Quality Mode vs Performance Mode

[jmood88]

Whenever I have the option to choose between highest-quality visuals or higher framerate, I pick graphical quality every time, and I've been wondering what others decide on*. Framerate has never been a huge deal for me, even with games where there are significant drops, but visual fidelity is always important to me (that doesn't mean that I won't play a game that isn't the best-looking thing in the world, but I want to see whatever game I'm playing at its most beautiful).

*Of course, for some people, it depends on the game, so if that's you, don't get upset by the binary options, this poll just isn't for you.

 

[nsilvias]

performance
i can feel the framerate, i cant really notice the eye candy graphics when im in the heat of the game

 

[Deleted member 25094]

Games look pretty good even when the quality is lowered to account for 60fps. I'd happily take a drop in graphical quality for smoother gameplay, to the point where it puts me off playing a game if it's in 30fps nowadays.

 

[Launchpad]

Performance 99% of the time. I'll maybe settle for 60fps where 120fps is an option if it makes the game look like ass. It's far more important to me for the game to play well than to look better.

 

[Alek]

Sometimes I put the game on graphics mode just to see what it looks like when I'm standing still, but as soon as it's in motion (which is generally all the time) performance mode is almost always better.

The most jarring example of this is in Borderlands 3. In performance mode it's really smooth, at least for most of the game, but definitely looks a little bit worse, but in graphics mode it feels incredibly slugish, and adds a lot of input latency too. I turn graphics mode on to take screenshots, but always play in performance.

 

[jokkir]

Performance. I tried the quality mode in a few games and it made it feel so sluggish especially the noticeable input delay. It's a bit hard going back to 30 (though I eventually get used to it)

 

[MimicBox82]

Performance all the way.

 

[Blayde]

Quality as long as it holds 30 fps minimum.

 

[Dedazen]

Performance, input delay on Quality Modes is awful.

 

[Ouroboros]

Smooth framerate > more blades of grass.

 

[Naner]

I mean, performance mode is usually 80 to 90% of the visual fidelity of quality mode. But quality mode is only 50% of the framerate of performance mode.

My eyes like seeing things.

 

[Noppie]

Performance, of course.

 

[Dest]

Performance.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

The mode that is more stable.

 

[Pottuvoi]

Performance.
Although the choice would be a lot harder to make, if we would have choice for proper in engine framerate doubler. (Or quadrupler.)

 

[Deleted member 18883]

Depends tbh. I played through Miles on both (sped through it on performance for the platinum), and I may have preferred quality there just because Insomniac games still feel great at 30 (which I have no problem with in general). I imagine I'll play all my turn-based games on quality too (especially when 'quality' is already 60fps and performance is 120fps).

 

[Bede-x]

Assuming the game in question actually hits the framerate consistantly, I've never seen even a single case where the performance mode doesn't look massively better. 30fps looks great when things are standing still, but full of line-doubling and blurryness as soon as anything moves.

 

[Gongsta]

Graphics are binary. Better frame rate helps my eyes keep track of the action much more

 

[ghostcrew]

Totally depends on the game and the implementation of each mode. There's no catch-all for this question.

Some quality modes are shitty. Some performance modes compromise too much. Sometimes I'm playing on my 4K TV and want resolution because framerate doesn't matter in that game. Sometimes I'm playing on my 144Hz 1080p monitor so framerate over resolution is the king. Just depends.

 

[2Blackcats]

Depends.

Performance modes above 60fps aren't nearly as worth it.

Depends on the style of game too. Anything with an aiming reticule though is performance.

 

[nanskee]

With the new consoles I'm 100% sticking to performance mode.

 

[werezompire]

Unless it's a racing game, I'm fine with 30fps.

 

[Jmdajr]

Outside of turn based RPG type games, performance mode. I want my action adventure games to feel smooth.

 

[Ferrs]

Depends on the game, how the modes are... Too many variables in play.

 

[kimbo99]

Depends on the game for me. But I usually go with Performance.

 

[Kill3r7]

While there is a dip graphically in performance mode the fact that I am almost always moving lessens the impact. If I wanted to walk around and admire the scenery than graphics are king. I use to say that 30fps is fine but once I started playing D2 with a larger FOV at 60/120fps on my Series X it completely changed my mind. I try to do random bounties on my One X or smart devices and the experience is jarring and I will often just stop playing.

 

[TeeKoo]

I remember, when The Last of Is remake released and some people actually said, that they will use that 30fps mode, because it has better shadows.. Imagine ruining the whole game, just to get some minor changes to shadows, haha.

 

[Ventilaator]

Obviously framerate.

To appreciate the better graphics, I have to stand next to a puddle and flip the graphics setting back and forth a bunch of times. And then when I'm actually playing I have no idea what's different.

But a good framerate you feel literally every second on your entire playthrough. Obviously the correct choice.

