Far cry 5 gtx 970: Far Cry 5 General Discussions

FAR CRY 5 gtx 970 FPS Benchmark

View

Far Cry 5 minimum requirements

View all game performances of

gtx 970

Compare gtx 970 with: gtx 1060 6Ggtx 1070gtx 1080 Tigtx 1080gtx 1060 3Ggtx 1050 Tigtx 1050RX 580RX 570RX 480gtx 1070 Tigtx Titan XRX Vega 64gtx 980 Tigtx 980rtx 2070rtx 2080rtx 2080 Tigtx 1660 Tigtx 1660gtx 1660 superrtx 2060rtx 2060 superrx 590rx 5700rx 5700 xtrtx 2070 superRTX 3070

Background colors: 144+ FPS, 60+ FPS,
35- FPS

Resolution:

1080p, Quality: Ultra

	i7 9900k	i7 10700k	i7 9700k	i5 10400	i7 8700K	i7 7700K	i5 9400f	i5 8600k	i5 8400	i5 7600k	i5 7500	i3 7100	Ryzen 7 3900x	Ryzen 7 3800x	Ryzen 7 3700x	Ryzen 5 3600x	Ryzen 5 3600	Ryzen 5 2600x	Ryzen 5 1600x	Ryzen 5 2600	Ryzen 7 1700X
gtx 970	78. 8	79.5	78.1	74.5	72.4	70.3	69.6	68.9	67.5	66.8	63.3	52.7	75.2	74.5	73.5	73.1	71	68.9	64.7	64	61.9

Resolution:

1080p, Quality: Medium

	i7 9900k	i7 10700k	i7 9700k	i5 10400	i7 8700K	i7 7700K	i5 9400f	i5 8600k	i5 8400	i5 7600k	i5 7500	i3 7100	Ryzen 7 3900x	Ryzen 7 3800x	Ryzen 7 3700x	Ryzen 5 3600x	Ryzen 5 3600	Ryzen 5 2600x	Ryzen 5 1600x	Ryzen 5 2600	Ryzen 7 1700X
gtx 970	113	114	112	106.8	103.8	100.8	99.8	98.8	96.8	95.8	90.8	75.6	107.8	106.8	105.4	104. 8	101.8	98.8	92.8	91.8	88.8

All resources

Games:
A Way Out AirMech Strike Apex Legends Battlefield 4 BATTLETECH Call of Duty WWII Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Destiny 2 Dota 2 Far Cry 5 Fortnite Frostpunk Grand Theft Auto V League of Legends Overwatch Path of Exile PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds Radical Heights Rainbow Six | Siege Sea of Thieves StarCraft 2 Total War THREE KINGDOMS Warframe World of Tanks

GPUs:
RX 570rx 5700rx 5700 xtRX 580rx 590RX Vega 64gtx 1050gtx 1050 Tigtx 1060 3Ggtx 1060 6Ggtx 1070gtx 1070 Tigtx 1080gtx 1080 Tigtx 1660gtx 1660 supergtx 1660 Tigtx 970gtx 980gtx 980 Tigtx Titan Xrtx 2060rtx 2060 superrtx 2070rtx 2070 superrtx 2080rtx 2080 TiRTX 3070

CPUs:
Ryzen 5 1600xRyzen 5 2600Ryzen 5 2600xRyzen 5 3600Ryzen 5 3600xRyzen 7 1700XRyzen 7 3700xRyzen 7 3800xRyzen 7 3900xi3 7100i5 10400i5 7500i5 7600ki5 8400i5 8600ki5 9400fi7 10700ki7 7700Ki7 8700Ki7 9700ki7 9900k

Far Cry 5 Launches Today.

See The Hardware You’ll Require For An Excellent Experience

Ubisoft’s Far Cry^® 5 is launching across the globe this very day. There’s a ton of fresh open-world gaming to be found, and plenty of hijinks to get involved with, all of which you can read about in reviews. Here on GeForce.com, however, we’re interested in hardware and what you require to run today’s games at a high level of detail with a smooth, stable framerate.

