Ultra Settings Suck 2kliksphilip Video

G

GeEl2088

n00b
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
6
I completely agree with this video BUT it is soo much effort to find the right settings for every different card.
Any other ideas to make testing like this more efficient?
Previously I had said that 40fps should be the new minimum but when I game I really aim for 100 at least.
Especially in an FPS.

 
I've never really wanted to just settle for lower settings/resolution to increase FPS, so I've always just thrown money at the problem by getting either getting a higher-end GPU, or more of them. Hilariously enough, the introduction of variable refresh rate (G/Freesync) displays have made shooting for the stars (in terms of IQ settings) all the more feasible, so for some people like myself, nothing's really changed. Now that GSync makes sub 60s FPS a lot more tolerable, I don't mind going overboard on graphics settings (mostly for single player or slower paced co-op games). I will only lower effects quality in games where I know for sure that running sub ~100s FPS will put me at a disadvantage against all the other tryhards running 120/144/165Hz displays while running ultra low settings/resolutions for super low input lag.
 
Games like Witcher 3 I need to play on Ultra. Most open world games in fact. I prefer a far draw distance which is very taxing. Yea I can see turning down settings in a FPS game where I'm not really paying attention to scenery, but most of them don't require a powerful PC so Ultra is usually just fine for me. I do turn down a few settings in Rust though since it is power hungry and optimized. I usually turn down settings in games where there is no noticeable visual difference.
 
In most cases I usually just spend a little bit fucking with settings and dial in the best bang for the buck.

I am quite content with 90% quality if framerate is a solid cut above what it is completely maxed out. For anything heavily competitive I always favor performance first, heavily.
 
With VRR technology I can see 40 FPS being the minimum, but if you're still stuck with a static refresh rate 60 FPS should be the floor.
 
I'd never heard of this youtuber, but this was in my recommended the other night. At first I scoffed at it, but then after watching it, I do agree with him. The difference in fidelity between low/med settings now, and low/med settings 5-10 years ago is substantial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top