For Honor PC Low vs Ultra graphics comparison sliders

Written by Jon Sutton on Thu, Jan 26, 2017 5:30 PM
System Requirements Optimum 1080p PC Build Low vs Ultra Screenshots GPU Performance Chart CPU List That Meet System Requirements GPU List That Meet System Requirements

Good evening fellow vikings. Samurai, knights; I don't want to have to hurt you. I've drawn my battle lines for the For Honor closed beta, hurtling into battle like some extra from Braveheart. It's been some bloody, brutal fun. What surprised me most though was just how nice For Honor was to look at. All those pre-launch trailers didn't really seem to do it justice.

If you had a look at the confusing system requirements for For Honor then you're probably none the wiser as to how it performs on your hardware. I can confirm it runs great on a Radeon R9 380 2GB (around 43 fps on Ultra/1080p), but if you think you are going to have to dial down a few settings, here are some For Honor low versus ultra graphics comparison sliders to see just what you may have to miss out on.

For Honor Low v Ultra Graphics Comparison

(slide cursor over to compare)

 

 

 

There's no two ways about it, For Honor is a very pretty game. Or at least as pretty as the sight of grizzled men axing each other in the stomach can get. Even on Low it can be quite an impressive spectacle. The only really telling sign you're playing on Low settings is the obvious aliasing. Apart from this For Honor looks quite nice on Low, even if it is a bit flat and plain to look at.

Crank things up to Ultra and For Honor really does look great, particularly for an online game with a potentially high number of AI soldiers on screen at any one point. Better shadows and ambient occlusion definitely make the biggest difference, making looking For Honor look much crisper and allowing the scenery to pop. To my mind the aesthetic and use of the AnvilNext game engine borrows heavily from the Assassin's Creed series, which explains the gorgeous lighting and long draw distances.

There's no huge difference in texture detail and quality between Low and Ultra in truth, so the final key difference is the Environmental Detail setting. this is response to all that extra foliage you see on Ultra, and it's most obvious in the fourth example. This breaths a lot more life into For Honor's world and stops it feeling overly static.

So what do you think of For Honor's visuals? For those who've made it into the beta, what graphics settings are you playing it on? Let us know!

For Honor PC graphics options revealed

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
95
Offline
11:02 Feb-03-2017

Just a suggestion, I dont know about you guys but low-ultra isnt very useful in terms of gamers figuring out what they will miss out on or gain when they toggle a setting a touch lower or higher.
low-med, med-high, high-ultra is a lot more work but gives you that info

0
Rep
77
Offline
15:23 Jan-27-2017

  • shadows

  • shaders

  • grass


are the biggest differences

0
Rep
8
Offline
12:37 Jan-27-2017

cant wait to play it on low

2
Rep
23
Offline
12:35 Jan-27-2017

Can't wait for this game

1
Rep
14
Offline
10:04 Jan-27-2017

sandas game.

0
Rep
10
Offline
09:48 Jan-27-2017

still lookin pretty good on low, nice

2
Rep
327
Offline
admin approved badge
07:32 Jan-27-2017

Why do some of the textures on the low settings side of the slider look better than those on the ultra settings side? I noticed a lot more detail on some of the rocks and trees on the low setting side of the slider, but with less shadows and foliage. Don't get me wrong... I like the extra shadows and foliage on the ultra side, but not if they cause textures to look muddied or washed out. Is that the infamous motion blur setting rearing it's ugly head again or were you using a type of AA on the ultra side that blurred the textures a bit? Whatever it is... no... just... no. SMH

1
Rep
7
Offline
01:20 Jan-27-2017

was playing the beta last night, if anyone interested to look here the the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W75siIZWnA
its a 3rd part of my 3 part video from Intro-emblem to tutorial gameplay to 4x4 deathmatch. The above link is the video of deathmatch. Gameplay was smooth.

