Up For Debate - High resolution or High graphics settings?

Written by Chad Norton on Sun, Sep 12, 2021 5:00 PM

PC gaming is all about customization, and having the choice to tailor your setup to how you want. We also each have different computer specs, which means a wide range of hardware configurations that affect what graphics settings we should choose. But with the power of community, we can help some fellow gamers out there stuck on those decisions.

Recently, we asked you guys whether you thought a 4K fullscreen or a 1440p ultrawide monitor was a better choice for gamers, so now we’re doing something a little similar: what is a better choice for gamers? Higher resolution, or higher graphics settings?

Let’s say you have a 4K monitor, and you want to run Cyberpunk 2077 on it. This is a pretty demanding game even on modern hardware, so you probably won’t be able to run everything on Max graphics settings with ray tracing enabled at full 4K. Then again, you could probably bring some of those settings down in order to up the resolution a little.

Let’s cast the use of DLSS aside, which although is a fantastic piece of technology to get the best of both worlds, is kind of cheating in this scenario. So, what would be the better option here: go with a higher resolution for crisper textures and models, or crank up those graphics settings and live at a lower resolution?

What do you think? What would you suggest to a fellow gamer? Would you prioritize higher resolution? Or would you prioritize higher graphics settings instead? Or would you strike a perfect balance between the two? Let’s debate!

Which do you prioritize most in games?

What resolution do you normally play at?

What graphics settings do you normally play at?

What option would you pick if you had the choice?

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
8
Offline
13:37 Sep-14-2021

I try to find the sweet spot between 4K and best graphical quality possible, I currently play Valhalla at 4k 90% scaling with everything maxed out and capped to 30fps whilst using a controller, and it looks amazing and plays grand, 30fps with keyboard and mouse however is a different story, needs to be 60fps.


Now if only I could afford to buy a new GPU >.>

0
Rep
8
Offline
11:34 Sep-14-2021

now i know why nvidias slavery LOL 😭

0
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
23:35 Sep-13-2021

I definitely want to up settings to certain extent before I start going higher in resolution. 4k won't really help you if everything is low quality blurry mess around you, because you are using low preset. Sure you can tweak it, but I would want at least medium settings before I start even thinking about resolution. And even then, I would want to be able to up textures above that before resolution change. Then if FPS is there, going up is good way to get more out of quality. Though at 4k you get enough resolution to where you can run game at 80% scaling and it still looks almost same, but performs noticeably better.


As for my current setup, 1080p it is. When I will be able to upgrade graphic card, I will go for 1440p. 4k still in my opinion isn't quite there yet to be easy enough to run for me to consider it. For quality settings, I usually stick to high, or mediu, if performance isn't good enough. With very high or ultra, I usually go by old saying "ultra is for screenshots, high is for playing". Since differences usually are relatively small, but perofrmance difference can be quite big for it. Especialyl since while you play, you don't really look that closely to see those minor differences. As always, there are exceptions, but most of the games look great on high. And even medium looks decent.


As for last poll, I would take 1080p high, though if I could twak things for 1440p medium, so I would have higher textures andmaybe another setting or two, I would gladly take that. Of course, I would want at least 60FPS for singleplayer games and ideally, if I had 120-165hz monitor, hitting that with multiplayer games. Of course I would be also willing to drop settings for competitive games to get there, since response time is important there. For singleplayer, 60 is fine, anything above that is just nice bonus. Though currently I would be limited with my 75hz monitor... yeah, graphic card situation currently is reason why I don't have 1440p 165hz monitor with adaptive sync and probably 3060Ti. Oh, the dreams before reality hit us hard. :-D

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
15:32 Sep-14-2021

What you say is all well and good, but I'd like to add a couple of cents from a perspective of someone who has been playing at 4K+ whenever possible since 2013 or so.


You mention that you need high settings, otherwise everything is a "blurry mess"... well, you'll be surprised to know that quite a few game engines load higher res texture and model assets (LODs) at higher rendering resolutions, regardless of your settings. UE3 games very obviously do this and I've noticed textures sharpen up significantly when I played Shadow Warrior at 5K vs 1440p, for example. Same things I noticed with games ranging from the old guy GTA 4 to the new DOOM Eternal.


