Which settings would you prefer to play at?

[LOST TALE]

Settings 1:

https://ibb.co/FX7SV6W
https://ibb.co/d6B2wbm

 

Settings 2:

https://ibb.co/87K9FB9

https://ibb.co/RNRbYmr

[SkilledRebuilds]

SP - Mix High/Ultra

MP - Mix of Low/Medium with High Textures/DrawDistance

 

It's a Multiplayer game where frame latency is just as important as network latency so I drop settings myself...

Plus the typical less clutter and more visual focus for enemy movements.

I only go above Medium-High settings when playing Singleplayer titles, otherwise for Multiplayer it's Textures Medium/High and mostly Low settings or there is tuned low/medium settings to remove some of the negative aspects of LOW settings..like upping the Mesh details from their lowest or keeping draw distance based settings higher...

[Somerandomtechyboi]

Why is there an f u option xD

[FalseControl]

It really depends on what game it is. If its a competitive PvP I want them frames baby! low EVERYTHING except maybe some view distances. Now for like City skylines that is more of a play at your own pace sort of game I turn up the settings to my comfortable level. City skylines is a lot of cpu since you build massive citys so I just try to keep above 30 fps so I am not skipping around.

[Eastman51]

1440p looks nicer than 720p inherently thanks to anti-aliasing effects caused by the increased pixel density of a higher resolution. To me both settings 1 and 2 look nearly the same, except settings 2 is dramatically sharper and clearer. I'd have a tough time seeing enemies in the distance on settings 1 because of how blurry and pixely it is. 

 

Personally I'd probably go for something in between, like 1080p medium. Whatever settings look decent but allow me to play at a good framerate. 

[QuantumSingularity]

Dude r u serious ?!? 720p literally hurts my eyes and makes them water just by watching stills of it, let alone play it. How dafyq you are even supposed to distinguish an enemy from a tree at distance?!? Why would go into all the effort of getting a good 1440p display, if you will use it for 720p. The more you drop the res and LOD, the more you become CPU dependent. So unless you play on Radeon HD 5770 i don't see a reason for dropping below 1440p. High-res/low LOD is 99% of the time better than low-res/higher LOD

[LOST TALE]

1 hour ago, QuantumSingularity said:

Dude r u serious ?!? 720p literally hurts my eyes and makes them water just by watching stills of it, let alone play it. How dafyq you are even supposed to distinguish an enemy from a tree at distance?!? Why would go into all the effort of getting a good 1440p display, if you will use it for 720p. The more you drop the res and LOD, the more you become CPU dependent. So unless you play on Radeon HD 5770 i don't see a reason for dropping below 1440p. High-res/low LOD is 99% of the time better than low-res/higher LOD

I was going to repost this as 1080p vs 4k because I saw people preferred details to resolution. Notice the FPS cost of going low->ultra nearly equals doubling the res. Likewise, reviewers show benchmarks in ultra settings and these seem to be what people use to think what framerate they will get at 4k.

However my 4k monitor died in a boating accident. Maybe I can just use super resolution with a custom res of 1080p and I would get true 4k images to record.

[QuantumSingularity]

If you have DLSS 2.0 there is no point of not using it. DSR isn'tany good. FSR is but i'm not sure how many games support it yet.

[LOST TALE]

30 minutes ago, QuantumSingularity said:

If you have DLSS 2.0 there is no point of not using it. DSR isn'tany good. FSR is but not i'm not sure how many games support it yet.

I'd have to see how well DLSS renders far away objects: the ones that need resolution the most.

Otherwise aslong as I can get 80+ FPS on native 2k low settings. I'll just 2k along.

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

If I'm playing a single player campaign at 1440p I'll generally lower the settings (if necessary) to try and hit 75-80fps - the idea being it gives me some overhead wiggle room so I'm still getting a minimum 60 fps when things get busy on screen...if that makes sense?

 

If it's something multiplayer related, more specifically an fps shooter, then, obviously, performance is the priority...ideally so that a smooth 120+fps is available. 

 

As I've gotten used to pc gaming, coming from 35 years on console, the balancing act required is getting easier.

 

It feels, to me at any rate, that it's about finding the sweet spot between two extremes.

 

Resolution being rigid, it leaves settings and performance (fps). 

 

As resolution is non negotiable for me, being on a 1440p monitor, I have two options.

 

Of course, we all know it is basically a case of lowering graphical settings to gain fps performance or reducing fps performance to increase graphical settings. 

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

60fps max settings, always, even if it means my GPU is basically idling. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[IPD]

Graphics resolution and details until the PC hits 20 FPS, and then turn down the details just slightly (AA down to x2 instead of x16 or something).

