PC graphics options explained

[John Connor]

Nvdia and AMD both offer tools to select the optimal graphics settings for the games you own, and both do a fine job balancing quality and performance. They really work pretty well, but I just like doing things myself. It's the PC gamer way, right? We tinker on our own terms.
If you're new to graphics tuning, this guide will explain the major settings you need to know about, and without getting too technical, what they're doing. Understanding how it all works can help with troubleshooting, setting up the most gorgeous screenshots possible, or playing with tools like Durante's GeDoSaTo. And I think a basic knowledge of the technology in our games makes us better at appreciating and critiquing them.
We start with the fundamental concepts on this page. For the sections on anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, and post-processing that follow, I consulted with Nicholas Vining, Gaslamp Games' technical director and lead programmer, as well as Cryptic Sea designer/programmer Alex Austin. I also received input from Nvidia regarding my explanation of texture filtering. Keep in mind that graphics rendering is much more complex than presented here. I'm a technology enthusiast translating these systems into simple analogies, not an engineer writing a technical paper, so I'm leaving out major details of actual implementation.

http://www.pcgamer.com/pc-graphics-options-explained/#page-1


When I look at some of the comparison images I can hardly see a difference. I can see a difference in anti-aliasing and high dynamic range rendering however.

 

[BSim500]

http://www.pcgamer.com/pc-graphics-options-explained/#page-1

When I look at some of the comparison images I can hardly see a difference. I can see a difference in anti-aliasing and high dynamic range rendering however.

Yeah, GFX options are a highly variable thing (from person to person). Resolution, anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering & HDR / bloom stand out a mile for me (others swear blind they can't see "jaggies" or 1080p vs 720p though), I also cannot play any game with screen tearing (yet others don't even notice it). Conversely, the difference with SSAO on/off in many games is barely perceptible to me (yet can cause up to a 50% drop in some games which is 1,000x more noticeable). I also turn off some "improvements" by default because I find them irritating / unrealistic (eg, Depth of Field is done badly in more games than it's done well in (it doesn't even accurately mimic how the human eye works unless you've got permanent uncorrected myopia and/or damaged ciliary muscles), motion blur is often way overdone, etc).

Best thing to do is work out what suits you personally, then disable those features and enjoy the free performance boost from not having to render what you personally can't see / don't like. I used to be an ideologist demanding everything run a minimum of 60fps on Ultra and heavily engaged in the top-end "rat race". Now I'm much more of a pragmatist - if I can't see (or more accurately "perceive") it whilst gaming - it simply doesn't matter anymore if I switch it off.

 

[pontifex]

you can't tell a difference because those have to be the crappiest comparison photos ever...

lets take 1 screenshot and split it up with graphics options, but let's not have things we can't directly compare...

it should be 3 of the same screenshot taken using different settings or at least split it in a way that you can see direct comparisons to everything.

 

[Maximilian]

you can't tell a difference because those have to be the crappiest comparison photos ever...

lets take 1 screenshot and split it up with graphics options, but let's not have things we can't directly compare...

it should be 3 of the same screenshot taken using different settings or at least split it in a way that you can see direct comparisons to everything.

lol yeah that--^

 

[Wardawg1001]

you can't tell a difference because those have to be the crappiest comparison photos ever...

lets take 1 screenshot and split it up with graphics options, but let's not have things we can't directly compare...

it should be 3 of the same screenshot taken using different settings or at least split it in a way that you can see direct comparisons to everything.

Indeed. I'm pretty much a dunce when it comes to knowing what all these fancy graphics options actually do (besides making my games look better generally), so I've read these types of articles before. The author does a decent enough job of explaining in layman terms what each of these settings do from a technical standpoint, but the screenshot comparisons he chose to highlight these were for the most part very poor. I've seen much better visual examples of pretty much all these graphics options before.

 

[BrightCandle]

Alas the guide on PCgamer decides to gloss over a lot of quite important details. By not discussing the artefacts caused by SSAO instead of HDAO or what MSAA actually menas and how it works and what it doesn't work on they have ended up making an article that isn't quite what it should have been. Nice title, failed on the content.

Its all got pretty complicated with all the post processed lighting systems about, lots of options that I suspect many people don't understand.

 

[norseamd]

I read this earlier. They did not cover all of the graphics technologies that I would like to have known about that are available.