Cronos The New Dawn - Review and comparison of graphic settings, impact on performance

Author Betailas, 14 September 2025. Published in Action/FPS/TPS

Survival horror traditionally rests on two pillars — atmosphere and visual style. The more convincing the game looks, the more the player feels the tension and immerses himself in what is happening. That is why the graphical component of such projects is subject to increased demands: from the quality of lighting and shadows to small details of the environment that create a sense of anxiety and uncertainty. In the case of Cronos: The New Dawn, expectations are especially high — a truly cinematic experience is expected from a studio known for its work with psychological horror.

In this review, we will focus specifically on the graphics component: we will look at what technologies have been implemented, how the visual effects have changed, and how well the design of Cronos: The New Dawn matches the level of modern games.

All measurements were taken on the following configuration at screen resolution 1080p:

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

GPU: MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GAMING X TRIO 12G

RAM: 32 GB DDR5 6200 MHz

SSD: Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1 TB NVMe

The game does not have a very large list of graphic settings by today's standards, most parameters have 3 levels: High, Medium and Low. Those settings that were not included in the review either did not have a visible effect, or the changes are noticeable only in dynamics, which is difficult to record. Some parameters were tested only at extreme values.

The first of the parameters responsible for graphics settings is Ray tracing. In this game, it is implemented in a very strange way. On the one hand, turning on ray tracing should activate hardware Lumen, on the other hand, when it is activated, it is possible to visually distinguish screenshots with ray tracing on and off only upon very detailed examination. The only difference that is visible without a microscope, so to speak, is that the lighting becomes a little simpler when turned off, and the shadows are less saturated. In general, adding hardware ray tracing to the game raises doubts, since the entire game is very dark. Performance when turning on hardware Lumen sometimes drops below 30 fps on the test configuration, which also raises questions about optimization, especially given that these differences must be visually sought out. Let's say this is a very questionable implementation of ray tracing.

Next go Upscalers. There are also questions here, since none of the upscalers are presented natively, only in quality modes. DLSS DLAA can be enabled via Nvidia App, but this is already a crutch, since it is implemented via a third-party utility, so we will only consider the modes built into the game.

Native without upscaling

Image: Clean render without upscaling, with natural noise and slight blur on door textures and shadows. Details are maximal, but artifacts are possible (shimmering on edges).
Performance: 62 FPS - baseline without additional calculations, loading GPU high (presumably ~98%).

Quality/High/Ultra quality

TSR High

Image: Good clarity, close to native, with minimal blur thanks to temporal anti-aliasing. Less shimmering on the letters "A-0".
Performance: 77 FPS (~24% increase from native).

FSR Quality

Image: Slightly sharper than native, but possible "soapiness" on fine details (cables, letters) and slight artifacts in fog.
Performance: 87 FPS (~40% increase from native).

DLSS Quality

Image: Perfect clarity, almost like native, with minimal artifacts thanks to AI processing. Maximum detail in textures and lighting.
Performance: 86 FPS (~39% increase from native).

xess Ultra Quality

Picture: High definition, slightly softer than DLSS, with minimal noise in dark areas.
Performance: 84 FPS (~35% increase from native).

XeSS Quality

Image: A little more blur, but retains good detail, less noise.
Performance: 92 FPS (~48% increase from native).

Сonclusion

Native No Upscaling: Maximum detail, but low FPS (62), with noise and blur. Suitable for powerful PCs or photo mode.
TSR High: Good quality (77 FPS), close to native, minimal artifacts.
FSR Quality: Medium quality (87 FPS), with blurriness and artifacts, a universal option.
DLSS Quality: Best quality (86 FPS), minimal losses, ideal for NVIDIA.
xess Ultra Quality: High quality (84 FPS), slightly softer than DLSS.
XeSS Quality: Good balance (92 FPS), less noise.

Conclusion: XeSS Quality and FSR Quality offer the best balance of quality and FPS (92 and 87), DLSS Quality leads in detail (86), and TSR High (77) is closer to native. Native is for maximum clarity, but with low smoothness.

