"Ultra Settings Suck"

[Bacon1]

Something I've thought the same for a while now, turning down one setting in many games will heavily increase performance while looking basically the same.

I like how Overclock3d.net does this @ 1440p in their newer reviews.

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/mass_effect_andromeda_pc_performance_review/5

And most time its only one or two of the settings (usually shadow / lighting) that are the major performance hits and textures and similar are small perf hits. So DIY setting modification can give excellent visuals for great performance

 

[ddogg]

Yeah I just turn down a few settings to high to get a steady 60fps. The difference between ultra and high is generally negligible, and the performance hit is not worth it unless you can hit 60fps on ultra settings.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[DaveSimmons]

Yep, this has been true in many games for many years.

 

[dogen1]

At the very least they shouldn't really be used as the bar for deciding whether a game is "well optimized" or not. Sometimes devs just want to give you the option to crank up the quality, efficiency be damned.

This is what PC gamers want, but ironically it's often what they complain about as well. The option to run a game however you want, even if it's sometimes beyond your hardware's ability.

 

[Carfax83]

It's been like this for years. Also, shadows and lighting are always the heaviest hitting settings. In ME:A for instance, there are places on the Tempest where if I point the camera towards, my framerate will drop by about 10-12 FPS from 60 FPS. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the lighting or shadow settings being on ultra (or maybe both), but I haven't tested it completely yet.

Certain areas in the Witcher 3 are the same as well, when shadows are on ultra. It's going to be interesting to see how my Titan Xp handles these workloads compared to my GTX 1080 which chokes in these areas.

 

[Yakk]

Hint : Ultra settings are generally not something targeted by developers, just a byproduct so it generally isn't optimized in the least.

However it is major marketing material for IHM's, especially nvidia. AMD works with developers to target medium/high settings especially for consoles and PCs by extension.

 

[SPBHM]

yes...
I find annoying how many reviews only test on ultra, specially when they are testing lower cost cards and not the latest Titan.
most games look better on medium-high (because of the higher framerate)

 

[nathanddrews]

IMO:
FPS > Quality Settings

About the only settings I really care about are drawing distance (reduce or eliminate pop in) and texture quality. Alpha effects generally just get in the way...

 

[lehtv]

I don't think I've ever played any graphically intensive game actually fully maxed out (as per in-game settings). There's always at least a couple of things that I want to turn off because having them on looks worse... like motion blur, depth of field and other post-process gizmos, unrealistically intense HBAO and unrealistically sharp shadows, etc. Typically I end up going with some combination of ultra textures and LOD with medium/high other settings which allows for high fps and the best image quality. Anti aliasing is usually best to inject as SMAA with Reshade unless the game offers a similar alternative to FXAA (= blurry) and MSAA (= performance hit).

 

[Raduque]

There's always at least a couple of things that I want to turn off because having them on looks worse... like motion blur, depth of field and other post-process gizmos,

I always turn off motion blur and DoF. Usually turn down post processing too, but low shadows break the visuals for me.

 

[dogen1]

I always turn off motion blur and DoF. Usually turn down post processing too, but low shadows break the visuals for me.

Low shadows usually suck, but I rarely use really high settings for them because usually they're too soft for my taste (I like hard edged shadows) and really demanding. Motion blur is sometimes nice, especially if it's per object, and good depth of field is great imo. As long as it's not thrown onto the screen without much though put into it, I usually leave it on.

IMO:
FPS > Quality Settings

About the only settings I really care about are drawing distance (reduce or eliminate pop in) and texture quality. Alpha effects generally just get in the way...

Yeah, pop in sucks too. Object pop in, or really obvious shadow cascades. Nasty.

 

[A_Skywalker]

I noticed in the GTA part of the video how some objects pop in and out. Its better to fix things like this than make a game look better with 1%.

 

[ConsoleLover]

The RX 480 seems to be having very low minimums in Andromeda, but I've also noticed it in other games as well. It can have solid averages and higher maximums than the 1060, but its minimums are super low, creating for a worse playing experience, while the 1060 has somewhat of a smoother performance.

AMD should definately work in their drivers, as well as their Vega architecture to fix this and maintain better minimums.