[0:02] Cyberpunk 2077 First Light, it's one of
[0:04] the biggest gaming highlights of the
[0:06] year from my perspective. Now, we've
[0:08] talked in depth about the game's new
[0:10] technology and the mostly successful
[0:12] console versions. We've also shared
[0:14] initial thoughts on the PC build in DF
[0:16] Direct, but there's more to discuss
[0:19] here. There have been developments. One
[0:21] of the reasons this review was delayed
[0:23] was that a crucial feature of the game,
[0:25] DLSS upscaling, was essentially broken.
[0:28] With the latest patch, 1.05,
[0:31] that is now addressed, making First
[0:34] Light that much more accessible to those
[0:37] with lower-end systems using lower-end
[0:40] RTX graphics cards. And beyond that, IO
[0:43] Interactive, well, they were generous
[0:45] enough to share their console equivalent
[0:47] settings with us. But the question
[0:49] remains, how much further does the game
[0:51] scale, both downwards and upwards? And
[0:54] beyond console quality, are we looking
[0:56] at diminishing returns? And have our
[0:58] thoughts on the PC version changed much
[1:01] at all since the direct beyond the
[1:03] upscaling issues? But before we go any
[1:05] further, a big thanks to Alienware for
[1:07] sponsoring our PC performance reviews.
[1:10] >> [music]
[1:10] >> And with all of our high-end testing,
[1:12] we'll be using the firm's newly revised
[1:14] Alienware Area-51.
[1:17] Yes, the flagship gaming PC has received
[1:19] a full refresh with a refined focus on
[1:22] high-quality design paired with high-end
[1:24] cooling, taking care of the best gaming
[1:27] silicon on the market. In addition to
[1:29] supporting high-end RTX 5000 GPUs up to
[1:32] the RTX 5090, the new Area-51 also
[1:35] supports AMD's top-of-the-line Ryzen
[1:38] 9000 processors, from the brilliant
[1:40] Ryzen 7 9800X3D
[1:43] through to the latest Ryzen 9 9950X3D
[1:46] II. In our tests, Ryzen 9000 X3D
[1:50] processors offer up by far the best CPU
[1:53] gaming performance available, a key
[1:55] recommendation for a high-spec gaming
[1:57] PC.
[1:58] Keeping thermals in check is the new
[2:00] gasket architecture using a combination
[2:03] of 180 and 140 mm fans to create
[2:06] positive pressure, moving 25% more air
[2:09] while being 45% quieter than prior
[2:12] Area-51 generations. There's a 1500 W
[2:15] platinum power supply and more than
[2:18] enough thermal headroom to handle the
[2:19] extreme demands of the RTX 5090, which
[2:23] pulls 600 W just by itself. Put simply,
[2:26] the new Area-51 is built for the
[2:28] absolute limit of modern PC gaming, the
[2:30] perfect hardware for testing the
[2:32] high-end PC experience in our
[2:34] performance reviews. Check out the link
[2:36] in the video description below to find
[2:38] out more.
[2:39] But of course, that kind of hardware is
[2:41] offering gigantic levels of CPU and GPU
[2:44] power. And so in addition to testing
[2:47] with that kit, we're keeping things
[2:48] grounded as well by looking at more
[2:50] modest components. So, let's kick off by
[2:53] looking at the first boot experience on
[2:56] a Ryzen 5 5600 test system, shader
[2:59] compilation took around 3 minutes to
[3:01] complete. Thankfully, gameplay
[3:03] afterwards was largely hitch-free with
[3:05] no obvious PSO related stutter
[3:07] encountered during normal play. Now, as
[3:10] I mentioned in the intro, the good news
[3:12] is that DLSS is basically fixed now with
[3:15] the most recent update. To quickly
[3:17] recap, DLSS was delivering substantially
[3:19] less performance than expected relative
[3:21] to its internal rendering resolution,
[3:24] resulting in surprisingly small gains
[3:26] across the board. Now, according to the
[3:28] release notes, the update fixes an issue
[3:30] where the game could launch with
[3:32] quote-unquote incorrect upscaling
[3:34] settings impacting performance. Whatever
[3:36] the underlying cause, our updated
[3:38] testing shows DLSS performing much more
[3:40] as expected, uh delivering the kind of
[3:42] scaling we'd normally expect from the
[3:44] technology.