 

I care much more about when I will be able to have native 8k without upscaling/supersampling--than I do about frame rates high enough to capture particle accelerator results.

[IPD]

On 2/13/2022 at 8:48 AM, QuantumSingularity said:

Dude r u serious ?!? 720p literally hurts my eyes and makes them water just by watching stills of it, let alone play it. How dafyq you are even supposed to distinguish an enemy from a tree at distance?!? Why would go into all the effort of getting a good 1440p display, if you will use it for 720p. The more you drop the res and LOD, the more you become CPU dependent. So unless you play on Radeon HD 5770 i don't see a reason for dropping below 1440p. High-res/low LOD is 99% of the time better than low-res/higher LOD

720p is perfectly viable on a CRT.  I'd rather Ludovico Technique myself than live with a CRT though.

[MadAnt250]

3 hours ago, IPD said:

I'd rather Ludovico Technique myself than live with a CRT though.

Ahem... #CRT MASTER RACE

On 2/12/2022 at 11:43 PM, LOST TALE said:

Settings 1:

https://ibb.co/FX7SV6W
https://ibb.co/d6B2wbm

 

Settings 2:

https://ibb.co/87K9FB9

https://ibb.co/RNRbYmr

Setting 1 looks better.

 

[IPD]

After further review, I have chosen the "F U" option, as 2160p is not part of this survey.

 

@MadAnt250

 

I enjoyed 1920x1440 back when i had a 22" NEC.  I didn't enjoy the hernia from moving it.  I will put money on the "superior look" of CRT disappearing entirely when we have 8k panels at 240hz.

[QuantumSingularity]

Wait wait wait wati a minute... No one mentioned CRT as an option. It completely changes the picture, so please do add more fuel to the fire. Even the best modern gaming monitor can't hold a candle to the CRTs when we are talking response time and competitive gaming. 

Interesting enough, last night i was watching some competitive StarCraft 2 videos from 3-4 years ago and i some of the pro Koreans were going CRT monitors all the way. I guess in a game where split-millisecond decisions have huge weight those CRTs are worth their weight in gold. 

[IPD]

9 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

Wait wait wait wati a minute... No one mentioned CRT as an option. It completely changes the picture, so please do add more fuel to the fire. Even the best modern gaming monitor can't hold a candle to the CRTs when we are talking response time and competitive gaming. 

Interesting enough, last night i was watching some competitive StarCraft 2 videos from 3-4 years ago and i some of the pro Koreans were going CRT monitors all the way. I guess in a game where split-millisecond decisions have huge weight those CRTs are worth their weight in gold. 

Up to what point?  There's 500hz panels on the horizon.  There's no way an 80hz CRT will hold a candle to that, imho.

[MadAnt250]

20 hours ago, IPD said:

Up to what point?  There's 500hz panels on the horizon.  There's no way an 80hz CRT will hold a candle to that, imho.

1080p "Gaming" displays still look like crap when it comes to color and motion.

Also, 500hz just seems overkill right now and we don't know what the estimated price is for this product of the future.

 

I will state this:

I will most likely prefer a good level CRT over what is being sold now.

 

[QuantumSingularity]

10 hours ago, IPD said:

Up to what point?  There's 500hz panels on the horizon.  There's no way an 80hz CRT will hold a candle to that, imho.

First of all, that "500Hz" monitor is yet to hit the market and there isn't any technical specification about it. Second it's not about refresh rate, but response time we are talking mostly. That is where even that 500Hz TFT panel still won't be able hold a candle to a CRT. That BOE monitor is said to have 2ms response time. With CRTs there simple isn't response time... it's something in the lines of 0.01ms. In order to get that even from an OLED, not TFT you'd need somewhere around 100 000Hz refresh rate.

If there was a company out there that would go out and make a 24" 1440p/120Hz CRT monitor at a reasonable price (~$500), i'm making that my main gaming display in a heartbeat and using my IPSs only for the sim-racing rig.

 

P.S

I know about the Sony GDM Trinitron, but that thing is insane amount of money for the condition it appears in... Last timei saw one i half-decent shape it was €5000. I'm a fan, but i'm not Linus.

[IPD]

7 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

First of all, that "500Hz" monitor is yet to hit the market and there isn't any technical specification about it. Second it's not about refresh rate, but response time we are talking mostly. That is where even that 500Hz TFT panel still won't be able hold a candle to a CRT. That BOE monitor is said to have 2ms response time. With CRTs there simple isn't response time... it's something in the lines of 0.01ms. In order to get that even from an OLED, not TFT you'd need somewhere around 100 000Hz refresh rate.

