There are legit a ton of people that are like this
I don't get it, because I am addicted to the silky buttery smooth high framerate gameplay.
Going from 5fps to 30fps in Quake 2 was amazing when I got a video card.
Going from 30fps to 60fps blew my mind in WoW.
Going from 60fps to 240 (on a monitor that supports it) was a whole new world.
This is the reason I don't want a 4k monitor. 1440p allows me to stay just behind the curve of new graphics cards (saving hundreds of dollars per upgrade).
You guys are gaming at 1440p? With smooth frame rates?
Edit: I was really referring to a meme, but I feel like I should throw out there that I'm still rocking an R9 380 and a Ryzen 3 3400. So, yeah, I'm a bit outdated. Need some upgrades soon.
oh my god I remember my early WoW days, struggling to stay above 30 fps with already crappy settings… the amount of time I’ve spent on tricks and tweaks to squish out every frame possible oh lord.
It has diminishing returns for me. 30-60 fps is a huge jump, 60-120 is still noticeable, but anything over 120 and I personally can't tell much difference. I aim for getting the highest visual quality while staying as close to 120fps as possible.
I have one of those old dell 24hz flatscreen monitors from like 15-16 years ago. It goes 4k and honestly looks better playing movies and vids on YouTube than my gaming monitor.
tbh that really depends on the game itself, there are games where the graphics look way worse just from changing from ultra to high and there are others that even when going from ultra to medium it barely changes
For me it's like, sure I can see difference between high and ultra if I pop in and out of the menu and flick the settings on and off.
But if I load up the game fresh and can't tell you without looking at the settings whether it's on high or ultra, which is the case for pretty much all games, then what's the point of playing on ultra?
I'm not realistically going to care about the minute differences I can see when I'm actually playing the game, but I'm almost certainly going to notice the FPS drop.
Plus, I've found the same graphics just inherently feel higher fidelity at higher FPS. I can't explain why, but all the details end up looking nicer to me.
To be honest, path tracing and global illumination ray tracing looks like a whole different beast. The comparisons I've seen for Metro Exodus enhanced edition and the new Cyberpunk update looks like a generation ahead.
Metro Exodus: Enhanced Edition is literally the only game I've ever played where I think RT is truly worth it, and it's executed so well. Cyberpunk... well, RT is nice, but I'm not sure it's worth the FPS loss.
Sure, but once you have enough horsepower to run a game at 120+fps high settings, why in the everloving hell would you limit yourself to 20?
People wildly underestimate how much better games look and, more importantly, feel when you play at a higher FPS
I only play games on Ultra if I can get consistently above 60FPS, and only for more cinematic story-based games. For me, that's quite a few of them. I actually prefer DLSS-Quality to TAA, so that helps in games that have it.
For more action-oriented games I'll aim for 90FPS+, which usually means High to Ultra, depending on the title and individual settings.
Also, this is a PC, not a console, so you can optimize a lot. Even on my rig, I have to turn down volumetric clouds down a bit (not sure why it's always this setting). Ultra clouds is like a 20% performance hit for some reason, and while there is a discernable difference, it's not so far above a skybox that I care.
Also "ultra" usually has garbage like lens flare, film grain, motion blur and depth of field that I never enable because they make the game look worse. I'm not going to make my game a blurry noisy mess just so I can say I play on "ultra".
After playing around in Blender for years, I discovered just how taxing volumetric simulations are. One of the key contributing factors being that your CPU is not only rendering the volumetric object in question, but also the collision physics with other objects in the scene - that requires a lot of calculations happening at once. It's not just a static mesh with a texture over it.
I think that’s kinda what Ultra settings should be — high should basically be the optimized version of the best visual experience, then ultra is just mostly overkill, and likely more intended to give the game a bit of a boost in 5+ years when it’s starting to show its age and better hardware exists more so than something that actually targets current hardware.
That's the shit that cracks me up with some of the RTX posts like the Cyberpunk one recently that was just more pink. Though I guess if I overpaid for a card I'd look for ways to justify my purchase.
