Are max settings really worth it?

[DeadlyPilot]

So I havnt really gotten a whole lot into PC gaming (need to upgrade my GPU), but for those of you that have the hardware to max out AAA titles, was spending the extra few hundred dollars worth the difference? From watching comparisons on YouTube (between low and maxed out), the difference is there, but IMO hardly noticeable. It just doesn't seem to be worth the extra money. Is it more noticable in person, considering YouTube videos are compressed? I just need some honest opinions on this.

[Notree]

Depends on the game really.. Shooters I play on low to maintain highest possible fps. While single player games I like to max everything I can. If you have the money of course its worth the difference. If you cant afford a gpu to max games tho its no big deal they still play the same in the end.

[GreezyJeezy]

It's all personal preference. If you like to game and want it to look good but can also comfortably afford it go for it, if not get what can run the games. Some people just like games to look really good, others just like to be able to play them.

[WereCat]

Depends.

Some games looks completely different on low vs maxed out settings and others look almost the same.

Also depends on what resolution and how big screen you play so that you can set up your AA properly. Personally I hate jagged edges.

Also youtube is not good place for graphics comparisons as the video is hugely compressed and on a fairly low bit rate.

Also if you get card that can handle today games only on medium to low settings you will have to replace it soon anyways so it is less cost effective imo.

[Virtual01]

If you have to ask, probably not.

[DeadlyPilot]

7 minutes ago, Virtual01 said:

If you have to ask, probably not.

Good point but I honestly don't have a clue how different max settings look, as I don't have anything that can run it 

[brune67]

I prefer max settings myself

[2FA]

[vanished]

I feel like in a lot of cases it's a case of diminishing returns.  Quite often turning up just a few settings from minimum to something better that might half the frame rate makes a huge difference, but then the step up to truly "max graphics" is noticeable, but generally not worth the 4x or worse drop in fps.  At least not to me.

[2FA]

I play quite a few games where the difference between settings is either straight potato or glorious.

[Prysin]

some games have like no benefit of going from High to Very High. Others its night and day.

 

Take Guildwars 2... Shaders from High to Ultra is HUGE diff. like massive.

Take CS:GO and its all the same.

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

some games have like no benefit of going from High to Very High. Others its night and day.

 

Take Guildwars 2... Shaders from High to Ultra is HUGE diff. like massive.

Take CS:GO and its all the same.

Yeah I imagine that the answer to this would vary by game.  You see some games claiming system requirements like "min: GTX 760, rec: GTX 770" and you can bet on those the settings won't do much good (or at least it will be really inefficient at lower settings).  Then there are the games that can scale practically from integrated graphics to 980 ti level  

[Totallycasual]

Ultra settings make all the difference for me, i don't plan to step up to 4k gaming until a single card can run AAA titles on full ultra, i don't like compromises. 

[Praesi]

For me it is. Otherwise it would be stupid to pay a ridiculous amount of Money for an GPU like i did.

[Delicieuxz]

Yes, graphical differences are a lot more noticeable in person than they are in youtube videos, which are compressed images.

 

Do graphics from 2005 versus graphics from 2015 makes a difference? I think it makes a big difference in the immersion of environments.

 

Not everything is needed to be maxed. Things like AA, and shadows, I can sometimes play at a slightly lowered setting (not lowest) and not really notice the difference, while saving significant FPS. But generally, the higher graphics can be pushed, the more easily believable environments feel.

[Commander Llama]

To me, resolution is the setting that matters the most, so it's the one to try and "max." This is done in pretty broad strokes when building a PC. "I'm building a 1080p gaming PC" or "I'm building a 4K gaming PC."

 

My PC maxes a lot of games out, but I also find that some settings make almost no discernible difference to my experience at all, despite having a performance impact. I sat in Total War Attila for over an hour ticking graphics settings up and down to see how it affected the frame rate. In that case, I couldn't even tell you the difference between Ultra and Medium. Since frame rate is a pretty integral part of the gaming experience, I try to maximize that as well because your eye might not catch a few jagged shadows off in that distant corner but it will focus big stuttering frame drops.