For Far Cry^® 5, Ubisoft has handily provided a super-detailed list of specifications, requirements and recommendations that cover everything from minimum spec gaming, right through to high-end 4K 60 FPS gameplay:

MINIMUM CONFIGURATION: 1280×720, 30 FPS

• GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB VRAM with Shader Model 5.0 or better)
• CPU: Intel Core i5-2400 @ 3.1 GHz or AMD FX-6300 @ 3.5 GHz or equivalent
• RAM: 8GB
• OS: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8. 1, Windows 10 (64-bit versions only)
• Resolution: 720p
• Video Preset: Low

RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION: 1920×1080, 60 FPS

• GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (4GB VRAM with Shader Model 5.0 or better)
• CPU: Intel Core i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz or AMD Ryzen 5 1600 @ 3.2 GHz or equivalent
• RAM: 8GB
• OS: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64-bit versions only)
• Resolution: 1080p
• Video Preset: High

4K 30 FPS CONFIGURATION

• GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (8GB VRAM with Shader Model 5.0 or better)
• CPU: Intel Core i7-6700 @ 3.4 GHz or AMD Ryzen 5 1600X @ 3.6 GHz or equivalent
• RAM: 16GB
• OS: Windows 10 (64-bit version only)
• Resolution: 2160p (3840×2160)
• Video Preset: High

4K 60 FPS CONFIGURATION

• GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 SLI (8GB VRAM with Shader Model 5. 0 or better)
• CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.0 GHz or AMD Ryzen 7 1700X @ 3.4 GHz or equivalent
• RAM: 16GB
• OS: Windows 10 (64-bit version only)
• Resolution: 2160p (3840×2160)
• Video Preset: High/Ultra

Supported NVIDIA cards at time of release:

• GeForce GTX 600 Series: GeForce GTX 670 or better
• GeForce GTX 700 Series: GeForce GTX 760 or better
• GeForce GTX 900 Series: GeForce GTX 950 or better
• GeForce GTX 10-Series: GeForce GTX 1050 or better

«PC has always been a key element of Far Cry’s DNA, and this couldn’t be truer with Far Cry^® 5,» said Kirill Bragin, the producer of Far Cry^® 5’s PC version. “In order to help ensure PC players have the best experience possible, the Benchmark feature and video memory usage meter will help you analyze your system and calibrate the myriad visual options, including variant aspect ratio support, FOV adjustment, optional FPS locking, and resolution scaling. ”

“But players won’t need to dive into the calibration menus if they don’t feel like it”, says Bragin, because «the game will auto-detect the user’s hardware and will set the matching quality preset and resolution.»

To ensure your hardware is performing at peak efficiency in Far Cry^® 5, and you therefore get the best possible preset for your GPU, download and install our Far Cry^® 5 Game Ready driver. You can either get it from our website, or automatically through GeForce Experience, an indispensable application for GeForce GTX gamers that also features game setting optimization, gameplay recording, Twitch streaming, giveaways, and much more.

Testing 50 graphics cards in Far Cry 5

This article was written by a website visitor and has been rewarded.

Introduction

Recommendations

On March 27, Ubisoft’s Far Cry 5 finally went on sale and is now available on PC, Xbox and PlayStation. This game is the fifth in the main series and the eleventh in the entire franchise. Gameplay in Far Cry 5 is very similar to that of previous games in the series. This time the setting takes place in the fictional Hope County, located in the state of Montana. The fifth part flaunts new features, for example, now you can customize your character, in addition, there is an emphasis on hand-to-hand and melee combat.

The game still uses the Dunia Engine, which is a modified version of the Cry Engine. The Dunia Engine has had texture rendering issues in the past and unfortunately we also saw this here when we ran the game on top AMD and NVIDIA GPUs. Yes, it’s a little annoying and gets in the way of enjoying the gameplay, but overall it looks quite impressive visually, and given the open world, we can say that the game is also very well optimized.

If we talk about optimization, then, unlike many other titles, Far Cry 5 did not use GameWorks technology. Instead, AMD is the sponsor here, and although its overall position is fairly neutral, this may mean that those who use NVIDIA products should not expect much preference.

AMD says it is working closely with Ubisoft to achieve high optimization, excellent image quality, high frame rates and low latency. Far Cry 5 supports some of the features introduced in Radeon RX Vega, such as Rapid Packed Math, Shader Intrinsics and Radeon FreeSync 2, and none of them have any negative impact on GeForce users.

To be able to play Far Cry 5, Ubisoft recommends using a Core i7-4770 or Ryzen 5 1600 coupled with a GeForce GTX 970 or Radeon R9 290X, that is, enough performance builds, but, of course, no one forbids you to run the game on Core i5-2400 or AMD FX-6300 along with a GTX 670 or R9 270, if only because it meets the official minimum system requirements. Far Cry 5 only uses DirectX 11, which isn’t surprising given the engine the game is built on.