[3:45] Some limitations remain, however. The
[3:47] game still lacks support for FSR 4 and
[3:50] XeSS, while the dynamic resolution
[3:53] scaling system used by the console
[3:55] renditions is also absent on the PC
[3:58] version. Frame generation support is
[4:00] similarly limited, with only DLSS frame
[4:03] generation and multi-frame generation
[4:05] available. AMD and Intel users are left
[4:08] without equivalent FSR or XeSS frame
[4:11] generation options, which isn't great.
[4:15] We did uncover one curious result during
[4:17] CPU-limited testing, however. At 1080p
[4:20] and CPU-bound scenarios, FSR 3
[4:23] consistently underperformed. In other
[4:25] words, FSR 3 seems to be carrying some
[4:28] kind of measurable CPU overhead once GPU
[4:31] limitations are removed. And this one's
[4:33] a bit of a mystery, bearing in mind that
[4:36] FSR 3 doesn't have much, if any, CPU
[4:39] overhead in our experience. It's an
[4:41] entirely GPU-focused task. And as for
[4:45] CPU performance itself, First Light can
[4:48] become quite demanding in scenes with
[4:50] large numbers of NPCs. Areas such as
[4:53] this hotel level are enough to push
[4:54] frame rates below 60 FPS on the Ryzen 5
[4:58] 5600, while chase sequences that heavily
[5:01] test the game's streaming systems can
[5:04] also make it difficult to sustain a
[5:06] consistent 60 FPS. Uh by comparison, the
[5:09] Ryzen 9 7950X3D delivers more than
[5:13] double the performance of the 5600 under
[5:15] the same CPU-limited conditions. That
[5:17] gives you some idea of the kind of
[5:19] contrast between mid-range and high-end
[5:21] processor performance in this game. Um
[5:23] but beyond that, you're looking at frame
[5:25] generation to push yourself further into
[5:27] high refresh rate display territory.
[5:31] Now, with that out of the way, let's
[5:32] take a look at what the higher PC
[5:33] settings actually bring to the table.
[5:35] Going to start with a volumetric effects
[5:37] quality, which governs the quality of IO
[5:40] Interactive's new Smolder volumetric
[5:42] system, one of the key rendering
[5:44] upgrades discussed in our recent
[5:46] developer interview. It's also one of
[5:48] the most visually prominent additions to
[5:51] Glacier's rendering technology while
[5:53] simultaneously being one of the game's
[5:54] most demanding rendering features across
[5:56] the board. When this feature is prolific
[5:59] on screen, frame rates can tumble.
[6:01] What's surprising, however, is just how
[6:03] little changes visually as we move down
[6:06] at the preset ladder. Ultra does produce
[6:09] a slightly cleaner result while lower
[6:11] settings introduce a somewhat grainier
[6:13] appearance, but the underlying behavior
[6:15] effect remains largely unchanged. Smoke
[6:18] density persistence lighting
[6:20] interaction, and shadowing all remain
[6:22] intact across the range of presets,
[6:25] making the differences surprisingly
[6:26] difficult to spot during normal
[6:28] gameplay. Performance, however, tells a
[6:31] different story with high improving
[6:33] frame rate by around 16 percentage
[6:35] points over Ultra. Medium and low
[6:37] provide only modest additional gains
[6:39] beyond that, making Ultra difficult to
[6:41] justify given the relatively minor
[6:44] visual differences. Volumetric fog
[6:46] quality controls the fidelity of the
[6:48] game's atmospheric fog and volumetric
[6:51] lighting effects, and it's an effect
[6:53] used extensively throughout First Light.
