Red Dead Redemption 2

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

The measured frames per second reveal a clear pattern of scaling as resolution increases, but the shape of that curve is far from uniform. At Low settings, the jump from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 26% of the frame rate (206.8 down to 152.9), and the further climb to 4K costs another 36% (152.9 to 98.5). That is a steep, consistent drop that points to the GPU becoming the dominant constraint early on — even at Low, where the render workload is lighter.

High settings tell a similar story, though the percentages differ. The 1080p to 1440p transition sees a decline from 129.9 to 96.5 FPS, a reduction of about 26%, and then 4K drops further to 62.1 FPS, another 36% loss. The near-identical relative drops across Low and High suggest that the scaling behavior is governed more by resolution than by the specific preset — a hallmark of a GPU-bound scenario at every tier.

Ultra settings, however, compress the curve dramatically. At 1080p Ultra the system manages 90.5 FPS, which falls to 68.8 at 1440p (a 24% drop) and then to 47.5 at 4K (a 31% drop from 1440p). The absolute losses are smaller in FPS terms because the starting point is lower, but the percentage declines remain substantial. This indicates that even the RTX 5080, with its high bandwidth and compute resources, cannot fully offset the pixel-count penalty at 4K Ultra.

What does this imply about the limiting component? If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the 1080p numbers to plateau or show only modest gains as resolution drops — because the CPU would be doing roughly the same work regardless of pixel count. Instead, the data shows a massive jump from 90.5 FPS at 1080p Ultra to 129.9 at 1080p High, and then to 206.8 at 1080p Low. That spread of 116 FPS across settings at the same resolution is utterly inconsistent with a CPU-limited scenario. The i7-14700F, with its 20 cores and 28 threads, is clearly feeding frames fast enough to expose the GPU's full range of performance.

The 4K numbers reinforce this. At 4K Low, the system delivers 98.5 FPS, which is nearly as fast as the 1080p High result of 129.9 FPS — but that gap is entirely explained by the GPU's workload difference. The fact that 4K Low (98.5) is faster than 1440p Ultra (68.8) shows how much headroom remains when settings are relaxed, further confirming that the RTX 5080 is the primary driver of these results. The CPU is never the constraint; it maintains a consistent frame supply across all resolutions and presets.

FAQ

Q: Does the RTX 5080 provide enough performance for 4K gaming in Red Dead Redemption 2?

A: At 4K High, the combo averages 62.1 FPS, which is playable but not silky-smooth. Dropping to 4K Medium raises that to 77.3 FPS, while 4K Low hits 98.5 FPS. At 4K Ultra, the average falls to 47.5 FPS, so the GPU can handle 4K but only at lower presets for high refresh rates.

Q: How much of a performance gap exists between 1080p and 4K at the same settings?

A: At High settings, the drop from 1080p (129.9 FPS) to 4K (62.1 FPS) represents a 52% reduction. At Low settings, the decline is from 206.8 to 98.5 FPS, a 52% loss as well. The relative penalty is consistent, though the absolute FPS difference is larger at Low.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-14700F holding back the RTX 5080 in this game?

A: The benchmark data suggests no. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 206.8 FPS, which is far above typical display refresh rates and indicates the CPU can feed the GPU ample frames. The CPU's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X, scores only 0.6% higher in average benchmark scores, so the i7-14700F is not a meaningful bottleneck here.

Q: What is the best settings preset for a balanced experience at 1440p?

A: At 1440p High, the average is 96.5 FPS, which is ideal for most monitors. Medium delivers 112.6 FPS, and Ultra drops to 68.8 FPS. High appears to offer the best compromise between visual quality and frame rate, sitting comfortably above 60 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested system combinations?

A: The combo ranks 88th out of 1687 tested combinations, placing it in the top 5.2% of all configurations. This reflects a strong overall pairing, though the CPU's 94th percentile and GPU's 89th percentile scores suggest both components are high-end but not absolute top-tier.

Q: Is there a big difference between Low and Medium settings at 4K?

A: Yes. 4K Low averages 98.5 FPS, while 4K Medium averages 77.3 FPS — a difference of 21.2 FPS. This indicates that even modest preset changes have a significant impact at high resolution, giving users room to tune performance versus visual fidelity.

