Ultra high settings versus high/veryhigh (step down)

I have no game in my collection that looks different on ultra then it does one step down in graphics well game after 2013.

does anyone have a screenshot of a game where ultra looks like its worth the 30fps hit over high.

I created this thread because im having troubles understanding all this talk about ultra and maxed settings it seems to pop up in every thread, so now its on...prove ultra is worth it and no one in here should be agreeing with me on this and hopefully you can find a game after 2013.

Im looking for a game that scales graphically similar to crysis 1 and warhead where the changes impact visuals. not this ridiculus hairworks rubbish. or special AA..


thanks a million for your pictures

 

Ark Survival scales from minecraft to uber eye candy if you have the hardware (which I don't)

 

thanks will check it out..

screens though

 

Why does it matter to you so much?
If you can't notice it, more power to you.
It's no secret there's very little difference between Ultra and Very High. I don't think many people would argue otherwise. But a difference there is.
You need to stop generalising what people say. The onus should be on you to make your case in the opening post if you feel so compelled to keep posting about it.

 

Probably because he got criticized for claiming that he maxed out games on his 965m and had incredible FPS, but in reality "maxed out" really wasn't "maxed out", but rather a mix of different setting. Obviously OP can't handle the truth, so now he seeks ways to justify his cause.

True, the difference between high/very high/whatever comes before ultra is usually not very noticeable when in motion, but it is there. Once you train your eye, you will notice.
I would gladly provide you some pics, but unfortunately it's rather hard to do so while using 240m...

But I'm sorry OP, you can't change the definition of "max" settings. I don't understand why do you feel so butthurt about it. Just say fair and square that you ran a game on high/very high/whatever.
Instead you say "I maxed it," and once busted say "oh yeah, by maxed I meant high."
When you do this it gets very misleading, especially in things like benchmarking. A guy with 980m might scratch his head wondering how the hell he got lower FPS in GTA V maxed, while you had better FPS with the "same" settings on 965m.

 

lol fair enough...but to bring back old news it was maxed with 4xAA not 8xAA....shesh making a big deal over something small. not like i was running medium claiming maxed...i exagerated a tiny weeny bit and to counter my exageration you exagerate in the opposite direction 10 fold

 

Depending on the GPU architecture, its specific settings that cause very serious performance hits. Often, it is only 2 or 3 settings that get you down on your knees. Like nvidias PCSS shadows, extreme ambient occlusions, geometric density after a set distance etc etc.

Depending on the game, some of those settings results in minor increases in visual quality. Like increased amount of objects at distance. If you are playing something like The division, many objects are behind buildings/rubbish that do not allow you to see it at all, so reducing such settings increase FPS while offering close to zero hit in visual quality.

Shadows are also incredibly hard to run, the higher the setting. For example in some games settings go from no shadows, to some shadows, to all objects have shadows, to correctly calculated all objects shadows, to finally correctly calculated all object shadows with gradient shadowing depending on light source. And performance hit becomes substantial. You can obviously see the improvement in image quality, but it's not like all shadows looked bad to begin with. They just become prettier rendered shadows on the same objects.

And so on and so forth.

In conclusion, there are specific settings which tend to be the more demanding ones, and while they do make a prettier presentation overall, they tend to do so at an exponential cost. As for what looks good enough, its up to you. Some people with incredibly capable hardware choose to play on partly low settings to avoid being distracted.

 

hardocp do image quality comparisons for some games

http://www.hardocp.com/search?cx=00...f=FORID:11&ie=UTF-8&q=Image+Quality&x=16&y=13

 

yea i can see shadows are added to the grass in GTA V with ultra...and in project cars the same thing.. I doubt its worth the 10fps hit though...got that from the link above thanks JAY...REP

 

Ultra settings are and always have been simply for bragging rights. People need a reason to justify their 2000+ dollar SLI Titan setups after all.

 

oh ok I thought people here just think they see a massive diff, and then buy a 30k setup. lol


I think i need to read more posts in the forums before opening a new thread

 

Some of us are more sensitive than others. Perfect example would be people such as myself who can not stand it when the framerate drops below 60... I can see it from around 55 and I can feel it in the controls around 50. The video settings? TXAA gives me motion sickness because its so much blur so MSAA is what I have to run, regardless of the performance penalty. I am personally really sensitive to aliasing but I also play all my games sitting less than 6 feet from a 55" LCD TV. Everyone's situation is different. I personally can't play a 3D game that has lots of jagged edges because it actually distracts me from the game. Anal retentive of me? Definitely but its totally the truth.

 

I do enjoy the fancy features from games but I understand I may not be a majority. I like to max out games and enjoy the graphic without worrying about settings.
However, I cant keep certain games on max at 60fps on my setup and I refuse to go with SLI, so whatever......

In the end its purely a personally issue, I enjoy the graphical features so I willing to get them.

 

I think for me, I've become a bit of a snob. Before the 880M SLI and now 980M SLI, I always had midrange cards for the most part. Voodoo Banshee, Radeon 9800 Pro, X800 GTO, 7800 GT, 8800M GT, 8800 GTS, Radeon 5830, 260M GTX SLI. Then suddenly I went to 880M SLI and shortly after a 780 Ti then 980M SLI... I actually can't go back to lower graphics and will most likely end up with a 1080 despite not wanting to spend that kind of money...

 

Exactly the same thing happened to me. Ever since 7970, I used 780, 780 TI, 980m SLI, GTX 1080, and now Titan XP. Once I maxed out everything once, I always want to keep doing it.

 

yeah im kinda the same always owned mid range. hd 2600/260m/5650/6990m/850m/965m

AA I cant notice any differance with any of the settings. maxing i just crank settings until i dont see a differance and then revert to whats graphically noticeable settings.

as for framerates, I don't notice 60fps vs 40fps...like i dont notice a differance. only when playing racing games do i see a differance in 60fps and feeling the judder of 55 or 50 fps.

and as for my next gpu...probably going to wait for volta as my 965m handles the games I like at good settings and framerates and I dont know of any demanding games up coming this year I really want...crossing fingers on mass effect 4 andromeda and bf1

I think that BF1 and ME 4 will be playable at high settings and at 60fps locked..just a uneducated guess

 

Sounds like something that would happen to me lol. For now I'm fine with 755m SLI, but once I go high end I'll probably be addicted.

 

remember when crysis came out?

now when the heck are we getting a game thats as amazing as crysis 1 for its time. like ahead of its time graphically. btw crysis 1 still curb stomps most games graphically even today.