Then we have screen-space effects and post-processing. Most of the time that stuff relies on the rendering resolution, so things change (usually for the better) when the res goes up as there are more pixels and detail to work with. This includes things like AO, bloom, cell shading and outlines, etc. Raytracing complexity also increases with the resolution, so you'd naturally get more rays resolving better detail at a higher resolution.


Then there's aliasing. More resolution = more detail resolved (well...that's what "resolution" means - "resolving power") = less blur, more detail and less pixelation. I'm sure you've seen those video game screenshots on Steam and other stores that are super smooth, detailed and jaggy-free - that's what you get when rendering at 4K+ resolutions + AA on top. TAA smears the crap out of everything at 1080p, generally looks crap at 1440p and at 4K+ TAA is actually nice, since it has a lot of detail to work with! Same with FXAA - crap at 1080p, but I use it all the time at 4K, 5K, 8K, etc when I can - the extra AA is welcome, but because the pixel count is large - there's no blur over the details that matter (1px at 1080p is 4x larger than 1px at 4K at the same screen size - you end up blurring a lot more stuff at lower resolutions just because that's how things work).


Overall, I really enjoy high resolutions. I like seeing very detailed grass, distant models, textures, etc with no shimmering and stair-stepping. It feels closer to a movie that way, even if the graphics are not that realistic. At the very least - you get a smooth experience that you see in marketing screenshots/vids, which are always so much higher res than what most people would be able to experience anyway. Even old games look much nicer at high resolutions! Yeah, it tanks the performance, but you can reclaim some of it back, since many things DO rely on screen res - you can drop settings down to medium and not feel any difference whatsoever. I'd say TRY it when you can, since even your 1070 will be fine with older games. Try 1080p, then try 4K or higher if the framerate allows. Take some screenshots to compare later if you feel like it. There's often more to gain from bumping the resolution up than what you get by going from medium/high to ultra in the settings.

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
16:37 Sep-14-2021

I made some samples in Far Cry 5. The settings are identical (maxed out) and only the resolution (DSR) changes:


1080p Native | 8K downscaled to 1080p


1080p Native - Crop 1 | 8K downscaled to 1080p - Crop 1


1080p Native - Crop 2 | 8K downscaled to 1080p - Crop 2


This is a typical example of a higher resolution working wonders. In crop 1 I tried to highlight how the shadow accuracy differs between resolutions - where 1080p leaves big gaps with no contact shadows. You can also see how the grass becomes more realistic, with thinner blades, as the resolution goes up. In crop 2 you can see how the back of the van starts looking waaay smoother, how the logo on the camo flag sharpens up, how there's now extra detail (and shadows) on the red gas pump, etc.


I know that 8K was probably a bit overkill, but I actually play at 5K and the results are equally as obvious vs 1080p native.


I can later include comparisons from other games, like GTA IV, where the difference between 1080p and 8K is probably 10 times crazier than in Far Cry 5 here (I actually played through the entire GTA IV at 8K - it's a playable resolution for 2080Ti+ cards), if you're interested in seeing that.

0
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
23:08 Sep-14-2021

Maybe I do underestimate higher resolutions today. I did try this whole thing with super resolution once, I think it is DSR in nVidia control panel, can't remember exactly when, but it was bit mixed back then with some games actually not wanting to scale properly. However this was quite a while ago. Maybe things changed in between, wouldn't be first time. Still, I do know downscaled 4k or higher to 1080p will retain more detail and way better AA. So I might need to give it another go. To get more fresh view on it. Though I didn't know about textures and it does make sense to do that.

0
Rep
303
Offline
admin approved badge
20:07 Sep-13-2021

After getting my new-to-me 4k120 monitor, I'm a huge advocate for high resolution gaming for single-player or new competitive experiences. I still leave Valorant to my trusty 240hz 1080p monitor though.


My jaw genuinely hit the floor when I played Days Gone and Resident Evil Village in 4k, even ancient games like Dead Space and Bioshock feel like new with the resolution cranked.

1
Rep
303
Offline
admin approved badge
20:08 Sep-13-2021

Oops meant to say "non-competitive" I hit my grammar check notification without even checking haha.

