Is MAX graphics settings overkill?

Hi guys,

Im wondering what settings everyone uses, I try my best to run everything on max settings but is there really any noticable difference?

The point I'm trying to make is,
I always have vsync on, AA max AF max, everthing max with my max res of 1920x1080. I have a few games in my collection when run on full settings my FPS is 40-50 and i would like 60+ preferably with all my gaming. I heard people leave AA off and AF at 4 etc etc. The last thing I want to do is ruin quality but I wonder if Im going overkill on the MAX settings.

What do you guys run games at?
Thanks

 

Uhh I play my games as high as they can go without being noticeably choppy, 40-60 FPS for me. Higher Gfx = Better IMO
That being said I'm running 2560 x 1440 on 27'' of monitor so AA is typically the first thing I turn down.

 

I'd say no, max settings aren't worth it if they take fps below about 50. A fluid but lower quality image is much more enjoyable than a pretty slide show. Usually the required increase in fps can be had just by tweaking the settings a little.

Some of the settings when enabled make the game actually look worse, in my eyes. Motion blur... I hate it. Would rather just have higher framerates instead of making it look artificially smooth. And post-processing AA - it makes everything look blurry which is the exact opposite of what a game should look like on a 1080p monitor. Depth of field can also look stupid, it's usually way overdone in games that use it, it should be used in moderation and only in cut scenes that attempt to look cinematic. Sometimes cut scenes look better without it though.

And other settings offer very little improvement despite taking a big chunk of fps, e.g. 8xAA vs 4xAA, or SSAO.

I'm kind of disappointed that game graphics have evolved towards all these post processing methods instead of improving the detail of textures and models.

 

For me max settings with max AA at 1920x1080 whenever possible. If I am not happy with my FPS the first thing to go is AA. The last thing I would ever lower is my resolution. If we weren't concerned about image quality we would all own consoles.

 

Cheers guys. If anything drops below 40 FPS I start to get bothered. So Max the living daylights out of it until the FPS starts ruining the gameplay then drop AA first until the FPS is at a good level. What do you all think of Physx? what benefits do you get with it on? In some of my games it locks it at 60 but when its off my FPS is at 90+. Is it to prevent tearing of the screen? what else?

 

Thanks for taking the time to right this. So is it true anything more than x4 AA is pointless

 

I run all my games on "high" with 16X AF and zero AA. FSAA is a frames per second killer, always has been. Everyone that knows me knows how anti-AA I am here on Guru3d. It is the one single feature that is complete and utter nonsense! The difference between "high" and "Ultra" in most games is you guessed it-FSAA. Ultra usually forces AA to some degree while High usually leaves it off. The filtering of the textures is what you notice with your eye, hence the need for AF. AA is what you notice when you are purposely looking at straight lines. You only ever truly notice this while in zoom or looking at a screenshot. A lot of today's gamers have an OCD to AA. They obsess about it so much that they refuse to buy games that don't have proper AA support. This is truly silly!

FSAA history lesson (the truth): 3dfx invented FSAA back in the day (1998?) when our gaming resolutions where at a low level where jaggies on straight lines were actually right in your face noticable. This was due to the fact that back then 800x600 and 1024x768 was the common standard gaming resolution. Move forward to the year 2011 and we see gaming resolutions of 1680x1050 and 1080P as standard! So, the actual need for FSAA is now lost. It isn't in your face anymore. It isn't something you notice unless you are focused in on it. Nvidia and AMD/ATi knows the selling point for there high-end cards is FSAA. It is the only feature that gives justification for the high price of the high-end cards. So, they have to market this feature with all there ability. They post screenshots showing the differences but what they fail to realize is that in a screenshot it is noticeable if you are looking for it. Playing fluid motion in a game it is simply not really noticeable. Guys here will argue that it is, some will even go so far to claim while playing a race car game driving 200MPH they can some how magically see jaggies on straight lines but all this is, is there OCD kicking in and the fact that they need to validate why they paid so much for the high-end card in the first place! This is the 100% truth of this debate!! This is why I always buy mid-end cards and never buy high-end models. There is simply no need to buy one if you never use FSAA!