AMD provided us with the latest version of Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition version 18.3.4 for testing, which is already available to the general public, and this driver has already been sharpened for Far Cry 5. NVIDIA, in turn, has not yet released an optimized driver, so keep this in view. As soon as it appears, we will update the results if necessary.

Testing Far Cry 5 is easy enough because the game has a built-in benchmark that accurately reflects the performance you get when you play. The test itself lasts 60 seconds and displays the minimum, average and maximum frame rates. However, we manually recorded the displayed frames per second in order to tell you about a 1% drop in FPS, instead of the minimum frame rate, although frame time data is converted to FPS by default.

The game offers four graphics quality presets: low, medium, high and maximum quality. We used the maximum settings preset for testing at 1080p, 1440p and 4K resolutions, in addition, we also conducted additional testing of some older video cards using the «Medium» preset. We’ve tested 50 different cards in total, so there’s a lot of results ahead of us, so let’s go…

1080p results

As you can see, the mid-range models perform pretty well at 1080p. R9The 390 and GTX 970 together hit just over 60fps, and despite AMD having a hand in the game, the GTX 970 and GTX 980 are ahead of the Radeon lineup here. Fury X also looks quite decent, even if the GTX 980 Ti shows better performance.

However, as expected, the R9 380 beat the GTX 960 by a fairly large margin. The R7 370 and GTX 950 will need to be set to lower image quality for smoother gaming, but the performance they deliver at max settings is surprisingly good.

If you look at the latest generation of GPUs, you can immediately see the result of the optimizations for RX and RX Vega that AMD talked about. It’s not often you see the RX 560 beat the GTX 1050 and match the 1050 Ti, and this is exactly the case. The RX 570 is on the heels of the GTX 1060 3GB, while both the 4GB and 8GB versions of the RX 580 outperform the GTX 1060 6GB.

When we get to the Vega GPU, things get even more interesting. Vega 56 not only annihilates the GTX 1070 with a 22% lead, but also outperforms the 1070 Ti and GTX 1080. This is a truly amazing result and while we believe that the performance of NVIDIA graphics cards will no doubt improve with the release of an optimized driver, it still it’s hard to imagine that even after that, the GTX 1070 will even match the Vega 56.

Clearly the Vega 56 is the crown jewel of the Vega range, the more expensive air-cooled Vega 64 is only 4% faster and the super-expensive liquid-cooled version is only 5%.

1440p and 4K performance

Gamers will need at least an R9 390 or GTX 970 to hit 1440p, and while the GTX 980 and R9 390X aren’t much faster, gameplay was noticeably smoother at times. Fury X is again well positioned, right in front of the GTX 980 Ti, also here we do not take into account that GPUs on Maxwell can get an additional 20% performance boost when overclocked.

Next on the list are the GTX 1050 Ti, RX 560 and weaker testers, all of which are not able to provide acceptable gaming performance at maximum graphics settings. Upgrading to the RX 570 is a solid boost, but this GPU is once again lagging behind the GTX 1060 3GB. The latter, despite having a 3 GB video buffer, does an excellent job at 1440p.

RX 580 again leaves the GTX 1060 behind, increasing the gap to 12%, and Vega 56, in turn, knocked out its counterparts in the face of the GTX 1070, 1070 Ti and even the GTX 1080, although the Vega 56 at this resolution is more like a GTX 1080, than surpasses it. With an increase in resolution, the top Vega 64 begins to break away even more from its younger sister, at 1440p the difference is a decent 13%.

You’ve no doubt noticed that Vega 64 Liquid managed to keep up with the Titan X Pascal. While it trailed the GTX 1080 Ti slightly in the average frame rate comparison, they held parity in our 1% drop in performance measurement. An excellent result for AMD.

In 4K, the situation for all test participants begins to take shape differently. While the Fury X and GTX 980 Ti are only capable of 31 frames per second, lowering the graphic settings a bit will allow for acceptable performance.

The trinity of GTX 1080 Ti, Titan X and Vega 64 show quite playable framerate. Although the GTX 1080 Ti is still the best buy, the results of AMD’s most expensive GPU are positive rather than vice versa.

As for the Vega 56, the GTX 1080 is its rival here too. Somewhere on the horizon, with a 21% lag, you can see the GTX 1070. no surprises.