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
15:14 Sep-14-2021

I've been playing older games at high resolutions (4K+) since ~2013 when I finally got hardware to run it and it has consistently been great! The game graphics can be simple, but the resolution bump makes everything smooth and clear, which I really like. I'm not sporting a 4K screen yet, so it's all mostly DSR, but I don't mind, since I've seen difference even up to 10K res when downsampled, which is fine by me, considering I have a 1440p screen to fall back on if things don't quite run well 😁

0
Rep
0
Offline
12:32 Sep-13-2021

putting the main topic aside, most of the movies we watch are at 1080p 24-30 fps and they look just fine. but game are considered unplayable on that. so whats the big difference between movies and games?

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
15:45 Sep-13-2021

The differences are HUGE in terms of framerate, actually...


1) Media type. Movies are something you watch and don't interact with, unlike games, especially if you play with a mouse. The more interactivity - the more pleasant the experience as the framerate goes up.


2) Responsiveness and reactivity. Someone playing the same shooter at 120fps+ would absolutely demolish someone else of equal ability playing at 30fps. Low framerates mean your on-screen information is slow to refresh, which means you can't react as quickly and by the time you do - you're living in the past (literally). This directly impacts things like aiming - people aim significantly better at higher framerates than they do at low framerates - and there are many videos made about that.


Most people also get sick playing in VR at below roughly 90fps - that is because your body is used to seeing a smooth image and compensating for only its own processing delay (your brain and nerve paths) - any "framerate" loss or delay than that and the body assumes you're intoxicated (which is what the sick feeling tries to eliminate...except there's nothing you've drank or eaten). That's not the case with just VR either - plenty of people have motion sickness at low framerates when on PC/consoles with normal displays as well!


3) Motion blur and exposure time. Our life and images on film depend on persistence - be it persistence of vision IRL or a cumulative image on film/sensor for each frame. In other words, things look natural when there's continuous motion (with a bit of blur due to the way we see that constant flow of data). Stop any movie frame some time, especially during action, and you'll notice just how much blur there is - there is usually not a single frame of action that is sharp when stopped! Video games are a series of stroboscopic (blinking) images, which do not blend together and, therefore, don't look the same as a movie. For a game to feel close to that - we need either good quality camera and object motion blur or lots and lots and lots of frames so that our eyes do the blending. Or both, when the framerate is not stupid high.


The 24/30fps standards are also ARBITRARY and almost completely unrelated to our vision. The 24fps cinema film standard came to be because this was the lowest amount of frames the people deemed they could get away with at a certain exposure time to make the continuous image seem smooth-enough to fool the eye, WHILE simultaneously using the least amount of film possible (film is a physical thing and you have to buy more if you use more. Making mistakes at higher framerates on film, therefore, also costs more).


30fps for TV - or 25fps for those of us living outside the NTSC region - came to be because of the electrical circuitry that the equipment runs on. NTSC regions have AC electricity generated at 60Hz and us non-americans have it at 50Hz. That's why we have 25/50fps for PAL/SECAM and 30/60fps (actually 29.98 and 59.976) for mainly North America. Those NTSC vs PAL consoles and VCRs before the digitization and smart electronics of the 2000s were important to use in the correct regions for this reason as well, otherwise the games wouldn't run at correct speeds or support the TV being used.


Funny to think that if not for the arbitrary standards imposed on us because of the electrical grid - our standard gaming framerate could have been something completely different, like 75 or 100 fps. 30 means nothing other than being a rudiment of the analogue world.


Hopefully this makes sense, but the main issue most people have is the responsiveness during the interaction. I'll play at 30fps if it's on a small screen, not too much stuff is moving and it's definitely not a shooter, but given the choice - I'd rather have 120+ fps at all times. Even working on my graphics stuff in Windows at 165Hz feels so much smoother that 60Hz screens feel genuinely laggy to me by now.


Keep in mind that consoles can get away with it more due the controllers being...basically garbage in responsiveness vs a mouse (you can't flick-aim with a controller, for example), so you'll often hear the framerate complaints from PC players, rather than console players.


I hope this makes sense. You asked about a really old topic here, but it still pops up every now and again.