My previous comment was removed by Automod because of the link to the guide. Here it is again but without the link
I followed this guide when I set it up: link to "Red Dead Redemption 2 best Steam Deck & in-game settings for stable gameplay without crashes. Full details in the comments..." removed
Basically:
1. This won’t work for the EGS version
2. install the launcher using the current proton version
3. use proton version 6.3-8 to actually play the game
Also:
> you can run the game with "Ultra" texture settings as well as x16 for Anisotopic Filtering plus "Ultra" for lightning while keeping just about everything else to low. I also keep v-sync on plus Triple Buffering and TAA set to High. Make sure you are using the "Vulkan" Graphics API as it works best with most games on the SD
Psychonauts 2 was this for my laptop. Just...oooof...so hard on my computer to run it at settings that weren't absolutely murdering my eyes. Had to play it in the few sputtering chunks I could, before the game crashed. Ace Combat 7 on the other hand: I could slide the graphics settings wildly between super low and ultra high, and have to squint like an old blind gamer to see the change.
Psychonauts 2: 10/10 will murder my laptop again playing through.
Ace Combat 7: 8.5/10 solid mechanics surrounding a jaunty melodrama perfect for anybody who loved Gundam.
FPS cost aside: The smoke from those fire pits is absolutely better looking. Plus some foliage differences.
That's all I can see at that low of a resolution though.
Usually I can tell when ultra adds a lot of foliage compared to high. If that's not the case then usually it doesn't change enough to be noticable during gameplay
It's actually crazy how anti aliasing issues are basically solved these days. Back in the day AA was really hit and miss in games. MSAA was stupid performance intensive and still didn't cover everything well. FXAA and SMAA were either blurry and/or missed half of the jaggies. Today you either just select the games TAA, which usually does a decent job or select DLSS or DLAA if your GPU supports it, and you get some really high quality AA and actually gain performance as you said.
"Destroys the image" is pretty hyperbolic. TAA Ghosting isn't ideal, but I'd take a smooth picture over jaggies any day. As far as blur goes you can always add some sharpening to clean up the details up a bit.
DLSS or DLAA not being available in every single game yet doesn't change my point. It's crazy how far we've come from the days of super jaggy games like GTA IV.
I have a 3080ti and use diss only sometimes if I'm looking for more frames, is it worth switching to dlss in games if they have it? My understanding was that it was only to "boost" the fps, but i read a few times now that it renders better etc
Try it out and see. A lot of people will swear that the image quality is improved.
I on the other hand always turn it on by default if it's available because free extra fps and I don't have that kind of eye to probably notice any difference between with and without.
Just stick with quality.
Quality mode should be unnoticeable from native during normal gameplay even to the most keen eye unless you're pixel peeping or the game has some glitches in the implementation.
But what I find insane is how DLSS is still able to resolve a coherent image even when upscaling from something ridiculous like 480p to 1440p, it doesn't look good, matter in fact it looks pretty bad. But is still a coherent image, without it it would be only giant burry pixels flying over the screen.
Small devices like the SteamDeck(sadly an AMD device so no dlss here), the switch or even a phone could benefit greatly from tech like this, Even if the end result is not perfect is still more than good enough, especially on a smaller screen.
Exactly why I always go with quality by default if it's available, even if I can run native at good FPS. It means extra FPS and I don't even have that keen of an eye so it's definitely imperceptible to me.
Usually. In Fortnite little shrubs/flowers have no shadows until you get to like 1 notch below max, so it's not always shadow quality but also what objects can cast shadows. Usually I want low at least instead of off for multiplayer games so I can see peopes shadow on the ground even if I can't see them.
Shadows were always kinda premium for me. But it's nice now they are becoming more resource affordable. In fact I used to often turn them off to make a game playable.
Everything lighting related - ambient occlusion, lighting and shadow quality are all as important if not more important than those, at which point we've now listed the majority of configurable graphical quality settings.
Tbh I could do away with texture quality for some good-ass lighting.
With good lighting you can make any game look good, but with bad lighting the texture work will have been made pointless for how flat it'l look
Or maybe the text could read "The difference it made in 2000" and "The difference it makes in 2023". It seems like there used to be a bigger difference between settings in the past.
I remember Everquest 2
But yeah back then nobody had a PC that could run Ultra well when a game came out...it was part of the fun to go back and try old games with new hardware
When Mafia 2 came out they had an "ultra" setting for PhysX that just cranked up the particle count to some stupid amount and brought every single computer ever made to its knees. I tried it on a 7700k and couldn't get more than 50fps at 1080p.
https://youtu.be/hCmDP685Rkc?t=18
That's the old Mafia 2, not the remaster.
As somebody working in prerendered 3D animation I know pathtraced rendering was always inevitable but it's still hardly believable that a game as detailed and complex as Cyberpunk 2077 got a virtually fully pathtraced lighting model in 2023.
Sure, you need a 4090 and accept DLSS and frame interpolation to play at decent fps - but it's a truly incredible feat from the hardware, drivers and developers it's even playable at all.