Additional test

Before jumping to any conclusions, let’s take a look at how some older GPUs perform at average graphics quality at 1080p. And here we see that the already elderly GTX 580 with 1.5 GB of memory is completely unable to pull Far Cry 5, unfortunately, its performance is far from the minimum required. Gamers on the GTX 1030, like the GTX 650 Ti, may experience some anguish due to the insufficient frame rate provided by the GPU data. GTX 9 performance50 is on the verge of being playable.

Performing under the red banner, the HD 7790 and RX 550 performed rather poorly, the R7 260X is the minimum at the moment.

GTX 680, GTX 770 and HD 7950 demonstrate more or less acceptable performance among the no longer young video cards. Not far from the RX 570 are the R9 290, 280X, HD 7970, and the GTX 780 Ti.

We expected performance to be better with medium settings, but the RX 570 was only 14% faster, while the GTX 1050 Ti is already 25% faster. In general, when using medium graphics settings and 1080p resolution, Far Cry 5 already becomes comfortable to play on a fairly wide range of graphics adapters.

Video memory usage

Below is a graph of video memory usage at three resolutions at maximum image quality settings. As you can see, the game consumes about 3GB of memory at 1080p, 3.5GB at 1440p if it has that much, and 4GB at 4K. You might expect that the 3GB version of the GTX 1060 might not be able to handle 1440p and 4K, but in reality it’s not much different from the 6GB model here.

Summing up

Well, that concludes our testing, and we can safely say that Far Cry 5 really looks very good, and it is also a pleasure to play. Although we used graphics presets for testing, experienced players can easily customize the graphics to their liking using a considerable number of available options.

We recently tested graphics cards in Warhammer: Vermintide 2 and were impressed that the game runs equally well on both AMD and NVIDIA GPUs. With Far Cry 5, everything is the same, the game is well optimized for GPUs from both companies. Which, in principle, is not surprising, given the lack of use of GameWorks technology.

Update: We’ve done additional testing of Far Cry 5 with NVIDIA’s new optimized drivers on GTX 1060, 1070 and 1080 Ti and found no performance improvement.

Source: TechSpot

This content was written by a site visitor and has been rewarded.

Ultra graphics settings in games are overrated and here’s why — Hardware on DTF

55 026
views

Now it is generally accepted by many that if you buy a new video card and play modern games without turning everything on to the maximum, but lowering the settings at least to high, then this decrease in settings is an incredible sacrifice in graphics and serious compromises in terms of quality.

But this is before there was approximately the following difference between the settings:

The picture is just for example

But in current games there is no very noticeable visual difference between ultra settings vs high. And in some cases even between ultra vs medium.

But there is a huge difference in FPS and resolution, which you can get without maximum settings.

Of course, if you put two monitors side by side and start comparing the game on them at different settings or just see two images at the same time in screenshots / videos, then you will find something.

Sacrificing thirty FPS, there will be an extra brick in that corner or a microscopic shadow. But would you find this difference without comparison on two monitors, or without comparison on two screenshots that are in front of you at the same time? I doubt.

It’s very hard to tell the difference between the settings when you don’t have two screenshots in front of you. And that’s exactly what this post will be about.

Why ultra settings are overrated

Compared to high settings, maximum settings significantly reduce FPS and give little in return. In addition, you can get worse graphics if you turn everything on to the maximum.

Lower settings will increase FPS and increase resolution. And high FPS and high resolution are always noticeable. And the resolution is higher than 1080p, you can turn it on even on a 1080p monitor and get an unrealistically beautiful picture.

60 FPS is good, but more is better

A comfortable minimum for the game is a stable 60 FPS. But this is not the minimum you should sit on when you have a 120+ Hz screen and when you can squeeze out a little more FPS by sacrificing minor settings and not sacrificing resolution.

Even if you have achieved a stable 60 FPS and turned everything on to the maximum, it is better to lower some settings and get at least 80 FPS already.

Because anything above 60 FPS feels much better and smoother. Even the difference between 60 and 80 is already very noticeable on 120+ Hz monitors that have Freesync, VRR or G-Sync adaptive sync technology. And if you managed to achieve 100 FPS and above, then this is a separate pleasure for the eyes.

Resolution in games

Reducing some settings below the maximum allows you to increase the resolution and still maintain an acceptable FPS.

Resolutions above 1080p look much better and have a significant impact on picture quality even on a 1080p monitor.