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

The RTX 5080 brings 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s. For a game like Red Dead Redemption 2, which features vast open-world textures and draw distances, that memory capacity is ample — the data shows no signs of stutter or min-FPS collapse that would indicate VRAM exhaustion, even at 4K Ultra where the average is 47.5 FPS. The bandwidth figure is particularly relevant: at 4K, the pixel throughput demand is enormous, and the 960.0 GB/s figure ensures the GPU can feed its 10752 shading units without starvation.

Clock speeds are modest on paper — a base of 2295 MHz and a boost of 2617 MHz — but the architecture's efficiency compensates. The FP32 throughput of 56.28 TFLOPS is the more telling number; it describes the raw compute available for shader work, which scales directly with resolution. The fact that 4K Low (98.5 FPS) is faster than 1080p Ultra (90.5 FPS) is revealing: it shows that the GPU's compute resources are not the limiting factor at lower settings, but the shading load at Ultra (with its higher-quality lighting and shadows) creates a heavier per-pixel cost.

The GPU's pixel rate of 293.1 GPixel/s and texture rate of 879.3 GTexel/s are the physical limits that explain the 4K Ultra result. At 3840x2160, there are roughly 8.3 million pixels per frame; at 47.5 FPS, that translates to about 394 million pixels per second, which is well below the theoretical pixel rate. The bottleneck is not the rasterizer but the shader complexity and memory latency under Ultra settings. The GPU's 89th percentile ranking among all GPUs — with nearest rivals like the Intel Arc A580 (2.5% lower score) and Intel Arc Pro A60 (1.9% higher score) — shows that the RTX 5080 is competitive but not the absolute fastest, which aligns with the measured 4K Ultra result dipping below 60 FPS.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

Within the database of tested system combinations, this pairing of the i7-14700F and RTX 5080 achieves rank 88 out of 1687 total combinations. That places it in the top 5.2% of all systems tested for Red Dead Redemption 2, which is a strong showing for a mid-high-range CPU paired with a high-end GPU. For context, the CPU alone sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 89th percentile among all GPUs — so the combo's rank is slightly lower than the CPU's standing but higher than the GPU's, suggesting the pairing extracts near-optimal performance from both components.

The rank implies that there are 87 other combinations that produce higher average FPS in this game. Given the CPU's nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X (0.6% higher score), Ryzen 9 9900X3D (1.1% higher), and Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (1.2% higher) — the i7-14700F is not the weak link. The GPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Arc A580 (2.5% lower score) and AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (2.6% lower), are all significantly slower in synthetic benchmarks, yet the RTX 5080 only sits at 89th percentile. This discrepancy suggests that the 87 higher-ranked combos likely pair the RTX 5080 with even faster CPUs, or use GPUs that score higher in the database's aggregate metrics.

The data indicates that this combo is well-balanced: the CPU's 20 cores and 28 threads provide enough parallelism for the game's simulation and AI workloads, while the GPU's 16 GB VRAM and 960.0 GB/s bandwidth handle the visual load. The rank of 88 is respectable but not elite, meaning there is headroom for improvement — likely by pairing the RTX 5080 with a higher-tier CPU like a Ryzen 9 9900X3D, which scores 1.1% higher on average. However, for most users, this combo's standing in the top 5% will be more than sufficient.

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

At 1080p, the system delivers its highest raw frame rates. Low settings produce an average of 206.8 FPS, which drops to 154.0 FPS at Medium, 129.9 FPS at High, and 90.5 FPS at Ultra. The gap between Low and Ultra is 116.3 FPS, a 56% reduction that highlights how much the preset affects GPU load. Even at Ultra, the 90.5 FPS average is above the 60 FPS threshold, making 1080p a non-issue for this hardware.

Moving to 1440p, the numbers remain strong but show the expected decline. Low averages 152.9 FPS, Medium 112.6 FPS, High 96.5 FPS, and Ultra 68.8 FPS. The Ultra result is close to the edge of smoothness — below 70 FPS — but still playable. The spread between Low and Ultra is 84.1 FPS, which is slightly smaller in absolute terms than at 1080p, indicating that the GPU is starting to feel the resolution pressure.