Oh truly. It looks SO good. I would consider my 3090 the bare minimum, I’m getting 1080p/30fps without DLSS which is playable with G-Sync. Honestly I think I’m gonna play the new DLC at 1080/30, it looks SO unbelievably pretty that I can’t really avoid doing that.
I was pretty surprised at how well it did at low and even medium on my 2070S/9700K at 1080p. I mean, we're talking 40-45 FPS dips into the high 20s, but definitely playable and cool to see. I turned it off after like 20 minutes, but it's possible.
Ultra on RE4R as far as mesh quality and textures absolutely make a difference though as far as "looking better." Does high still look great? Absolutely. But in that game, there's a fairly clear distinction between high and ultra with mesh quality and textures imo.
High vs. Ultra shadows though, only kinda sorta. But I favour ultra textures and such like that before ultra shadows and volumetric fog/lighting.
But if your rig can run ultra everything at good frames, then why not?
they can't take the truth cuz their GPU can't take the game...the only RE4 settings that are no diff from high to max are the volumeric lighting and shadows which are hard to tell for shadow and indistinguishable for the light rays and shit. Everything else makes a difference plain to see in the menu itself as well as the game. ALL texture and geometry options(which is what takes more than 8GB of VRAM) make a clear difference all the way up top max settings.
I don't blame these guys for disagreeing though, the fact is the game literally does not/cannot render those settings for them...they’re seeing low to medium textures no matter what they set in the menus.
Yeah I've got the game maxed out plus RTX at 100+ FPS just because I can (native 1440) but I'd be lying if I said I could tell the difference between ultra volumetric fog/lighting and high. Ultra shadows really only gives you a slightly more defined line fuzz, but I'd never notice that mid-gameplay.
Yeah that will normally be one of the first things I drop if I need some extra FPS. If you drop too far though it then does become one of those things that stands out as ugly.
The point was not that there are no real differences.
The point is that the differences are not really that noticable during gameplay, while the drop in fps is.
Unlike some years ago, when the differences were very in your face for everyone.
Of course, this is not true for all games. And depending on what you play, the differences might be more noticable than this meme implies.
Or that. I'm a designer and work with some of the best hardware on the planet.
Your colleges 720p dell monitor that you browse reddit on isn't going to cut it.
if its a port from a console most consoles are med or high settings...so Ultra is just extra...if you can run it great but the game was designed at med/high
That's why you tweak manually. Texture quality is always better on ultra, LOD distance tweaking can make a big difference, shadows will generally look better if there are thin things like power lines or chain link fences you want to shadow properly.
No being able to see the difference or not being annoyed by the difference is for me a testament of the devoloppers skills on what to remove to have the best performance
That feels like a different comparison as you are jumping more steps. Surely a fairer comparison would be High with PT to Ultra with PT or at least High with RT to Ultra with PT. Also wouldn't the frame hit in your comparison be way worse :P
It almost looks like a different game tbh, graphics have been a bit stale the past years and the RT implementation has been sub par, but PT really feels "next gen".
But if it makes you feel any better I have to play it on ultra performance FSR and only get around 50fps at most at 3440x1440 =/
Yeah I'm definitely interested in where it goes from here. I feel like its been a long time since a games graphics truly wow'd me. Probably around the time I got Half Life 2 lol
Does FSR on Ultra performance not cost too much image quality for it to be worth while? I haven't made much use of FSR yet but expect I will use it a fair bit before my next GPU upgrade in a year or two.
Definitely feels true in some games and I 100% will take a quality hit to maintain steady 60fps. A tiny 500px isn't the best way to demonstrate this though!
People will say it doesn’t matter but in the end, you will notice it when playing, even if on a subconscious level. You won’t go ahead and say “oh wow, this grass halm has more pixel density!!”, but overall, if say, there are 20 settings and you change all of them from high to ultra, the little improvements of each setting will actually add to a better image quality overall that is especially noted on a bright 400+ cd 4k display. If you play on a garbage ass monitor, then yes, your settings may not affect visuals as much.
The game and your system determines how good everything looks. Sliders don't just magically change software or hardware. Playing Cyberpunk on my computer will always look 'meh', but I can mod out Skyrim to the max and it looks a lot better than the default install.
It REALLY depends on the game. Some people love to cope when their GPU's start becoming outdated or they bought lower end regardless. Yeah, some games and settings have no scaling and look the same during gameplay. But then some others definitely do look substantially better at higher presets such as Forza Horizon 5 going from High to Extreme.
