obsession

[CalumGiff]

Everyone seems to me obsessed with maxing out graphics potential on every game but is the difference between low and ultra all that noticable when you are actually in game play?

[Guest]

Yes

 

That will be all.

[minibois]

Everyone seems to me obsessed with maxing out graphics potential on every game but is the difference between low and ultra all that noticable when you are actually in game play?

Uhh, Yeah it's pretty noticeable.

And not everyone is obsessed with it

[Guest]

To be honest, in BF4 I can't notice the difference between Medium and Ultra when in an intense fight.

In games like Far Cry 4 you can easily tell.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Everyone seems to me obsessed with maxing out graphics potential on every game but is the difference between low and ultra all that noticable when you are actually in game play?

 

Wondering to. I feel ashamed to need to play on medium to have 60 FPS...

[CalumGiff]

Fair enough, I just dont see the point in people buying a new gpu every time they cant max out a game, so i was wondering

[SuperPug]

Gotta confess... Im running BF4 at 1680*1050 & high details even tho i could easily run it at 1920*1200 & ultra. I dunno why i just like it better that way.

[Analog]

Fair enough, I just dont see the point in people buying a new gpu every time they cant max out a game, so i was wondering

 

People that upgrade every time to get a game running on max settings probably didn't spend enough on their GPU the first time so that's a major part of the problem imo. Mine MARS GTX 760x2 which is soon to be an year old can pretty much max out any game out there with the exception of probably Metro LL.  

 

And...yes, the difference between low and ultra detail is very noticeable. In some games even between medium and high is noticeable. 

[Trik'Stari]

Yeah, it's a huge difference.

 

A combination of no frame tear (so Vsync or Gsync)

ultra high settings

and a framerate at a minimum of 60

 

All of those things combined together, really make a difference.

[Laputacake]

Gotta confess... Im running BF4 at 1680*1050 & high details even tho i could easily run it at 1920*1200 & ultra. I dunno why i just like it better that way.

Gotta love 1680x1050

[Humbug]

Between low and ultra is noticable.

But the difference between ultra and just below ultra is difficult to notice. And in most games dropping just that tiny bit gives you a big performance boost.

[TheHolyCawCaw]

People that upgrade every time to get a game running on max settings probably didn't spend enough on their GPU the first time so that's a major part of the problem imo. Mine MARS GTX 760x2 which is soon to be an year old can pretty much max out any game out there with the exception of probably Metro LL.  

 

And...yes, the difference between low and ultra detail is very noticeable. In some games even between medium and high is noticeable. 

Well Metro eats GPU's as breakfast^^

[Briggsy]

I love that AMD brought the up-sampling feature from the consoles to desktop drivers.

 

I was recently playing Final Fantasy 13-2, and because that game is such a hideous port, I had to play at 1600x900 to get a constant 60fps. with AMD upsampling turned on there was no difference. The same couldn't be said with upsampling turned off. I will probably not use that feature much, but now I get why resolution on the new consoles isn't as pitchfork worthy as people make it out to be.

[zappian]

This is more cinematic that anything:

 

 

@CalumGiff

[Briggsy]

This is more cinematic that anything:

 

 

@CalumGiff

 

I suddenly feel drunk watching this.

[zappian]

I suddenly feel drunk watching this.

 

Shush resolution is just a number.

 

This is so cinematic , better storytelling this way and more emotions.

 

/s

 

I think I proved my point

[Humbug]

 but now I get why resolution on the new consoles isn't as pitchfork worthy as people make it out to be.

Also when you are playing on a tv 2m away resolution changes are not as clear.

On the desktop with monitors in our face it's far easier to notice.

[Sauron]

It depends. Some settings make a huge difference, some only seem to affect performance for no apparent reason other than raising the recommended requirements.

 

-Settings that actually matter a lot:

>resolution

>texture quality

>polygon quality

>field of view

>view distance (depending on the game, in some games having it on low barely affects the experience, for example dying light)

 

-Settings that matter but not as much:

>shadow quality

>anti-aliasing (doesn't really matter if you have a 4k monitor)

>lighting & ambient occlusion (effect varies depending on game, in some games I can barely tell the difference and even then it's hard to decide if it looks better or just different)

 

-Snake oil:

>pretty much anything that doesn't figure in the first two categories, with some exceptions depending on the game.

>additions as suggested by @Humbug: motion blur, depth of field, film grain.

 

btw @CalumGiff please follow your topics

[Megahurt]

In the games I play most, I end up playing with every settings. Some settings don't look better or worse, they simply look different, I end up turning those down for better performance and just as good image quality.

[Humbug]

-Snake oil:.

to this category add

-motion blur

-depth of field

-film grain etc...

Effects which suck GPU power to make the image look worse and fake "cinematic". Always turn these off.

[Nup]

Oui 

 

[Inkz]

From Ultra to High, or even medium has just slight differences. But the jump to low is usually very noticeable.

[Mush Brain]

I used to play bfbc2 maxed except for HBAO as there was ZERO difference unlike BF3/4 and i had GTX480 SLi which at the time was simply monstrously overkill.

Here is it on 480 sli from my imageshack account.

[Zweihander]

Yes, it makes a difference.

[Airwolf1984]

I honestly didn't need to upgrade my 7870 for 1080p, but I'm playing BF4 alot and on high with AA enabled it just taxes the game or else looks kinda poo. With the 970, I can run it on ultra with 2XMSAA with MFAA enabled. Looks a lot better and I'm enjoying the game more since I'm not worried about performance issues or ugly jagged edges. Don't get me wrong, the game looked great before, but it looks better now. I could run it with 4XMSAA with MFAA, but frames dip below 60 for a noticeable performance drop on some maps. i.e. fire walls on firestorm

I could just use DSR, but the difference between the two at this point was nil. I would probably have to have a bigger monitor to notice the difference.

 

Guild Wars 2 runs great with everything cranked, I haven't played much Diablo 3 yet to see if there is any noticeable improvements there.

 

I pretty much splurged on it is what I'm saying, but I'm glad I did.