some of us. u included. would rather quit playing all together then dread the thought of having to lower settings.
and you being at 1440p and 144hz.
no way a single vega/bigpascal be sufficient.
I could go that way easily and not be too bothered. I'm sure big Pascal will be quite fast and would be just fine by itself, but BF5 will ultimately dictate what I do. If it lags on a single GPU, then I will need two. OR maybe I can lower settings like a normal, reasonable person and save myself the money and headache. We'll see.
some of us. u included. would rather quit playing all together then dread the thought of having to lower settings.
and you being at 1440p and 144hz.
no way a single vega/bigpascal be sufficient.
The True Cost of Gaming on Ultra:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmsoIIMGZ00
I just don't understand this thought process. Just because a dev team gave you the option to use higher settings than your system can handle, does not make it unplayable, nor does it require you to go out and spend more money to use all the settings and get super high FPS. PC gaming has always been about giving gamers the ability to balance their settings for the best experience. They offer settings way beyond what you need all the way down to bare bone settings. Just because extreme settings exist, doesn't mean you have to use them.
Be smart and adjust the settings for a good experience.
simply. some of us want to enjoys the finer things in life.
that does not necessary mean it is the most efficient.
you should tell that the folks that needs 8gb vram on a single 960.
I just don't understand this thought process. Just because a dev team gave you the option to use higher settings than your system can handle, does not make it unplayable, nor does it require you to go out and spend more money to use all the settings and get super high FPS. PC gaming has always been about giving gamers the ability to balance their settings for the best experience. They offer settings way beyond what you need all the way down to bare bone settings. Just because extreme settings exist, doesn't mean you have to use them.
Be smart and adjust the settings for a good experience.
I'll try to explain how I think (you've been warned). I think games only look how they are intended to look when on max settings. I think that if you lower settings, what you are then seeing are the intentional compromises the devs made to enable people with inadequate hardware to play the game.
I feel the game has an intended, true, native appearance and you will experience the intended appearance when on max settings. I think max settings should be called "normal". Everything else should be called,
"Compromise level 1"
"Compromise level 2"
"Compromise level 3"
"so on and so forth"
I'll try to explain how I think (you've been warned). I think games only look how they are intended to look when on max settings. I think that if you lower settings, what you are then seeing are the intentional compromises the devs made to enable people with inadequate hardware to play the game.
I feel the game has an intended, true, native appearance and you will experience the intended appearance when on max settings. I think max settings should be called "normal". Everything else should be called,
"Compromise level 1"
"Compromise level 2"
"Compromise level 3"
"so on and so forth"
With that line of thought you will never get to play a game at it's "intended appearance".
The simple truth is that the graphics of all games are compromised, even on max settings. When an artist makes an asset, he almost always makes it at far higher fidelity than what can feasibly run in game, and as such the next step will be to slash down said asset to some level where it doesn't tank the performance. So you will never get to actually play a game with the original non-optimized/non-compromised assets (unless we're talking modern 2D games)
And I simply find that crazy. There may be some games which fit that mold, but there are many others which don't (the highly demanding ones typically). Their recommended spec's rarely give you good enough performance for higher than High settings when ultra settings exist.
I'm more inclined to believe that in many of the high end tech games, many of those settings are experiments, or value add-ons.
I do agree that this is how you and some others on these forums view it. It just isn't a healthy way of looking at things.
EDIT:
Let's not forget that so many games were built to look at their best for consoles, than they tact on added visuals for the PC.
I think you're doomed. Now you will never be satisfied or happy.That is an interesting point. I will think about this and hopefully this knowledge will cure me and save me thousands. Seriously, I could do other things with the money, like go to Disneyland for a day or something. I'm not trying to be a smartass and insult your comment, you have a good point actually, but I just realized how depressing the cost of Disneyland admission has become. Go for a day and you can throw that SLI away.