At 4K, the curve becomes more constrained. Low averages 98.5 FPS, Medium 77.3 FPS, High 62.1 FPS, and Ultra 47.5 FPS. The Ultra figure is the only one that falls below 60 FPS across all tested configurations, making it the sole setting that requires compromise for a smooth experience. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is 51.0 FPS, which is proportionally similar to the other resolutions but smaller in absolute terms — a sign that the GPU is nearing its limits at this pixel count.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset offers the most consistent scaling: 154.0 at 1080p, 112.6 at 1440p, and 77.3 at 4K. This represents a fairly linear drop of about 27% per resolution step, which is a healthy curve that suggests the GPU is being utilized efficiently without hitting a hard ceiling.

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

The measured data offers a clear hierarchy for selecting a preset based on target resolution and frame rate preference. For 1080p, all presets exceed 90 FPS, so the choice comes down to visual fidelity: Ultra at 90.5 FPS is the best option for maximum quality, while High at 129.9 FPS is ideal for high-refresh-rate monitors. There is no reason to use Medium or Low at 1080p unless targeting extreme refresh rates above 144 Hz, where Low's 206.8 FPS would be useful.

At 1440p, the recommendation shifts. Ultra at 68.8 FPS is playable but leaves little margin for dips, while High at 96.5 FPS is the sweet spot — it provides a 40% improvement over Ultra while retaining most of the visual quality. Medium at 112.6 FPS is also a strong contender for competitive play or high-refresh displays, and Low at 152.9 FPS is reserved for those who prioritize frame rate above all else. For most users, High at 1440p is the best balance of image quality and smoothness.

At 4K, the options become more constrained. Ultra at 47.5 FPS is below the 60 FPS threshold and will feel sluggish on standard monitors. High at 62.1 FPS is just above 60, making it the entry point for a playable 4K experience. Medium at 77.3 FPS is a better choice for those who want headroom, and Low at 98.5 FPS is excellent for high-refresh 4K displays. Given the trade-offs, High at 4K is the minimum recommended preset for a smooth experience, with Medium being the preferred choice for stability.

The data also suggests that downgrading from Ultra to High at any resolution yields a substantial FPS gain: +43% at 1080p (90.5 to 129.9), +40% at 1440p (68.8 to 96.5), and +31% at 4K (47.5 to 62.1). This makes High the most efficient preset across the board, offering the largest relative improvement for the least visual cost.

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

The Intel Core i7-14700F is a 20-core, 28-thread processor based on Raptor Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its cache layout includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 33 MB of shared L3. These specifications matter for Red Dead Redemption 2 because the game's open world features many concurrent simulation tasks — NPC behavior, physics, and scripted events — which benefit from high core counts and large caches.

The CPU's benchmark scores provide context for its gaming performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 35443, while its single-core score is 5003. The single-core result is particularly relevant for gaming, as many game threads are latency-sensitive and cannot fully utilize all 20 cores. The high boost clock of 5.40 GHz ensures that the CPU can deliver strong single-thread performance, which is reflected in its Geekbench single-core score of 2711 and PassMark single-thread score of 4261.

The data shows that the CPU is not a limiting factor in this game. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 206.8 FPS, which is a demanding scenario for any CPU because it must generate frames as fast as the GPU can render them. The fact that the frame rate scales linearly with resolution (206.8 at 1080p, 152.9 at 1440p, 98.5 at 4K) indicates that the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU. If the CPU were struggling, we would expect the 1080p numbers to be lower and the scaling from 1080p to 4K to be less pronounced.

The CPU's nearest rivals confirm its position: the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X scores only 0.6% higher on average, and the Ryzen 9 9900X3D scores 1.1% higher. These are marginal differences that would not translate into meaningful FPS gains in this game. The CPU's 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54097, shows that it is a top-tier processor that can support even the fastest GPUs without becoming a bottleneck. For Red Dead Redemption 2, the i7-14700F provides ample headroom, as evidenced by the consistent FPS scaling across all tested resolutions and settings.