Having said that, pretend FSAA is not even an option and your gaming experience will usually always be smooth high quality!! To validate this point, I play BF3 Beta high quality 16x AF remdering 60+ smooth in 1680x1050 resolution. Everyone else using some form of FSAA are struggling to maintain 40FPS in this game.

Have a nice day!

 

Thanks!! This helps me understand alot more!! What about physx?

 

That's true. However, there were also people, even back then, who said things like "but 1024x768 is such a high resolution, we don't need AA".

The need for AA is not lost at all. In your opinion, you don't think it's needed. However that's just opinion, and they're like arse holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

 

I disagree, especially in multiplayer shooters. In medium resolutions FSAA works wonders, but on lower resolutions it can blur out stuff on long range so a head blurs in with an edge of a box making you miss shots or worse, not even notice the enemy is there.

Though it's the feature I care the least about and I'm really liking the FXAA since it barely hits performance and also applies to parallax mapping.

 

Ahh, maleficarus is at it again. Thanks for the laugh, maleficarus.

Yes, for me it is pointless. You can test on your own setup whether you even notice the difference and if you do notice it, is it only because you're looking extra carefully.

 

3Dfx didnt "invent" FSAA. They just implemeted it.

All current graphics technologies are derived from previous theoretical works. Cube maps, sphere maps, AA, stencil shadows, etc. All of them are based on older works, mostly in the 70s and 80s.

For example, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing you get linked to 3 papers, from 1974, 1977 and 1978. All works from ppl who where way ahead of computing power of these days.

The usefulness of AA depends not on the resolution but on the pixel density of the monitor. You could have a 800x600 5 inches display wich wouldnt need AA at all cuz the pixel density is very high. Pixels are so small in the screen that you cant see the jaggies that they produce. Just like if you run an above nominal resolution on a CRT monitor. The important stuff is not the higher resolution but the higher pixel density on a given space. Thats the stuff that matters.

You could have a 1600x1200 40 inch monitor that would require more AA than say, a 1400x768 17 inch monitor cuz the pixel density would be way lower on the 40 inch monitor, thus, pixels would be bigger and more noticeable.

At normal pixel densities, 2x or 4x AA is always, more or less, welcomed. That also depends on the distance from the monitor.

 

Just tested my setup with BFBC2, Riddick and a few others which I normally have 60 FPS locked no more no less. On BFBC2 I went into the settings and I left AF on x16 AA lowest (x1MSAA) and turned off HBAO similar to SSAO also vsync off aswell. FPS was at 170+ . I tried Riddick with the same settings off and it was giving me 200ish FPS. I'm suprised to say that the quality was still there I noticed the straight line arent as blended but thats because i was looking closely..... im coming to think is it worth 100+ FPS with these settings enabled! mmmmmm

 

I max out the graphics for all my games and try to keep 60FPS minimum, if not ill lower AA a little bit, draw distance, etc. But usually when i have a lot of FPS like 100+(like black ops) ill max out with 32xAA and 4xTSAA (transparency AA) that obliterates all jagged edges and edges of foilage, grass ,etc. I hate jagged edges.

And what malef says is nonsense saying that AA is not needed on 1080p.. lol. Thats his own opinion, not a fact.

 

I max out everything. except for AO. thats a 30% penalty right there.

 

Yes, if you look closely you can see small jaggies on straight lines. But the key word there is closely. You almost have to press your face to your monitor and really study the lines. I get a steady 150 FPS in BC2 but I still won't enable performance stealing AA! The only time I will ever use AA is if there is 0% performance loss...

 

Ya and if I remember correctly you were the dude saying you can notice jaggies driving 200MPH in a racing game. Talk about nonsense!!

 

Handbags at the ready!!!

I have turned off FSAA for all my games apart from dirt 3 which I left on X2AA the edges were quite noticable on the menus. HBAO/SSAO/AO is abit pointless it kills FPS for extra shadows so I turned this off. Post processing makes it really blurry too blurry compared to when its off. I never liked motion blur so thats off. I turned off my physx as it locks it at 60 FPS and whenever it struggles it goes to 30 FPS which is crap?? but I think LCD screens help with preveting screen tearing. Having a higher FPS surely helps with multiplayer?
Ive not missed anything have I?

 

You remember incorrectly then. Never even remember talking about racing games.

 

I prefer to have High setting with or wit out AA but af is something I like to use at x16 if I can.