Red Dead Redemption 2

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a demanding title, and the combination of the Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD Radeon RX 9060 produces a specific performance profile that varies significantly with resolution and settings. The measured data shows a system that can deliver smooth gameplay at 1080p with the right settings, but which becomes increasingly GPU-bound and less playable as resolution climbs. This analysis breaks down the measured frames per second (FPS) to guide settings choices and clarify the role of each component.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals a clear shift in the system’s bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo averages 102 FPS. Moving to 1440p at the same settings drops that to 76 FPS, and at 4K it falls further to 50 FPS. This represents a decline of roughly 25% from 1080p to 1440p, and another 34% from 1440p to 4K. This steep scaling curve indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 9060 is the limiting factor at higher resolutions; the data suggests the GPU’s rendering throughput, not the CPU, is dictating performance as pixel count rises.

The pattern holds across other settings. At High settings, the system produces 64 FPS at 1080p, 48 FPS at 1440p, and only 31 FPS at 4K. The delta between 1080p and 4K is a 33 FPS loss, which is exactly half of the 1080p score. This is a substantial penalty. The fact that 4K High is only 31 FPS confirms that this resolution is too demanding for this GPU in this game, regardless of the quality preset.

When comparing the scaling from 1080p to 1440p, the drop is consistent across Low, Medium, and High settings—each loses roughly 25-26 FPS. However, from 1440p to 4K, the loss is more variable: Low loses 26 FPS, Medium loses 19 FPS, and High loses 17 FPS. This suggests that at 4K, the GPU is so saturated that the relative cost of higher settings is compressed; the card is struggling to fill pixels regardless of the detail level. The data strongly indicates that 4K is not a viable target for this configuration, while 1440p offers a playable middle ground if settings are managed, and 1080p gives the best chance at high frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy for optimizing the experience. For a 60 FPS target, the sweet spot is 1080p. At this resolution, the Low preset achieves 102 FPS, which is far above the target. The Medium preset delivers 76 FPS, and High drops to 64 FPS. All three are above 60 FPS, but the data shows that High is the most demanding of these that still hits the mark. The Ultra preset, however, drops to 46 FPS, which is not smooth enough for a responsive experience. Therefore, at 1080p, the High preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, as it is the highest quality setting that still maintains an average above 60 FPS.

At 1440p, the situation changes. The Low preset yields 76 FPS, which is excellent. The Medium preset produces 57 FPS, which is close to but just below the 60 FPS target. The High preset drops to 48 FPS, and Ultra falls to 34 FPS. For a 1440p monitor, the Low preset is the only one that comfortably exceeds 60 FPS. The Medium preset is a viable choice for those who prioritize visual fidelity over a strict 60 FPS, as the 57 FPS average is still relatively smooth. The data suggests that 1440p High and Ultra are not recommended for this combo, as they fall into a range where frame pacing issues become more noticeable.

For 4K, the data is unambiguous: no preset is recommended for a playable experience. The best result is 50 FPS at Low, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium is 38 FPS, High is 31 FPS, and Ultra is 23 FPS. The data shows that even at Low settings, the system cannot maintain a smooth frame rate at this resolution. Users with a 4K display should consider lowering the resolution to 1440p or 1080p to achieve acceptable performance. The measured results indicate that the optimal strategy is to prioritize resolution over settings: 1080p High is a better experience than 1440p Medium or 4K Low, based on the average FPS scores.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is clearly the dominant component in this pairing for Red Dead Redemption 2. The GPU’s benchmark data shows it sits at the 59th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 16014. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, which scores 16129, a delta of -0.7%. This places the RX 9060 in a competitive mid-range tier. The GPU’s memory configuration is 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. This memory bandwidth is a critical factor at higher resolutions, as the game’s textures and geometry require substantial data throughput.

The clock speeds are notable: a base clock of 1700 MHz, a game clock of 2400 MHz, and a boost clock of 2990 MHz. The high boost clock helps maintain performance in lighter scenes, but the data shows that the card’s raw compute power is insufficient for 4K in this title. The GPU has 1792 shading units and a texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s, which contributes to its performance at 1080p and 1440p. The FP32 performance is 21.43 TFLOPS, which is a solid figure for a card in this class.

The VRAM capacity of 8 GB appears to be a limiting factor at 4K. While the measured FPS drops are primarily due to compute limits, the memory size can cause texture streaming issues that affect frame times. The data does not show a specific VRAM-related crash or stutter, but the steep performance cliff from 1440p to 4K suggests that the card is overwhelmed. The GPU’s PCIe 5.0 x16 interface ensures it can communicate with the CPU without a bandwidth bottleneck. The card’s power draw is rated at 132 W TDP, which is modest and suggests that the performance ceiling is not power-limited.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU+GPU combo in Red Dead Redemption 2?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system can consistently exceed 60 FPS across multiple settings. At 1440p, only the Low preset breaks 60 FPS, and at 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS.

