RTX high vs Ultra

[FrosTytheNoob]

What's the difference? do you guys use High or Ultra for raytracing? the only difference I see is lower fps?

[Draxuss]

Ultra no RTX. The fps drop isn't worth it. IMO ultra is the best setting. I can run extreme and RTX on ultra w/ out tessalation and get decent fps but the difference is hardly noticeable.

[FrosTytheNoob]

Originally posted by Draven:

Ultra no RTX. The fps drop isn't worth it. IMO ultra is the best setting. I can run extreme and RTX on ultra w/ out tessalation and get decent fps but the difference is hardly noticeable.

My 2060S can run the game at 60fps locked 1080 with RTX high and everything on including the quality level on Ultra. Even at Caspian is at solid 60. My issue is... picture difference between Ultra rtx and high seems no difference in lighting except for the performance penalty of Ultra rtx

[CORYINJAPAN]

I was using ultra but Im playing at 1440p...My frames were terrible so I took RTX off. Now I get 80-144 FPS depending on the area. Average probably around 100 FPS. Id rather have 100FPS avg with no RT, than the 50-65 FPS with RT on ultra @ 1440p. I got a 2070 super too, and its OC'd. DLSS 1.0 ray tracing isnt worth it to me. DLSS 2.0 maybe, but I've yet to play a game with it in there.

[FrosTytheNoob]

Originally posted by CORYINJAPAN:

I was using ultra but Im playing at 1440p...My frames were terrible so I took RTX off. Now I get 80-144 FPS depending on the area. Average probably around 100 FPS. Id rather have 100FPS avg with no RT, than the 50-65 FPS with RT on ultra @ 1440p. I got a 2070 super too, and its OC'd. DLSS 1.0 ray tracing isnt worth it to me. DLSS 2.0 maybe, but I've yet to play a game with it in there.

wasn't this game at dlss 2.0 already? I find dlss an amazing technology from Nvidia to tell you frankly but I still prefer raw native resolution if possible.

[Jig McGalliger]

Just more rays per pixel, gives GI shadows cleaner edges.