High vs Low details

[PvillePiper]

I am running a 144Hz monitor (the Acer XB270H G-synch monitor) and any frame rate below or close to 60Hz looks terrible so I want to keep the frame rates as high as possible. My dilemma is this, I can currently run an average of about 120 fps in BF4 on low settings. I can run medium settings but it does drop the frame rate down a bit and can cause the occasional stutter even with G sync. While medium seems to be a nicer experience overall I don't miss it when I playing on low settings as the fluidity of the higher frame rates more than makes up for the minor loss in visual detail.

So I am curious about whether or not High or Ultra levels of detail make much difference in First Person Shooters if you can support +100 fps. Is high detail something you miss/have to have? Or is it just nice? Does it add to the immersion of the game or does it distract and obscure things? For instance, low settings takes advantage of the fact at long ranges the some of the things that would hide behind are invisible until you aim your weapon but at high settings they are visible all the time.

I am currently running a GTX 660 and I am considering upgrading to either a GTX 960 or GTX 970. The 970 would be ideal, but it is quite a bit over my budget for now. It also seems to me that it is hard to justify adding $100 to $150 more if you don't really see it. Waiting for a GTX 960ti might be a good idea as well.

[lonewolf80]

It really depends on whether you consider yourself to be a competitive player, and how many adjustments the game engine allows the end user to have.

In some games, you can adjust the texture quality of the level to be low, while keeping character model resolution and quality high, so you create a high contrast between players and environment, allowing for easier target acquisition, and some form of in-game advantage. However, some games will dial down character model quality along with textures, and that may/may not help your competitive play.

I usually turn down the aliasing options in CSGO, because I find that it sometimes blurs textures farther away too much, and I won't be able to see people peeking out as easily (dust2 long a).

[lexlazootin]

I love the low latency and smoothness that comes with setting everything to low, and that's pretty much how I play csgo. The milky smooth textures in CSS when set to low just makes me feel at home.

If i'm just playing a single player games, I crank everything back up.

[flood]

for me, in csgo, i play with low because less unnecessary visual information to process.

[spacediver]

yep, less texture detail means that targets pop out that much more. I rarely play single player games, but when I do, I try for max settings, coz I want immersion. When I quake, I'm all about performance.

[PvillePiper]

So given that you run low settings to game on would you buy a $350 GPU that is basically overkill or a $200 one that more than meets the demand?

[lexlazootin]

So given that you run low settings to game on would you buy a $350 GPU that is basically overkill or a $200 one that more than meets the demand?

Well with the $350 card, you get higher fps and the lower input lag, also you get a small bonus of being able to crank up if you really want too, so I would defiantly pick the $350 card.

And I'm starting to slightly believe more and more with every generation of new GPUs coming out is less and less are you going to NEED to buy the next generation simply because of how much slower the demand of better and better systems that even a 7970 from 2011 can run CS:GO at 200-300 and the most demanding games like Farcry 4 and Crysis 3 at 45+ fps.

I think you should rip the bandaid and get yourself a good GPU that can last you for the next 4-5 years and just enjoy it for the beast of what it is.

Edit: if you live in aus, i'll sell you a 280x for $200

[PvillePiper]

Edit: if you live in aus, i'll sell you a 280x for $200

Got a G Sync monitor...