Support NeoGAF

[GudOlRub]

When it comes to pc gaming, with a 27 or 32 inch screen, 1440p with the best settings I can get while achieving 60fps is my sweet spot.
For my eyes 4k is diminishing returns, too much of a performance loss compared to the bump in image quality.

For console gaming a big ass 4k TV and a comfy couch is the way to go for sure.

 

[Ovek]

I play at 4k max settings, I don't pay shit loads of money to compromise.

 

[nikos]

The answer is both, which is why we're on PC.

I'd never play a game at sub-native res (not counting DLSS) so I guess it would be the first option.

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

where is the higher fps option?

 

[Lorianus]

Native for my monitor (1440) and then adjust settings to get acceptable frame rate. I thought that's what everyone did...

Exactly I thought to myself that op's poll makes no sense ?!, i dont know anyone who doesnt run their native monitors resolution, tuning for fps is only for quality settings low/medium/high/ultra.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Always native resolution or DLSS quality minimum. Will lower visual settings accordingly. Visual effects don't mean anything to mean if it's all a blurry and fuzzy mess.

This and Shadows or Shadow Quality is usually first on my shit list if I can't get to 60

 

[SlimySnake]

Both. Maxed out settings plus dlss quality at 4k 30 fps.

Dlss performance looks blurry.
High settings in most games look good but its them shadows and rt effects that make all the difference so i max them out.

Hellblade, wukong, outlaws, sh2 i played at 30 fps 4k dlss quality. Looked incredible.

 

[OverHeat]

Framerate!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[proandrad]

Always resolution up until it looks clean, then visual settings.

 

[Filben]

Exactly I thought to myself that op's poll makes no sense ?!, i dont know anyone who doesnt run their native monitors resolution, tuning for fps is only for quality settings low/medium/high/ultra.

I thought so, too, but before DLSS/FSR were a thing we had some games with render resolution sliders or dynamic resolution which at least kept the UI sharp at display's native res. Apparently some players used that. But still, now we have other upscaling tech and I've known people playing on DLSS balanced or even performance. So I just think of that now when it comes to the resolution question like this here. I guess there are people playing on DLSS performance for the benefit of greater fidelity/higher graphics settings.

Both. Maxed out settings plus dlss quality at 4k 30 fps.

Dlss performance looks blurry.
High settings in most games look good but its them shadows and rt effects that make all the difference so i max them out.

Hellblade, wukong, outlaws, sh2 i played at 30 fps 4k dlss quality. Looked incredible.

I'm, too, one of those players perfectly fine with 30 (or 40) fps depending on the game. Hellblade is the perfect example. But also Alan Wake 2 was ok with 30fps. In those cases I prefer graphics over FPS.

And with that there's no (or very little) compromise between graphics settings and render resolution. Can keep both high if the FPS target is set accordingly.

 

[Jesb]

I’ll sometimes switch to 1440p and have everything else maxed out. This seems to be the best balance for me with playing Indiana Jones. It really is game dependant. In some games I’ll be on 4K with ray tracing turned off.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

60FPS is nice but Steam Deck taught me that 45FPS is almost there, and extra bandwidth can be used for visual fidelity. Pushing it even further - a game that is not action heavy is much more enjoyable for me at 30FPS with good graphics than 60FPS looking like a potato.

 

[tylrdiablos]

It completely depends on the game and the genre. It’s pop-in and screen tearing that ruin the experience for me. (And why I dropped £500+ on a g-sync monitor a few years back.)

 

[GymWolf]

I bought a pc that let me have both high res, high framerate and high details so i don't really have to chose often.

But if i'm playing broken\super heavy games, then 4k dlss quality is the baseline, minimum of 60 fps and then i turn down a notch or 2 some useless settings like shadows, ao, reflections etc. that usually look about the same on ultra or high\very high, i can go down to medium with shadows and shadows relative settings, they barely make any difference.
Disable all the shit like blur, ca, dof etc, sometimes i get 1-2 frames in return.

Rtx usually off trying to get to that sweet 90 to 120 frames range, i could keep the, on and just play at 60 but rtx was never worth losing like 40 frames...
I can let rtx active if the game has framegen and i can reach at least 90-100 frames with them turned ON.

I seriously envy people that are ok with playing at 1440p, i could keep my current gpu for the next 10 years if i was able to play with that res.

 

[daninthemix]

I can go either / or. Drop settings or drop to a lower DLSS level. Depends on the visual impact.