20 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

so today i find myself with a new 28" 4k monitor. with a lovely native resolution of 3840x2160 after a lovely sale on the internet proved too good to turn down. this thing is really making my 750ti earn its keep. it had been keeping close to 60fps at 1920x1080. as much as i wanted to upgrade my vid card, its going to have to wait. i just did not have the funds this year. i opted instead to get another 500 gig ssd, after i noticed a total of < 100 gigs of free space remaining.

i went and dropped the detail settings down from high to medium, and turned off aa. then i jacked the res up to full. this had the effect of turning the game into a slide show. after finding the game mode setting in the monitor menu, it helped somewhat. but when i dropped the resolution to the half way point, 2560x1440, the game became playable in the 30-45 fps range. i sort of expected this situation, i can still run full res when im coding or working in various cad softwares. to be honest this is still better than i expected it to be.

so now the actual question. if you are a competitive player, and you can choose resolution, or fps, but not both, which do you prefer? resolution makes targeting a lot more accurate, but fps gives you the fluid motion neccisary to take good aim. or do you do as i did and find a happy medium?

Edited by LordNothing, 11 October 2016 - 11:09 PM.

[Wintersdark]

In MWO specifically, fps. Beyond 1080p the UI scales so horribly that better resolutions look awful.

I've got a 980, perfectly capable of driving way higher resolutions at good fps, but still I stick at 1080p in MWO.


Otherwise, I aim for 60 fps, then increase everything else while keeping an average there and never, ever dipping below 45 (and ideally staying at 60 all the time)

But that's just me.

[RestosIII]

"Competitive player"



Personally, I can't really tell the difference for any resolutions above 1920x1080 myself, so I'd go with FPS for sure.

[N0ni]

Also have a 980 and prefer FPS > Resolution.

Have Object Detail, Texturing and Environment on max, the rest on low/off. I like being able to play 100% smooth over having eye candy that may or may not dip frames.

While i don't have a 4k monitor, i do have a 27" ASUS VG248QE which in my experience so far over the 10 months, has proven to be a #worth buy and as far as i need to go in MWO specifically.

But yeah, smoother frames = better tracking = better placed shots (in any game).

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Even comp players with monster rigs will usually run at lower settings, it tends to clear up haze and smoke.

[LordNothing]

resolution is certainly helping my range game. an area where im fairly weak. seems i can dial in my shots a little better. aim small miss small. i can now aim at much smaller things. holding the crosshair on a missile tube on a mad cat at 800 meters.

[Kotzi]

Most "competetiv" people play First Person Shooter in low detail to gain the most Frames Per Second. Always been always will.

[Wintersdark]

Higher resolution's primary advantage (on regular monitor sized displays anyways) is "replacing" antialiasing. AA is a hack to work around low resokutiin, if you have the horsepower, raw resolution increase will always work better.

But, yeah, if the choice is fps or anything else, I'd keep a minimum 60fps first.

[Paigan]

RestosIII, on 11 October 2016 - 11:24 PM, said:

"Competitive player"



Personally, I can't really tell the difference for any resolutions above 1920x1080 myself, so I'd go with FPS for sure.

I would even go so far as to say:

NO ONE (apart from maybe some high end graphics people) have ANY relevant advantage from resolutions beyond 1920x1080.
(not that 1920x1080 is some magical border or so. 1760x990 or so would be just as good as a resolution)
If you are sitting in front of a monitor, it's definitely not big enough to utilize anything larger or you'll have to constantly turn your head to see from one edge to the other.
If you have a big tv screen monitor, you are sitting so far away that you can't tell the difference of a bigger resolution anyway.

It simply DOES NOT MATTER.

All an insanely high resolution brings is that epeen-kind-of decadent status symbol posing.
I pitty everyone falling for it. Idiocracy is nigh.

Edited by Paigan, 12 October 2016 - 03:26 AM.

[GrimRiver]

FPS by far!

Each update there has been a 1 - 2 fps loss for me, started with 120fps and now have 50 - 70 for the past 3 years.

