A pre-release benchmark indicates that the game can perform strongly on powerful hardware, while a full-game PC review points to occasional severe cutscene drops that a short scripted run may not reveal. For Windows players deciding whether to buy at launch, the important issue is not a single average-frame-rate number: CPU choice, scene type, graphics settings, upscaling, and the difference between a benchmark and the complete game all matter.
What the available benchmark actually measures
The game has an official PC benchmark tool, and its structure is unusually important when interpreting the early results. The run lasts roughly five minutes. It begins with real-time cutscenes and moves into gameplay that places substantially greater demand on the CPU.
That makes the tool more useful than a cinematic-only benchmark. It includes a section that can expose processor limitations instead of measuring only a comparatively GPU-bound sequence. But it remains a brief scripted test. The evidence establishes the cutscene-to-gameplay structure, not that the tool documents every type of encounter, transition, traversal workload, or asset-loading condition a player may see in the campaign.
This is a limitation inherent to any fixed benchmark sequence. It can help establish whether a system is broadly capable of running the game at a chosen resolution and preset. It is less reliable as proof that a player will never encounter a scene-specific slowdown, traversal hitch, cutscene dip, or other issue outside the sampled sequence. A high average from a five-minute run and a smooth-feeling 30-hour playthrough answer related but different questions.
Strong results on a high-end test system are not universal results
One early technical analysis reports its measurements from a Ryzen 9 7950X3D system running Windows 10, using a disclosed GPU and driver configuration. Its conclusion was that the benchmark’s gameplay segment could become CPU-limited. That is useful evidence, but it should be read as a result from that controlled setup rather than a guarantee for every Windows PC.
A separate wide-ranging CPU comparison also found that processor selection materially affects performance in this title’s benchmark. The gameplay half of the test, rather than the preceding cutscenes, is where that sensitivity becomes more visible. In practical terms, a system can have a capable graphics card and still fall short of its expected frame rate at lower resolutions or with settings intended to maximize performance.
That behavior is familiar in modern PC games. At 4K with demanding visual settings, the graphics card commonly sets the limit. At 1080p, particularly when upscaling is used aggressively or a powerful GPU is installed, the CPU has more opportunity to become the constraint. Raising GPU-heavy options may lower frame rate, but can also shift the bottleneck away from the processor. Conversely, reducing resolution will not necessarily unlock proportionally higher performance if the game’s CPU-side workload is already holding the system back.
The practical consequence is that players should not assume Low settings always produce the best-feeling experience. On an older or midrange CPU paired with a fast GPU, lowering GPU settings may make a processor bottleneck more apparent without fixing it. Testing a couple of balanced configurations, rather than moving every slider directly to Low, is likely to be more useful.
Why full-game reports complicate the smoothness verdict
The benchmark analysis reported no stutters during its test use. That is encouraging evidence for the benchmark and the tested Windows 10 configuration, and suggests the game is not automatically afflicted by constant hitching. It does not settle the question for the finished game, however.
A full-game PC review based on an approximately 30-hour playthrough described overall performance as smooth, but also reported a few unusual moments of heavy frame-rate loss during cutscenes. Those drops were described as infrequent rather than persistent, yet they remain important. A short benchmark may not include the affected scenes.
The fairest conclusion is therefore conditional: early evidence supports generally good PC performance, especially on capable hardware, but does not justify a blanket promise of hitch-free play for every user or every part of the campaign. Players particularly sensitive to frame-time spikes may want to wait for broader launch-period testing across several hardware tiers and game areas.
This is also why average FPS needs context. A 60 FPS average can feel excellent if frame delivery is consistent; it can feel poor if a scene periodically drops hard during a dramatic cutscene or demanding encounter. Frame-time consistency, low-percentile results, and repeated testing in actual gameplay are especially valuable for a sword-action game where timing and visual clarity influence play.
PC features: a useful toolkit, with caveats
The PC release is listed with NVIDIA DLSS 4.5 and AMD FSR 3.1 for super-resolution upscaling. Independent hands-on reporting also identifies FSR 3 frame generation, ray tracing, and ultrawide support. That combination gives Windows users several ways to tune image quality, GPU load, and display compatibility.
