What graphic settings to turn down (4k)

[User Name]

So I have a 4k monitor what I really wanted was a 1440p monitor, but the price was right. My gpu is a 980ti. Playing most aaa games it runs 30-60 fps on ultra what settings do you guys recommend as the least noticeable graphics changes with largest fps bumps? On a side note I would not recommend a 4k monitor, games look not much better at all over 1080p...

[Guest]

motion blur, aa, hair, 

 

 

 

resolution lol jk

[Enderman]

Well you don't really need AA, and you can tell more of a difference if your monitor is large, so if you got a 24 or 27" 4k monitor that was a bit of a waste.

[Orangeator]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

Well you don't really need AA, and you can tell more of a difference if your monitor is large, so if you got a 24 or 27" 4k monitor that was a bit of a waste.

980 TI and 27" 4k monitor owner here... I can promise you that either you guys have bad eyes or haven't tried to see the difference yourself. I had a 27" 1080P monitor right next to my 4k monitor playing the same game with the 4k monitor having lower graphical settings... And the 4k look 20X times better. There is an immediate and massively noticable difference between the two. Without a doubt. Even blind tested this with my mom and family yesterday. For sure not a "waste" lol.

[User Name]

51 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

980 TI and 27" 4k monitor owner here... I can promise you that either you guys have bad eyes or haven't tried to see the difference yourself. I had a 27" 1080P monitor right next to my 4k monitor playing the same game with the 4k monitor having lower graphical settings... And the 4k look 20X times better. There is an immediate and massively noticable difference between the two. Without a doubt. Even blind tested this with my mom and family yesterday. For sure not a "waste" lol.

I do see a difference, just not like the jump of 720 to 1080 IMO. I think game textures just have a long way to go to make 4k as good as it can be. Also a big bump in gpu power will be needed to really make it shine.

[Enderman]

53 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

980 TI and 27" 4k monitor owner here... I can promise you that either you guys have bad eyes or haven't tried to see the difference yourself. I had a 27" 1080P monitor right next to my 4k monitor playing the same game with the 4k monitor having lower graphical settings... And the 4k look 20X times better. There is an immediate and massively noticable difference between the two. Without a doubt. Even blind tested this with my mom and family yesterday. For sure not a "waste" lol.

When you need to turn up windows scaling to 200%, deal with bad scaling, and lose all that realestate, then tbh it's not that worth it.

1440p is better at those sizes.

[Orangeator]

Just now, Enderman said:

When you need to turn up windows scaling to 200%, deal with bad scaling, and lose all that realestate, then tbh it's not that worth it.

1440p is better at those sizes.

What the hell are you talking about? 125% scaling, 4k@27", Windows 10, and the text is perfectly readable and super sharp... Sometimes, if I want to do heavy multi-tasking I switch it to 100% scaling and it is still 100% usable and readable for anyone with good vision and sitting like most do at a desk. I have 90+ rows of excel open when at 100% scaling and all the numbers and text is easily readable. It's the equivalence of small novel text. Have you ever used a 4k monitor? Lol.

[Enderman]

10 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

What the hell are you talking about? 125% scaling, 4k@27", Windows 10, and the text is perfectly readable and super sharp... Sometimes, if I want to do heavy multi-tasking I switch it to 100% scaling and it is still 100% usable and readable for anyone with good vision and sitting like most do at a desk. I have 90+ rows of excel open when at 100% scaling and all the numbers and text is easily readable. It's the equivalence of small novel text. Have you ever used a 4k monitor? Lol.

I've used 24 and 27" monitors and they are tiny.

4k on them is horrible, way too tiny to do anything productive unless you use scaling.

 

[User Name]

1 hour ago, Orangeator said:

What the hell are you talking about? 125% scaling, 4k@27", Windows 10, and the text is perfectly readable and super sharp... Sometimes, if I want to do heavy multi-tasking I switch it to 100% scaling and it is still 100% usable and readable for anyone with good vision and sitting like most do at a desk. I have 90+ rows of excel open when at 100% scaling and all the numbers and text is easily readable. It's the equivalence of small novel text. Have you ever used a 4k monitor? Lol.

I used my 4k monitor for work 8 hrs a day and I will say that I had mixed feelings at 100% scaling text was like looking at an iPhone and when I ran windows scaling 125%I would say 25-50% apps had poor scaling with blurry text or odd looking menu's even office 365 skype looked like trash. 1440 is the way to go imo. But 4k does look wayyyy nice in some situations.

[WereCat]

19 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

What the hell are you talking about? 125% scaling, 4k@27", Windows 10, and the text is perfectly readable and super sharp... Sometimes, if I want to do heavy multi-tasking I switch it to 100% scaling and it is still 100% usable and readable for anyone with good vision and sitting like most do at a desk. I have 90+ rows of excel open when at 100% scaling and all the numbers and text is easily readable. It's the equivalence of small novel text. Have you ever used a 4k monitor? Lol.

 

8 minutes ago, Enderman said:

I've used 24 and 27" monitors and they are tiny.

4k on them is horrible, way too tiny to do anything productive.

 

It comes down to personal preference.

24"-27" 4k looks nice and sharp, which I appreciate but I would much more prefer 34"-36" for taking full advantage of the screen real estate.

 

OP, don't disable AA outright, in many cases it still makes quite a lot of difference. Not always but it comes down to the game and which type of AA it uses.

 

Use lower shadow quality, water, particles and if really needed then level of detail and AF.

Maybe use SSAO instead of HBAO.

 

I recommend enabling MFAA in NVIDIA Control Panel to override MSAA in games for the same quality and better performance.

[PlayStation 2]

If you have AA at higher settings, I'd actually suggest try for FXAA in games that can use it. It's fucking awful at 1080p but when it comes to 2160p it'll clean up far better.

[NTDaws]

Tessellation i suppose.

[Zaki_Owais]

On 5/24/2017 at 1:01 AM, Orangeator said:

980 TI and 27" 4k monitor owner here... I can promise you that either you guys have bad eyes or haven't tried to see the difference yourself. I had a 27" 1080P monitor right next to my 4k monitor playing the same game with the 4k monitor having lower graphical settings... And the 4k look 20X times better. There is an immediate and massively noticable difference between the two. Without a doubt. Even blind tested this with my mom and family yesterday. For sure not a "waste" lol.

Really.20 times better.Use logical differences.

[Orangeator]

6 hours ago, Zaki_Owais said:

Really.20 times better.Use logical differences.

Technically not 20 times better, rather 4X (which is still substantial) better. However, my dad said and quote "this monitor here is in a league of it's own, Patriots vs the Browns" lol.

[impure]

Nvidia has some interesting graphics performance guides for some games. They show you what graphics settings actually do and what impact they have. Personally I usually turn everything down. Sure, you'll notice the difference but when you're actually playing you won't notice that much.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Anything that has to do with shader quality, like lighting effects, shadows, etc. Texture mapping doesn't do anything other than tank or help your VRAM.

 

Also turn off MSAA or whatnot. FXAA or MLAA may work.