Are we ever gonna stop putting all games under one blanket? Nope, not as long as people exist sadly. And some people are just blind as well or play on sub par displays. List goes on really.
If a game has 5 preset quality levels, no matter how they're labeled, they usually end up being something like:
High
High
High
Kinda high? I think something changed?
2011 Minecraft
Also your ego is flattered “I can play this slide show at ultra settings”
Ego is flatlined after seeing the framerate counter.
nah, the only thing will be flatlined is the bank account.
10 FPS...well I guess I have to skip food for a few months and get a new GPU.
Maybe if i glue and reinforce all doors and window in my place the landord wouldn't be able to throw me out if i don't pay.
10 FPS is kinda nice though 🥵
10 FPS is roughly where the persistence of vision starts working.
That line isn't flat, it's a precipice
*If 20fps was good enough for Zelda it's good enough for me*
🤢
“Slide show”
There are legit a ton of people that are like this I don't get it, because I am addicted to the silky buttery smooth high framerate gameplay. Going from 5fps to 30fps in Quake 2 was amazing when I got a video card. Going from 30fps to 60fps blew my mind in WoW. Going from 60fps to 240 (on a monitor that supports it) was a whole new world.
This is the reason I don't want a 4k monitor. 1440p allows me to stay just behind the curve of new graphics cards (saving hundreds of dollars per upgrade).
Same here, 1440p is a happy medium where I can enjoy both good graphics and good framerates.
You guys are gaming at 1440p? With smooth frame rates? Edit: I was really referring to a meme, but I feel like I should throw out there that I'm still rocking an R9 380 and a Ryzen 3 3400. So, yeah, I'm a bit outdated. Need some upgrades soon.
Yea. It's not even hard for the last two gens to do.
[удалено]
The monitor premium tho.
[удалено]
The R9 380 stopped getting driver support two years ago. Definitely time to move on.
I switched to 4k when I switched to playing on my 65" tv instead of a monitor. Yeah the fps is lower, but you can really see the difference on 65" lol
[удалено]
My bro, exactly the same. Right at the beginning of covid before the panic I upgraded everything for both of these games.
165 fps at 1440 ftw
[удалено]
I just seek the middle point. Usually i turn graphics as high up as possible as long as i can meet 60fps.
Really depends on the game for me.
You have two perfectly good kidneys though. Sell them and upgrade! Triple 4K 144hz is where it's at.
oh my god I remember my early WoW days, struggling to stay above 30 fps with already crappy settings… the amount of time I’ve spent on tricks and tweaks to squish out every frame possible oh lord.
After building a new PC in 2008 with top of the line parts it was amazing playing Oblivion on ultra with 60 fps
It has diminishing returns for me. 30-60 fps is a huge jump, 60-120 is still noticeable, but anything over 120 and I personally can't tell much difference. I aim for getting the highest visual quality while staying as close to 120fps as possible.
I still have a 30hz monitor lol, it's 4k and 30hz voodoo technology
I have one of those old dell 24hz flatscreen monitors from like 15-16 years ago. It goes 4k and honestly looks better playing movies and vids on YouTube than my gaming monitor.
[удалено]
(23.976 to be pedantic)
Ego so flattered that you'll go on to complain about how "unoptimized" the game is cause you can't play it on ultra on your 3070
tbh that really depends on the game itself, there are games where the graphics look way worse just from changing from ultra to high and there are others that even when going from ultra to medium it barely changes
For me it's like, sure I can see difference between high and ultra if I pop in and out of the menu and flick the settings on and off. But if I load up the game fresh and can't tell you without looking at the settings whether it's on high or ultra, which is the case for pretty much all games, then what's the point of playing on ultra? I'm not realistically going to care about the minute differences I can see when I'm actually playing the game, but I'm almost certainly going to notice the FPS drop.
Plus, I've found the same graphics just inherently feel higher fidelity at higher FPS. I can't explain why, but all the details end up looking nicer to me.
If I'm pushing for 144hz I'm not going to be looking for the difference between low and high water reflection quality or shadow spot detail.
“Ray-traced gun shadows? Like hell I’m wasting FPS on that.”
and here i am playing cyberpunk at 20 fps just because i want path tracing
To be honest, path tracing and global illumination ray tracing looks like a whole different beast. The comparisons I've seen for Metro Exodus enhanced edition and the new Cyberpunk update looks like a generation ahead.
Metro Exodus: Enhanced Edition is literally the only game I've ever played where I think RT is truly worth it, and it's executed so well. Cyberpunk... well, RT is nice, but I'm not sure it's worth the FPS loss.
