Skip to main content

Cyberpunk 2077 PC v1.05: Has Performance Improved?

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version 1.05 tested
(Image credit: CD Projekt Red)

To say that Cyberpunk 2077 has gotten off to a troubled start is putting it mildly. Bugs and glitches abound, performance on previous-gen consoles is quite terrible, and even on PC, you'll want a fairly potent rig. We've looked at GPU performance, CPU scaling, and even RAM requirements. Meanwhile, the v1.05 patch arrived for PC on Dec. 20 and could potentially invalidate previous benchmarks, so we wanted to do a quick sanity check. There's no sense in putting in dozens of hours of testing if things haven't really changed, right?

Based on our limited testing, and depending on your hardware and settings, the performance differences between 1.04 and 1.05 range from negligible to pretty decent.

If you're running with an AMD CPU and haven't already used the SMT hack to enable the extra threads, v1.05 fixes that for you. How much that matters varies based on your CPU. 4-core/8-thread and 6-core/12-thread Zen 2 and Zen 3 CPUs appear to benefit the most, and 8-core/16-thread chips can also see a moderate boost. However, the 12-core/24-thread and 16-core/32-thread CPUs appear to have enough cores to go around, so SMT doesn't really benefit the game (and may actually drop performance slightly).  

Image 1 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 2 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 3 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 4 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 5 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 6 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 1 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 2 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 3 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 4 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 5 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 6 of 6

Cyberpunk 2077 PC version GPU performance charts

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

What about GPUs? We originally tested the RTX 3080 and RX 6800 XT with version 1.03. On the Nvidia GPU, 1.05 performance is largely unchanged—basically within the margin of error for live frametime captures using OCAT. We did see improvements in 99.9th percentile frametimes, which should mean slightly fewer stutters/hitching, but there's far more variability in 99.9th percentiles (i.e., a few 'bad' frames can quickly skew the results).

On the AMD side, our 1.03 results are higher than 1.05, which in turn is slightly to moderately higher than 1.04. However, I think I may have inadvertently had AMD's Rage Mode overclocking enabled on the 6800 XT during the first round of 1.03 testing, which could account for the differences we're now seeing. That or the stars were in alignment on those first tests, but that's no longer the case. (In other words, I've tried to recreate the original test results on 1.03 and cannot, despite cleaning out all GPU drivers and reinstalling. To be fair, it was a crazy night of benchmarking Cyberpunk 2077 at launch.)

Otherwise, looking at current 1.04 and 1.05 results, 1.05 does appear to improve AMD's performance at 1440p and 4K. 4K performance is 6 percent higher at medium settings and 9 percent higher at ultra settings, while 1440p medium performance is only 1 percent faster, but 1440p ultra is 5 percent faster. There's still no support for ray tracing on AMD's GPUs, but given the number of other bugs and glitches, we imagine that's a lower priority than getting the game to work properly.

What about lower-tier GPUs? Some of those may see similar improvements, but we're going to hold off on retesting any other cards. Besides, it's not like most people would want to run with a buggier 1.03 or 1.04 build. Then again, there's some entertainment in the various things that can go wrong in Night City—though we'd just google those. It can almost be more fun watching the best glitches than playing through the actual story.

Jarred Walton

Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.

  • NightHawkRMX
    Apparently it now runs on a 3000g with like 40fps. :ROFLMAO:
    Reply
  • Giroro
    What test system was used for these benchmarks?

    Also, the official version of the SMT patch sounds like it will not change the behavior of AMD systems with 8+ cores.
    Reply
  • ryan050973
    Playing this game with a RTX 3090 / Threadripper 2950x and other games do not perform like Cyberpunk 2077.

    For example, Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War can be played in 8K with ray tracing at 60 FPS using DLSS.

    No, Cyberpunk can't be played in 8K at 60 FPS. I don't see that Cyberpunk looks any better, so why the nasty performance?
    Reply
  • VforV
    ryan050973 said:
    Playing this game with a RTX 3090 / Threadripper 2950x and other games do not perform like Cyberpunk 2077.

    For example, Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War can be played in 8K with ray tracing at 60 FPS using DLSS.

    No, Cyberpunk can't be played in 8K at 60 FPS. I don't see that Cyberpunk looks any better, so why the nasty performance?
    CP 77 still needs tons of patches and optimizations, so maybe after 6 months would be a good comparison of performance, BUT that being said you can't compare a game like COD with a big open world game like CP 77, the scope and scale of CP 77 is much bigger and broader... educate yourself about the difference.
    Reply
  • ryan050973
    VforV said:
    CP 77 still needs tons of patches and optimizations, so maybe after 6 months would be a good comparison of performance, BUT that being said you can't compare a game like COD with a big open world game like CP 77, the scope and scale of CP 77 is much bigger and broader... educate yourself about the difference.

    Maybe there's a good reason for the difference in performance, but the same thing can be said comparing it to Watch Dogs: Legion and Assassin's Creed Valhalla.
    Reply
  • mortsmi7
    I have ryzen 3600 with a 2070super and it runs way better after the patch. It went from atrocious screen tearing to none.
    Reply
  • Olle P
    Giroro said:
    What test system was used for these benchmarks?
    It's listed in the info square above the charts. It's a system that should see no apparent improvement...

    Would be way more interesting to see the difference impact running an "older" quad core Ryzen with SMT and a mid range video card.
    Reply
  • HappyTrails
    For me just play game it feels like lost a few fps. Not much but maybe 5fps. Exploring experimenting have enable fidelityfx and experiment. So before game would crash but now it not. Seem like dlss better but can now try different things in fidilityfx. Without understanding I am noticing as I raise setting get this interesting effect as pan around quick. Almost blur but game try to make it to fps I set even though I cap the scaling. Have indeed pick up the fps maybe 15-20fps. Would not saying this better just experiment before it not working here. For AMD feel like if this isn't enough help to fun RT but the one setting that is good in RT is one that has least performance hit so maybe enough.
    Reply