Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 124 Posts

·
Laptop Enthusiast
Joined
·
9,290 Posts
As someone who's had to deal with having a mid-range GPU at best for the past 5+ years, graphics tweaking is a must for me. Essentially it's keeping shadows lower on the settings while keeping the shader settings on High or Ultra. You can tweak the less-noticeable things and improve performance greatly.

Fallout 4 always baffled me when they put x4 MSAA (or FXAA I don't remember) for the Medium Settings preset. At 1080p, on a 15" laptop, you barely notice the jaggies, and usually if I'm more bothered by the jagged edges of objects anyway, I'm probably not enjoying the game. If I turn that option off, performance immediately jumps 10-15 FPS usually for me. It's always a noticeable jump.
 

·
Avid Memer
Joined
·
5,953 Posts
Every time I mentioned there's no rule that you don't have to run every graphics option at its highest setting, I'm told that we shouldn't have to compromise. Some settings simply aren't necessary, like anti-aliasing at 4K.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,230 Posts
Been playing fortnite since i build my new pc. That game needs AA. It looks terrible without it.

Yes?No?Maybe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,188 Posts
I've always maxed everything, played around with shadows, and disabled AA. I can live with jaggies. I always prefer to max games to see the possible visual fidelity (aside from resolution), no matter how "average" looking it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
"Do You Really Need Ultra Settings?"

Yes. Next question.

...

j/k, I usually turn AA off completely in any game. I just don't like the look of blurry pixels. If they are there, I want to see them dangit.
 

·
Old and Crochity
Joined
·
5,249 Posts
"Do You Really Need Ultra Settings?"

Yes. Next question.

...

QFT.. I don't own a 1080ti so I can benchmark it and laud it over people on OCN
 

·
Official Luddite of OCN
Joined
·
5,730 Posts
Every time I mentioned there's no rule that you don't have to run every graphics option at its highest setting, I'm told that we shouldn't have to compromise. Some settings simply aren't necessary, like anti-aliasing at 4K.
Hrmmm. I guess me running 4x SSAA on old titles is a bit weird then, huh? Aliasing is my biggest gripe and if I've got the horsepower to nuke jaggies I will do so. Anything above the absolute minimum res and lowest setting isn't "necessary" but I sure don't think many would want to play like that if possible.

Tweaking settings is part of the fun, ok it's not fun not to max it even after buying a brand new card but finding the right combo of settings per game is time well spent.

For example, for me to max BF1 at 4k all ultra (txaa for AA) I'd hover around 30fps and sadly often quite below especially when the 4gb cap is hit. That said, using all ultra settings and turning post post processing down to medium at 4k gets me around 40fps avg. Dropping the res scale to 75% (2880x1620 res) has me over 60fps and often averaging in the 70's 99% of the time. 1620p with one setting lower at 60-70fps or 2160p w/ post processing effects slightly more noticeable at 30fps? The choice seems clear, especially on a 28" monitor where the PPI is already high.

In fact, if anyone struggles to play BF1 just lower post processing to medium, it's hardly noticeable and the performance gain is huge.

That said, you make do where you can but yes, the point of a gpu is to push the graphics sliders as far to the right as you can. I'm all for ultra settings at all times if my fps isn't overly compromised. I mean my card is near enough 5 years old now so I can't complain, really.

Edit: Finally started to watch the video, I'm glad they mentioned post processing pretty much up front. It has always been a major performance killer.
 

·
To The Game
Joined
·
7,664 Posts
I find visuals to be more consistent at high/very high compared to ultra settings a lot of the time. Usually ultra you get some things that look great but the quality of the visuals don't hold up over the entire experience. I usually set my games to one under ultra. Though for things like view distance I always max out.
 

·
Totally Tubular
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
The only game I don't run with maxed out settings is Deus Ex: Mankind Divided ... and that's only because I can't get smooth game play with those settings.
 

·
Avid Memer
Joined
·
5,953 Posts
I mean, if you can max out settings without sacrificing frame rate, go for it. I just don't think it's necessary to max out every single setting just for the pure joy of maxing them. I'm also of the mindset that just because something fits in the budget that it isn't necessarily worth buying. It's just my personal philosophy on things. Some people share it, others don't.
 

·
Meow!
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
Today games, it's not like back in 2010 that there is a leap in graphic fidelity. Today games engines are very optimized and bases on different rendering technique to achieve certain styles. Most and all today shader rendering is very much same across the board.

This is why, we barely see any graphical different in shading. The only differences we may see is anti-aliasing, # of objects on screen and draw distance due to the VRAM, RAM and CPU threads+speed.

The next big leap is Ray-Tracing in real time. Wait for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,374 Posts
Been playing fortnite since i build my new pc. That game needs AA. It looks terrible without it.

Yes?No?Maybe?
Resolution? The pixel density has a big part of it.
At 1440p, 27" I use medium AA and everything else but draw distance and textures. With no AA there aren't jaggies but there is shimmering.

Either way, I assumed people knew the settings were there for a reason. Maxed out is just stupid, if there is no visible difference I'll turn it off or low.
Should this really be in the news? No offense to OP, you've has some good ones IMO.
 

·
Graphics Junkie
Joined
·
2,512 Posts
You know what's a lot better than ultra settings?....


Higher res.
 

·
Tank destroyer and a god
Joined
·
2,511 Posts
I usually run through the settings, notice which are pro-Nvidia, which are pro-AMD and disable according the hardware used. In my case I keep high shader settings as FuryX can run them well, even on high settings.

PhysX settings or hair-related settings if PhysX accelerated are disabled.

The guide in OP/YT is obviously directed towards Nvidias with lower shader performance. There is nothing bad about that, however, for those who are aware and know what I speak about... Remember Crysis 1 and alphablending issue which was present on Nvidias back in 2006.

If Nvidia went to similar strategy, when something is not being calculated and then rendered, you would not find any degradation in appearance, nor improvement in FPS.
 

·
waifu for lifu
Joined
·
11,317 Posts
You know what's a lot better than ultra settings?....


Higher res.
My 5k setup had issues after 2 years. Dell discontinued the monitor, so they gave me a replacement current 4k model. I do miss it when playing certain games as there is a different depending on the game you are playing. The Division, TW3 just to name a few. Mostly anything open world.
 

·
Bass Enabler
Joined
·
944 Posts
The discussion about "what is best" for image settings is quite meaningless as it depends on the game in question. Also hardware configuration is a matter as well but let's not get too distracted....

Some games benefit greatly from maximum settings. Others not so much.

It depends on the game.
 

·
Crayon Evangelist
Joined
·
7,609 Posts
If min FPS > 61 then move slider up
If min FPS < 60 then move slider down


Playing games at 4k with SLI 980s means compromises must be made.
 
1 - 20 of 124 Posts
Top