 

Anyway your question is a value statement, ultimately. Are you rich? Then max settings are worth it, because you can buy top tier hardware no sweat. Are max settings worth it for an average consumer of middling spending power? Probably not, I'd suggest a midrange experience which will get you at least 80% of the glory. When you put together a PC, consider your budget carefully and the community can probably help you squeeze the most graphical power out of it.

[You_are_a_cunt]

I max out my settings to make everything shiny, within a 30 or 60 fps lower limit.

My GPU isn't all that powerful, but I can generally make it work.

 

~shiny Fallout 4 is shiny~

[typographie]

There is absolutely no way to generalize this—it varies wildly on the game. Hell, it depends on each setting within each game whether 'ultra' is significantly more valuable than 'high.' Personal expectations, preferences, and sensibilities are also big factors.

[Ostwind]

It is very much up the the individual to decide if graphics are the more important factor in a game, there are plenty of people who don't care what it looks like so long as they can tell whats going on(I'm looking at you CS:GO players) and there are others that hate low res textures and jaggies and not having every setting cranked to the max. I personally think gameplay and story are more important than graphics but there are lots of things graphically that I don't like to see because they can be distracting and can break immersion. I hate motion blur first and foremost so that is always the first thing that goes off in the options menu, I also think jaggies are very ugly and distracting so I will run as much AA as it takes to get rid of them, if I have the power for it I prefer downsampling to get rid of jaggies because it feels like the most effective to me. Then there's textures, I really really like high quality textures. While it might be something that you don't notice all the time unless you walk around licking walls it can sometimes be really jarring to suddenly find yourself against a wall only to see a texture that looks like mud mixed with mashed potato's and vomit rather than some brick/stone/wallpaper texture. Having nice ones can also go a long way in increasing immersion in quieter moments in a game or just for eye candy on a particularly attractive weapon or piece of armor.

 

In the end though I will always drop graphics settings to get my desired framerate because I hold gameplay above all others. If I can get the performance I want while getting rid of all the uglies in my game then all the better but it really depends on what you prefer. As for whether or not I thought my original spending was worth it I don't know, I originally started with a single 660 Ti. Later I added one because I had the money and for giggles, I wasn't hurting for more power despite the fact that there were obviously games that I couldn't max on a single card. Through a series of frankly ridiculous failures and RMA's I ended up with a par of 960's and I can turn off SLI and not be too bothered about having to drop some settings to make the game run right even when it's noticeably less good looking.

 

10 hours ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

This would be relevant if that couldn't be achieved on a 750 ti.

[2FA]

6 minutes ago, Ostwind said:

snipperino

The idea is relevant.

[Ostwind]

2 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

The idea is relevant.

I know, but I always feel I have to mention it when someone uses the skyrim graphics prompt.

[2FA]

1 minute ago, Ostwind said:

I know, but I always feel I have to mention it when someone uses the skyrim graphics prompt.

I was actually looking for a different meme at the time but I couldn't find it in a reasonable amount of time. Oh well.

[Face2Face]

To answer your question...NO.   

[BrightCandle]

It completely depends on the game. I have definitely been at the point recently where settings in games like the division were lower than I would want due to my GPU (and the game not scaling well with SLI) and having tried the higher settings and getting low performance wished I could run it. I personally care more about high fps than I do graphics, I will play BF 4 on mostly high and take 90+ fps in preference to the better graphics but I want both and so for that I sort of need 2x the GPU performance of most people to have a decent chance of that. Max graphics not so much, but MSAA 4x and SMAA instead of just FXAA and decent settings are important to getting a good experience in a lot of games.

[GeekJump]

The resolution is my biggest thing. After 60 fps, I can barely tell the difference (if any) but I can def. see the difference of 720p, 1080p, etc.

 

At some point the return isn't worth it. Getting a titan x (or even a 980) may be overkill in most cases IMO. Also there is the fact the a lot of games these days are horribly optimized. So sometimes max settings still result in poo poo looking games. but that is a rant for another day/topic...