ultra, high, med low etc. is independent of resolution.

So you can play at ultra at 800x600 or low at 4k, the choice is there.

The difference between all these settings will differ per game.

Some games people will analyse and post screenshots so people can compare, other games its trial and error to see what suits you best.

e.g. on DA:I I noticed using HBAO full was causing some performance issues on my rig, I took it down one setting to HBAO and those issues disappeared, try as I a might I cannot see a visual difference.
On the other hand when I adjusted effects quality, the difference was immediately noticeable between ultra and high, whilst the visual difference was obvious it seems to have little effect on performance so that I left on ultra.
Tessellation quality tends to be noticeable on performance, what that setting does is add extra details to objects, so lets say e.g. someone is wearing a crown with jewels on the crown, the tessellation level will probably remove some of those jewels when its reduced.
Texture detail level, I think the best way to describe this one is the resolution/compression of textures, the main impact of this setting is VRAM usage, but it does also affect GPU processer usage as well, personally on DA:I I see very little difference between ultra and fade touched (fade touched in that game is the top setting, so ultra equivalent to high) visually, but it has a massive impact on vram usage, I do keep it on fade touched as I can get away with it. I do notice a bigger difference visually when setting it below ultra tho.
There is a post process quality setting which I am unsure exactly what it does, but the tooltip says is related to motion blur and depth of field, I have it maxed and nmever tried to reduce it to to compare the effects.
Some settings dont just affect visual details tho but also affect how many objects are on the screen, so e.g. if you turn down vegetation quality in DA:I it actually removes vegetation from the game, so instead of say 100 bits of weeds in an area, you might only see 10, there is a very noticeble difference between ultra and high visually, but I am ok using high as I can live with less vegetation. According to the tooltip it also affects draw distance, so a higher setting also has them showing at a larger distance.
Post processing antialiasing is enabling of FXAA and how much of FXAA to use, FXAA is faster than MSAA but tends to blur things, I turn it off.
MSAA is an option in the vast majority of games, which basically sharpens edges and rmeoves jaggies, the higher the resolution the less of a need for MSAA, MSAA is definitely GPU intensive.
There is even more options you will find in games, and a youtuber totalbiscuit goes through them all on every game he reviews, he also plays with them to show the viewer the performance impact and visual differences, he does sometimes come across settings he has no idea what they do.

In the first PC patch of DA:I bioware made an error which forces some low quality mesh details, and people were showing before and after pictures of the affect on visual quality, and the difference was pretty big. This is why I say pixel count isnt everything, my view is someone playing at 1080p with everything on ultra/high will have better visuals than someone playing at 4k with everything turned down.

In terms of me been condescending, I dont know what you mean by that, but I am not going to lie to make a product sound better than it is. You asked for advice on 4k gaming and I gave it.

Every game is different as well, the settings in each game will have different impacts and affect on visual quality.

Shadow of mordor when I played with settings there was a very noticeable difference in visual quality when going down one level of setting.

I do agree that it is likely drive club will run better than those 2 games, but its not a definite. We may get surprised.

Also an option is to render at a lower resolution and then upscale to 4k. Upscaling is very cheap.

Do you have links to where people say 970m is decent for 4k?

Do you have links to where people say 970m is decent for 4k?

I didn't say that, I just said it had decent write ups. It's Zotac that is claiming 4k and none of the PC review sites that I read (a quick google brought up loads) were bemused by that claim. They are in fact just re reporting and obviously haven't reviewed the sn970 yet, but none appeared dubious or showed any immediate concern. Thatay change on release.

You can check out Linus' Tech Tips as one example, for his opinion of the 970 and 980m. Please don't point out that he is sponsored.

I said condescending "intentional or not", because of your constant warnings of corporate deceit. If I were to subscribe to that view I would never buy anything, so it's not constructive. I don't think every company is out to deceive and loose lips sink ships. Take Timey for example. Your negative approach has led him to the conclusion that these are pointless other than as streaming devices from another PC. Granted, he's from the midlands, but he now thinks the worst of a machine that is unarguably very capable.

That helps nobody.

they not deceiving, the device can output at 4k.

If they said the device is aimed at 4k gamers then thats an entirely different matter, however I dont believe they have said that.

I checked this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGF5_vZJDI

But it doesnt say anything to promote the product for 4k usage.

Also note one of the people commenting reminded people the 980m is 7% weaker than the plain 970.

I dont know what you want me to say? it seems you want me to lie.

You saying that someone tells you a device is not as powerful you thought it was isnt helpful? then why did you ask.

I would link you to reviewtechusa who doesnt take BS from any manufacturer but you would call him a pc elitist fanboy for saying the truth.

He's from the midlands���.Lol It has nothing to do with Chrysalis comments matey i just don't need a glorified streaming PC thingy stuck next to my consoles.

here we go, a single GPU marketed for 4k. get a steam machine with one of these in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTr0rfUZgqg
http://www.redgamingtech.com/r9-390x-features-8gb-hm...

