Red Dead Redemption 2

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

The Intel Core i5-11400F is a 6-core, 12-thread Rocket Lake processor with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It uses the Intel Socket 1200 platform, runs on a 14 nm process, and carries 12 MB of shared L3 cache along with 512 KB L2 and 80 KB L1 per core. Its 3DMark scores show a clear scaling pattern: 1,691 in the 2-thread test, 3,171 in 4-thread, 4,691 in 8-thread, and 5,652 in max-thread. The near-linear scaling from 2 to 4 to 8 threads suggests the processor handles increasing workload parallelism efficiently, which matters for a game like Red Dead Redemption 2 that can saturate multiple threads.

The CPU's single-thread performance is modest — a 3DMark single-thread score of 868 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,029 — but its multi-thread results are more substantial. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14,372 and Geekbench multi-core score of 7,579 indicate strong aggregate throughput for a 6-core part. This places the i5-11400F at the 75th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,181. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (17,189, 0% delta), Intel Core i7-1260P (17,212, -0.2% delta), and Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (17,215, -0.2% delta). The data shows this CPU is essentially neck-and-neck with those competitors, with deltas under 1%.

In Red Dead Redemption 2, the CPU's role appears secondary to the GPU at higher resolutions, but at 1080p with Low settings, the measured average of 147.2 FPS suggests the processor can feed the RTX 3080 adequately. The gap between 1080p Low (147.2 FPS) and 1440p Low (107.4 FPS) is a 39.8 FPS drop, while the gap between 1440p Low and 4K Low (69.7 FPS) is 37.7 FPS — these drops are more attributable to GPU load than CPU limits. The CPU's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient to avoid becoming a bottleneck at lower settings, but the data implies that at 4K Ultra (33.9 FPS), the GPU is the clear limiting factor.

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

For 1080p, the measured rows show Low at 147.2 FPS, Medium at 112.1 FPS, High at 92 FPS, and Ultra at 64.9 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs 35.1 FPS, while High to Ultra costs 27.1 FPS. Given that the game runs above 90 FPS even at High, the data suggests High is the sweet spot for 1080p — it delivers 92 FPS while offering significantly better visual fidelity than Low or Medium. Ultra's 64.9 FPS is playable but sacrifices 27.1 FPS compared to High for what is often marginal visual improvement in this title.

At 1440p, the measured rows show Low at 107.4 FPS, Medium at 83.3 FPS, High at 68.2 FPS, and Ultra at 51.3 FPS. Here, Medium at 83.3 FPS appears to be the best balance — it stays above 60 FPS and offers a 15.1 FPS improvement over High. Ultra at 51.3 FPS dips below the 60 FPS threshold, making it less desirable for smooth gameplay. The data indicates that 1440p Medium delivers a solid experience without the substantial frame rate penalty of High or Ultra.

At 4K, the measured rows show Low at 69.7 FPS, Medium at 55.6 FPS, High at 45.2 FPS, and Ultra at 33.9 FPS. Low is the only preset that maintains above 60 FPS, and it does so at 69.7 FPS. Medium at 55.6 FPS is borderline, while High and Ultra fall well below 60 FPS. For 4K, the data clearly points to Low as the only preset that provides a consistently smooth frame rate, with Medium as a compromise for those willing to accept sub-60 performance.

The overall pattern across resolutions is that the delta between Low and Medium is smaller than between Medium and High, suggesting diminishing returns at higher presets. The best experience per the measured rows is 1080p High (92 FPS), 1440p Medium (83.3 FPS), or 4K Low (69.7 FPS), depending on resolution priority.

# FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the highest average FPS achievable with this combo at 1080p?

A: The highest measured average FPS at 1080p is 147.2 with Low settings. Medium delivers 112.1 FPS, High delivers 92 FPS, and Ultra delivers 64.9 FPS.

Q: Does this combo maintain 60 FPS at 4K with any preset?

A: Yes, only with Low settings, which delivers 69.7 FPS at 3840x2160. Medium drops to 55.6 FPS, High to 45.2 FPS, and Ultra to 33.9 FPS, all below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The i5-11400F has an average benchmark score of 17,181, which is essentially equal to the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (17,189, 0% delta), and slightly ahead of the Intel Core i7-1260P (17,212, -0.2% delta) and Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (17,215, -0.2% delta).

Q: What is the frame rate drop from 1080p to 1440p at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 92 at 1920x1080 to 68.2 at 2560x1440, a decrease of 23.8 FPS (25.9% lower).

Q: Is the RTX 3080's performance consistent with its benchmark position?

A: The RTX 3080 has an average benchmark score of 35,787 and sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro Duo, scores 35,860 (-0.2% delta), showing close parity. In-game, the measured FPS scales logically with resolution and settings, indicating the GPU behaves as expected.

Q: What settings should a 1440p monitor user choose for the smoothest experience?

A: Based on the measured data, Low settings at 1440p deliver 107.4 FPS, while Medium delivers 83.3 FPS. Both are above 60 FPS, but Medium offers a better balance of visual quality and frame rate.

# How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This Intel Core i5-11400F + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 combination ranks 504th out of 1,687 tested combos in Red Dead Redemption 2. That places it in the top 29.9% of all tested configurations, which is a respectable position given the hardware's specifications. The rank reflects the measured FPS data across all resolutions and settings, aggregated into a single comparative score.