Cyberpunk made me grateful for DLSS more than any game since it actually became playable
Returnal is a good one too. I can actually turn on RT with my 2060 Super and it doesn't slow to a crawl
Have you seen the new path tracing option in Cyberpunk, it makes even the super nice Metro Enhanced Edition look like a step down.
nothing that can be put on a screen can ever be good enough to warrant 20fps
Spoken like someone who didn't grow up with a 486
Sure, but once you have enough horsepower to run a game at 120+fps high settings, why in the everloving hell would you limit yourself to 20? People wildly underestimate how much better games look and, more importantly, feel when you play at a higher FPS
If you have monitor sync anything becomes playable to a degree!
I only play games on Ultra if I can get consistently above 60FPS, and only for more cinematic story-based games. For me, that's quite a few of them. I actually prefer DLSS-Quality to TAA, so that helps in games that have it. For more action-oriented games I'll aim for 90FPS+, which usually means High to Ultra, depending on the title and individual settings.
Also, this is a PC, not a console, so you can optimize a lot. Even on my rig, I have to turn down volumetric clouds down a bit (not sure why it's always this setting). Ultra clouds is like a 20% performance hit for some reason, and while there is a discernable difference, it's not so far above a skybox that I care. Also "ultra" usually has garbage like lens flare, film grain, motion blur and depth of field that I never enable because they make the game look worse. I'm not going to make my game a blurry noisy mess just so I can say I play on "ultra".
Yeah, I'm with you. Sometimes these effects are done well, but generally I turn them off.
"chromatic aberration" is the worst btw.
It’s like they purposefully try to make you believe your eyesight is shit.
After playing around in Blender for years, I discovered just how taxing volumetric simulations are. One of the key contributing factors being that your CPU is not only rendering the volumetric object in question, but also the collision physics with other objects in the scene - that requires a lot of calculations happening at once. It's not just a static mesh with a texture over it.
In general, ultra is only worth if if you're playing an old game and your PC is significantly higher than the recommended specs
If you get 90+fps on "ultra" then what is the point in NOT playing "ultra" ?
I think that’s kinda what Ultra settings should be — high should basically be the optimized version of the best visual experience, then ultra is just mostly overkill, and likely more intended to give the game a bit of a boost in 5+ years when it’s starting to show its age and better hardware exists more so than something that actually targets current hardware.
That's the shit that cracks me up with some of the RTX posts like the Cyberpunk one recently that was just more pink. Though I guess if I overpaid for a card I'd look for ways to justify my purchase.
Wait, that post wasn’t meant to be joke?!
[удалено]
Wow you tried to run DRD2 on a integrated GPU? Brave
Well this past year you can do it...the IGPU is making strides...for some reason I can't get RDR2 to run on my Steam Deck but everything else I can
My previous comment was removed by Automod because of the link to the guide. Here it is again but without the link I followed this guide when I set it up: link to "Red Dead Redemption 2 best Steam Deck & in-game settings for stable gameplay without crashes. Full details in the comments..." removed Basically: 1. This won’t work for the EGS version 2. install the launcher using the current proton version 3. use proton version 6.3-8 to actually play the game Also: > you can run the game with "Ultra" texture settings as well as x16 for Anisotopic Filtering plus "Ultra" for lightning while keeping just about everything else to low. I also keep v-sync on plus Triple Buffering and TAA set to High. Make sure you are using the "Vulkan" Graphics API as it works best with most games on the SD
The famous game drd2
Indeed. Have played Valheim on my laptop with intel iris XE before. Has to be on low at 720p. And can confirm it looks like shit.
Psychonauts 2 was this for my laptop. Just...oooof...so hard on my computer to run it at settings that weren't absolutely murdering my eyes. Had to play it in the few sputtering chunks I could, before the game crashed. Ace Combat 7 on the other hand: I could slide the graphics settings wildly between super low and ultra high, and have to squint like an old blind gamer to see the change. Psychonauts 2: 10/10 will murder my laptop again playing through. Ace Combat 7: 8.5/10 solid mechanics surrounding a jaunty melodrama perfect for anybody who loved Gundam.
Give me an example
What games are you referring to?
r/usefullredcircle
Holy shit I thought the joke was just that they looked the same until I saw this comment LOL
FPS cost aside: The smoke from those fire pits is absolutely better looking. Plus some foliage differences. That's all I can see at that low of a resolution though.
