• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

'Ultra Quality Settings are Dumb' article

Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
10,712
..I dunno, if you spend £1400 on a 3090, seems dumb to run at anything less than 'Ultra'...otherwise, why did you bother spending such an absurd amount.

You can buy the most expensive graphics card in the world and still know that enabling X setting has a FPS hit which sucks.

But what does that matter, the game devs aren't selling you graphics sliders and never guarantee that everything turned on at once is a good idea.

The point is to have performance which doesn't distract from the game right?
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
I said this the other day Ultra presets just seem to be designed to inefficiently gobble up resources for very little benefit. I suppose to justify high end graphics cards.

I have a 3080ti and first thing I did was go into BF2042 beta and turn everything off and to low apart from nvidia reflex
 
Associate
Joined
23 Oct 2019
Posts
484
I have a 3080ti and first thing I did was go into BF2042 beta and turn everything off and to low apart from nvidia reflex

Ironically enough I was having almost the same FPS average on either low or ultra with my 3090 @2k, felt a CPU bottleneck to me (using 5800x for reference), then again it's just a beta, not that I expect the final game to improve by much, beta was a bit disappointing from someone who always buy battlefield titles on release day.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
Ironically enough I was having almost the same FPS average on either low or ultra with my 3090 @2k, felt a CPU bottleneck to me (using 5800x for reference), then again it's just a beta, not that I expect the final game to improve by much, beta was a bit disappointing from someone who always buy battlefield titles on release day.

I liked it. I didn't like how you have to set up the gun in game and can't have set loadouts before hand though.

Having to go into a new game and put scope on the sniper every time is just dumb
 
Associate
Joined
23 Oct 2019
Posts
484
I liked it. I didn't like how you have to set up the gun in game and can't have set loadouts before hand though.

Having to go into a new game and put scope on the sniper every time is just dumb

To be honest I am pretty sure that was a beta issue, no other battlefield had that problem, I also believe the final version will have higher graphical settings if old battlefield games betas are anything to go by.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Posts
17,465
I have a 3080ti and first thing I did was go into BF2042 beta and turn everything off and to low apart from nvidia reflex

Same thing I did

but it doesn't increase the framerate at all for me, what it does do is reduce the stutters and lag spikes a bit and also it makes it a lot easier to spot enemies by removing most of the foliage in the game


Ironically enough I was having almost the same FPS average on either low or ultra with my 3090 @2k, felt a CPU bottleneck to me (using 5800x for reference), then again it's just a beta, not that I expect the final game to improve by much, beta was a bit disappointing from someone who always buy battlefield titles on release day.


Yep. Playing at 2k on my 3090 and there is about no-performance difference from Ultra to Low. But I did it anyway because I found at Low settings there are fewer frametime lag spikes and also because it makes it easier to see enemies, just as was the case in the previous 2 games
 
Associate
Joined
23 Oct 2019
Posts
484
i found messing with PBO gave me some extra frames but that was about it, would say i was averaging between 90-110 FPS, hopefully i can get closer to 140 on the final release.
 
Associate
Joined
5 Aug 2013
Posts
457
I usually start with ultra when i get into a new game then figure out whats killing the fps and knock it down til its over about 80fps (i find that i cant tell too much difference with the motion over that amount).
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2007
Posts
15,428
Location
PA, USA (Orig UK)
I know right so dumb /sarcasm.

Stop pushing those boundaries, and everything that made the PC great. Why bother to include such settings to make fidelity better even if minimal etc.... /rolleyes
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
18,300
Location
Birmingham
see, rdr 2 is about optimized settings. you optimize this game, it still looks phenomenal and magically performs %40-60 better. really, its so simple. u get even 4k 60 fps with a 2080ti with optimized settings. butter stuff. and then come ultra settings. u push everything to ultra and suddenly 3090 is needed for that sweet 4k 60 fps. but the image differences are very miniscule. in some "specific" cases there are some differences but its... meh! especially the water simulation settings. they literally kill your fps even you cant see the streams and waters and lakers directly. thats a thing... and stuff like that; and now comes in dlss, and suddenly people see it as a way to max the game out. now they sacrifice resolution, clarity and sharpness so that they can render the game at 1440p, then upscale it but use them ultra settings. i see lots of players trying to this.

RDR2 is a great example. I followed an online guide for the most "efficient" settings, and now have it running at 4k/75fps while looking virtually indistinguishable from just cranking everything to ultra. Like you say, some of the settings there's a 10-20% FPS hit for basically no difference in visuals.
 
Associate
Joined
5 Aug 2013
Posts
457
RDR2 is a great example. I followed an online guide for the most "efficient" settings, and now have it running at 4k/75fps while looking virtually indistinguishable from just cranking everything to ultra. Like you say, some of the settings there's a 10-20% FPS hit for basically no difference in visuals.

Agree
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Nov 2004
Posts
25,812
Location
On the road....
RDR2 is a great example. I followed an online guide for the most "efficient" settings, and now have it running at 4k/75fps while looking virtually indistinguishable from just cranking everything to ultra. Like you say, some of the settings there's a 10-20% FPS hit for basically no difference in visuals.
+1 (or us that2? :D)

RDR2 @ ultra / 4K absolutely kills my 1080ti / 4790k yet I’ve got it running beautifully at a pretty solid ~65 FPS now, took a lot of tweaking and a few variations from the numerous guides out there, I’ve got a whole mish mash of settings, some as high as they’ll go, others pretty low yet my 3090 owning mate is very impressed at the performance - and visuals - I’m getting, he gets similar results without tweaking but in fairness has a vastly superior rig to mine so has the luxury of just whacking everything as high as it’ll go. The Git. :p :D
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2007
Posts
14,258
Location
ArcCorp
RDR2 is a great example. I followed an online guide for the most "efficient" settings, and now have it running at 4k/75fps while looking virtually indistinguishable from just cranking everything to ultra. Like you say, some of the settings there's a 10-20% FPS hit for basically no difference in visuals.

I think those settings exist purely for the developer to be able to say "Look we gave you a setting to crank that tanks performance... you won't ever see what it does but you can crank it" :D
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Feb 2004
Posts
4,767
Location
London
Adding an additional console preset would be pretty easy for developers to do (low, medium, high, experimental/ultra would still be present), I don't see any problem with this.

Doesn't really help though as these settings would be designed for the power level and efficiency they can extract from the console hardware. If you're PC specs are different or less powerful then it's useless. Might actually **** off people if they see that their new PC can't run a game as well as a £350 console.

Honestly life is full of Int roles, you can't protect people from their own folly
 
Associate
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
1,684
unfortunately not everyone realises this. they get the brand new graphics card and get upset when they smack the ultimate preset on and they don't get high frame rates. to be fair part of the problem is game developers as well, with some developers like Ubisoft there can be zero visual difference between a high and ultra quality and the performance will drop by a considerable percentage.

I find my life is happier if I turn the frames counter of now
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Posts
7,868
I think game devs have worked out that PC gamers have a tendency to play with their nobs for a bit.

They'd hate it if that was no longer required.

I mean the in game settings, ofc :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom