Chazore said:
Tbh I've been running high for a lot of AAA games these days, because there really isn't that much difference between ultra/high. I just bought and tried out Days Gone, and if you follow Alex's "optimised" settings from DF, you only change two options, but gain more perf and the game hardly looks that much different. I do wish games were made with Ultra settings in mind, to really show us much of a difference, but those days are long gone and probably won't come back for a long time (Talking Crysis low to Crysis Ultra style differences, and don't anyone @Me with the shoddy Crysis remasters that still sport single threads either). Also, dunno why the author thought it wise to include any Ubisoft game, when they hardly look that much different from the console versions, and don't tend to perform as good on PC, so the metrics of changing from very high to high look to give minimal perf gains. Include Red Dead and other games, but I'd leave out the Ubi games until they get their shit together. |
Yea DF does a pretty good job and giving you the best visuals/performance settings.
I think the ones that I have seen a noticeable difference is in Cyberpunk and Control where there's a pretty big difference between non Ray Tracing Settings and Ray Tracing settings.

There are other games that do have noticable differences but aren't as stark as Cyberpunk/Control at Max settings imo. But yea, nothing will be as glorious as the Crysis Days. That game was incredible for its PC killing power.
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850