To increase the resolution on a 1080-1440p monitor, you can enable DSR/DLDSR via Nvidia Control Panel or AMD’s VSR (Virtual Super Resolution). After that, you can enable 1440p and 4K resolution in games and get better anti-aliasing and clarity in games.

You won’t notice the difference between ultra vs high settings in most games. But you will immediately notice the difference from running the game in 4K on a 1080p monitor.

Everything will be clear and beautiful. In some games, TAA anti-aliasing artifacts — ghosting / plumes / soap will disappear. And you won’t ask DTF questions like: «Why is there such pixelated hair in the game and it doesn’t smell like nextgen even at maximum settings.»

«I play native 1080p on ultras. Why do I have pixelated hair, tail and mane in RDR2?»

4K

4K resolution even at medium settings will give you a much prettier picture than native 1080p at maximum settings on your 1080p monitor.

No pixelated horse tail, pixelated hair or soap. 4K with DSR. The picture is a real nextgen.

Among other things, maximum settings are not always quality.

Some settings turned on to the maximum can only make the picture worse and add soap.

Texture quality — no compromises

Lowering texture quality to «low» is always a bad idea

The texture quality setting affects the quality the most and has almost no effect on the FPS (if there is no lack of memory on the video card). Lowering the quality of textures is highly discouraged, because you may encounter soapy textures.

If the textures are not set to the maximum, then in some games, the quality of the textures can be noticeably worse when you are too close to some objects.

Ultra settings may degrade quality

People think that if they set all the settings to the maximum, they get better quality. But among all the settings, there are those that actually make the graphics worse.

Well, or just these maximum settings reduce productivity by 2-4 times, and in return, the picture quality improves slightly compared to the settings below.

Yes, and when you click the general settings preset to ultra, the game often automatically turns on all the settings in general.

And some of these settings add soap. And some settings can degrade the smoothness of the picture on your 144 Hz monitor to the level of a 60 Hz monitor with a slow matrix.

Chromatic aberration

I think that looking at the screenshots above, even without a magnifying glass, you noticed a huge amount of soap that was added to the edges of the image in one of the screenshots where this setting is enabled.

There is no sense in this setting, it does not add beauty, but for some reason in many games on the High/Ultra preset this muck turns on and makes the image WORSE.

DOF / Depth of Field / Depth of Field

DOF ON. How cinematic (no)

Depth of field in games is an attempt by developers to add a «cinematic» feel to games. But most of the time, this setting is annoying, as it works absolutely disgustingly and can reduce FPS.

Even Insomniac Games couldn’t properly implement the Depth Of Field effect in Spider Man. And as you can see in the screenshot above, we just get a random blur, not some nice cinematic effect like in the movies. But this company knows a lot about quality, but something didn’t work out for them to realize the normal depth of field.

In some games, this inclusion of depth of field can add artifacts, poor DLSS performance, terrible hair quality that will stand out against a blurred background.

Now someone will say that DOF only works in cutscenes and why turn it off, but DOF in some games can soap and not during cutscenes. In the new Saints Row, for example, when turning on the depth of field, blurring occurs without any cutscenes right during the game and blurs mountains and other distant objects.

Motion Blur / Motion Blur / Speed ​​Effect

Another useless setting that makes some people literally sick. And it’s good if they made it possible for such people to turn off this nightmare. In some games, this setting may have a slight effect on FPS.

The only use of this setting is to hide low FPS on consoles and sometimes bad graphics. If the game is running at 30 FPS, then turning on motion blur helps a lot to hide the wild 30 FPS and gives the impression that everything is silky-smooth.

In most games, this setting has always been listed as Motion Blur, but for some reason in Sony games, I have already met 2 times that this is a speed effect, and not motion blur. This setting does not give any sense of speed.

Turning on the speed effect on good monitors at 60+ FPS will not get you anything good. With blur enabled, motion in the game will be like on consoles with silky-smooth 30 FPS on a 60Hz TV.

while rotating the camera. I saw this at 30 FPS on consoles and even when I turned off Motion blur

Vignette / Vignette

The effect of this setting is not needed at all and can be annoying if it is clearly visible, and the essence of this setting to ON is just to create something like this for you in games:

So clearer

Effect quality

Stray has a setting called «effects quality». And if you played this game, then for sure you turned this setting on to the maximum and thought that you got top quality.

