We benchmarked Crimson Desert across 40 GPUs to see how it performs at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Here's what to expect from your system - and how well it's optimized for modern hardware.
Crimson Desert Benchmark: 40 GPUs Tested
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Well hot damn! The ability for older and lower end stuff to get such frame-rates at 1080p and 1440p on just the high preset is great news. Little adjusting for some optimized settings... and your kinda good to go before even touching things like upscaling or Frame-Gen.
9070 XT seems a bit disappointing compared to 5070 Ti.
godrilla
Posts: 2,294 +1,715
Tom's Hardware has a cpu scalability chart on this title fyi.
Testing CPU scaling in Crimson Desert — X3D wins, but not by much, and Raptor Lake shines | Tom's Hardware https://share.google/VudjCGjDAy3SSx76r
Testing CPU scaling in Crimson Desert — X3D wins, but not by much, and Raptor Lake shines | Tom's Hardware https://share.google/VudjCGjDAy3SSx76r
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 2,263 +4,566
No DLSS 5? No sale!
The hardware scaling looks really good here. Really wish I could use FSR 4 but alas.....
Now how is the game itself?
Now how is the game itself?
Missed mentioning this... now added to the test system specs section:
Unfortunately, at the time of testing, it wasn’t possible to run Crimson Desert on Intel Arc GPUs, which is why there are no Arc results in our data.
Slightly disappointing RDNA 4 performance. 9070 XT loses kinda big to 5070 Ti, while DLSS 4 beats FSR 4 with ease as well. Also, option for MFG on the 5070 Ti. And this is why Nvidia charges more and sells better really. Option to use features. Features that actually works well and has widespread support in games.
Really hope that AMD will improve FSR further. Hoping to see FSR 5 with RDNA 5 / UDNA. And FSR 4+ game support needs to be massively improved as well.
DLSS is in like 1000 games now. Plus mods. Plus injectors (DLSS in FSR/XeSS games).
You can almost use DLSS/DLAA in all games today. If you can't, enable DLDSR and you will be golden anyway. Great for older games. Downsampling with much lower performance hit than native res and with better visual quality than AMD VSR, requires zero game support.
DLDSR on a 1080p monitor is close to magic. DLSS can be used on top in supported games.
4K/UHD downsampled to 1080p looks vastly better, sharper and crisper, than 1080p with DLAA or FSR Native, which requires game support to begin with. Also, DLSS 4 Quality can actually work for 1080p if you lack the performance, meanwhile FSR is not really usable in 1080p. Especially not FSR 3.1 and older, looks horrible. FSR 4 does better here but DLSS 4 easily wins.
It amazes me when people still choose GPU based on rasterization performance alone. My friends 7900 XTX mostly aged like milk compared to my RTX 4090 and we litterally almost paid the same. I could probably still sell my 4090 for 1000 dollars today if I wanted to. 7900 XTX is probably not even worth 500 dollars today, lacking FSR 4 support, bad RT perf (with more and more games forcing RT elements, this is pretty bad)
I would love to see AMD release RDNA 5 before RTX 6000 but we all know they most likely won't. AMD and Intel competes over the lower-end segment mostly. Nvidia petty much owns mid-end and up. Hopefully AMD wakes up for next generation and re-enters high-end market. Intel most likely won't have a high-end GPU ever and with the RAM crisis, low-end GPU market will probably vanish.
Really hope that AMD will improve FSR further. Hoping to see FSR 5 with RDNA 5 / UDNA. And FSR 4+ game support needs to be massively improved as well.
DLSS is in like 1000 games now. Plus mods. Plus injectors (DLSS in FSR/XeSS games).
You can almost use DLSS/DLAA in all games today. If you can't, enable DLDSR and you will be golden anyway. Great for older games. Downsampling with much lower performance hit than native res and with better visual quality than AMD VSR, requires zero game support.
DLDSR on a 1080p monitor is close to magic. DLSS can be used on top in supported games.
4K/UHD downsampled to 1080p looks vastly better, sharper and crisper, than 1080p with DLAA or FSR Native, which requires game support to begin with. Also, DLSS 4 Quality can actually work for 1080p if you lack the performance, meanwhile FSR is not really usable in 1080p. Especially not FSR 3.1 and older, looks horrible. FSR 4 does better here but DLSS 4 easily wins.
It amazes me when people still choose GPU based on rasterization performance alone. My friends 7900 XTX mostly aged like milk compared to my RTX 4090 and we litterally almost paid the same. I could probably still sell my 4090 for 1000 dollars today if I wanted to. 7900 XTX is probably not even worth 500 dollars today, lacking FSR 4 support, bad RT perf (with more and more games forcing RT elements, this is pretty bad)
I would love to see AMD release RDNA 5 before RTX 6000 but we all know they most likely won't. AMD and Intel competes over the lower-end segment mostly. Nvidia petty much owns mid-end and up. Hopefully AMD wakes up for next generation and re-enters high-end market. Intel most likely won't have a high-end GPU ever and with the RAM crisis, low-end GPU market will probably vanish.
Last edited:
Please show with 3x Frame Generation on Performance with Ray Tracing on Cinematic quality, as that is what people will be using. People talk about using Native, but no one is gonna play a game at 30fps (or hell, nothing under 100 nowadays) if they actually like pretty things, which if you're not using Cinematic quality and RR, you're not getting pretty, you're getting fugly af.
VaginaWhisperer
Posts: 22 +29
no ****, test these gpus with dlss and frame gen 2x
fadingfool
Posts: 459 +617
Either you got a great deal or your friend was ripped off as the 7900 XTX was never in the same price bracket as a 4090 (7900XTX rrp $1000 4090 rrp $1600 but rarely less than $2000). I still choose a GPU based on rasterization performance as most of my game collection doesn't use anything else (2,273 games according to GoG galaxy though it struggles to update the games on steam so probably a few more than that now).