As for the resolution... Games tend to come out pixelated and still need some form of either supersampling or blur for AA (MSAA would be edge multi-sampling, SSAA or FSAA are just full-screen supersampling, FXAA is a blur, etc). Because sampling 3D content in a pixel grid is a much much coarser process than photons landing on a sensor - a single 1080p game image, no matter how detailed the assets, could not look as detailed as a real-world photo at 1080p would. To achieve more detail and eliminate jaggies the game needs to render more resolution (supersampling, "4K", DLSS, etc) and/or start blending multiple frames (TXAA/TAA/DLSS). That being said - even your 1080p movies are usually shot on cameras ranging from 4K to 12K in most modern cases, with high-resolution film rescanned and cleaned up with modern methods for those 1080p and 4K remasters of old movies. If you remember, low-res movies (like 480p or DVDs) don't even look THAT bad if they're nicely compressed - you can make out quite a lot of detail still, but try to run a game at 480p and it's an shimmering pixelated mess... A 4K image of a game would probably be close to 1080p in terms of movie smoothness. Obviously there's the question of image-destroying grain and bad optics, but we can ignore that :D

5
Rep
0
Offline
10:45 Sep-13-2021

Really depends on the game. In competitive and/or mechanically more intensive games, I'll only really sacrifice resolution for the sake of framerate increases after already running out of sensible settings to put on low, whereas in some of the single player games that allow for a more laid back approach I've been more open to the idea of sacrificing resolution for visual fidelity. Initially it's jarring but it really helps to think about how perfectly immersed I was in games that I played back on the PS3, with full awareness that many of them were sub-HD upscales.

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
10:15 Sep-13-2021

I'm a big DSR user! I really like smooth visuals with no jaggies, so I try to squeeze out as much resolution as I can out of my games whenever possible, without sacrificing visual fidelity. Sometimes some settings need to go down from ultra to high or v.high, something that I can't notice a visual difference on may even go down to medium so that I can get a great experience at 5K, for example.


Modern games have a lot of tiny details, detailed textures, foliage, etc - there's a lot of stuff that can end up shimmering if the AA is not good enough. In many cases TAA will look blurry at my native 1440p, but tighten up significantly at 4K and above. AA alone also often misses the stairstepping seen in shader effects (such as specular highlights on normal-mapped surfaces) and alpha textures (foliage, fences, etc) so the raw resolution bump can often be the only way to fix those as well. Stacking DLSS upscaling with DSR downsampling is also a good way to achieve smooth visuals. In RDR2 I can keep DLSS Quality at 4.5K res and still enjoy like 90fps for both a smooth image (high res) and smooth motion (fps).


I'd play all games at 8K 120+ Hz if I could, but that's probably never gonna happen. So I do what I can in the mean time.

1
Rep
-1
Offline
16:00 Sep-13-2021

DSR is great i use it for AC: Valhalla to render at 4K and downscale to 1440p and man it looks superb. Do you happen to know how can i use DSR with PC Building Simulator, it does not allow me higher res than 1440p which my monitor is.

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
16:43 Sep-13-2021

Hey! Great to hear DSR is working out well for you in Valhalla 👍 I find that Ubisoft's games REALLY benefit from a high resolution, just because there's a crazy amount of foliage everywhere.


As for the problem with the PC sim... Have you tried applying the desired resolution in desktop, before launching the game? I found that some games don't want to expose resolutions higher than what you had your desktop set to, so I'd have to adjust my 1440p monitor to 5K before launching certain games. It also helps when G-Sync doesn't work, as some games don't do well triggering G-Sync if they render at a higher res than my desktop.


Failing that - fiddle with the display scaling settings in the Nvidia Control Panel - setting your scaling between screen or GPU and/or using the force toggle may allow for DSR to work with the more stubborn title. I find Machine Games' titles (the new Wolfenstein games) to be especially annoying with DSR, for example.

0
Rep
-1
Offline
07:30 Sep-14-2021

Great, really thanks for the tips. I will try them out. DSR is great tool since i cannot yet find a 4K monitor that suits my expectations from it and 1440p is more versatile for RTX 3080 since it can only go 4K with some compromises in big AAA titles.

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
15:11 Sep-14-2021

I'm sticking to 1440p myself until 4K becomes THE norm for AAA games. Currently even a 3090 doesn't give a flawless experience at 4K for me in select titles, which will only get worse. I'd say in 2-3 GPU generations 4K might become what 1080p is now, but then there's also raytracing, so who knows anymore...

1
Rep
105
Offline
02:27 Sep-13-2021

Ultra/max settings without including the AA, i use AA based on resolution so i use 4x AA or the highest AA quality on 1080p, 2x or medium AA for 2k and no AA or FXAA for 4k, as long as i get over 45 fps, if i get fps below 45 then i drop the res to 2k and so on while keeping graphic settings at ultra.

