Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

What is a good balance for game settings?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 18, 2013 12:37:49 PM

Hey,

I've been messing around with settings using Metro last light as a test and using fraps to check my fps.

Im just curious to know as my previous mind set was to put anti-aliasing (plus other stuff) as high as my rig could handle but i'm realising this has a consequence to my fps.

Is there a trade off between the two, should i have a balance or does it even matter?

I had the SSAA set to x4 and the fps was about 25-30 and graphics were great.

I put the SSAA to x2, the fps jumped to 40-45, graphics were great.

I turned the SSAA off, the fps went to 70-75, graphics were great!

I didn't notice any difference in graphics on any setting and there were no jagged lines to be found even with SSAA turned off.

I presume having it balanced in the middle is best but is it better to have a higher fps with no SSAA or a balanced amount?

I've been been a pc gamer for many years and always just set everything to max until my pc had a stroke lol but i look to optimal settings these days (maybe a tad more).

I'm rocking a 2GB Asus GTX 680 DirectCU II OC, intel i5 3570k, 8gb cosair vengance ram.

Thanks!
December 18, 2013 12:44:15 PM

Using any type of AA will be extremely taxing on your system, and is usually regarded as not worth it. You gain little in quality for a large trade in FPS.

Personally I would play with AA off.
m
0
l
December 18, 2013 12:46:30 PM

...why are you asking us?

If it doesn't bother you to have SSAA off, then turn SSAA off and have a great framerate.

It seems kinda strange for us to tell you "no, do this, it looks better" when you can't see the difference but do notice the crappy framerate.
m
0
l
Related resources
December 18, 2013 12:49:08 PM

enemy1g said:
Using any type of AA will be extremely taxing on your system, and is usually regarded as not worth it. You gain little in quality for a large trade in FPS.

Personally I would play with AA off.


...I don't know who in the world you're talking to, but most of us can easily tell the difference between a well-coded AA and nothing, and would happily use AA. If it's done well, it doesn't have to be that taxing on the system, and I would always have it on if it doesn't send my framerates down to a point I would consider unplayable.
m
0
l

Best solution

December 18, 2013 12:55:36 PM

When playing BF4, I've played with both 4X MSAA and no MSAA, can't tell the difference. Regardless of MSAA, I still average over 100+ fps.I just prefer to have the higher FPS over MSAA.
Share
December 18, 2013 1:04:33 PM

enemy1g said:
When playing BF4, I've played with both 4X MSAA and no MSAA, can't tell the difference. Regardless of MSAA, I still average over 100+ fps.I just prefer to have the higher FPS over MSAA.


That's fine, and you can say that you can't tell the difference, but don't say that it's 'usually regarded as not worth it' as though it's a bad idea to use it. I would say instead that 'I don't regard it as worth it, especially since you can't see the difference either' ...or something along those lines.

Many of us can tell the difference. And as for FPS, if you have a 60Hz screen, there is literally zero difference between running at 100fps and 400fps - you're still only going to have 60 of them displayed. If you have a 120Hz screen, it's the same thing - as long as you have over 120fps, you can't get any better.
m
0
l
December 20, 2013 8:11:28 AM

DarkSable said:
...why are you asking us?

If it doesn't bother you to have SSAA off, then turn SSAA off and have a great framerate.

It seems kinda strange for us to tell you "no, do this, it looks better" when you can't see the difference but do notice the crappy framerate.


Im asking as i was just curious of other peoples opinions/preferences, if they prioritise fps of AA or vice versa. When playing a little longer i did actually notice some jaggies on distant objects so quality was improved when turning AA on in the end.
m
0
l
!