Balanced

TSR Low

Picture: A little more blur and artifacts than TSR High, but still acceptable for dynamics. The textures on the "A-0" door are slightly blurry, shadows and cables are less clear, but the scene retains its atmosphere.
Performance: 100 FPS (~61% increase from native 62 FPS)

FSR Balanced

Image: Moderate blur, balance between quality and performance, artifacts are slightly more visible. Small details (cables, letters) are smoothed out, but fog and lighting look natural.
Performance: 93 FPS (~50% increase from native 62 FPS)

DLSS Balanced

Image: Slightly more blur than DLSS Quality, but retains good detail and artifacts are minimal. The door and textures remain sharp and noise in dark areas is minimal.
Performance: 96 FPS (~55% increase from native 62 FPS)

XeSS Balanced

Image: Moderate blur, balance of quality and performance, artifacts are noticeable. Door details are slightly softer, but the scene remains legible.
Performance: 100 FPS (~61% increase from native 62 FPS)

Сonclusion

TSR Low: High FPS (100, ~61% increase from native), but with noticeable blur, best for dynamic scenes.
FSR Balanced: Moderate quality (93 FPS, ~50% increase from native), with slight artifacts, universal choice.
DLSS Balanced: Good balance (96 FPS, ~55% growth from native), minimal quality loss, optimal for NVIDIA.
XeSS Balanced: Moderate FPS (100, ~61% increase from native), acceptable quality with noticeable artifacts, suitable for Intel Arc.

Conclusion: TSR Low and XeSS Balanced lead in FPS (100, ~61% increase), DLSS Balanced (96, ~55% increase) offers the best quality among the Balanced modes, and FSR Balanced (93, ~50% increase) is a compromise for general-purpose systems. The choice depends on the priority: smoothness (TSR/XeSS) or quality (DLSS).

Performance

FSR Performance

Image: Significant blur, noticeable artifacts, but acceptable for high frame rates. Textures on the "A-0" door and cables lose definition, fog can look grainy.
Performance: 104 FPS (~68% increase from native 62 FPS)

DLSS Performance

Image: Moderate blur, noticeable motion artifacts, but still acceptable quality. The door remains legible, shadows are slightly blurred.
Performance: 104 FPS (~68% increase from native 62 FPS)

XeSS Performance

Image: Significant blur, artifacts are more pronounced, but FPS is high. Door textures are soft, noise in dark areas is noticeable.
Performance: 105 FPS (~69% increase from native 62 FPS)

Сonclusion

FSR Performance: High FPS (104, ~68% increase from native), but with noticeable blur and artifacts.
DLSS Performance: High FPS (104, ~68% increase from native), moderate artifacts, acceptable quality.
XeSS Performance: High FPS (105, ~69% increase from native), pronounced artifacts.

Conclusion: XeSS Performance is slightly ahead (105 FPS, ~69% increase), while FSR and DLSS Performance are on par (104 FPS, ~68% increase). The choice depends on preferences: DLSS for better quality, XeSS for a small FPS increase.

Ultra Performance

FSR Ultra Performance

Image: Maximum blur and artifacts, quality has suffered greatly, focus on smoothness. Door and surrounding details are almost indistinguishable, emphasis on red lights.
Performance: 120 FPS (~94% increase from native 62 FPS)

DLSS Ultra Performance

Image: Significant blur and artifacts, focus on maximum smoothness. Door and texture details are minimal, the scene is simplified.
Performance: 120 FPS (~94% increase from native 62 FPS)

xess Ultra Performance

Image: Maximum blur and artifacts, focus on smoothness. Details of the door and surroundings are almost lost, focus on general silhouettes.
Performance: 113 FPS (~82% increase from native 62 FPS)

Сonclusion

FSR Ultra Performance : Maximum FPS (120, ~94% increase from native), strong deterioration in quality.
DLSS Ultra Performance : Max FPS (120, ~94% increase from native), significant blur.
xess Ultra Performance : Good FPS (113, ~82% increase from native), but with maximum blur.

Conclusion: FSR and DLSS Ultra Performance leads in FPS (120, ~94% increase), providing ultra-smooth performance with a large loss of quality. XeSS Ultra Performance (113, ~82% increase) lags behind, but retains slightly less blur.

Smoothing The game features TXAA and FXAA.

