Gaming focuses on both resolution and FPS, but it depends on the specific game and playstyle.
Gaming focuses on both resolution and FPS, but it depends on the specific game and playstyle.
I rarely rely on presets since they don’t push settings to their limits. How could I possibly understand what I mentioned? If you know how to adjust things correctly, it’s achievable. Games such as ARK perform poorly regardless of settings. Right now, I prefer Destiny 2. As I noted, running it at 120% resolution plus ultra enhances its visuals more than real life, though it sometimes drops to 57 fps from in-game vsync and driver fast sync for smoother play. A lot depends on trial and error, but using the GeForce Experience preset is usually disappointing. It’s not just a placebo. One of the biggest improvements you can get is enabling high-quality texture filtering in the drivers—no performance hit on a decent GPU.
Well, that's essentially my take. If you understand how to set things up, you can achieve the best visuals and performance. Those three settings that drain 40 fps on ultra but leave only 5 fps on very high settings sound impressive—definitely worth trying! Destiny 2 appears to be well optimized, which is why I thought it was hard to believe: one game works, but you mentioned it affects every title. If you actually play just one or a few, that might not hold up. As I said, even Vampyr causes drops on a GTX 1070.
When my 1080ti was under RMA, I played RocketLeague on my iGPU. I had to choose between 60FPS at 720p or 120FPS at 480p. I went with 480p on a 1440p screen—it felt much smoother, even though the visuals were poor. Reading player names became difficult when they were farther away.
High-quality performance at 480p with smooth 13 frames per second.