Q: Can I play at 1440p with High settings?

A: The measured results show an average of 48 FPS at 1440p High. This is below the 60 FPS target and may feel less smooth. The Medium preset at 57 FPS is closer to the target, but Low at 76 FPS is the only 1440p setting that provides a comfortable margin.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the GPU is likely the primary limiter. The GPU’s benchmark percentile is 59, and the FPS scales down significantly as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. The CPU’s multi-threaded performance is sufficient to feed the GPU at this resolution.

Q: How does the RX 9060 compare to its nearest rival?

A: The RX 9060’s average benchmark score is 16014, while its closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, scores 16129. This is a delta of -0.7%, meaning the RX 9060 is approximately 0.7% slower than the RTX 3060 Ti in aggregate benchmarks.

Q: Is the 8 GB VRAM enough for this game?

A: The data suggests that 8 GB is sufficient for 1080p and 1440p, as the FPS numbers are playable. However, the performance at 4K is poor across all settings, and while this is primarily a compute limitation, the 8 GB frame buffer may also contribute to the low scores at that resolution.

Q: What is the playable FPS range for the Medium preset?

A: The Medium preset shows an average FPS of 76 at 1080p, 57 at 1440p, and 38 at 4K. The min FPS recorded is 65 at 1080p, 48 at 1440p, and 32 at 4K, indicating that frame dips are noticeable but not extreme at lower resolutions.

CPU Role

The Intel Core i3-12100F is a 4-core, 8-thread processor based on the Alder Lake architecture. Its benchmark scores show a strong single-threaded performance, with a 3dmark_single_thread score of 893 and a passmark_single_thread score of 3444. This is beneficial for games like Red Dead Redemption 2, which often rely on a few fast cores for main game logic. The processor’s boost clock of 4.30 GHz helps in this regard. The multi-threaded scores are lower, with a cinebench_r23_multicore score of 11860, but the game does not appear to be heavily multi-threaded based on the FPS data.

The CPU’s percentile vs all CPUs is 68, and its average benchmark score is 13494. Its nearest rival is the Intel Core 3 N355, which scores 13492, a delta of 0%. This places the i3-12100F in a competitive position, but its 4-core/8-thread configuration could be a limiting factor in CPU-intensive scenes with many NPCs or physics calculations. However, the measured FPS data does not show a significant CPU bottleneck. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 102 FPS, and at 1080p High, it gets 64 FPS. If the CPU were the primary constraint, we would expect the FPS to be more consistent across resolutions, as the CPU workload would not increase with resolution. Instead, we see a clear FPS drop with higher resolutions, confirming the GPU is the main bottleneck.

The CPU’s cache configuration includes a 12 MB shared L3 cache, which is modest but adequate for gaming. The lack of a larger cache or more cores does not seem to harm performance in this specific test, as the FPS numbers are respectable at 1080p. The processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, but the memory bandwidth is not listed, which means we cannot analyze its impact. The 3dmark_16_threads score of 4051 is the same as the max threads score of 4023, indicating that the 8 threads are fully utilized, but there is no headroom for additional cores. For this game, the i3-12100F provides enough processing power to avoid being the limiting factor, but users should be aware that more demanding CPU-heavy scenarios could expose its limitations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table compiles the exact measured average FPS values across all tested resolutions and settings.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 3840x2160 | High | 31 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 50 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 38 | 32 | 43 |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 23 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | High | 48 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 76 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 57 | 48 | 66 |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 34 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | High | 64 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 102 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 76 | 65 | 88 |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 46 | — | — |

At 1080p, the spread from Low to Ultra is 56 FPS, which is a wide range. The Low preset’s 102 FPS is excellent for high-refresh-rate monitors. The Medium preset at 76 FPS is a strong choice, and the High preset at 64 FPS is still above 60. The Ultra preset at 46 FPS is the only one that fails to reach the 60 FPS mark. At 1440p, the spread narrows to 42 FPS, with Low at 76 FPS being the only setting above 60. The Medium preset’s min FPS of 48 FPS indicates noticeable dips. At 4K, the spread is 27 FPS, and all settings are below 50 FPS, making the game unplayable by standard smoothness metrics. The data clearly shows that 1080p is the intended resolution for this hardware combination, with 1440p being a compromise and 4K being out of reach.