Guest Share Posted February 3, 2016 Is there anything wrong with this? http://pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Need_for_Speed:_Most_Wanted_(2012)&oldid=224143#Optimal_video_settings This game has some major performance issues, and I wanted to list the better graphical settings, similar to what I do in the PC Reports, I've seen that some users are actually looking for the best quality\performance settings very often and knowing this stuff for this game would help a lot, seeing as there's lots of cases where you have video settings which barely change anything but have stupidingly massive performance impacts. The Battlefield 3 page also has something similar. http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Battlefield_3#Optimal_video_settings I tested those values like I would for a PC Report before adding the screenshots though, with comparisons and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Share Posted February 3, 2016 Mainly wondering if this is a shitty approach pretty much. Even if it might help some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett 214 Share Posted February 3, 2016 If there are particular settings that really kill frame rates those are worth noting in the text, but I'm not sure how useful example presets would be. Blackbird and Marioysikax 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Share Posted February 3, 2016 If there are particular settings that really kill frame rates those are worth noting in the text, but I'm not sure how useful example presets would be. The idea was to gain the best performance from settings which don't really change the look of the game too much, so like Low and High look the same but behave differently performance wise, otherwise I'll just note that the Ambient Occlusion and that the SSAA are framerate killers. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marioysikax 89 Share Posted February 3, 2016 The idea was to gain the best performance from settings which don't really change the look of the game too much, so like Low and High look the same but behave differently performance wise, otherwise I'll just note that the Ambient Occlusion and that the SSAA are framerate killers. Thanks. If there was essentially broken feature, as in it has much more major impact on frame rate than it should have, then it's most definitely worth mentioning. However something like SSAA it's up to user to know it has frame rate impact, because with 2xSSAA you could be running the game rendering at 2880x1620 (if the 2x means double pixel count, with some games it means double the dimensions, if it means dimensions then 4x would be near whopping 8K numbers) when played with standard 1920x1080 display! This isn't console, so optimal settings may vary according to users hardware and software as well as users personal opinion and what they want to value over another setting. Everything maxed out, including SSAA 4x I get ~40 FPS, which is still better than under 30 FPS I'm getting with my PS3 version of the game, so at this point I'm not sure if "optimal settings" are necessary at all. E: also why am I seeing optimal settings as screenshots, but no screens of game settings. for shame~~ E2: Reading that BF3 thing seems also somewhat pointless, as again, AF being the least demanding graphical setting should be more of an common knowledge. However settings giving you upper hand like spotting enemy on higher distance is really good info on competitive game like that, but again.... Not sure if it's worth being "optimal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts