Higher settings, lower res or higher res, lower settings?

[daninthemix]

How do you guys generally pick when choosing between settings and resolution? Higher resolution lets you see the graphics more clearly, but lower settings means that those graphics are less impressive to begin with. Higher settings means the graphics are great, but lower resolution means they are blurrier with potentially more aliasing.

I'm playing Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition and in this example I'm using DLSS Quality with High settings, so I'm prioritising resolution. That said I tried Ultra settings and had a hard time spotting the difference (maybe because you have to wait a couple of minutes after changing for it to regenerate the shaders).

So, when forced to choose between settings and internal / rendering resolution, what do you generally choose?

Note that I'm not including performance in this - imagine the performance is the same in both cases, but you either pick resolution or settings.

 

[Nightfall]

With reconstruction techniques I think resolution becomes less and less important. Some examples are even better than native res. So I would prioritize settings.

 

[Yesterzine]

If I can get to 1080P, then settings.

Assuming as you say both give a frame rate.

 

[Martin]

Well it depends. I try to prioritise 1080p, but when thats easy to achieve I prioritise settings.
But when having to choose just one and not currently having DLSS, I chose to get as close to 1080p as possible.

 

[brain_stew]

Historically I use to prioritise hitting native resolution but with introduction of TAA and reconstruction techniques, rendering resolution of becoming less important all the time. If using best in class image reconstruction (like DLSSS or UE5), I no longer see the benefit of native rendering resolutions above 1080p.

I voted settings.

 

[Shiz Padoo]

Settings. Even if the resolution is low I'm still looking at a more detailed image. Regardless of the reasons for its poor performance, I was playing Cyberpunk at 720p at launch but on ultra.

 

[Slaythe]

Between DLDSR and DLSS, 1080p is starting to look more and more like my GOAT sweet spot for a long long time.

Settings. Even if the resolution is low I'm still looking at a more detailed image. Regardless of the reasons for its poor performance, I was playing Cyberpunk at 720p at launch but on ultra.

Click to shrink...

See the thing that is crazy, is that some games have amazing AA and will look good at sub 1080p then upscaled. (That includes emulators and old games, if filtered properly)


And then you have games like FFXV that looks like vomit unless you render super high.

 

[White Glint]

Can't do sub-native resolutions. 1440p for me on a 240hz monitor, I'll cap the framerate and lower settings as needed, hitting that 240 isn't super important. Just got Fallen Order which I maxed out and capped at 90fps since it really doesn't need more.

Of course DLSS technically means sub-native but I'll use that wherever possible.

 

[shockdude]

On my laptop some games are impossible to hit 60FPS at 1080p while still having decent settings like having shadows. Dropping to 900p is usually enough, worst I've had to go down to is 768p.

 

[cowbanana]

I have no current interest in 4k gaming. I like 1200p/1080p with max image quality and ray-tracing where applicable. DLDSR is magnificent. My 3070 Ti is the perfect 1080p/60 fps/ultra settings card.

(There's actually a few games like Cyberpunk 2077, RDR2 and Deathloop that I can't run 1080p/60 fps with max settings - but there's also very little extra to gain from the absolute highest settings).

Most games I can easily max out while downsampling though.

I will not complain if I can't run a game at super demanding ultra settings and I will drop a few things if necessary. But I do prefer to run games with as much visual bling as possible.

 

[Linus815]

i think this question is becoming harder to answer with all the reconstruction technologies. Even FSR does a pretty good job in some games. I used to absolutely need my monitors native res (1440p) and everything else came after that. But nowadays with DLSS, FSR and the like I tend to priotize other stuff.

 

[Finaika]

1080p or bust.

 

[degauss]

I dunno if 'settings' covers it. But yeah, prioritise quality over resolution.

 

[b0uncyfr0]

It's never so simple - there's always a fine line if you can attain it. Compromises can be made.

I'd pick a locked 50 fps over 60 fps if im getting a significantly improved IQ.

I'd pick a locked 40 fps over 50fps/60 fps but it better look pretty amazing.

I refuse to do 30 fps.

75fps is the preferred option if I can lock it in and it'll never dip. Anything over 70 fps is acceptable.

 

[Okada]

I picked resolution but it really is a balance. I'm more than happy to play at lower than native resolution if the image is clean enough.

I can't stand flickering aliasing though, it drives me insane and this is generally a resolution issue hence my choice.

The real priority is framerate.

 

[JigglesBunny]

I never drop below my monitor's native resolution, so 1440p for my desktop and 1600p for my laptop. I always crank the settings up to max, then begin turning things down bit by bit to achieve a minimum acceptable performance, usually 60 FPS+.

 

[Jobbs]

We're at the point where resolution just isn't that important to me anymore. I have a 4k tv and a 1440p pc monitor, and all that is fine, but I'll gladly play a 1080p game if the framerate is solid and the graphics are good. higher res could be better, sure, but it's the least important thing

 

[Ravelle]

Max resolution and max settings and see how it runs, I might tweak something if I run into trouble.

 

[Bishop89]

1440/60fps is most ideal on consoles.

I honestly cannot tell the difference between 1440p and 4k, whereas I can instantly tell the difference between 30/60fps

 

[Deleted member 10623]

1080p with the lowest settings possible - besides high texture. to run extra smooth on 2080Ti.

 

[Deleted member 93841]

I've got a 32" 1440p monitor and it's always set to that res. Anything lower and things start looking wonky.

I also avoid DLSS if at all possible, because I've yet to find a game where it looks as good as native 1440p and it often introduces weird artifacts and other visual problems.

 

[Slacker247]

I never drop below my monitor's native resolution, so 1440p for my desktop and 1600p for my laptop. I always crank the settings up to max, then begin turning things down bit by bit to achieve a minimum acceptable performance, usually 60 FPS+.

Click to shrink...

Similar mindset here.

Playing Horizon, DLSS doesn't look as good as native 1440p, but I'm probably doing something wrong. DLSS gives better FPS though, so there's that.

 

[Croash]

Back in May 2011, I got myself a new "school-focused" laptop with a 540m (14" screen, 1366x768 native res) and in my excitement grabbed The Witcher 2.

Ouch. I did not expect 20ish FPS at 720p with low settings. Native resolution was definitely out of the question. This forced my 18 year-old self to learn about tweaking with the settings and overclocking and whatnot for PC gaming.

Turns out at 800x600 I could crank up the settings to medium/high and reach ~30-60 FPS depending on the environment, so you bet I sacrified resolution (and the game's UI, unfortunately, which did NOT scale well hah). I totally welcomed the blurry image quality if it meant I could experience the game with all its glorious visual effects (depth of field, god rays and whatnot), and I had a fantastic time.

I think I'd still follow the same rule 11 years later, with 720p as my lowest limit. I do enjoy playing 360/PS3 games in their original resolution on a 4K TV without feeling like something is off about them, and in the world of dynamic resolution and DLSS I find that I don't want to always think about 1080p/1440p/1800p/4K/8K, I just want to look at the game and think "woah, that looks great".

 

[Joris-truly]

I prefer optimized settings. For the last 10 years or so, ultra settings have been a unnecessary drain on performance without much meaningful gain.

Just use a mix of high and medium settings (or consoles equivalent settings if you prefer) to boost the res (or using DLSS or FSR) and that's it.

 

[KainXVIII]

Lower res AND lower settings unfortunately.

 

[Lashley]

Settings

 

[PLASTICA-MAN]

Settings of course but the problem is that some settings can't be clerealy observed due to lower res. Do you realize that many PS3 games have very good settings yet they were masked by the very low output res? Emulators increased the overalml res and allowed to see all those details.
Luckily there are good upscale techs like DLSS to help you profit from both worlds.

 

[cdudeachyut]

Prioritize resolution to the point the game doesn't look blurry and then crank up the settings.

 

[Deleted member 25721]

Definitely settings. I still game at 1080p both in my living room (50" 60hz) and at my desk (34" ultrawide 144hz) and I'm fine with being able to play at higher settings and refresh rates. Looks amazing.

 

[astro]

Not going sub native (1080), but other settings are more important than super sampling.

 

[Snefer]

I don't care about resolution, I care about image quality, they are not necessarily directly related. Would rather watch Blade Runner in 1080p then Toy Story 1 in 4k if that makes sense :)

 

[Fall Damage]

I never seem to notice a big difference from high to ultra. With DLSS and TVs being 4k now higher resolutions make more sense than ever. I have a 32" monitor and 65" TV so 4k output is my target and I'll tweak settings up from there.

 

[Powerofthecloud]

It depends on the game and setting available based of the hardware.

 

[toy_brain]

'Tis a balancing act, innit.

Generally, I go for framerate as long as the visuals aren't impacted to an immediately noticeable degree.
I still have a 1080p TV, so it's not like I'm desperate for cutting-edge graphics. Some Switch games can end up sacrificing a bit too much in trying to hit 60fps though. Dreamscaper, for example, looks extremely rough in its 60fps mode, so I tend to stick with the GFX option on that game.

 

[Barrow Roll]

Native resolution is a must for me on 1080p or 1440p displays. On a 4K display, I believe this is a lot less important, but prioritizing ultra settings is usually a waste as well.

 

[Thrill_house]

Settings. 1080/1440 @ higher frame rates wins over 4k @ 30

 

[Deleted member 93841]

I prefer optimized settings. For the last 10 years or so, ultra settings have been a unnecessary drain on performance without much meaningful gain.

Just use a mix of high and medium settings (or consoles equivalent settings if you prefer) to boost the res (or using DLSS or FSR) and that's it.

Click to shrink...

I wish more people knew this about Ultra settings. Once I learned that most devs optimise for High, PC gaming became a lot more enjoyable for me. No more feeling like crap because my PC couldn't run games at the best settings possible.

It's obviously nice to run games at Ultra, but it's really not necessary.

 

[secretanchitman]

Native resolution first then dial everything else down on PC. Can't stand non-native resolution because the image quality looks terrible - I'm lucky I have a 2080 so I can max out most settings in games at 1440p.

On console (PS5), I'll prioritize framerate no matter what.

 

[iswasdoes]

Frame rate, then res, then quality settings

 

[TalonJH]

I try to start at 1440p and at least 60 fps then tune with settings and DLSS.

 

[Sande]

Resolution over everything else, withing reason. I'd put a game on min settings before going under 1080p.

 

[Faceless_Caesar]

Anything that can get me a nice consistent frame rate. I have a G-Sync monitor so that helps too.

 

[BarryFishFinger]

Couldn't care less about resolution to be honest. 4k is nice, but I'm more than happy with 1080 if it means I get better visuals and/or framerate.

 

[sublio]

I choose 720p medium on 15" in most games

 

[TaySan]

Resolution has to be at least 1400p, but I try to keep settings as high as possible.

 

[Hoggle]

I'm happy with 60FPS 1440p. I'd prefer that and higher settings (providing they make a decent difference like LoD) than 1800p or 4k.

 

[Klotera]

Depends on the quality of the upscaling/reconstruction technique. I just need it to no look too soft on whatever screen I'm looking at it on. Until recently, most upscaling gave a pretty soft image. So, in that case, I'd always prioritize settings in order to get native resolution.

However, newer techniques have made it less of an issue. With DLSS or even FSR, I can afford to drop internal res and keep settings higher while still having decent image quality at my output resolution. When I have my PC hooked up to my 4k TV, I can run Forza Horizon with FSR quality mode (1620p internal) and it still looks plenty sharp enough, so I can basically keep the same settings I use when it's connected to my 1440p monitor and just use FSR to make it work on my OLED.

Of course, it will also depend on how much of an improvement the settings provide. Slightly sharper shadows? Probably not going out of my way to drop resolution for. Ray-tracing - 100% would drop internal resolution to achieve. Thanks to DLSS, I can run Control with near max settings, including RT, and still keep near 60fps most of the time on a 3060 (1440p output res).

 

[GnarlyCupcakes]

Native res, then drop settings for desired frame rate - 144 for esports and shooters (or close as I can get), 60FPS for ports with the best settings possible to maintain it

 

[Aswitch]

Settings for me. I'd much prefer better performance than better resolution almost always.

 

[Falchion]

I want 1440p and am willing to sacrifice quality to do so.