F5F Stay Refreshed Software PC Gaming Comparison of Battlefield 1 resolution adjustments with real display quality

Comparison of Battlefield 1 resolution adjustments with real display quality

Comparison of Battlefield 1 resolution adjustments with real display quality

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
F
Foreignpear
Junior Member
30
10-10-2025, 11:53 PM
#1
I had used battlefield 1 on a 4K display (custom resolution from ncp). With high settings, low PP, and 4x MFA, I achieved smooth 60fps. When I increased the resolution scale to 200% while keeping the main resolution at 1080p, it felt like 4K performance. All settings were set to ULTRA, MFA 8X, and the game ran smoothly at 60fps. How did that happen?
F
Foreignpear
10-10-2025, 11:53 PM #1

I had used battlefield 1 on a 4K display (custom resolution from ncp). With high settings, low PP, and 4x MFA, I achieved smooth 60fps. When I increased the resolution scale to 200% while keeping the main resolution at 1080p, it felt like 4K performance. All settings were set to ULTRA, MFA 8X, and the game ran smoothly at 60fps. How did that happen?

B
BlazeMatrix
Junior Member
28
10-11-2025, 01:50 AM
#2
The 200% resolution isn't 4K—it's not simply doubling the width or height. It seems to be based on 1920x1080 pixels, making it 4,147,200 pixels total. The figure of 4K refers to 8,294,400 pixels, which is double the pixel count in both dimensions. This method appears to replace high-end AA settings, with FXAA being poor and TXAA looking like a bad JPEG. I dislike games lacking more demanding AA options, all under the idea that if current top cards can't handle maximum settings, they're not good. What happens when future hardware surpasses game capabilities? Where are my outdated AA choices? And why is DSR unnecessary since many menus don’t scale well with it? Check out the thread here:
B
BlazeMatrix
10-11-2025, 01:50 AM #2

The 200% resolution isn't 4K—it's not simply doubling the width or height. It seems to be based on 1920x1080 pixels, making it 4,147,200 pixels total. The figure of 4K refers to 8,294,400 pixels, which is double the pixel count in both dimensions. This method appears to replace high-end AA settings, with FXAA being poor and TXAA looking like a bad JPEG. I dislike games lacking more demanding AA options, all under the idea that if current top cards can't handle maximum settings, they're not good. What happens when future hardware surpasses game capabilities? Where are my outdated AA choices? And why is DSR unnecessary since many menus don’t scale well with it? Check out the thread here:

C
CaveMiner1215
Member
91
10-11-2025, 09:28 AM
#3
It's not exactly 2880 x 1620, but it's close enough it doesn't matter. Sorry for the confusion—just wanted to mention it.
C
CaveMiner1215
10-11-2025, 09:28 AM #3

It's not exactly 2880 x 1620, but it's close enough it doesn't matter. Sorry for the confusion—just wanted to mention it.

V
Viplo
Member
67
10-11-2025, 10:34 AM
#4
Your mind struggles with numbers.
V
Viplo
10-11-2025, 10:34 AM #4

Your mind struggles with numbers.

T
TitooL
Member
117
10-11-2025, 11:44 AM
#5
You were on the right track—I wouldn’t say it was terrible.
T
TitooL
10-11-2025, 11:44 AM #5

You were on the right track—I wouldn’t say it was terrible.

S
speedy211
Junior Member
2
10-11-2025, 05:15 PM
#6
In discussions elsewhere, some say 200% equals 4K when the native is 1080p. Your 2x setting makes sense—it explains why it runs at 60fps on ultra. FXAA and TAA can be bothersome. Which setup gives the best visual quality with minimal aliasing? Consider DSR at 4K on high settings, PP set low, or use a 1080p resolution scale of 200% in ultra.
S
speedy211
10-11-2025, 05:15 PM #6

In discussions elsewhere, some say 200% equals 4K when the native is 1080p. Your 2x setting makes sense—it explains why it runs at 60fps on ultra. FXAA and TAA can be bothersome. Which setup gives the best visual quality with minimal aliasing? Consider DSR at 4K on high settings, PP set low, or use a 1080p resolution scale of 200% in ultra.

U
Up2Date
Member
136
10-13-2025, 06:51 AM
#7
PP? Probably 4k will look nicer overall, but I'm not sure the menus will fit properly on BF (I don't remember). If you're able to do ultra at 1080p with a 200% scale, that would be better. 4k resolution won't change much, so just max out the game if possible.
U
Up2Date
10-13-2025, 06:51 AM #7

PP? Probably 4k will look nicer overall, but I'm not sure the menus will fit properly on BF (I don't remember). If you're able to do ultra at 1080p with a 200% scale, that would be better. 4k resolution won't change much, so just max out the game if possible.

D
djpumuslink01
Senior Member
577
10-18-2025, 02:05 PM
#8
I don't have a GPU, but I'm ready to help with your question!
D
djpumuslink01
10-18-2025, 02:05 PM #8

I don't have a GPU, but I'm ready to help with your question!

J
Jarzzermann
Posting Freak
788
10-21-2025, 05:56 AM
#9
I used it at 1080 resolution, but haven’t played the game recently. Achieved 1080p at 144 FPS, occasionally dropping slightly.
J
Jarzzermann
10-21-2025, 05:56 AM #9

I used it at 1080 resolution, but haven’t played the game recently. Achieved 1080p at 144 FPS, occasionally dropping slightly.

B
BlurryFqce
Senior Member
486
10-24-2025, 11:41 AM
#10
Rip Soz. Meant to ask OP lol. Also, I think 200% resolution scaling means 2x resolution which in this case would mean 4K. Which would explain fairly similar performance. What GPU are you using?
B
BlurryFqce
10-24-2025, 11:41 AM #10

Rip Soz. Meant to ask OP lol. Also, I think 200% resolution scaling means 2x resolution which in this case would mean 4K. Which would explain fairly similar performance. What GPU are you using?

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next