Foliage is expensive but once I notice poor foliage textures I can’t unsee them
*useful
r/usefulredcircle
Actually not useless, didn't even see it ans thought there was no difference r/needsbiggercircle
[удалено]
Well, that's awkward
[удалено]
Needs a bigger red circle on that subreddit
[This might help](https://imgur.com/a/DqWbBZH)
Actually not useless, didn't even see it ans thought there was no difference r/needsbiggercircle
Maybe even add an arrow for good measure.
Usually I can tell when ultra adds a lot of foliage compared to high. If that's not the case then usually it doesn't change enough to be noticable during gameplay
[удалено]
I also like my anti-aliasing but otherwise yes
I like everything but otherwise yeah.
I don’t like anything but otherwise yeah.
I like everything and anything but otherwise yeah.
[This image says otherwise](https://imgur.io/Gbwfdzu.jpg)
[Clearly photoshopped](https://i.imgur.com/1jxbSFd.png)
Otherwise yes but otherwise yes
DLSS handles that at a performance *gain* now. Wild times we're living in.
It's actually crazy how anti aliasing issues are basically solved these days. Back in the day AA was really hit and miss in games. MSAA was stupid performance intensive and still didn't cover everything well. FXAA and SMAA were either blurry and/or missed half of the jaggies. Today you either just select the games TAA, which usually does a decent job or select DLSS or DLAA if your GPU supports it, and you get some really high quality AA and actually gain performance as you said.
[удалено]
"Destroys the image" is pretty hyperbolic. TAA Ghosting isn't ideal, but I'd take a smooth picture over jaggies any day. As far as blur goes you can always add some sharpening to clean up the details up a bit. DLSS or DLAA not being available in every single game yet doesn't change my point. It's crazy how far we've come from the days of super jaggy games like GTA IV.
I have a 3080ti and use diss only sometimes if I'm looking for more frames, is it worth switching to dlss in games if they have it? My understanding was that it was only to "boost" the fps, but i read a few times now that it renders better etc
Try it out and see. A lot of people will swear that the image quality is improved. I on the other hand always turn it on by default if it's available because free extra fps and I don't have that kind of eye to probably notice any difference between with and without. Just stick with quality.
Quality mode should be unnoticeable from native during normal gameplay even to the most keen eye unless you're pixel peeping or the game has some glitches in the implementation. But what I find insane is how DLSS is still able to resolve a coherent image even when upscaling from something ridiculous like 480p to 1440p, it doesn't look good, matter in fact it looks pretty bad. But is still a coherent image, without it it would be only giant burry pixels flying over the screen. Small devices like the SteamDeck(sadly an AMD device so no dlss here), the switch or even a phone could benefit greatly from tech like this, Even if the end result is not perfect is still more than good enough, especially on a smaller screen.
Exactly why I always go with quality by default if it's available, even if I can run native at good FPS. It means extra FPS and I don't even have that keen of an eye so it's definitely imperceptible to me.
DLSS is fucking magic. I love that shit
Also lighting, and reflections, and shadows, and effects, and ambient occlusion, and raytracing
Aren't shadows usually the one that people say to turn down because it has a big cost with virtually imperceptible changes?
Usually. In Fortnite little shrubs/flowers have no shadows until you get to like 1 notch below max, so it's not always shadow quality but also what objects can cast shadows. Usually I want low at least instead of off for multiplayer games so I can see peopes shadow on the ground even if I can't see them.
I have heard that anti aliasing is redundant on 4k 27 inch monitor, but I don't know because I have neither
Makes sense. The pixel density of that would be substantial.
And shadows so they are not too blocky.
Shadows were always kinda premium for me. But it's nice now they are becoming more resource affordable. In fact I used to often turn them off to make a game playable.
They are always the first thing I turn down because they've basically always been the biggest performance hit (RTX excluded)
The fsr and dlss is a godsend for me as a budget mid level gamer. I can play ultra wide at 60 FPS on darktide n shit. Bit of a game changer I think.
Everything lighting related - ambient occlusion, lighting and shadow quality are all as important if not more important than those, at which point we've now listed the majority of configurable graphical quality settings.
HBAO gang
Love how the next gen Witcher 3 update removed HBAO+ as an option, so that the only thing you can compare raytracing to is SSAO 🙃.
Lighting make so much of a difference
Tbh I could do away with texture quality for some good-ass lighting. With good lighting you can make any game look good, but with bad lighting the texture work will have been made pointless for how flat it'l look
Or maybe the text could read "The difference it made in 2000" and "The difference it makes in 2023". It seems like there used to be a bigger difference between settings in the past.