I would link you to reviewtechusa who doesnt take BS from any manufacturer but you would call him a pc elitist fanboy for saying the truth.

I rarely comment on Xbone or PC threads, but whenever I question your opinion, you always harp back to the fanboy accusations.

The sites you link to are never authoritative, just podcasts and the like from enthusiasts. Like I said, loose lips sink ships. Talk is cheap, so I make a point never to subscribe to tittle tattle. I want that law of diminishing returns put into context when talking about performance. I suspect 7% is irrelevant to all but the hardcore elitist. Unless you can link me to two different example videos to see the difference for myself, I can't imagine it being at all dramatic. Maybe I'm wrong.

In reply to a post by time2die:

Personally i don't think i will bother with these Steam Boxes,if they were stand alone PCs sitting along side my consoles i might be interested ,but streaming stuff from another PC really ?

An old but clear synopsis of the vision and possible pros and cons of the Steam Box.

http://www.pcgamer.com/steamos-the-pros-and-cons/

Also, note the same hopes for optimisation improvement as with the estaished consoles:

With SteamOS, however, Valve claims it has "achieved significant performance increases in graphics processing,"

I will be using it with my wheel, but as long as I don't have to use "a owl" controller , I will be able to play non ps4 released games too. It could be win, win so don't let negative attitudes affect your thoughts just yet. The most vocal opponents know no more detail than you or I. I reckon its a great idea and deserves a chance. I certainly wouldn't be contemplating PC gaming if it weren't for the Steam Box approach and I suspect their will be a lot more like me.

That can only be good for gaming, right?

I am not here to argue with you, I just offered my information.

Valve are in a dream world if they think developers will ditch windows, they develop where the numbers are. The best case outcome for steamos is if every game is also made linux compatible, games wont be made linux only.

In regards to the PROs on that page they are just a point of view.

1 -- It adds couch friendly games.

To me this is no pro as I prefer to game on a monitor and sitting close to it. The article makes an assumption that is what everyone wants, but regardless steam already has big picture mode, which basically puts a console interface on a pc.

2 - It adds competition in the console market.

This is a bad thing, the more consoles there is, the more exclusivty occurs and as such gamers have to buy more hardware, this is not a good thing, although the only exclusives I ever see the steam box getting is maybe valve titles. The steam box is also priced too high to be price competitive to the existing consoles.

3 - No need to pay for windows

This is a small advantage, the problem is steam machines are expensive anyway, meaning if you trying to argue there is a cost advantage there simply isnt on the overall picture. Especially now that microsoft are making it free to upgrade from one version of windows to another.

This is my view, doesnt mean I am a pc elitist. Its just what I think.

PC's have their own advantages over these steam machines. Which I think you seriously need to consider especially as you said you dont need it to be a small size.

1 - Upgradeability, at some point the steam machine will get obselete, buy a steam machine and then you will eventually have to buy another steam machine. PC's however are pretty much fully modular, every component can be switched out independently. So whilst an initial PC purchase if from scratch is expensive, from that point on it becomes cheaper. e.g. you can buy/build a PC with a single GTX 970 in, get your game, try it in 4k, if it runs like trash, just stick a second 970 in there to SLI it, better than having the whole investment wasted.

2 - Multi purpose.

3 - Customisation.

Also the optimisation aspect wont stick for steam machines, the main reasons consoles have that as an advantage is that the consoles are single spec, every PS4 is the same. Not every steam machine is the same, there is dozens of different models. It is still going to be the same games that run on PCs that are used on the steam machines. The steam machines are basically handicapped PCs.

PC's however are pretty much fully modular, every component can be switched out independently.

Not strictly true... The problem is normally when you need to upgrade processor. If upgrading to a new generation you generally have to switch motherboard. Switching motherboard has also, often, meant replacing memory.

Adding an extra graphics card could push the PSU over the top so may also require that replaced. Replacing a graphics card if they have updated the bus specs could also drive a new motherboard.

And if a major tech jump is made (like PATA to SATA in the past) then you potentially also have to replace drives.

I understand where you are coming from but once you get to a certain point you may end up having to build a new machine from scratch rather than switch parts.

I am a PC gamer myself and for some years have been building my own machines but there are times where it is far more complex to upgrade than others. There is a simplicity to consoles but even my latest attempt has failed as I still prefer to use the PC than to fire up the console and use those horrible controllers.

I much prefer to use a controller than a keyboard and mouse,the only time a keyboard and mouse has a edge are FPS and thats it,everything else is way better using a controller and thats why so many PC gamers have controllers for there PCs.

A driving game without a controller is a complete waste of time,using a keyboard is just plain ridiculous.

I have been a avid pc gamer many years ago but found the switch to consoles with the use of a controller a breeze and don't understand why so many people complain about not been able to adapt to a nice console controller,personally i find it much more easier to use and you don't have to be tied to a desk about a foot from a monitor.

Edited by time2die (Mon 16-Mar-15 11:14:18)