0
Rep
60
Offline
00:45 Sep-13-2021

im of the mind that anything higher than "Very High" is premium so i always aim for High settings and a modest 1080p resolution. Except for CP2077 i put it at medium.

1
Rep
1
Offline
admin approved badge
22:55 Sep-12-2021

it depend on the games if the game have poor aliasing i go for 1440p if the game have good aliasing i go for high setting 1080p

0
Rep
24
Offline
21:25 Sep-12-2021

Some games look and run worse on medium settings 1440p than high settings 1080p, so that really depends on a game. Generally, if my PC can handle it, i'd switch to 1440p high (via DSR, because monitor is still 1080p), or if the game allows - put a render scale to 150 or higher.

1
Rep
83
Online
22:07 Sep-12-2021

yeah i love that many newer games are adding res scale option, wish all new games had it

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
10:17 Sep-13-2021

Supersampling options in games are sort of unnecessary when DSR works as well as it does (I've even run GTA Vice City at 10K res lol), but I can imagine them being more convenient to use than DSR.

0
Rep
2
Offline
10:01 Sep-14-2021

ofcourse it look worse on 1080p monitor...you dont have those extra pixels higher res monitors provide. you might render it on 1440p, but it still will be displayed on 1080p monitor....

0
Rep
24
Offline
12:03 Sep-14-2021

Wrong. There's still extra crispness, more vivid colors and less jaggedness provided by the extra pixels from higher resolution, which is very visible and helpful even on a lower resolution display. It's basically downscaling, look it up.

0
Rep
15
Offline
19:21 Sep-12-2021

Resolution impact the image quality more than graphics settings specially when you play at a resolution below you're screen native , that's why I always target my screen resolution and after that tweak the graphics settings for my target FPS.

4
Rep
38
Offline
19:04 Sep-12-2021

I'm surprised how many people are still playing at 1080 honestly

1
Rep
34
Offline
19:06 Sep-12-2021

When the latest hardware will pull 100+ fps on max settings at 4k (in the big titles not the third-rate games), we'll gladly make the switch, eh.

4
Rep
38
Offline
21:11 Sep-12-2021

Eh 4K isn't worth it imo, I think 1440p with 144hz+ is where it's at in the moment.

4
Rep
60
Offline
00:46 Sep-13-2021

i believe according to Steam the most common GPU is the GTX 1060, so 1080p is more than likely all they can achieve with the current market for hardware.

1
Rep
105
Offline
02:32 Sep-13-2021

For me it is really worth it since i always use DSR on my 1080p monitor and 60 fps is just fine for me becuase i only play story driven game and not your classical 144,240,360 hz competitive guy

0
Rep
105
Offline
02:29 Sep-13-2021

Not that surprising, i was playing on a 1080p old monitor 1 month ago un til i switched to 4k monitor and a 3070, playing at 4k definately is on a whole new level, i dont play competitive games at all so i chose 4k 60 hz because i will be playing games at 4k ultra settings.

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
10:19 Sep-13-2021

I haven't touched 1080p since 2015... Really happy to see the back of that res (on desktop)!

0
Rep
4
Offline
18:44 Sep-12-2021

1080p high settings or 1440p medium settings

1
Rep
-21
Offline
18:44 Sep-12-2021

Both

1
Rep
-12
Offline
18:15 Sep-12-2021

i think is all very game dependant really. for me having a 1440p monitor i try to always play at native res, however with some games it is just worth turning res down to allow higher graphics settings. take control for example, the ray tracing in that for me makes enough of a difference i run that game at maxed out setting but with a rendered resolution of 1080p scaled up to 1440p. however say BF5 i RT is rubbish and even some of the ultra setting give little to no fidelity improvement so i run that at a mixed high ultra at 1440p 150% res scaling and a higher framerate to boot.

0
Rep
614
Offline
senior admin badge
18:09 Sep-12-2021
1
Rep
3
Offline
17:57 Sep-12-2021

Resolution is fine, but what's the point if the overall textures of the game like, LOD, model textures, shadows, etc, are low that make the game muddy, in other words not playable. I'm fine with 1080p max settings. I'll wait until technology gets powerful enough to support games on 4K with max settings at 60 fps :D. Resolution just changes the overall sharpness of the game making it more clean and sharp and increasing the pixels on the screen, but that doesn't mean it's exactly the same for the graphics settings.