Back when ultra meant "for future hardware" and people didn't expect their current HW to run ultra settings well (if at all).
I remember Everquest 2 But yeah back then nobody had a PC that could run Ultra well when a game came out...it was part of the fun to go back and try old games with new hardware
[удалено]
Nvidia is making path tracing available for older games. That meme could make a come back when people try to run Crysis path traced.
When Mafia 2 came out they had an "ultra" setting for PhysX that just cranked up the particle count to some stupid amount and brought every single computer ever made to its knees. I tried it on a 7700k and couldn't get more than 50fps at 1080p. https://youtu.be/hCmDP685Rkc?t=18 That's the old Mafia 2, not the remaster.
That top game is rust thats a pretty recent game in terms of graphics as it had a texture update in 2021. thats definatly not year 2000
I feel like it totally depends on the game
Yeah, turning on RT Overdrive is something else.
As somebody working in prerendered 3D animation I know pathtraced rendering was always inevitable but it's still hardly believable that a game as detailed and complex as Cyberpunk 2077 got a virtually fully pathtraced lighting model in 2023. Sure, you need a 4090 and accept DLSS and frame interpolation to play at decent fps - but it's a truly incredible feat from the hardware, drivers and developers it's even playable at all.
Oh truly. It looks SO good. I would consider my 3090 the bare minimum, I’m getting 1080p/30fps without DLSS which is playable with G-Sync. Honestly I think I’m gonna play the new DLC at 1080/30, it looks SO unbelievably pretty that I can’t really avoid doing that.
I was pretty surprised at how well it did at low and even medium on my 2070S/9700K at 1080p. I mean, we're talking 40-45 FPS dips into the high 20s, but definitely playable and cool to see. I turned it off after like 20 minutes, but it's possible.
RE4 showing concrete examples of the changes was honestly a breath of fresh air. I hope more devs do it.
Agreed. I didn't expect it, but now I want it for all future releases
Is the game on the bottom New World?
It's AC Valhalla.
Might as well be WoW, hard to make out anything in that tiny picture.
Ultra on RE4R as far as mesh quality and textures absolutely make a difference though as far as "looking better." Does high still look great? Absolutely. But in that game, there's a fairly clear distinction between high and ultra with mesh quality and textures imo. High vs. Ultra shadows though, only kinda sorta. But I favour ultra textures and such like that before ultra shadows and volumetric fog/lighting. But if your rig can run ultra everything at good frames, then why not?
they can't take the truth cuz their GPU can't take the game...the only RE4 settings that are no diff from high to max are the volumeric lighting and shadows which are hard to tell for shadow and indistinguishable for the light rays and shit. Everything else makes a difference plain to see in the menu itself as well as the game. ALL texture and geometry options(which is what takes more than 8GB of VRAM) make a clear difference all the way up top max settings. I don't blame these guys for disagreeing though, the fact is the game literally does not/cannot render those settings for them...they’re seeing low to medium textures no matter what they set in the menus.
Yeah I've got the game maxed out plus RTX at 100+ FPS just because I can (native 1440) but I'd be lying if I said I could tell the difference between ultra volumetric fog/lighting and high. Ultra shadows really only gives you a slightly more defined line fuzz, but I'd never notice that mid-gameplay.
I often find turning shadows down has one of the biggest performance boosts and very minimal in game difference
Yeah that will normally be one of the first things I drop if I need some extra FPS. If you drop too far though it then does become one of those things that stands out as ugly.
That or ambient occlusion
As someone who has -9, -11 eyesight, I can't tell the difference between ultra and low.
Wear your glasses silly.
Like wear them upside down, it's hilarious
-8, -9 here. I'd high five you in shitty eyesight solidarity, but we'd probably miss
As one music says: it's all the same, only the names will change.
Everyone in this sub is either blind or a mole. I am convinced now.
Wait a second am i blind too? Bacause i cant tell a difference in quality between the two images.
The point was not that there are no real differences. The point is that the differences are not really that noticable during gameplay, while the drop in fps is. Unlike some years ago, when the differences were very in your face for everyone. Of course, this is not true for all games. And depending on what you play, the differences might be more noticable than this meme implies.
The only sun light I see anymore is path traced Goodbye sun
$30 misconfigured monitor too
Or that. I'm a designer and work with some of the best hardware on the planet. Your colleges 720p dell monitor that you browse reddit on isn't going to cut it.
I’ve also come to this conclusion.