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 497 +721
Crimson Desert is sponsored by/partnered with AMD but Nvidia GPUs perform better than AMD gpus.
Resident Evil Requiem is sponsored by/partnered with Nvidia but AMD GPUs perform better than Nvidia GPUs.
Maybe these two games should've switched sponsors...?
Resident Evil Requiem is sponsored by/partnered with Nvidia but AMD GPUs perform better than Nvidia GPUs.
Maybe these two games should've switched sponsors...?
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 497 +721
High levels of frame gen makes input lag terrible...and you need low input lag for fast paced 3rd person action games like this.
Frame gen works well if you're trying to go from 50 fps to 60+ fps but not from 20-30 fps to 60+ fps because at that point you're mostly just duplicating a slideshow and creating bad input lag.
Last edited:
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 497 +721
Look at Techspot's Resident Evil Requiem review. AMD gpus dominate Nvidia gpus despite it being Nvidia partnered for some reason.
Nvidia has better software features but also has a much better marketing and name brand recognition. The majority of people buying an Nvidia gpu probably have no idea what DLSS or FG is even if it is better than the AMD counterpart. Some AMD gpus have better hardware (eg. 9070 having 4GB more VRAM) and usually better price to performance ratios.
Good marketing is why consumers don't hear or care much about Nvidia's problems such as bad RTX5000 drivers (at least 3 of them had to be rolled back), drivers [intentionally?] nerfing performance to reduce voltages to offset the melting capables/overheating issues, melting 12v adapter cables, overheating VRMs in the 5070s, etc.
FSR 4.1 is coming out soon according to the leaks. Techspot reviewed it and it is better than DLSS 4 but not as good as DLSS 4.5.
AMD is pretty competitive at the mid to mid upper range with the 9070 and 9070XT. The 9070 outperforms the 5070 by 10-15% with 4GB more VRAM, while the 9070 XT performs worse than the 5070 Ti but has a better performance to price ratio.
AMD has woken up and followed Nvidia into building GPUs for businesses and AI. Selling GPUs to consumers is not nearly as profitable, and trying to change Nvidia's hold on the GPU market is not worth it and too difficult. Nvidia's brand name power and hold over fanboys is just too strong at this point. The business market is at least 10x bigger and with AI is likely now even bigger.
If Intel is smart they would also jump into the business and AI sectors too.
LimyG
Posts: 587 +252
Thanks, Steven. A really good and helpful article.
I'm also impressed you didn't review the game itself. I mean, this is a large game. Immersion is a factor. How so many sites can review such a game in one day shows they are rushed. Not worth much.
Your performance on different hardware however is very appropriate. Good job.
I'm also impressed you didn't review the game itself. I mean, this is a large game. Immersion is a factor. How so many sites can review such a game in one day shows they are rushed. Not worth much.
Your performance on different hardware however is very appropriate. Good job.
LimyG
Posts: 587 +252
Sounds logical to me.
So is FSR4 with OptiScaler that uses DLSS inputs. There are few rare exceptions where this doesn't work.
No one should have to enable upscaling at 1080p to get playable performance. If a game is not playable at 1080p native and not running at Ultra/Max settings then there's something wrong with the game. Poor optimization more like.
That's becayse today's games are all hybrids of raster and RT. There are only a few games that exclusively use RT or PT to render everything. Until this changes raster perf will always matter. Not to mention myriad of indie titles that mostly dont use RT and a huge backlog of raster titles people have. TOP 10 of most played games in the world are almost all raster exclusive.
Completely different class of cards. 4090 cost near 2000 so 2x the price of the XTX for most of it's life.
Also even if we take 1600 as baseline for 4090 I fail to see how someone could have payed much over 1000 for the XTX. Maybe top of the line model with a custom aftermarket waterblock, but that largely pointless.
I did a quick check on eBay. XTX seems to be going for 750-850 for most models. There are a few listings for used cards in the 500 range, but these are either scams or otherwise suspicious.
Just the 24GB memory alone will ensure that the XTX will not fall too low in the AI age we live in today.
50 to 60 is also the wrong use case for FG.
FG is a measure to bypass CPU limitations and maximize HFR screens.
This means that your base performance before enabling FG needs to be in the 80-90 range to ensure minimum lag.
Then and only then should your enable FG to reach your monitors max refreshrate at 120, 144, 165, 180 etc.
So there is definitely some laziness on display here.
Only been playing for an hour, but everything seems to have this slimy sheen to it.
Like every single thing has a reflective surface?
Also, when you jump on stone, it splashes like you just jumped into some mud.
I am pretty sure the combat gets better, but standing in town and just jumping in place. plop plop plop, mud splash and muddy foot prints.. really.
The pop in with all the little rocks on the ground is annoying.
They cut corners here and there. Over all though, it runs well.. just some few more tweaks here and there.. but by then, I would prolly be bored of it and have moved on.
Only been playing for an hour, but everything seems to have this slimy sheen to it.
Like every single thing has a reflective surface?
Also, when you jump on stone, it splashes like you just jumped into some mud.
I am pretty sure the combat gets better, but standing in town and just jumping in place. plop plop plop, mud splash and muddy foot prints.. really.
The pop in with all the little rocks on the ground is annoying.
They cut corners here and there. Over all though, it runs well.. just some few more tweaks here and there.. but by then, I would prolly be bored of it and have moved on.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Microsoft Office is down to $29 for a lifetime license- TS Dealmaster replied
-
The Best OLED Gaming Monitors: From $350 QD-OLED to Flagship Tandem WOLEDs- Stingy McDuck replied