TXAA (Temporal Anti-Aliasing)

Definition:

Complete elimination of "ladders" on all types of borders
Perfect smoothing of diagonal lines and curves
Preserving sharpness of textures and fine details

Artifacts:

Slight temporary blur when moving the camera quickly
Barely noticeable "trembling" of very fine elements
Minimal image blurring

FXAA (Fast Approximate Anti-Aliasing)

Definition:

Satisfactory smoothing of the main contours
Noticeable loss of sharpness on fine details
Texture blur at medium distances

Artifacts:

Pronounced "soap" effect throughout the entire image
Severe blurring of text and interface elements
Loss of micro-details and texture clarity

Antialiasing Off

Definition:

Absolute sharpness of pixels and textures
Maximum detail of a static image
Clear, unaltered boundaries of objects

Artifacts:

Strong "jagginess" on all inclined borders
Constant flickering of thin lines and wires
Moire artifacts on regular textures and meshes

Quality of shadows.

High

Image quality:

Highly detailed shadows with clear edges
Smooth gradients and soft transitions
High accuracy of rendering complex shadow shapes

Artifacts:

Minimal grain in deep shadows
Barely noticeable shimmer in distant shadows

Medium

Image quality:

Moderate shadow detail
Harder shadow edges
Simplified gradients and transitions

Artifacts:

Noticeable coarsening of complex shadow shapes
The appearance of "blockiness" in large shadow areas

low

Image quality:

Low shadow detail
Sharp pixelated edges
Minimum number of gradients

Artifacts:

Strong flickering and artifacts on moving shadows
"Steps" and stripes in shadow gradients
Loss of fine shadow detail

Texture qualityIf there is a difference between all three presets, it needs to be examined under a microscope.

Shader quality. The situation is similar to textures: the difference, if there is one, is only apparent with a very detailed comparison and in dynamics, while in statics, as can be seen from the screenshots, it is practically non-existent, but the performance decreases very noticeably.

SSAO On (51 FPS)

Image quality:

Improved scene depth and volume
Natural soft shadows in corners and creases
Improved depth and distance perception

Artifacts:

Slight darkening in unexpected places
Minor "noise" in some areas

SSAO Off (61 FPS)

Image quality:

A flatter, less voluminous image
Less depth and spatiality
Less pronounced contrasts between objects

Artifacts:

No SSAO artifacts
A cleaner but less expressive image

Final conclusion

Cronos: The New Dawn demonstrates an interesting approach to the graphics component, but the final result leaves mixed impressions. On the one hand, the developers have implemented modern technologies, including ray tracing and support for several upscalers, but on the other hand, their implementation leaves serious questions.

Ray tracing in the game is extremely questionable. When enabled, performance on a test system with an RTX 4070 Ti can drop below 30 fps, which is unacceptable for a project of this level. At the same time, the visual differences are so minimal that they are simply not visible in most scenes. One of the reasons is that the game is very dark, and the potential benefits of ray tracing are simply lost in low lighting. In essence, it turns out that the load on the system is colossal, and the effect is almost imperceptible.

As for the overall picture, it is generally pleasant and atmospheric. However, due to the dark visual style, a significant part of the details is either intentionally hidden or simply lost. Small elements of the environment and the elaboration of textures often remain beyond the player's perception precisely because of the constant lack of light. This creates a feeling of some understatement and even simplification, especially upon close examination.

The work of upscalers deserves a special mention. TSR, FSR, DLSS and XeSS are implemented, but there is no native mode for upscalers - which is strange for a modern project. Built-in presets allow you to get a good performance boost, especially in the Quality and Balanced modes, but the structure of the settings itself leaves a feeling of incompleteness. You have to use crutches if you need, for example, DLAA via Nvidia App.

Cronos: The New Dawn graphically it looks atmospheric and modern only at first glance. Upon closer inspection it is clear that the project suffers from a controversial implementation of tracing and weak optimization, and the gloomy style often hides details that could make the picture brighter and more expressive. The main working tools for a comfortable game are DLSS Quality or XeSS Quality, but in general the technical level of the project is noticeably inferior to the best modern examples.

To the top of the page

Back
Forward