The 504th rank out of 1,687 combos suggests that while this pairing is capable, it is not among the elite configurations. The RTX 3080's 80th percentile GPU ranking and the i5-11400F's 75th percentile CPU ranking both contribute to this mid-to-upper tier placement. The data implies that higher-ranked combos likely feature more recent or higher-end CPUs, as the GPU alone would not explain a lower rank — the RTX 3080 is a strong performer in its own right.

The combination's rank is notable because the GPU is at the 80th percentile while the CPU is at the 75th percentile, yet the combo lands in the top 30%. This suggests that the pairing is well-balanced, with neither component dragging the other down disproportionately. The measured FPS data supports this: at 1080p Low, the combo achieves 147.2 FPS, which is high enough to indicate the CPU is not severely limiting the GPU at lower settings. At 4K Ultra, the 33.9 FPS result is consistent with GPU-bound performance, as the CPU's capabilities are less stressed at higher resolutions.

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

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is built on the GA102 chip with 28,300 million transistors on an 8 nm Samsung process. It features 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU has a base clock of 1440 MHz and a boost clock of 1710 MHz, with memory running at 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective). Its 8,704 shading units, 272 TMUs, and 96 ROPs provide substantial raw compute capability, backed by 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores.

The RTX 3080's FP32 performance of 29.77 TFLOPS and texture rate of 465.1 GTexel/s are directly relevant to Red Dead Redemption 2's rendering demands. The 10 GB VRAM capacity is a notable factor — at 4K with High or Ultra settings, the game's texture and geometry data can approach this limit, and the measured FPS drops (45.2 at High, 33.9 at Ultra) suggest memory bandwidth or capacity constraints at higher resolutions. The 760.3 GB/s bandwidth is substantial, but the 320-bit bus width is narrower than some higher-tier cards, which may impact 4K performance.

The GPU's benchmark results reinforce its capability: a Passmark G3D score of 25,086 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4,407. Its OpenCL score of 167,014 and Vulkan score of 145,176 indicate strong compute performance. The RTX 3080 sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 35,787, closely matching the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (35,860, -0.2% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (36,101, -0.9% delta). In-game, the GPU's role is dominant at higher resolutions — the 4K to 1080p FPS ratios demonstrate that the RTX 3080 is the primary driver of performance scaling.

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

At 1920x1080, the measured average FPS figures are: Low 147.2, Medium 112.1, High 92, Ultra 64.9. The progression from Low to Medium is a 35.1 FPS drop, Medium to High is a 20.1 FPS drop, and High to Ultra is a 27.1 FPS drop. This shows that the largest relative penalty comes from moving from Low to Medium (23.8% reduction), while the High to Ultra step is also steep.

At 2560x1440, the measured average FPS figures are: Low 107.4, Medium 83.3, High 68.2, Ultra 51.3. The drops are: Low to Medium 24.1 FPS, Medium to High 15.1 FPS, High to Ultra 16.9 FPS. The percentage drops here are more consistent, ranging from 18.1% to 24.8%, indicating a more balanced scaling pattern at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the measured average FPS figures are: Low 69.7, Medium 55.6, High 45.2, Ultra 33.9. The drops are: Low to Medium 14.1 FPS, Medium to High 10.4 FPS, High to Ultra 11.3 FPS. The percentage drops range from 18.7% to 25%, showing that even at 4K, the settings scaling remains relatively uniform.

Comparing across resolutions at the same settings, the 1080p to 1440p drops are: Low 39.8 FPS, Medium 28.8 FPS, High 23.8 FPS, Ultra 13.6 FPS. The 1440p to 4K drops are: Low 37.7 FPS, Medium 27.7 FPS, High 23 FPS, Ultra 17.4 FPS. The data reveals that the absolute FPS cost of increasing resolution is larger at lower settings, but the relative cost is higher at higher settings — for example, 1080p Low to 4K Low is a 52.7% reduction, while 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra is a 47.8% reduction.

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

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K provides clear evidence about which component limits performance. At Low settings, the FPS drops from 147.2 at 1080p to 107.4 at 1440p (a 27.1% reduction) and then to 69.7 at 4K (a 35.1% reduction from 1440p). This progressive decline indicates that the GPU is increasingly stressed as pixel count rises — the CPU's workload does not scale with resolution, so the FPS drop must come from the GPU's rendering limits.

At Ultra settings, the FPS drops from 64.9 at 1080p to 51.3 at 1440p (a 21% reduction) and then to 33.9 at 4K (a 33.9% reduction from 1440p). The smaller relative drop from 1080p to 1440p at Ultra compared to Low (21% vs 27.1%) suggests that at Ultra, the GPU is already heavily loaded even at 1080p, so the additional resolution increase has a less dramatic relative impact. This pattern is consistent with the GPU being the primary limiting factor across all settings.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the Low-to-Ultra difference is 82.3 FPS; at 1440p, it's 56.1 FPS; at 4K, it's 35.8 FPS. This convergence indicates that at higher resolutions, the GPU's pixel throughput becomes the dominant constraint, regardless of settings. The RTX 3080's 10 GB VRAM and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth are likely the binding constraints at 4K, as the measured 33.9 FPS at 4K Ultra is far below the 1080p Low result of 147.2 FPS.

The scaling analysis implies that this combo is GPU-limited in nearly all scenarios tested. The CPU's 6-core/12-thread configuration appears sufficient to keep up with the RTX 3080, as evidenced by the smooth FPS progression across resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar FPS at 1080p and 1440p at the same settings, but the data shows consistent drops with each resolution increase, confirming the GPU as the limiting component.