But not only does this setting eat FPS like hell, it doesn’t do anything noticeable better at all. This setting only takes away FPS and adds soap. Lowering it to low will give you a huge FPS boost and quality improvement.

Find the difference in the screenshots:

78 FPS — 4K at maximum settings

101 FPS — 4K almost everything at maximum settings, but the «Effects Quality» setting is reduced from high (this is the maximum in the game) to low.

The performance gain from reducing one setting in my case was 29%. But you can see that on low my card is only 86% loaded, which means there is an emphasis on the processor and with a different processor the FPS would be even higher.

Turning on the maximum settings and losing 23 FPS, did the game become noticeably better? Is this improvement worth the 23 FPS loss? Look at the picture:

Bottom Effects Quality: High / Top Effects Quality: Low

Turning on the quality of effects on ultra , not only does FPS decrease from 101 to 78, so ultra also lathers everything . Well, why such a setting to ultra, if when it is reduced to «Low» the picture is clearer and the FPS is higher.

Post-processing quality

Usually found in games made on the UE4 engine. Let’s take Kena: Bridge of Spirits as an example.

Medium vs Ultra

Increasing the post-processing setting from medium to ultra, the FPS drops slightly.

But what did we get by pushing the setting to the maximum? Watching:

Notice the difference? Show with zoom:

Left post-processing on ultra (soap). Right post-processing medium (top quality without soap)

You can also look at the comparison and even move the slider to make the difference better visible.

144 FPS — Post-Process: Minimum

136 FPS — Post-Process: Maximum.

See comparison on imgslider >

We lose 8 FPS between settings and turn it on to the maximum, we get a good portion of soap that poured over the entire screen.

Ray Tracing / Rays — not always worth the loss of FPS

On the RTX 3070, you can get this FPS in Dying Light 2 in native 1080p by turning everything on ultra along with the rays:

Dying Light 2 / RTX ON / 1080p / 45 fps — you can forget about smoothness. It’s dark like … in f …

If you have an Nvidia card, you can enable DLSS. On an RTX 3070 card with DLSS enabled, instead of 45 FPS, it manages to get 74 FPS in native 1080p on ultra with beams.

Dying Light 2 / RTX ON / 1080p / DLSS Quality / Decent 70+ fps

But specifically in this game, DLSS adds a noticeable soap of to 1080p.

Imgslider link:

Native vs 1080p + DLSS Quality: WATCH.

Playing Dying Light 2 in 1080p with DLSS you probably don’t want to, so for native 1080p without DLSS + beams, prepare some RTX 3090 TI to get 1080p / RTX ON / ULTRA

FSR 1. 0

But if DLSS is not available to you, then in this game you can enable FSR 1.0 and enjoy this:

Dying Light 2 / RT ON / 1080p / FSR 1.0 Quality / Very SOAPY and dark

Dying Light 2 / RT OFF

Or you can turn off all RT and DLSS / FSR and get 95 FPS in native 1080p and this picture:

Dying Light 2 / RT OFF / 1080p / RTX 3070 / Now at least it’s not so dark — just won

The picture of course became lighter and worse in places, but this is because no one bothered in this game with the correct lighting and shadows without RTX ON.

Improving the picture was transferred to your wallet, made a game in haste, and for the consequences of this — pay you and buy an RTX 3090 for normal 1080p gaming.

Without RT, but without soap

By turning off Ray Tracing, you can switch to 4K gaming even on the RTX 3070 and noticeably improve clarity. On a 1080p monitor, you can turn on DSR 4K and turn on DLSS for quality, then the game starts to look sharper and better.

Screenshots below:

Look carefully at the quality of the vegetation and overall clarity.

Where 95 FPS — native 1080p

Where 65 FPS — DSR 4K + DLSS Q

Without rays turned on in this game, the picture will be too bright and colorful in places, but you can make it less like Fornite using Nvidia Freesyle or Reshade filters. Sacrificing a couple of FPS and throwing filters through Nvidia Freestyle, we get a darker picture:

«Cinematic experience»

Fog Quality / Dying Light 2

Fog quality is another annoying setting in Dying Light 2. Lowering this setting to low has no effect on the picture at all, but it does increase FPS significantly.

Turning off RT, raising all settings to the maximum, but lowering the quality of the fog to low and turning on DLSS for quality, you can get 130 FPS at 1440p on the RTX 3070. On both screens, DLSS is on, the settings are the same and the difference is only in the quality of the fog.

