Haha very true for both statements

Yeah, maxing everything out is fun tbh. This is why I after building a new PC, the first thing I do is revisit the older titles.

Just like you can't tell the difference from 144hz to 165, 240, 300... you guys swear you see a difference even with 100fps and above

@@jponz85 But we do, our eyes are just built different, if you can't, I feel sorry for you

My laptop can go to Ultra >70fps but I still only use High or Very High in single player games then low on multiplayer. Anytime I use Ultra settings... It's just for screenshots, selfies/photomodes, and recording in-game cutscenes because that's the only time it felt really good to use anyway.

Yeah my sentiments exactly with red dead

In any game textures can be maxed to the limit of your vram.

Ultra textures in rdr2 is the equivalent of consoles and anything below it is pretty bad

shadows definitiely high but otherwise yeah

Otherwise dogwater pixelation not that it’s bearable on lower end hardware tbh

Yeah definitely

I thought it was less unnecessary in old times when even the slightest improvement in graphics felt big.

In most cases it is but on higher resolutions you can notice changes easily that's the thing and reason ULTRA exists

Always has been

@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat Yeah, when they started including things like anti-aliasing and ambient occlusion, it felt pretty sweet to be able to turn those things on.

The biggest killer of fps for me was msaa, imo taa does a great job with the slider being turned halfway up

​@@mrducky179 For me, it was screen-space reflections (SSR) Most games that use SSR end up taking a big performance hit, for almost no gain in the quality of water reflections

@@mrducky179 i really, really wish MSAA was still an option in video games. i fucking LOVE MSAA i don't care about the performance hit. TAA looks gross.

@@beardalaxy TAA is a disgrace for picture quality.

What's your pc specs

Story of my life and I work in IT lol

there's a whole subreddit for this sort of thing called "patient gamers"

Yeah totally agree, here in Australia while new games are generally $90-$150AUD at the moment the whole Metro Series is on sale at Steam it cost me under $20AUD for all 3 games with DLCs, Plus GOG are always having a sale & there have been some interesting games for the EPIC Weekly Freebie.

This is what I do. The games are way cheaper, it's one thing but they also have been patched , fixed, optimized by the time I buy them. And I don't have to sell a kidney to buy the latest Nvidia high end rig to play a couple of AAA games on ultra.

@@beardalaxy Purchased GTAV in 2015 for PC & still waiting for GTAVI, lol

The problem is that despite modern games still being demanding on low, most still look terrible with muddy textures that rival the PS1 era games yet somehow take up 4 to 6 gigs of VRAM. You'd expect it'd look like ultra from 10 years ago, but no, but no, not even close. That's why I'd like to see a comparison between modern low settings vs old ultra settings, visually and performance-wise.

​@@Snow.2040 Oh BenchmarKing, yeah that's good

​@@dantemeriere5890 Truer words have never been said.

Is not texture fault but shaders or particle effect that you cant turn it off tlou example the game rendered each leaves with respective light

DOOM Eternal has the best graph data give it a try

Its in Odessey too.

and AC Valhalla

the newer Resident Evil games also have a showcase screenshots for each graphical setting. Which is super handy!

Yeah I think I could have a 4090 and still avoid ultra lol. Just a habit at this point

@@RandomGaminginHD I would take a 4090 to run at 4K with high FPS. I'll gladly turn things down if they have no effect on visuals, but boost FPS when turned down.

Lol I play some games at 1080p low on a 3080

i have a 2080ti, playing games on ultra means i have less FPS and i always try to hit at least 90 when possible. still playing at 1080p too lol.

i got a 4070 here and mostly play on high unless its an older game.

True, also undervolting could help

Absolutely. I have a 3060Ti and a 120hz oled tv, yet I always play at 1440p, locked at 60fps (+undervolt and mild underclock on cpu, but heavy overclock on memory). My GPU is usually running relatively silently at 85% usage, at 70-75°c. Great for my electricity bill and the longevity of the GPU too.

I always undervolt and cap the framerate. Why melt your card to give yourself screentear?

@@armyofninjas9055 its for benchmark purpose, for playing regularly undervolting and fps cap is highly recommended for any games just with different number

Shadows can have a huge drain on FPS. My favorite indie Grim Dawn, the difference between off and Very High (or Ultra) is around 20 or so fps.

Major PC games this year so far have been lackluster and horribly optimized. Notable major titles: Forspoken, Dead Space remake, Hogwarts Legacy, Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty, The Last of Us Part 1, Star Wars Jedi: Survivor. They all needed multiple patches after launch to get to playable state. Not worth deep-diving into "optimized" settings when they are so broken on launch day.

Idk if youve noticed but almost every AAA pc port has launched so unbelievably unoptimized that changing settings doesnt fix anything, which is why youtubers who normally make optimized settings guide for games have not covered some of the more recent broken ports such as jedi survivor for instance.

Exactly 😁

You'll be able to tell that 10 FPS difference though

Thank you :)

Forza on Extreme(max) added fog, but looked much better than Ultra. In Hogwarts Legacy the fog is also higher on Ultra(max).

