Medium raytraced preset with dlss on performance is the only way i can keep it above 60fps @4k. Disabling dlss cut frames in half. There is definitely more tweaking to be done. Digital Foundry on youtube usually puts out videos with detailed graphical analysis of each setting for new games.

The game looks fucking phenomenal I don’t think the videos did it justice.

You cheat at chess buddy so I'll take any claims from you with a grain of salt.

So despite how alive the city feels due to its mind-blowing ray-traced lighting, it’s still sterile. Things don’t just happen in Night City. At its heart, Cyberpunk 2077 is a map game. You choose a quest off the menu and then go and do whatever the developer designed for you.

...

If the game wants, you can sit back and drink a beer with a friend, but this is not something you can initiate on your own.

...

The problem is that the world of Cyberpunk 2077 suggests so much possibility. The megabuildings that make up the city’s skyline suggests vast interior spaces that don’t really exist. Merchants with a finite number of eurodollars suggests a simulated economy that isn’t in the game. The bustling streets suggests the potential for emergent story moments that almost never really happen.

Beat it on ultra settings...

So you won’t play until 2022. Got it...

The makers of one of most anticipated games of the year have apologised and offered refunds amid a backlash from gamers about performance problems.

Nvidia don't want the really nice looking game on the AMD consoles yet

Nvidia isn't limiting anything, there's only so much you can get out of a closed-up plastic box that's trying to cut as many corners as possible to keep costs down.

While I fully appreciate that the consoles are not as good as a high end GFX card, a PC costing the same as a console couldn't run CP2077 anywhere near as well as a latest gen console. That being said, there are no PCs that can run CP2077 at 4k60 with all the bells and whistles on. Even with DLSS upsampling from 1080p, it drops frames.

Yeah but I wasn't claiming that. If I was only into gaming, I couldn't justify building a high-end rig and maintaining it. But since I use it as a workstation most of the time, the gaming potential is a bonus. Although with the way consoles are becoming obsolete faster, the cost gap is closing compared to a custom PC

Consoles can't handle modern games without gimping down the lighting effects, AI, and physics computations. Even with the newest models, they can't achieve true 4K at 60fps despite all the marketing hype.

In order to have the convenience and relatively cheap cost of a console—although it adds up with overpriced games, expensive peripherals built to break, online subscription services, etc.—the performance and graphics quality has to suck compared to a PC. Problem is hardcore console fans don't understand this, so they're review-bombing a game that looks and runs great on high-end hardware where it was meant to be played.

No single GPU on the market can run the latest and most graphics-heavy games at ultra settings in 4K 60fps. There are a lot of dumbass PC gamers with money to burn that don't realize this and get mad when Cyberpunk makes their cards squeal. 1440p 144hz is the sweet spot right now for maximum quality and performance.