0
Rep
216
Offline
admin approved badge
21:50 Jan-26-2017

I believe they could have done the textures better. Feels like they just copy-pasted the console version with barely noticeable improvements when it comes to that.

1
Rep
59
Offline
21:25 Jan-26-2017

43fps for a 2gb r9 380 on ultra is a great result and the graphics look pretty good as well on both ultra and low.

0
Rep
34
Offline
20:58 Jan-26-2017

Is it just me or Low vs Ultra = just some extra shadows/AO and some more grass? (other differences are negligible)

3
Rep
94
Offline
21:42 Jan-26-2017

I think ultra has way better lightning on the player, on low it looks "photoshopped" while on ultra it looks as if the player is there in the scenery (which it is :b). The textures have a mimimal difference and probably unnoticeable while gaming (just like texture filtering if you ask me, I only notice it when I play fps games and laying on the ground)

2
Rep
-33
Offline
22:15 Jan-26-2017

big difference. you may need to see your optometrist son.

1
Rep
15
Offline
admin approved badge
03:20 Jan-27-2017

His eyes are fine. I don't see much of a difference myself.

4
Rep
8
Offline
20:06 Jan-26-2017

When I support the minimum req of the game and a msg on top left corner says that my Rig do not support the minimum req. But after a restart everything was perf, tho. Overall i like the game. The controls are little bit hard, but i'll get used to it.

0
Rep
49
Offline
admin approved badge
20:54 Jan-26-2017

I think the controls are ATROCIOUS haha, its just like Steep and AC creeds series. Going to try it on 360 gamepad right now and see if its any better. Ive destroyed people on m&k but its an absolute pain. Played against my buddy using a gamepad and got destroyed.

0
Rep
8
Offline
22:28 Jan-26-2017

is it better? I have ps3 controller. My fav part of the game is when i dont play ctrl and i rush him and beat him down, because i can move freely around and with speed

0
Rep
1
Offline
19:06 Jan-26-2017

There's no grass in low settings

2
Rep
15
Offline
19:04 Jan-26-2017

Two main differences - shadows and grass.
Texture difference could also probably be seen in game.


What happened to those graphical settings where even people with really weak GPUs could still run the game?
I remember playing Oblivion on bare minimum on Nvidia FX 5200, and then upgrading to Radeon 9550 pro :D

0
Rep
15
Offline
admin approved badge
19:23 Jan-26-2017

Ambient occlusion not shadows.


I love Oblivion by the way.


http://i.imgur.com/XzXljbD.jpg

0
Rep
15
Offline
admin approved badge
18:42 Jan-26-2017

Barely any difference from what I can see. Almost no point in playing on a higher setting IMO.

0
Rep
43
Offline
18:52 Jan-26-2017

Bruh

7

Can They Run... |

Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.0GHz GeForce GTX 1050 8GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-9750H 6-Core 2.6GHz GeForce RTX 2060 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Core i7-8550U 4-Core 1.8GHz GeForce 940MX 2GB 8GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
FX-8350 Radeon RX 580 8GB 8GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
FX-8350 Radeon RX 580 8GB 8GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
FX-8350 Radeon RX 580 8GB 8GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-3470S 2.9GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Zotac Mini 2GB 8GB
33.3333% Yes [3 votes]
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Core i3-6100 3.7GHz GeForce GT 1030 12GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Core i9-9900KF 8-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Super MSI Ventus XS OC 6GB 32GB
0% No [2 votes]
Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core 3.8GHz GeForce RTX 3070 Galax Gamer OC 8GB 64GB
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
FX-6300 GeForce GTX 1650 16GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-8400 6-Core 2.8GHz Radeon RX 570 Gigabyte Aorus 4GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 4k
Core i7-4770 4-Core 3.4GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB 16GB
Ryzen 3 3100 4-Core 3.6GHz Radeon RX 6600 8GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 720p
Ryzen 3 3100 4-Core 3.6GHz Radeon RX 6600 8GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]