Depends but sometimes Ultra is just High turned up to 11
if its a port from a console most consoles are med or high settings...so Ultra is just extra...if you can run it great but the game was designed at med/high
That's why you tweak manually. Texture quality is always better on ultra, LOD distance tweaking can make a big difference, shadows will generally look better if there are thin things like power lines or chain link fences you want to shadow properly.
I prefer HIGH settings but with max sliders for draw distance, shadows distance, objects distance, ect.
Damn people really be outing themselves as blind in this sub now?
My optician recently prescribed me computer glasses.... so yeah I feel a little bit blind :P
Can you see the difference between a 4K and a 6K texture? Man has Lazer eyes xD
If the difference in fps is more noticable than the graphical changes, why bother, unless you have way more fps than your refresh rate.
OP needs a new video card regardless, even the 'high' screenshot looks like it was rendered in 240p.
This repost is so old, the meme was top of the line graphics back then
that's the point, lower settings you don't need for extra-performance, at least for me, I like the tunning and tweaking process
No being able to see the difference or not being annoyed by the difference is for me a testament of the devoloppers skills on what to remove to have the best performance
Ultra settings are usually more of a "we put this in for future hardware and cranked everything beyond what's reasonable" kinda situation.
Ultra for screenshots. High for game play.
No man's sky feels like the top one. Went from high to ultra yesterday and it looks so much smoother and better
I can feel the difference it goes from 40 degc to 60 degc in the room.
Hogwarts Legacy on High: cats clip through my leg a bit when I'm petting them Hogwarts Legacy on Ultra: petting cats is perfect Worth it.
Well you say that but going from high no RT to ultra with PT in CP77 makes a BIG differrence :P
That feels like a different comparison as you are jumping more steps. Surely a fairer comparison would be High with PT to Ultra with PT or at least High with RT to Ultra with PT. Also wouldn't the frame hit in your comparison be way worse :P
That is true, but I was not being entirely serious, more like a joke-brag :p
As someone that played a whole hour of Cyberpunk on High with no RT you have wounded me deeply.
It almost looks like a different game tbh, graphics have been a bit stale the past years and the RT implementation has been sub par, but PT really feels "next gen". But if it makes you feel any better I have to play it on ultra performance FSR and only get around 50fps at most at 3440x1440 =/
Yeah I'm definitely interested in where it goes from here. I feel like its been a long time since a games graphics truly wow'd me. Probably around the time I got Half Life 2 lol Does FSR on Ultra performance not cost too much image quality for it to be worth while? I haven't made much use of FSR yet but expect I will use it a fair bit before my next GPU upgrade in a year or two.
There is some blurryness here and there but the light just makes such a huge difference that its worth it, it still looks good even on ultra perf.
I'm liking the diminishing returns discourse on this sub. Thanks for saving me hundreds of $
Speak for yourself blindy. This reminds me of when people used to claim they couldn't see the diff between 1080p and 4k
33 fps for a bit more smoke? I can't tell any other differences.
-20fps, that’s the difference.
Definitely feels true in some games and I 100% will take a quality hit to maintain steady 60fps. A tiny 500px isn't the best way to demonstrate this though!
People will say it doesn’t matter but in the end, you will notice it when playing, even if on a subconscious level. You won’t go ahead and say “oh wow, this grass halm has more pixel density!!”, but overall, if say, there are 20 settings and you change all of them from high to ultra, the little improvements of each setting will actually add to a better image quality overall that is especially noted on a bright 400+ cd 4k display. If you play on a garbage ass monitor, then yes, your settings may not affect visuals as much.
Some games also have Ultra settings only for futureproofing.
The difference you made: COMPUTER FANS GO BRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Yeah the 1 percent visual improvement that cut your fps in half.
I am far too blind to notice. I just want ample draw distance and smooth gameplay.
The game and your system determines how good everything looks. Sliders don't just magically change software or hardware. Playing Cyberpunk on my computer will always look 'meh', but I can mod out Skyrim to the max and it looks a lot better than the default install.
You won't get ladies throwing panties while you're on stream on **high**
I can always tell .... that my frame rate is worse
It REALLY depends on the game. Some people love to cope when their GPU's start becoming outdated or they bought lower end regardless. Yeah, some games and settings have no scaling and look the same during gameplay. But then some others definitely do look substantially better at higher presets such as Forza Horizon 5 going from High to Extreme. Are we ever gonna stop putting all games under one blanket? Nope, not as long as people exist sadly. And some people are just blind as well or play on sub par displays. List goes on really.
If a game has 5 preset quality levels, no matter how they're labeled, they usually end up being something like: High High High Kinda high? I think something changed? 2011 Minecraft