Is gaming more resoultion or FPS

[MitchellPC]

In our newer games which is currently more important to have, resolution or FPS for your game and which should graphics cards be centred around?

[Amazonsucks]

It should be both, as well as improved colour gamuts and HDR like Rec.2020 and Rec.2100.

[ImNotThere]

Single player games or multiplayer?

Single player I prefer FPS to match the refresh rate so the highest resolution that allows that

Multiplayer, non competitive, same as single player

Competitive, 1080p, as many frames as possible, turn down settings and such

 

[Mustalem93]

Depends on you what is more imortant to you?

For me fps is only important in shooting game other than that resolution all the way . I even play fortnite 80 fps average epic setting on 144hz monitor while I can make it 144 if I lowered settings because anything above 60 is ok for me

So for competitve gaming +60 fps max setting possible 

For non competitive any thing above 30 is ok . Well all games I have run 60 on highest setting 1440p

[Taja]

Which should graphics card be centered around? Well, that makes no sense.

Graphics cards have POWER, how you use the power is up to you.

Play in 720p 300fps or 4k 20 fps, it is up to you, not the graphics card.

 

I personally like constant 60 fps in 1080p with graphical settings that are good (meaning high or medium - since low is usually bad and ultra is just stupid)

[WereCatf]

15 minutes ago, MitchellPC said:

In our newer games which is currently more important to have, resolution or FPS for your game and which should graphics cards be centred around?

Subjective. There are people who insist on having a BAJILLION FPS, and there are people for whom it doesn't matter that. I belong in the latter group: I am perfectly fine playing at 60FPS, but I'd definitely love having higher resolution and better colours -- including HDR.

[PlayStation 2]

Whatever you want.

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, Taja said:

Which should graphics card be centered around? Well, that makes no sense.

Graphics cards have POWER, how you use the power is up to you.

Play in 720p 300fps or 4k 20 fps, it is up to you, not the graphics card.

 

I personally like constant 60 fps in 1080p with graphical settings that are good (meaning high or medium - since low is usually bad and ultra is just stupid)

I run literally every game i have on all ultra at 1080p 60Hz, with high quality texture filtering as well as supersampling transparency AA in the drivers. I also use the highest quality AA in the game and for games like destiny 2 i put the render resolution to 120% for the effect of reducing blur from SMAA or FXAA.

 

Please explain why thats stupid? My specs are in my profile.

[Crunchy Dragon]

For more competitive games, FPS is my priority.

 

For single player games, I want it to look nice and run smooth so a mixture of both.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

my eyes are quite bad so i don't really care about gaming on 720P if i have to, i care more about fps. 

[aezakmi]

FPS and texture quality

[chiller15]

I play offline FPS or RPG games, so I generally prefer resolution. I bought a Dell S2417G 1440p monitor with 144Hz and G-Sync. So I get the best of both worlds. A good 2K monitor with good FPS and the advantage of G-Sync should I not achieve the 144Hz in-game.

[Firewrath9]

I cry when i see under 75 fps at 1440p with my graphics card, i set fpsmax to 75 in AAA games and lower settings or increase settings till i get a stable 75 fps. Call it ghetto g-sync.

for competive games, im looking for 150 fps 1440p and do the same.

[Jtalk4456]

yes

 

[Jtalk4456]

3 hours ago, MitchellPC said:

In our newer games which is currently more important to have, resolution or FPS for your game and which should graphics cards be centred around?

yes

[bcredeur97]

I like my games to be super beautiful and will prioritize that over fast response time (so long as response is not ridiculous)

Response time comes into play sometimes. for things like counter strike.. but even then I was more of a casual CS:Go player (I was never really good enough to warrant speedy hardware anyway)

It's really whatever you want... @Dan Castellaneta put it well.

[RezinKhanz]

For console gaming and single player i lean towards resolution. Multiplayer and PC gaming is heavily reliant on FPS.

Edited August 13, 2018 by RezinKhanz
Inadvertant quote

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

@RezinKhanz i never said that. make sure you quote the correct person, because that was not me. please remove that quote. 

[RezinKhanz]

I don't know what happened

[Taja]

7 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

I run literally every game i have on all ultra at 1080p 60Hz, with high quality texture filtering as well as supersampling transparency AA in the drivers. I also use the highest quality AA in the game and for games like destiny 2 i put the render resolution to 120% for the effect of reducing blur from SMAA or FXAA.

 

Please explain why thats stupid? My specs are in my profile.

Well, I find that hard to believe, or else you play a few games that dont give you trouble. Games like deus ex are unplayable on ultra, like many of linus benchmarks shows. Even light games like Vampyr give trouble to a gtx 1070 (personal experience), but I still play it fine with a gtx 960. Even divinity original sin 2 has crazy performance hits with some types of fire effects.