In Forza the position of the sun its different...

@@RocketRenton My 6700XT cost £600 when I had no choice to replace my 1660ti If it had been 3 months later I would of got the 6800XT for the same price however I needed it at the time lol I would defo favour the 6700XT over the 3060ti any day. With the way things are going with Vram AMD saw this coming a long time ago which is why most of their reasonably priced cards are 10gb or above. I fitted my son a 6700 with 10gb as his budget wouldn't accommodate the XT variant but he plays at 1080 so big issue. The only thing Nvidia cards have slightly better is DLSS however there really is not much difference between FSR and DLSS when your actually into the game. For me team green lost my confidence a long time ago and have been team red for a while now and will probably stick that way in the future, my next upgrade is going from a 3600x to 5800x3d to maximise my AM4 platform until the AM5 gets over its hiccups.

How many fps that you got in recent title using RX 6700XT on 1440P resolution and high graphic, the problem with benchmark nowadays is that they use the highest graphic option while i am just gonna use high setting, and also apparently video recording take some fps (some argue that it is false and some argue that it is true), so i want information from the real owner (I want to buy RX 6700XT in the near future or maybe something better if the market goes right)

@@jalma9643 I've never done much recording with it but I would assume I wouldn't be able to run the very highest whilst recording as it probably would take a performance hit, however for instance with Hogwarts Legacy I'm get around 75-100 fps on max settings with FSR on. If there's been any dips I have not noticed them what so ever. With games that people play online like cod and fortnight I wouldn't know but people use competitive settings so one can assume there is more than enough grunt for those. One of the main games I do play is Farming Simulator 22 (yes I know its just farming) however I'm able to play that completely maxed out with 200% res scale so essentially 4k with changes in the ini to further distance rendering by 4x and I'm getting a comfortable 60-75fps on average more than enough for me. The cost to performance is defo in AMDs corner for that gen of cards. I cannot fault this card in anyway. The only thing I would suggest is if your an RT fanboy then probably not the card for you though it's capable its not very strong at it in anyway but I don't use it so that feature to me is irrelevant. I have XFX quick and its really quite quiet under load also even OC so for me it's a winner and would highly recommend it as a med/high end card.

yeah yt compression also does not help. Anyway, I agree, the biggest difference is probably lighting/shadow, but not significant during gameplay

Big difference in the draw difference in Hogwarts. Forza you can see a difference in lighting/reflection in a pause screen but in game you ain't gonna be looking at that.

sometimes i wont lie i can't tell if raytracing is on or not unless its mentioned in the video because things are not raytraced enough in alot of games.....

I was just playing this on my 4090 maxed settings with ray tracing and got about 120 fps sometimes higher depending on the area

Thats tough

That's literally me up until this year I bought an actual gaming pc The funny thing is that I managed to beat isshin with only 12fps You can't imagine my feeling when I fought him again with 60fps

Yeah remember the difference in Crysis between low and ultra? It was like two different games 😂

Ultra isnt noticiable becuase high is good graphics in 2023

there is a diference. dont forget youtube compresses videos.

@@djam7484 A difference that isn't worth the fps loss.

@@EngineerMikey5 never said anything about it being worth the fps loss or not. just that there is a difference..

@@djam7484 I didn't say that you said that either... I was just adding to it.

@@EngineerMikey5 why did you tag me then when this has no relevance to my original comment. Sounds lime your just trying to be smart ass about it.

Everything above 10 fps is doable i would say, 15 fps is premium exp.

@@fiece4767 hey, as long as it's stable, I can bear anything

Og crysis looks better than remastered and runs better too

@@eniff2925 exactly why I did what I did. agreed on that, original looks so much better

This is interesting. He should try again with a higher GPU.

Yes, i recently switched from a rtx 2060 (6gb vram) to a rx 7900 xtx and on hogwarts legacy with same setting look much better.

It would be good upgrade no worries about it. Just remember some games love to eat more gpu than cpu and other way around

@@1988Demien yea will also upgrade my CPU down the line but I'm mostly worried about the PSU on the long term

Better than 1 fps haha

At least it got "ultra".

@@RandomGaminginHD true... Better than nothng I guess

@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat 🥲

You got me on the first half😂

ambient occlusion makes a big fps difference when gpu limited though

@@ketrubkiryu chan

@@ketrub may be in some games that I wouldn't have played. But most of the time not a big difference. And it makes games more beautiful

If you can go AM5, do it. Much better gaming performance and a sweet upgrade path.

What's there to discuss?

Jedi Survivor also does crap like lowering resolution scale without telling you when changing graphic presets.

😂

@El Cactuar Wow, you are so smart, unbelievable that one letter is triggered your grammar that bad.

I mean, just turning off dynamic shadow maps & ambient occlusion make for gigantic performance differences (and visuals).

Because this isn't 2003, textures have basically zero impact on performance if you have vram to spare it. Vram isn't mostly used by textures either, it's used by everything the gpu is doing, effects, geometry, compute, engines offload as much as they can to the GPU to avoid cpu to gpu bus penalties so that vram gets used for a lot.