There are many excited people anticipating Cyberpunk 2077.
There are many excited people anticipating Cyberpunk 2077.
I'm not sure. It might be that they're wrapping up the project, considering reducing the hardware needs for Ultra settings as I mentioned earlier.
You're unsure about the ultimate ultra-settings. Would lowering graphics quality still be beneficial if it meant less hardware demand?
You have your argument.
I'm reviewing some recordings of BF V and Gear 5, and I'm curious about the distinction between HIGH and ULTRA modes in these games. If I switch to HIGH instead of ULTRA, with a machine like an i3 9100 and an RX 570, what changes would I notice?
Not much in most games, though some have a big difference and also a huge effect on performance. The volumetric clouds in Assassin's Creed Odyssey look great, but how much time do you spend watching the sky? You can achieve about 80% of the visual appeal by setting them to medium, which greatly boosts performance (those and the fog are usually the main reasons for poor speed). You often find a good mix of settings that looks nice while still running smoothly.
In numerous situations, you really don't lose much in terms of meaningful content. Hardware Unboxed on Youtube has created many optimization guides for various games, such as demonstrating with Borderlands 3 that adjusting settings properly can significantly improve performance without noticeable changes between high and lower settings. Most ultra-settings are essentially unnecessary, offering little to no visual distinction.
I comprehend the trade-offs well.
Of course, I won't just focus on the sky while playing ACO—that would be foolish if I ever did. Still, if you observe the entire screen of objects and colors, I think the visual aspect contributes a noticeable boost to overall immersion. Of course, without that visual element, you wouldn’t miss it entirely.
I’d like to share some personal experiences with you.
When I was younger, playing BF 2, my PC was old, my dad gave it to me. The game didn’t run smoothly unless I set it to Medium. Over the years, I kept using Medium settings. A few months ago, I reinstalled the disc and ran it in Ultra settings—there’s a huge difference. It’s a regret that I’ve missed this kind of visual appeal for eight years. As a dedicated gamer, I feel like I wasted precious time, but now I see its value.
If you ask me, I’d definitely prioritize image quality over performance.
That said, building an i7 system is expensive. I’m excited about the new game, but if it requires that hardware, I might have to wait.
Medium results give a rough appearance; it might be that my visual settings are too sensitive, but I can still perceive it. Ray tracing on an RX 570 is quite impressive, though accuracy still requires verification.
The distinction between Medium and Ultra is typically clear, while High and Ultra differences are smaller. Earlier titles also showed a larger leap AFAIK, but I began playing BF II 2005 with a 1050 Ti and always kept it at ultra. Yes, the settings can add up, but as I mentioned, medium clouds represent about 80% of what ultra offers—unless you focus closely on the clouds and ignore the overall feel, even the landscape looks similar. As for the specifications, I still don’t know the exact details. The demo rig likely had an 8700K and 1080 Ti, suggesting the game could run smoothly on much less powerful hardware. It seems unlikely developers would create something requiring an i7 just for high or ultra settings, especially since modern titles perform well even on midrange cards.