Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [VIDEO] High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

    I'll have to do further comparisons to be certain, but so far the difference is . . .

    sigpic

  • #2
    Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

    it's generally been my experience that 'ultra' settings in PC games are basically set to waste system resources as much as possible. e.g. completely doing away with texture compression and whatnot. seems like it's always minimal gains for big performance hits.

    what kind of framerate are you getting in high vs ultra?

    also, silly question, but you did restart the game in between switches, right?
    [TG]epheneh

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

      Real men play on low graphics.



      Former TG-21st
      Swift Mobile On Target

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

        Originally posted by burble View Post
        also, silly question, but you did restart the game in between switches, right?
        You dont have to restart the game, you can change the video settings on the fly now. Even big changes like resolution changes are done while the game is running.
        theeANGELofDEATH(Steam/Origin)
        E Pluribus Unum
        Sarcasm is just another free service I offer
        Si vis pacem, para bellum .. Molon Labe

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

          They look pretty similar to me...Granted we are seeing it second hand through you tube but to me they are both very similar. The one difference I can see is the sky looks a bit brighter, clouds a bit more defined but beyond that I'm hard pressed to see any significant differences.

          I'd be interested to see a low vs medium vs high vs ultra comparison.
          sigpic
          |TG-1st|Grunt
          ARMA Admin (retired)
          Pathfinder-Spartan 5

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

            pretty sure things like texture detail will not take effect until you restart the game. there's no way it's just instantly unloading all the textures and filling the video memory back up with the other version. unless they just programmed it to just gradually change the textures out as the stuff held in memory changes.

            but since a feature like that is not needed for the xbox or ps3, i would bet roughly one kajillion million billion dollars that is does not exist.
            [TG]epheneh

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

              even youtube doesn't do compression on their 1080p videos....

              or does it?

              Video compression would make it alot harder to tell the difference in graphics settings.

              Also, my Ultra seems to look better than the ultra in the video...
              -Glycerin256 <-- add me in Battlelog, Steam, Origin. Sig rig MIGHT BE FOR SALE: i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz; AsRock Z68 Extreme4; 16GB DDR3 1866; Asus GTX 970; 500GB 840 EVO SSD; Xonar DX 7.1; Win7x64, 25.5" T260HD, etc

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

                Originally posted by MacLeod View Post
                Real men play on low graphics.
                Yes they do... everything set to low and anything that can be switched off, is.

                My old timer of a PC may not be as fast of the newer kids but he's still got a decent work rate...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

                  Is there a benefit to Low Graphics over High Graphics? Because in BF2 it was actually preferable to have Low Graphics and no shadows turned on because it allowed the player to see people that might not otherwise be seen very easily. If it works the same way in BF3 then by turning everything down to Low does foliage and other things like smoke or haze on certain maps diminish? Also wouldn't a performance increase of significant value also benefit the player in the game?

                  There are a lot of effects in the game that would actually hinder the player of High/Ultra graphics if they did not exist for someone playing Low graphics. After all if I can't see someone because of haze or smoke or whatever and they can see me then I'm at a disadvantage. The game doesn't care what settings your graphics are on only that it registers hits and damage.
                  .
                  "Young gamers assault while Older gamers flank."
                  "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

                    @Killroy,

                    I would say it's a disadvantage if anything.

                    The draw distance is so short it makes flying in a jet of helicopter very difficult. I have to go very low to see any thing to shoot at, whether I'm pilot or gunner, so I tend to stay away. Flying a jet is useless for ground targets unless you're into kamikaze since you can't make them out until your nose hits them. Only good for shooting down enemy helis.

                    It's not just vehicles either, I've been unable to see people shooting at me from a distance also because of low graphics. I know this because once I creep forward a bit they suddenly 'pop' in and only to be shot in the face again!

                    Other then a fps increase I can say I am at a disadvantage and wouldn't recommend going low on all settings and switching others off completely other then if your machine can barely handle it all. I might experiment a bit more with the settings, like trying to get one or two them them turned to 'medium' but last time my computer was giving me beef and crashed after turning the textures up.

                    Motion blur seems to eat gpu/cpu memory too, so if you're having slow downs I would say try it turned off. I fiddled around and turned it to the lowest and I was till stuttering. Turned it off and now it's pretty smooth.

                    On BC2 the low settings would occasionally give an advantage though. I remember on harvest day defending on the top of that hill and seeing people ready to be shot coming forward, only to zoom in and see they're hiding behind the hay stacks. It was almost unintentional wall hack at long distance although only on very specific objects.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

                      Killroy, I've actually spent quite a bit of time experimenting to determine what you outlined.

                      In BF3, low settings do not provide any advantage. I have tested all the obvious things like smoke, foliage, geometry. Conversely, while what Famous Bull says is true - in some limited cases the lower graphic settings could provide a slight disadvantage. But these situations seem to be limited.

                      Generally, I feel BF3 provides a good scalability in the graphics department without any giving any drastic advantages to any party.
                      Skud


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

                        Yea low can be annoying when gunning in choppers, all you do is fire at blobs of black pixels that you think are enemies. In BC2 playing on low would get rid of some of the excess shaders and high dynamic range imaging, however in BF3 playing on low mainly just adds a lot more jaggedness. Many of the textures from farther out actually look like textures from 2142 or BF2, but really the only annoying part is when you are in vehicles as they made the first-person tank views in BF3 much worse in low (with low resolution) then they did in BC2. I have said it before, but frankly I would rather be able to press a button to change the graphics engine back to BC2 style so I could actually play with better graphic at a good framerate, (I get the same framerate on all low in BF3 that I got on all high in BC2, and low in BF3 looks much worse then high in BC2).


                        Overall though, turning some of the settings down really helps a lot with framerates even on better computers, so I would suggest everyone turn down Antialiasing Deferred and turn up Antialiasing Post instead, as the first is MUCH more demanding than the latter, even though both help with AA.



                        Former TG-21st
                        Swift Mobile On Target

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

                          Originally posted by MacLeod View Post
                          Poor men play on low graphics.
                          Fixed. ;)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: High vs Ultra Graphics Comparision

                            I started on Ultra and switched down to High. The only difference i noticed was less lag and a slightly quieter soundcard fan. I even tried medium at one point and didn't see any noticeable performance difference and went back to high for slightly smoother textures and shadows.


                            To all you guys playing at Low... I salute you... and pitty you... ;) just kidding... as long as you can play... do it!!!

                            Comment

                            Connect

                            Collapse

                            TeamSpeak 3 Server

                            Collapse

                            Advertisement

                            Collapse

                            Twitter Feed

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X