Super resolution is likely to be the most broadly relevant option. Rendering below native resolution and reconstructing the image can free GPU capacity for a higher preset, ray tracing, or a more demanding output resolution. It is particularly useful when the graphics card is the limiting component. The value of an upscaler nevertheless depends on the selected quality mode, output resolution, scene detail, and the player’s tolerance for reconstruction artifacts.
Frame generation deserves more careful treatment. It can raise the displayed frame rate where a game is primarily GPU-bound, potentially making high-refresh displays look smoother. It does not provide the same benefit when the CPU is already the limiting factor, and it cannot eliminate an underlying simulation or scene-performance problem. It should not be treated as a substitute for a stable base frame rate. Players should first seek satisfactory responsiveness and consistency without generated frames, then decide whether frame generation improves their specific setup.
Ultrawide support is straightforwardly welcome, but users should still check interface and cutscene presentation on their own display format after launch. Support for an aspect ratio does not necessarily mean every cinematic or menu was designed around it equally well.
Ray tracing is available, but the currently available material does not establish how substantial its visual benefit is across the game, nor does it independently verify a path-tracing mode. Buyers should avoid making a hardware-upgrade decision on the assumption that ray tracing is essential to the experience. It is better approached as an optional quality setting to test after installation, balancing visual preference against GPU cost on a specific PC.
Windows version, storage, and the publisher targets
The publisher/storefront requirements list Windows 11, 16GB of RAM, and an SSD. They set a minimum target of 30 FPS at 1080p Low with upscaling, and a recommended target of 60 FPS at 1080p Medium with upscaling. The listing also warns that frame rate may drop under excessive load.
Those are useful baseline targets, but they need to be read literally. They are not native-resolution results, maximum-setting results, ray-tracing results, ultrawide results, or a guarantee of fixed frame times in every scene. “Recommended” here means a 1080p Medium target with upscaling enabled; it does not assure that every PC at the recommended specification will sustain 60 FPS under all conditions.
There is also a noteworthy mismatch in the available information. The early benchmark system used Windows 10, while the publisher’s listed requirement specifies Windows 11. The test result is not proof that Windows 10 is unsupported in practice, nor does it establish equivalent behavior between the two operating systems. It means Windows 10 users should be cautious about treating that benchmark configuration as an official compatibility promise.
The SSD requirement should be taken seriously. Modern games often depend on prompt asset access as players move through environments and sequences. An SSD cannot guarantee perfect frame times, but meeting the stated storage baseline is a sensible first step before diagnosing performance through graphics settings alone.
Denuvo is present, but causation has not been shown
The PC store listing identifies Denuvo Anti-Tamper DRM. That fact will concern some prospective buyers because DRM is often discussed alongside stutter reports. The available evidence does not demonstrate that Denuvo causes, worsens, or has no effect on the observed performance behavior in this game.
That uncertainty matters. The infrequent cutscene drops reported during a full-game playthrough could arise from many factors, including scene-specific rendering demands, asset handling, CPU workload, drivers, game patches, or configurations not reproduced by a short benchmark. Assigning those events to DRM without controlled evidence would be speculation.
For consumers, the actionable position is narrower: recognize that Denuvo is part of the PC package, assess the game on its observed performance and feature set, and watch whether patches and broader testing change the picture after release.
Sensible launch-day settings strategy
Players with modern hardware should begin by establishing a stable baseline rather than enabling every visual feature immediately. Use the benchmark as an initial comparison tool, then validate the result in regular gameplay and across several cutscenes. If the game is GPU-limited, experiment with DLSS or FSR super resolution before making large sacrifices to texture quality or other visual settings. If frame rate stops improving as resolution and GPU settings are lowered, suspect a CPU limit rather than repeatedly reducing image quality.
For users considering frame generation, first choose a native or upscaled setting that already feels responsive. Then test generated frames during combat as well as camera movement and cutscenes. A much larger FPS counter is not automatically a better experience if input response or visual artifacts become distracting.
Finally, keep drivers and Windows current, install the game to an SSD, and do not treat one benchmark score as the whole story. The evidence so far supports a capable PC version with meaningful display and scaling options, but its performance profile appears dependent on workload and hardware balance. Check the store’s regional unlock display before purchase, then tune based on actual gameplay rather than assuming either flawless optimization or a fundamentally broken port.