 8-thread score of 4798 and max-thread score of 5659 indicate that the CPU's multi-threaded performance is strong, which is important for a game that can utilize multiple cores for AI, physics, and streaming.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s and DDR4 support are adequate for this title, and the fact that FPS does not collapse at 1080p Low — where CPU load is highest relative to GPU — indicates that the 5600 is not a significant constraint. The nearest rival comparison shows the CPU is within 0.9% of the Core i7-11700F, which is a similar six-core part, and the data implies that swapping to a faster CPU would yield minimal gains in this game, as the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU's 65W TDP and 7 nm process also mean it runs efficiently, but that is not directly reflected in FPS; the key takeaway is that the 5600 is more than sufficient for this GPU at the tested settings.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific pairing of the Ryzen 5 5600 and Intel Arc B580 ranks 1321 out of 1687 tested combos in Red Dead Redemption 2, placing it in the 21.7th percentile of all configurations. That rank is surprisingly low given the individual component strengths — the CPU is in the 79th percentile, and the GPU is in the 66th percentile — which suggests that this game is particularly demanding on the GPU, and the B580's performance is not keeping pace with its benchmark standing. The rank of 1321 out of 1687 means that 366 combos perform worse, but 1320 combos perform better, which is a notable underperformance for a pairing with a relatively recent GPU.

The data implies that the B580's 13.67 TFLOPS and 456.0 GB/s bandwidth are not translating into competitive frame rates in this specific title, likely due to the game's heavy reliance on rasterization and its demanding Ultra settings. The combo's rank is consistent with the measured FPS: at 1080p High, it only achieves 55.9 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS target, and at 4K Ultra, it drops to 17.6 FPS. These results place it in the lower half of the database, and the rank reflects that reality.

The gap between the CPU's high percentile (79) and the GPU's moderate percentile (66) further emphasizes that the GPU is the weak link in this combo for this game. The measured FPS data corroborates this, as the scaling from 1080p to 4K is steep, and no settings combination at 1440p or 4K reaches 60 FPS. For users considering this combo, the rank suggests that it is better suited for 1080p gaming with Medium settings, where it achieves 68.9 FPS, rather than pushing higher resolutions. The rank of 1321 out of 1687 is a clear signal that this is not a top-tier configuration for Red Dead Redemption 2, and the bottleneck is squarely on the GPU side.