[Red Shrike]

Why not play at 1280x1024? Gives me decent fps.

[mogs01gt]

LordNothing, on 11 October 2016 - 11:08 PM, said:

so today i find myself with a new 28" 4k monitor. with a lovely native resolution of 3840x2160 after a lovely sale on the internet proved too good to turn down. this thing is really making my 750ti earn its keep. it had been keeping close to 60fps at 1920x1080. as much as i wanted to upgrade my vid card, its going to have to wait. i just did not have the funds this year. i opted instead to get another 500 gig ssd, after i noticed a total of < 100 gigs of free space remaining.

i went and dropped the detail settings down from high to medium, and turned off aa. then i jacked the res up to full. this had the effect of turning the game into a slide show. after finding the game mode setting in the monitor menu, it helped somewhat. but when i dropped the resolution to the half way point, 2560x1440, the game became playable in the 30-45 fps range. i sort of expected this situation, i can still run full res when im coding or working in various cad softwares. to be honest this is still better than i expected it to be.

so now the actual question. if you are a competitive player, and you can choose resolution, or fps, but not both, which do you prefer? resolution makes targeting a lot more accurate, but fps gives you the fluid motion neccisary to take good aim. or do you do as i did and find a happy medium?

pros always pick FPS

[Duatam]

LordNothing, on 11 October 2016 - 11:08 PM, said:

it had been keeping close to 60fps at 1920x1080.

but when i dropped the resolution to the half way point, 2560x1440, the game became playable in the 30-45 fps range.

I would definitely run it at 1920x1080 right now and when you get a new graphics card, run it on the native resolution.

1920x1080 is a good choice because it's exactly half of the monitor's native resolution, so you don't lose pixel accuracy, like you do when you run on 2560x1440, so the image might actually look better on 1920x1080 because you have full pixel accuracy. Added benefit for 1920x1080 is that you can run it at 60 FPS which probably is your monitor's refresh rate too.

Edited by Duatam, 12 October 2016 - 05:26 AM.

[DaZur]

I'm a graphic snob...

I'd sooner gouge out my eye with a spork before gimping my graphics in the name of a couple more FPS.

[Tarogato]

I'm competitive minded and while I'm limited to playing on a laptop, if I had the choice I would take more frames over graphics. 60 fps minimum. Graphics would only go up if I could maintain that minimum in an 8v8 all-mechs-on-the-screen brawl.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

DaZur, on 12 October 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

I'm a graphic snob...

I'd sooner gouge out my eye with a spork before gimping my graphics in the name of a couple more FPS.

nothing wrong with that all, but again that is not the "comp" mind set.

[LordNothing]

Paigan, on 12 October 2016 - 03:22 AM, said:

All an insanely high resolution brings is that epeen-kind-of decadent status symbol posing.
I pitty everyone falling for it. Idiocracy is nigh.

i do use my monitor for other things than gaming. if i was strictly going for a gaming screen i think id have gone with a 120hz option, around 2k and an inch or two bigger. but unfortunately i also do some graphics, cad and some programming (i can get more code on the screen and work on 3 files at once), all of which benefit from more pixels. epeen, naw, this screen will see some serious buisness. epeen is when you have the pixels and can also use them all.

Edited by LordNothing, 12 October 2016 - 04:09 PM.

[LordNothing]

i picked up another 5+ fps doing the scaling on the monitor vs the gpu. it does look a little bit noisy, probibly because the dsp in the monitor is using fixed point maths vs the float math that the gpu uses. either way you go about the trouble of turning 3 pixels worth of data into 4 actual pixels. oh the miracles of lerping.

[Random Carnage]

You tried to run 4K on a 750?

/blinks

As to your question - fps > pretty, and where particles and post processing effects are concerned, less is more. Pretty wears off when sun strike blinds you while you're getting shot, and all the explosions and smoke stop you from seeing whose shooting at you.

Keep 4K for MMO's and movies. Twitch FPS - dial it down.

[Random Carnage]

LordNothing, on 12 October 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

and an inch or two bigger.

We won't judge.