Talk about MAX game configurations and the texture detail options, such as 4k images.
Talk about MAX game configurations and the texture detail options, such as 4k images.
I've noticed several discussions recently criticizing the practice of running games at MAX settings, so I wanted to share my perspective and gather some thoughts from you all.
Main idea
- 'It doesn't add value in terms of cost or performance because you rarely notice the difference.'
This point usually applies when switching from very high to ultra/max settings with preset quality options in AAA titles. It can also refer to adjusting the game's sliders to lower a few numbers, which might improve frame rates by 5, 10, or 20 FPS. I completely agree with the notion that you typically won't perceive any change. In most cases, we're dealing with a constantly shifting image. Being able to discern lighting and shadow details on a distant small object, like a palm tree, for just a few seconds while running is essentially impossible.
However, these conversations rarely address the primary reason I opt for top-end hardware – LONGEVITY.
For instance, the GTX 1080 Ti, which I purchased five years ago, still functions very well today, even when playing the latest AAA games at near-maximum settings. In contrast, someone who bought a GTX 1060 6GB would likely face performance issues sooner. For me, running games at max now is simply a bonus of investing in a high-end card that should remain effective for several years.
A note on texture resolutions
I often see videos cited as proof that gaming at max settings is pointless.
[Link to video] This one raises some valid concerns, but it suggests that higher resolution textures only shine if your display can handle them. At 6:23, it mentions that 'higher resolution textures look better on a suitable screen.' This implies you'd need a larger or higher-resolution screen to truly appreciate the difference.
In reality, texture size and screen resolution are unrelated. A person using a 1080p monitor can enjoy a 4K texture just as much as someone with a 4K display. For example, a 4K texture on a small object like a pencil on a desk would be negligible at any resolution, but the contrast between a 1K and 4K texture on a large area in front of you would be obvious to everyone—regardless of monitor type.
don't know where you're seeing this "bashing" but i've never encountered any groups or individuals against maxing all possible settings within any games.
just some idiot's YouTube video doesn't mean much except they are desperate for views and coming up with crap that will draw you in.
as long as anyone is getting an fps that they are comfortable with i don't see why they wouldn't turn up everything as high as they can for that experience.
The issue with maximum settings is that the GPU is burdened with significant processing, yet the visual improvement isn't substantial. I recall experimenting with tessellation demos and observed that increasing the tessellation factor quickly reduces the visible quality. In one demo, detail beyond 0.25 out of 1.00 became negligible. Raising the setting further hurt performance noticeably. Another case involved games like Ungine Heaven, where the visual changes are more pronounced but still not worth the performance cost. Comparisons between max and high-detail modes often show only minor differences that don’t significantly affect my experience unless I pay close attention. For instance, in NVIDIA's GTA V guide, the performance drop with Ultra settings is clear—about 15 FPS loss compared to High quality. When it comes to Post FX, Ultra still lags by roughly 10 FPS, even though the visuals aren’t drastically different. Ultra versus Very High quality reflections also see a similar 15 FPS penalty, and while resolution differences are minor, they don’t overshadow the performance impact.
It’s worth noting that investing in a top-end GPU can be important for long-term use if you insist on achieving high frame rates and maximum settings. However, many users opt for mid-range models and accept reduced quality or lower FPS to stay within budget. Longevity also depends on whether the GPU supports modern features; a 1080 Ti might suffice for most AAA titles, but if ray tracing is enabled, it could underperform compared to newer hardware.
Multi-GPU configurations can be tricky—using next-gen features with older GPUs often leads to suboptimal results. For example, two GTX 280 cards won’t deliver the same performance as a single 2060 if DirectX 11 is involved. Similarly, texture and screen resolutions matter: while larger textures improve detail on big screens, they can be wasteful on smaller ones. A 4K texture looks sharp on a 1080p display but appears better on a 4K one due to clearer resolution.
There’s also discussion about the value of high-end GPUs. If you want the best visuals and are willing to sacrifice frame rate, a top-tier card is justified. But if you’re budget-conscious, sticking with mid-range options and accepting lower quality or reduced performance is a practical choice. The key is balancing visual fidelity with real-world usage needs.
@hotaru.hino and @sizzling both mention valid concerns. For me, pushing at ultra settings came naturally from the longevity I aimed for when purchasing my 6900XT. Over the next five years, I’ll likely have to lower some parameters in newer games, though I’d prefer not to see an RTX 3060 with 12GB memory struggle with AAA titles released in 2027. Regarding RT, it could signal a more promising path for AMD’s 6000 cards than what we’re seeing today, particularly with the upcoming Unreal Engine 5 and its lumen-based technology.
I enjoy ultra since I appreciate small details, but I won't push it if it causes the frame rate to drop too much.