You are probably right. I agree that some games are at their standard, default appearance when on normal or maybe high settings, but then some ridiculous crap is included which wrecks the performance and they call it "ultra". I understand that and that happens. When that happens I just don't use those settings.
Most of the time I try to have the best GPU setup I can afford, and if I can afford it, I'll go for the best possible. I can't always afford it, but when I can I will usually go for it. At that point, if a game lags or doesn't run well on max settings then I can tell myself there is nothing I can do to change that. I already have the best GPU's I can afford or there is simply nothing better available to buy, so I will live with the lag or lower settings.
If a single big pascal or Vega can wreck BF5 nicely, I would be fine with that. Currently my twin 980ti's are rendering nothing but RocketLeague, and that's ridiculous, lol. I'm sick of BF4 and don't play it much anymore actually.
I don't always play games on Ultra, but when I do, I prefer MGPU.
I enjoyed BF4 but it took them so, so long to finally fix the crap netcode that I eventually gave up. For a while I could only play small maps with less than 32 players else the lag drove me batty. I got really good at one shot killing with the shotguns though because of it haha. On the plus side, SW:BF was technically as close to flawless as I've seen in a shooter. Just very lacking in content and lacking in gameplay depth. But that iteration of the engine worked great netcode wise and the graphics were stunning in addition to running extremely well (and working perfectly with multi-card)
Same here, and I wasn't even running multigpu. Didn't even buy it at launch but months later.I suffered through an incredible, and I do mean incredible amount of BS when BF4 was going through its teething problems
The True Cost of Gaming on Ultra:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmsoIIMGZ00
^ You guys should watch this.
I've always been a hater of fancy shadow tech in games, as far as I can remember. In BF Bad Company 2, it was HDAO and HBAO, 25% performance hit for very little visual gains. Fast paced FPS you aren't going to notice nuances in shades of grey in the shadows.
Many settings just don't justify the performance hit. Games like The Division and Far Cry Primal, compare even medium/normal vs ultra, not much different, double the frame rate.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying higher settings, but rather than considering a game unplayable, or going out and spending thousands of dollars to play with those settings all turned up on X game, people should be flexible enough to turn down a few settings. It goes a long way to enjoying life.
What would you do if Dev's all of a sudden offered settings which required 10 times the power GPU's currently possess to play at 60 FPS at 1080p? If they wanted to do that, they certainly could. Now contemplate that question, and you start to see how silly it is to "have" to play at maxed settings.
It seems nVidia and AMD are simply doing a poor job of selling their high end GPUs. Rather than mucking around with Gameworks and the like, they just need to make sure devs start putting in a Hyper settings above Ultra, which is pretty much the same thing but with 32x SSAA as default. They'd sell four Titan X's to every hardcore gamer out there.
I'll try to explain how I think (you've been warned). I think games only look how they are intended to look when on max settings. I think that if you lower settings, what you are then seeing are the intentional compromises the devs made to enable people with inadequate hardware to play the game.
I feel the game has an intended, true, native appearance and you will experience the intended appearance when on max settings. I think max settings should be called "normal". Everything else should be called,
"Compromise level 1"
"Compromise level 2"
"Compromise level 3"
"so on and so forth"
I just watched this. Its very true. I could completely skip the entire Pascal family and simply lower settings to high instead of ultra and probably get the same performance in games that two big die Pascals would deliver on Ultra in some games. Small visual compromises can easily allow someone to prolong the useful life of a GPU by a VERY long time. He showed that GTAV performance was cut in half by running ultra. That's an entire generation of GPU hardware saved right there just by playing on high.
For instance, when I upgraded to 1440p I still had my GTX 670's. I played on medium and FPS was totally fine. It was about as good as 1080p Ultra was. I didn't notice much of a difference during gameplay, and if I wasn't looking for it, I didn't notice it at all, so I do agree with this.
Perhaps I can break my overkill hardware habit and save some money and maybe even some headache. Once in a while its fun to go nuts though.