0
Rep
3
Offline
19:03 Sep-12-2021

That technology does kind of exist. I can run most modern games at 60fps or higher at 4K on my 3080 Ti, most of them on max besides AC Valhalla which I run at everything max except AA which is on low. Cyberpunk is just about the only one that won’t run at that unless I use DLSS. Games like Hitman 3 which although modern are less demanding and way more optimized are guaranteed to be over 100 FPS on max settings at 4K.


Considering the Lovelace GPUs coming at the end of next year are rumored to be up to 100% faster, you could be talking significantly higher framerates across the board.

2
Rep
3
Offline
00:12 Sep-13-2021

Maybe Lovelace will be a big jump in performance?

0
Rep
28
Offline
17:34 Sep-12-2021

Play at your monitors native resolution. For competitive games play at your maximum panel frame rate to reduce input lag. As for settings i usually try to tweak for 1440p 100+fps. So usually high settings or med/high mixed. Very high/ ultimate settings are mostly slightly better than high but frame rate takes a nosedive.

0
Rep
83
Online
17:29 Sep-12-2021

I bought my 1080p 360hz monitor (pg259qn) last month, for me i prefer 1080p so i can max out game settings, i try to keep 60fps and above depending on game, i use my 4k tv if i want to dumb the game settings down and have high resolution but for most part i just use my pc monitor

1
Rep
28
Offline
17:38 Sep-12-2021

I find its rare to find games/gpus that can drive 360fps even at 1080p.

1
Rep
83
Online
17:46 Sep-12-2021

Yeah newer high demanding games like assassins creed can be struggle but i didnt buy just for the daft high fps, i bought cause i wanted gsync and decent color too which this monitor is way better at than my previous asus vg248qe, this monitor was on offer when i bought new on amazon for £456, and i redeemed the asus promotion on there site to get £45 cashback so at £411 i cant complain :D

1
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
10:22 Sep-13-2021

I bought my Acer Predator XB271HU (27" 165Hz G-Sync, IPS, 1440p) back in 2015 for ~£500 + shipping. Beautiful panel, but somehow got more expensive since then lol. I don't think I'd ever go back to 1080p on desktop, but back when I bought mine 4K was still not really achievable, so 1440p was a good middle ground. Still is, actually. I end up abusing DSR anyway, so I'm not too bothered about the screen's native these days :D

0

Can They Run... |

| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Xeon Processor E5620 Radeon RX 570 4GB 8GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600H 6-Core 3.3GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-11700K 8-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Ultra 16GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Core i7-11800H 8-Core 1.90GHz GeForce RTX 3080 16GB Mobile 32GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Core i5-6300HQ 2.3GHz GeForce GTX 960M 4GB 12GB
0% No [1 votes]
Core i5-3470 3.2GHz GeForce GTX 750 Ti Asus OC 2GB Edition 8GB
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Intel HD Graphics 4600 Desktop 8GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3500X 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 3080 Gigabyte Eagle OC 10GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-9300H 4-Core 2.4GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB 16GB
0% No [2 votes]
Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Radeon RX 570 XFX RS Black 4GB 8GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core 3.7GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Super MSI Ventus XS OC 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [4 votes]
Core i7-6700HQ 4-Core 2.6GHz GeForce GTX 950M v2 4GB 8GB
| 60FPS, Low, 720p
Core i3-9100F 4-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 970 Asus Strix OC 4GB Edition 32GB
50% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-2500 3.3GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gigabyte OC 4GB 8GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
Core i5-5200U 2.2GHz Intel HD Graphics 5500 Mobile 8GB
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Radeon R9 280 Gigabyte WindForce 3X OC 3GB Edition 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 4k
Core i9-10900K 10-Core 3.7GHz GeForce RTX 3070 Gigabyte Vision OC 8GB 64GB
0% No [2 votes]
Core i5-3210M 2.5GHz Radeon HD 7500G 8GB
| 30FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 5 2600X 6-Core 3.6GHz Radeon RX 5600 XT Sapphire Pulse 6GB 16GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 720p
Core i3-4030U 1.9GHz Intel HD Graphics 4400 Mobile 2GB
0% No [1 votes]