If there was a company out there that would go out and make a 24" 1440p/120Hz CRT monitor at a reasonable price (~$500), i'm making that my main gaming display in a heartbeat and using my IPSs only for the sim-racing rig.

 

P.S

I know about the Sony GDM Trinitron, but that thing is insane amount of money for the condition it appears in... Last timei saw one i half-decent shape it was €5000. I'm a fan, but i'm not Linus.

and yet, the human eye has trouble distinghishing things below 10ms....

 

IMHO, the "CRT MASTER RACE" thing smacks of the same luddites who have held onto Plasma TV's for an eternity.

[MadAnt250]

I realize this is getting off topic.

[LOST TALE]

11 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

First of all, that "500Hz" monitor is yet to hit the market and there isn't any technical specification about it. Second it's not about refresh rate, but response time we are talking mostly. That is where even that 500Hz TFT panel still won't be able hold a candle to a CRT. That BOE monitor is said to have 2ms response time. With CRTs there simple isn't response time... it's something in the lines of 0.01ms. In order to get that even from an OLED, not TFT you'd need somewhere around 100 000Hz refresh rate.

If there was a company out there that would go out and make a 24" 1440p/120Hz CRT monitor at a reasonable price (~$500), i'm making that my main gaming display in a heartbeat and using my IPSs only for the sim-racing rig.

 

P.S

I know about the Sony GDM Trinitron, but that thing is insane amount of money for the condition it appears in... Last timei saw one i half-decent shape it was €5000. I'm a fan, but i'm not Linus.

wouldn't you prefer paying 100-200$ more for 4k 120hz for futureproofing and less demanding games?

[QuantumSingularity]

15 hours ago, IPD said:

and yet, the human eye has trouble distinghishing things below 10ms....

 

IMHO, the "CRT MASTER RACE" thing smacks of the same luddites who have held onto Plasma TV's for an eternity.

If you can't distinguish the fluidness and depth of color of a CRT to a TN/IPS LCD you might wanna get your eyes checked. It's clear as night and day. And i'm not saying CRT is always superior to everything else. I'm certainly not gonna read or edit video/photo of it. Everything were there is little to no movement/action at all LCDs/OLEDs do MUCH MUCH better - movies, browsing, editing, but as far as gaming goes, CRT is still above all else for fluid-like experience, color depiction and R-E-S-P-O-N-S-E T-I-M-E (idk why it is so hard for technically literate people to make the difference between response time and refresh rate). IF big screens and big pictures is your thing ofc you can't compare a 21" CRT monitor to a 65" OLED TV. 

Idk how any of you actually were old enough to properly play on a CRT monitor, but when CS 1.6 came out i made the transition from a CRT to LCD and remember that day like it was yesterday. Not because i was amazed by the technology, but because of the fact that from the top 3 on my server in a single day i dropped out of top 50. Where there were kills before now there were misses. Everything made no sense and it took me quite a while to get used to it. 

[IPD]

On 2/19/2022 at 5:20 AM, QuantumSingularity said:

If you can't distinguish the fluidness and depth of color of a CRT to a TN/IPS LCD you might wanna get your eyes checked. It's clear as night and day. And i'm not saying CRT is always superior to everything else. I'm certainly not gonna read or edit video/photo of it. Everything were there is little to no movement/action at all LCDs/OLEDs do MUCH MUCH better - movies, browsing, editing, but as far as gaming goes, CRT is still above all else for fluid-like experience, color depiction and R-E-S-P-O-N-S-E T-I-M-E (idk why it is so hard for technically literate people to make the difference between response time and refresh rate). IF big screens and big pictures is your thing ofc you can't compare a 21" CRT monitor to a 65" OLED TV. 

Idk how any of you actually were old enough to properly play on a CRT monitor, but when CS 1.6 came out i made the transition from a CRT to LCD and remember that day like it was yesterday. Not because i was amazed by the technology, but because of the fact that from the top 3 on my server in a single day i dropped out of top 50. Where there were kills before now there were misses. Everything made no sense and it took me quite a while to get used to it. 

No gaming experience will ever justify giving up a 50" flat-panel display (or a projector) and going with a 22" boat-anchor of a CRT instead.  I'll find something else do play/do instead.  Sorry, I have lived with janky-ass CRT for far too long.  I would rather rip my fingernails out with pliers.

[LOST TALE]

8 minutes ago, IPD said:

No gaming experience will ever justify giving up a 50" flat-panel display (or a projector) and going with a 22" boat-anchor of a CRT instead.  I'll find something else do play/do instead.  Sorry, I have lived with janky-ass CRT for far too long.  I would rather rip my fingernails out with pliers.

well for me display size is irrelevant. 22" is enough and I'll take a better video anyday.