[6:56] Visual differences between Ultra and
[6:58] high are generally difficult to spot
[7:00] during normal gameplay while medium and
[7:02] low introduce a slightly coarser
[7:04] appearance to the effect. Despite its
[7:06] heavy use throughout the game,
[7:08] performance scaling remains fairly
[7:10] reasonable with medium improving frame
[7:12] rate by around 10 percentage points over
[7:14] Ultra test scene while low extends that
[7:17] lead slightly further. Unlike volumetric
[7:20] effects quality, however, the visual
[7:22] reductions here are more proportionate
[7:24] to the performance savings on offer.
[7:26] Next up is texture quality, and this
[7:28] scales consistently across the range
[7:30] with each step down reducing texture
[7:32] detail on surfaces and environmental
[7:34] assets. Moving from Ultra down to medium
[7:37] results in fairly subtle reductions to
[7:39] texture quality, though Ultra does
[7:41] provide the sharpest presentation. Low,
[7:44] however, is a much more obvious
[7:45] downgrade with noticeably blurrier
[7:48] textures and some signage becoming
[7:50] illegible. 8 GB cards may be better
[7:52] served by medium at 1440p
[7:55] as it retains most of the visual quality
[7:57] while reducing memory usage. If you
[8:00] prefer to play at 4K, however, further
[8:02] reductions may be necessary to keep VRAM
[8:04] usage in check. Moving on, let's look at
[8:07] level of detail which controls the draw
[8:09] distance of distant objects and foliage.
[8:12] Visually higher on ultra noticeably
[8:14] reduce pop-in compared to the console
[8:16] equivalent medium preset by keeping the
[8:19] higher detailed geometry visible much
[8:21] further from the camera. This setting
[8:23] has very little impact when GPU limited
[8:26] with only around 1 to 2 percentage
[8:28] points separating ultra from low.
[8:30] However, at 1080p where the game becomes
[8:33] more CPU limited, uh the gap grows to
[8:35] around 6 to 7 percentage points on a
[8:38] Ryzen 5 5600 making this primarily a CPU
[8:42] scaling related setting.
[8:44] The focus now shifts to shadow quality
[8:47] and this one scales pretty much as you'd
[8:49] expect. Higher settings produce sharper,
[8:51] more clearly defined shadows while each
[8:53] step down results in progressively
[8:55] softer shadowing. In the scene we tested
[8:57] performance differences were fairly
[8:59] minor overall with only the low setting
[9:01] delivering a measurable gain of around 5
[9:03] percentage points over medium.
[9:06] Much of that performance uplift comes
[9:07] from the removal of self-shadowing on
[9:09] vehicles and foliage as well as a
[9:11] general reduction in shadow detail.
[9:14] Global illumination next which controls
[9:16] the quality of the game's screen space
[9:18] GI elements and radiance probes. Ultra
[9:20] and high look largely identical
[9:22] maintaining indirect light bounce and
[9:24] scene depth while medium and low
[9:25] noticeably reduce bounce lighting
[9:27] particularly in the distance alongside
[9:30] some of the subtle shadowing that helps
[9:31] ground objects within the scene with
[9:34] only a single percentage point
[9:35] separating the highest and lowest
[9:37] settings in our testing, the visual
[9:39] reductions on medium and low are
[9:41] difficult to justify. Reflection quality
[9:43] primarily affects the quality of the
[9:45] game's planar reflections. While these
[9:47] are used exclusively on mirrors, mirrors
[9:50] themselves appear frequently throughout
[9:52] First Light, making this a more relevant
[9:54] setting than it might initially seem.
[9:57] Ultra and high produce near identical
[9:59] results, while medium noticeably reduces
[10:01] reflection clarity, resulting in a
[10:04] softer and lower resolution appearance.
[10:06] Low removes planar reflections
[10:08] altogether, leaving mirrors to rely
[10:10] solely on cube map reflections.