 

 

Answearing your question, ultra is stupid because ultra is placebo: most (if not all) ultra settings are identical to very high (or whatevers below ultra is called) but cause MASSIVE performance hits. I have seen multiple side by side comparisons of many different settings, and sometimes I had to be told what to look for since they are so absurdly alike. Yet people treat ultra like its "the dream" - well, its not. Very high is the dream, ultra is just a built in "fps killer".

 

I only use ultra when playing very old games, because no matter what the framerate will be 60 ALL the time. Else, performance is always preferred for me (even at the cost of visuals). And I get it, some ppl prefer visuals - or want performance WITH the best visuals, and thats fine. The catch is: very high already IS "the best visuals", so buying a more expensive card just to have that placebo "ultra" effect is... Not the best option.

 

Disclaimer: im not saying EVERY ultra setting is stupid. It depends on the game AND the setting, though mostly they are bad. The preset "ultra" however is absolutely, utterly and irrevocably stupid.

[Amazonsucks]

15 minutes ago, Taja said:

Well, I find that hard to believe, or else you play a few games that dont give you trouble. Games like deus ex are unplayable on ultra, like many of linus benchmarks shows. Even light games like Vampyr give trouble to a gtx 1070 (personal experience), but I still play it fine with a gtx 960. Even divinity original sin 2 has crazy performance hits with some types of fire effects.

 

 

Answearing your question, ultra is stupid because ultra is placebo: most (if not all) ultra settings are identical to very high (or whatevers below ultra is called) but cause MASSIVE performance hits. I have seen multiple side by side comparisons of many different settings, and sometimes I had to be told what to look for since they are so absurdly alike. Yet people treat ultra like its "the dream" - well, its not. Very high is the dream, ultra is just a built in "fps killer".

 

I only use ultra when playing very old games, because no matter what the framerate will be 60 ALL the time. Else, performance is always preferred for me (even at the cost of visuals). And I get it, some ppl prefer visuals - or want performance WITH the best visuals, and thats fine. The catch is: very high already IS "the best visuals", so buying a more expensive card just to have that placebo "ultra" effect is... Not the best option.

 

Disclaimer: im not saying EVERY ultra setting is stupid. It depends on the game AND the setting, though mostly they are bad. The preset "ultra" however is absolutely, utterly and irrevocably stupid.

I dont use the presets usually because even those dont put things all the way up.

 

Whats hard to believe about what i said? If you know how to configure things properly its not unplayble. Games like ARK run like garbage no matter what.

 

My current game of choice is Destiny 2 and as i said, putting it at 120% resolution plus all ultra makes it look better than real life and i occassionally see it drop to 57 fps from in game vsync and driver fast sync(for smoothness).

 

A lot is trial and error testing as well, but its usually terrible to use the Geforce Experience type automatic BS.

 

And its not placebo. One of the most noticable differences you can make is to set high quality texture filtering in the drivers. It costs nothing to do in terms of performance on a decent GPU either.

 

 

[Taja]

1 minute ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

Whats hard to believe about what i said? If you know how to configure things properly its not unplayble. Games like ARK run like garbage no matter what.

 

My current game of choice is Destiny 2 and as i said, putting it at 120% resolution plus all ultra makes it look better than real life and i occassionally see it drop to 57 fps from in game vsync and driver fast sync(for smoothness).

 

A lot is trial and error testing as well, but its usually terrible to use the Geforce Experience type automatic BS.

 

 

Well, thats kind of my point. If you know how to configure stuff, you can get best visuals and performance. Have that 3 settings that eat away 40 fps on ultra, but on very high look INDENTICAL and only eat away 5 fps? Just do it!

 

Destiny 2 seens to be very well optmized then, but thats why I said its hard to believe: one game is fine, but you said "literally every game". Well, if you literally play 1-3 games that is beliavable.. if not, then its not true. Like I said, even Vampyr causes drops on a gtx 1070. 

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, Taja said:

Well, thats kind of my point. If you know how to configure stuff, you can get best visuals and performance. Have that 3 settings that eat away 40 fps on ultra, but on very high look INDENTICAL and only eat away 5 fps? Just do it!

 

Destiny 2 seens to be very well optmized then, but thats why I said its hard to believe: one game is fine, but you said "literally every game". Well, if you literally play 1-3 games that is beliavable.. if not, then its not true. Like I said, even Vampyr causes drops on a gtx 1070. 

I have a lot of games, and i do play ARK on ultra. Nothing really strikes a balance between high fps and good visuals so i just deal with about 45-55 fps and ultra settings.

[WereCat]

FPS > resolution

 

When my 1080ti was on RMA I had to play RocketLeague on my iGPU. 

I could either settle with 60FPS at 720p or 120FPS at 480p.

I settled at 480p... On a 1440p monitor. It was so much better experience even though the game looked like an absolute turd. I could not even read the player names if they were further away. 

[Skanky Sylveon]

On 8/13/2018 at 10:14 AM, Jtalk4456 said:

yes

 

On 8/13/2018 at 10:15 AM, Jtalk4456 said:

yes

 

480p 13 FPS 4 life!

So cinematic!