130 FPS — fog quality: low

110 FPS — fog quality: maximum

Dying Light 2: RT Sun Shadows ON — full horror

First part of video with RT Sun Shadows ON, second part of video with RT Sun Shadows OFF

Attention to the shadows on the trees

This game has a completely disgusting implementation of RT Sun shadows. Shadows simply change before your eyes if you have sun shadows turned on. The trees have become darker, but bugs have also been added, and the FPS has dropped to unplayable.

Here’s another one. Including RT Sun Shadows, we get shadows on the wall that change their shape:

Reshaping shadows with RT ON

And how will you play Cyberpunk without beams?

Cyberpunk 2077 on ultra settings with rays in native 1080p:

RTX 3070 / 1080p native / ultra / beams on / 41 fps — awful.

RTX 3070: ULTRA / RTX ON — you will have to play stable 60 FPS only at 720p, since this card does not pull native 1080p ULTRA / RTX ON.

But with DLSS enabled, you can of course play 1080p / ULTRA / RTX ON. But if you have an AMD card and no DLSS? So what is it now, is it better to play in 720p or run after the card?

Cyberpunk 2077 beams and FPS impact

1080p: All ultra/Rays on (41 fps) VS All ultra/Rays off (71 fps)

Rays in this game make something better by 5%, something worse by 5%. But the FPS becomes worst of all and it decreases by as much as 73% when the rays are turned on.

73% better?

The resulting picture with RTX ON in Cyberpunk 2077 is clearly not worth the lost FPS. Because without beams, Cyberpunk still looks amazing because unlike Dying Light 2’s crooked indie zombie parkour, in Cyberpunk the developers tried to make it look good without beams.

Comparison RT ON vs OFF individual settings:

Ray-traced lighting (incredible) VS ray-traced lighting off:

51 FPS — OFF

31 FPS — ON

Didn’t know that the Bloom effect from the lamp now needs Ray Tracing.

57 FPS — RT OFF
34 FPS — RT ON

In the scene below, the picture without RT lighting looks even better.

41 FPS — RTX OFF

29 FPS — RTX ON

And again, the difference is only in Bloom from the sign on the left. In all games, these glares do great without RT, but here for 17 FPS they did this with RT.

Turning on «Ray-traced lighting» in the settings reduces performance by 40-70%.

But does the picture look 40%+ better with this setting turned on? Of course not, and in places it only gets worse. Some city streets become too bright at night with RT lights on and Cyberpunk loses its night vibe because of this.

But even if you liked the microscopic effect of RT lighting somewhere, then without side by side comparison you will not see the difference at all. If this setting is accidentally turned off after some Cyberpunk patch, then you will not even realize that this setting is turned off.

Well, except that you run around with a magnifying glass and every minute look for where there is an effect from this setting and check that it is in place.

Ray-traced local shadows

Turning this setting off will not lose anything, just like turning it on, although you may lose a couple of FPS in some gates.

A couple of extra shadows and minus 4 fps in this scene. If this setting is accidentally turned off after restarting the game, then you will not understand that it has become turned off.

In general, I did not see a strong effect from this setting. It was also not seen by the owners of nextgen consoles, who received a patch for Cyberpunk 2077 in which they added support for the mode with rays.

In RT mode, consolers saw only 30 FPS and a terrible input lag, but they did not see the promised RT Local Shadows. But it is understandable, who will notice the microscopic shadows in a couple of moments.

Ray Traced Sun Shadows

Turning this setting on has a small effect — you sacrifice 10-16% FPS for some shadows.

With RT Sun Shadows ON, in this scene the FPS is reduced from 42 to 36. But shadows appear at the railing by the road and at the handrail of the stairs. True, the shadow of a palm tree and some kind of shadow cast from a building (?) on the left becomes blurry.

36 FPS — ON

42 FPS — OFF

Something better, something worse

35 FPS — ON

38 FPS — OFF

In this scene with RT ON, some shadows are noisy and blurry too. Without RT, the shadows are more pleasant.

37 FPS — ON

42 FPS — OFF

Ray Traced Reflections

The effect of turning this setting on is most noticeable in some places as there are more reflections on cars.

But what you will notice the most is low FPS, as this setting has a disastrous effect on FPS.

City reflection on hood and windshield with RT reflections ON:

RTX 3070 / 1440p native / All on ultra / All beams on

Looks nice, but with RT reflections turned off, cars in the game don’t suddenly become matte and not reflective.

