My friend with a 1050Ti is getting 60fps with low-med 1080p settings but I am here getting under 25 fps on all low with a 1050 (4gb) . Should I wait for future patches or the 1050 is just bad?

I believe the 10series is on its last leg for this game. i have a fairly overclocked 1080ti (2075Mhz) and play on 3440x1440 everything on low or even off und barely get 60fps with dips down in the 40th. If you want more than low settings you either need a card that supports dlss or you have to reduce your resolution quite a bit.

I would say your card is too blame especially that it's only has 4gb. What processor and ram like.

I have and most settings on ultra and getting steady 60 at 1080

16gb ram
4790K
1080 GTX (08g)


I was thinking of getting a 2070 but from other posts I've read its just not worth for ray tracing for this game,

The game has so much to offer, it doesn't make sense for anyone to get decent performance from any 1050... The 1050 isn't even powerful enough for a game like Fallout 4...

I did not know they even made 50 series TIs. What is the point?

It's impossible to say considering you don't share any of the other basic information about his system, like what drivers he's running, what OS he has, etc.

That's a much higher res and wider Fov than 1080p 16:9 though. What you describe doesn't surprise me for any what any new cutting edge game would demand.

This is a next gen game, playing with a graphics card 2 gen old isn't really gonna cut it...

this was the same with The Witcher 3, the reason why it looks so good was because they made it thinking of the next gen not the guys holding on to outdated GPU's

I don't understand this argument and why people keep repeating it. CDPR has officially listed minimum and recommended specs for this game. Saying that a recommended card is not going to cut it is nonsense.

What you call 'optimal' varies between people and systems. Two people can have the same GPU and have totally different experiences based on the remaining components and other factors like temperature, disk speed, etc...

The tests they did worked fine for their computers with those specs, they had to test it they didn't just pull a model out of their backside and there are a lot of people with older GPU's that are having great experiences - my brother is one of them... but you have to keep your expectations low when you are basically just passing the bar of 'minimum'

When 8-Core i7 PCs with 32GB of ram and a 2060-Super can't manage 1080p 60fps on medium with raytracing off it's clear the 8-month delay was spent making sure the console versions work well.

For those who didn't buy PC, I hope your experience is better for it.

edit: To those who are running less and getting 60 or aren't having performance problems; I'm happy for you. Cyberpunk at launch is a highly inconsistent experience for many others.

Recommended is not just passing bar of minimum. Recommended should at least give you 1080 60FPS without having to resort to low settings, but with this game it can't even go to 60.

GTX1060 is recommended. There are separate minimum requirements which is something as ridiculous as GTX780
I doubt this game runs even at 1080p 30FPS on a 780

Games like this are examples that fly in the face of techtubers and the like saying "No one should buy a 3080 for 1080p". Well if I want to utilize that 1080p/144hz display of mine fully, YOU BET I WANT A 3080 for this. My 2070 is giving it all it has and there is NO WAY I am maxing out 1080p/144hz here,

With Cyberpunk, it seems like the goalposts have moved yet again! It really is a shame they gave those low recommended specs. It's inexcusable.