[10:12] Performance costs are largely tied to
[10:14] these planar reflections, with medium
[10:16] improving frame rate by around 10
[10:17] percentage points over ultra in our
[10:19] mirror test, while low extends that lead
[10:22] further.
[10:23] Screen space reflections tell a
[10:25] different story. Here, visual
[10:27] differences are limited to slightly
[10:28] reduced reflection coverage at lower
[10:30] settings, while performance remains
[10:32] effectively unchanged. As a result, the
[10:35] primary trade-off of this setting is
[10:37] really centered around the quality and
[10:39] cost of planar reflections.
[10:41] Taken as a whole, the console equivalent
[10:43] settings provided by IO Interactive also
[10:46] happen to align closely with what we'd
[10:48] consider our optimized settings. For
[10:50] most users, this is where we'd start, as
[10:52] they deliver a visual experience that
[10:54] remains remarkably close to maximum
[10:57] settings while avoiding much of the
[10:59] associated performance cost. But, what
[11:02] happens if we simply max out everything
[11:04] then?
[11:04] >> [music]
[11:05] >> Using the console equivalent settings as
[11:06] our baseline, moving every option to its
[11:08] highest setting reduced performance by
[11:10] around 18% in our testing. So, the
[11:13] improvements are certainly there if you
[11:15] go looking for them, but they're spread
[11:16] across the numerous smaller refinements
[11:19] rather than any single transformative
[11:21] upgrade. And that perhaps explains why
[11:23] the absence of the promised path tracing
[11:25] updates is felt so strongly.
[11:27] >> [music]
[11:27] >> The current ultra settings improve the
[11:29] visuals in a number of ways, but they
[11:31] don't fundamentally alter the visual
[11:33] experience in the same way a more
[11:34] advanced rendering feature potentially
[11:37] could. Now, path tracing, it's coming.
[11:39] So, let's just say that we're very much
[11:40] looking forward to seeing how the game
[11:42] evolves once that update arrives. At the
[11:45] same time, it's good to see IO
[11:46] Interactive responding to feedback. The
[11:49] latest update does appear to have
[11:51] resolved the DLSS scaling issues we
[11:53] previously highlighted with our updated
[11:56] testing showing performance behavior
[11:58] much more in line with expectations. But
[12:01] that said, there are still areas where
[12:02] we'd like to see improvement. IO
[12:04] Interactive told us that the use of the
[12:06] static FSR 3.1.5 library for PC is down
[12:11] to commonality with the console versions
[12:13] of the game. Essentially, it streamlines
[12:16] development for them. But my view at
[12:18] this point is that if a new game
[12:20] supports DLSS, the dynamic library FSR
[12:23] framework should be in there, too. And
[12:25] there needs to be support for Intel's
[12:27] upscaling technology, as well. FSR 4 and
[12:31] XeSS are both absent right now, while
[12:34] frame generation support is currently
[12:36] limited just to Nvidia hardware. IO's
[12:38] prior work on Hitman was exemplary in
[12:41] this regard. All technologies embraced
[12:44] and supported, and I kind of want to see
[12:45] that here, too.
[12:47] So, I think we got a pretty decent PC
[12:49] port here for 007 First Light, but there
[12:51] are areas where we'd like to see the
[12:53] feature set expanded. The lack of
[12:55] broader upscaling support is one, while
[12:58] path tracing remains the obvious missing
[13:00] component for higher-end hardware. We'll
[13:03] be reporting back on the path tracing
[13:05] side of things soon, but for now, if you
[13:07] found the content interesting or useful,
[13:09] please do like, subscribe, share, and
[13:11] ring bells and such for instant
[13:13] notifications. DF Supporter Program,
[13:15] >> [music]
[13:16] >> uh patreon.com/digitalfoundry.
[13:18] Do check that out to support the team
[13:19] and our mission. Get early access to
[13:22] content, closer access to the team,
[13:24] ad-free video downloads, ad-free
[13:26] website. Tons of good stuff there. But
[13:28] that's all for me for now. Thanks for
[13:30] watching and supporting Digital Foundry.