Even without RT reflections, roads and cars are still oiled and have reflections.

RT Off / Reflection Quality: Medium / 4K DLSS / Sign Light Reflected

RT off / Reflection quality: medium / 4K DLSS / Signage reflected on car

Setting the quality of reflections (not mirrors) in this game, reduces FPS almost as much as RT reflections.

When RT reflections are enabled, normal reflections stop working. So, if you turn on RT and turn off the reflection quality in the settings, then this will not affect the FPS in any way.

And here’s what the difference in picture and FPS looks like with reflection RT ON vs reflection RT OFF, but with reflection quality not impressive.

41 FPS — RT ON

44 FPS — RT OFF / «Reflection quality: impressive»

The most interesting thing is that without RT reflections the overall picture is slightly better in places.

47 FPS — RT ON

50 FPS — RT OFF / Reflection quality: impressive

Completion

As you can see in the screenshots, on many settings in Cyberpunk, with or without RT, the picture + is the same and somewhere one is better, somewhere else.

About the difference with RT

Naturally, I’m not talking about RT reflections. Reflections on the hood and windshield of cars are noticeable, and if this setting is accidentally turned off, then you will notice the reflections are missing (unlike other RT settings in this game).

But the question and the essence of the post is different, are some settings worth sacrificing FPS and lowering the resolution.

Resolution and FPS are always visible

High resolution and FPS are always visible, all this is noticeable every second. If you play on a 4K monitor/TV and then sit down to play on a monitor with a lower resolution, you will always notice the difference, you won’t even need to compare.

If you played at 60 fps, and tomorrow you sat down to play at 30, then you will always notice this difference. If you played today at 120 fps, and tomorrow you sat down to play at 60 fps, then you will notice it right away.

But you may not even pay attention to the difference in settings. Especially when this difference must be sought in some specific scenes and sometimes at a certain angle.

Optimal settings in Cyberpunk 2077

We figured out the beams in Cyberpunk 2077 and realized that you will not lose much if you turn them off.

But now about reflections without RT. The fact is that the reflection quality setting greatly reduces FPS.

Above, I wrote that the RT reflections and the quality of reflections ( NO MIRRORS! ) reduce FPS in almost the same way.

So here’s a comparison with RT reflections on VS RT reflections off + quality of reflections reduced from impressive to average.

71 FPS — The quality of reflections: average

47 FPS — RT Refleations

More comparison:

71 FPS — Reflections quality: average

9000 9000 50 FPS 9 FPS — reflection quality: impressive

I see a difference of 21 FPS, but I don’t see a strong difference in image improvement between average and maximum.

Volumetric fog resolution

Ultra — 74 FPS

Medium — 87 FPS

Visual difference: negligible

Cyberpunk: Optimal settings for high FPS and resolution

• Ray tracing: disabled
• Quality of reflections (NOT mirrors): medium
• Volume fog resolution: medium
• Volume cloud resolution: medium

Other settings have no or very little effect on FPS. Therefore, everything else can be turned on to the maximum. Well, except for any blurring in motion and chromatic blurring.

Due to lower settings from the list, instead of this result and 1080p gaming at 42 FPS:

RTX 3070 / 1080P / All on ultra / Beams on / — Terrible 42 FPS.

It was possible to increase the FPS, increase the resolution, get a better and clearer picture:

RTX 3070 / 1440P / Optimal settings / Rays off / Smooth 84 FPS, soap disappeared, clarity is excellent.

An entire Cyberpunk city at optimal settings looks better at 1440p even on a 1080p monitor than it does on an ultra uber RTX ON 1080p native on a 1080p monitor. And most importantly, the FPS has become higher. It was 42 FPS, became smooth 84 FPS.

You can move the slider on imgslider and see the changes: SEE THE DIFFERENCE
1440r with DLSS Q / Beams OFF / Custom settings

Comparison of on imgslider native 1080p with beams and everything on ultra VS 1440p with DLSS Quality / RTX OFF / Optimal settings: SEE

Thanks to optimal settings and DLSS, You can even play Cyberpunk 2077 in 4K on RTX 3070:

RTX 3070 / 4K 60+ FPS / DLSS Quality

RTX 3070 / 4K / DLSS Performance / 85 FPS in 4K

And now comparison mega-ultra-rtx-on 1080p vs 4K / no rays / DLSS for performance / optimal settings : SEE

4K is marketing and there is no difference between 1080p and 4K.