 

[TrueSloth]

I prioritize performance, but if the frameRate difference is negligible between fidelity and performance modes (RE VIII) I'll choose fidelity.

 

[RedHeat]

Usually quality unless the two modes are similar IQ-wise.

 

[Pankratous]

Quality of course. The difference between 30/60 is absolutely negligible to my eyes for normal gameplay. I'm very happy to play games at 30FPS.

 

[The Albatross]

"It depends on the game...."

Until with almost every game I switch over to Performance mode after playing on quality mode for a while. Control is the best example of this. I started in Quality mode because the graphics comparisons looked really important, reflections and ray tracing and insane stuff, and then I played it on Xbox Series S which does not have those features and defaults to 60fps and it made such a difference that when I went back to Xbox Series X, I switched over to performance mode.

A curious thing happens to my brain that after I've played on the high graphics settings, I sort of ... "fill those in" using my mind when they're missing. Like with Control I had to ask myself... "Wait... is this quality mode...?" at times because I filled in those effects in my head after getting used to them, and had to do a sanity check to see if I switched to quality mode or not.

But... some games.... I dunno I might see myself wanting to max out the graphics. Like, if Red Dead 2 hypothetically gets a quality boost, I might opt for that. But I dunno, depends. IF they made the regular Xbox One X version of RDR2 suddenly 60fps but held all of the current visuals? I'd go for that.

In a game like Control the FPS difference doesn't feel that big to me, but the feeling controlling your character is significant enough where it was hard to go back to the 30fps mode.

 

[exodus]

I can never play another 30 fps game. I played PC mostly previous gens due to framerate. I dropped TLOU2 and FF7R because they just felt so terrible to play. I'm finally playing more games on console due to the higher framerate.

Depends tbh. I played through Miles on both (sped through it on performance for the platinum), and I may have preferred quality there just because Insomniac games still feel great at 30 (which I have no problem with in general).

Click to shrink...

Spider-Man is one of the only games to me that actually still feels okay at 30 fps. Somehow Insomniac still makes the input incredibly responsive even at 30 fps. They should definitely be commended for that. It was actually tough deciding at PS5 launch which version to play because the visual difference was very large. Of course, once they released the 60fps RT mode it was an easy choice.

 

[CreepingFear]

Performance or frame rate. I built my first PC in 2011 and never looked back. I now have a PS5 and XSX as well and they have reinvigorated my love for consoles now that they finally have performance modes.

 

[Deleted member 81119]

Graphics is way more important to me, but when we're talking about Quality vs Performance we're really talking about resolution v framerate, and the difference in framerate is super noticeable whereas I often can't tell the difference between 4k and HD.

 

[shadowman16]

Performance. Not even remotely a tough option. Right now I'm playing through the entire Ratchet series and having finished 1-3, ToD, and CiT I'm now doing Into the Nexus and its fucking rough. Feels like playing a slide show - not sure what's missing from this 30FPS implementation compared to other 30FPS games I've played in the past but its not very pleasant. Quite why they dropped the FPS by half is baffling, especially when the game doesnt exactly see a massive boost in graphics to compensate. So glad Rift will have a 60FPS mode at launch, it'll make playing it that much better.

 

[Meech]

I prefer both together. But if I could only choose one. Performance and frames are king.

 

[Kemono]

Sometimes A other times B.

So far performance mode won on my next-gen consoles.

 

[julia crawford]

perfomance i guess, i don't really care for high graphics so it's kind of pointless to go that way

 

[PlanetSmasher]

performance performance performance performance performance performance performance

Graphics are ephemeral and become outdated almost immediately. A game that plays well plays well forever.

 

[.exe]

Because it's an interactive medium, I'll pretty much always go for frame rate when given a choice. It just feels better to play a game at high frame rates, and that's what matters to me.

 

[AndrewDean84]

30fps@4k w/ bells & whistles > 60+fps@sub4k no bells & whistles

 

[Deleted member 862]

Performance is qauility mode. I'm not taking screenshots.

 

[dgrdsv]

The answer to that depends on what are "quality" and "performance". I.e. which graphical change do I get in "quality" and what are the fps targets.
Generally I prefer "quality" but since I still play on a 1080p TV in games where "quality" is just going from 1080p/1440p to 1440p/4K I can easily opt for "performance" mode instead with close to zero graphical difference.
I also very much prefer multiplatform titles to target quality since I'll get the performance in them on PC anyway.

 

[calibos]

Always frame rate, especially now. Series X has spoiled me and I don't even play my old games that aren't boosted. Snob.

I will say that it's possible I would choose Quality on a narrative 3rd person game if the boost was mega incredible.

 

[ioriyagami]

Hm...not enough options in the poll. It really depends on the kind of game and the trade offs made to achieve Quality over Performance. For cinematic single player games (e.g., Uncharted, TLOU) I don't mind 30fps if the IQ is clearly improved, and is the option I'll choose. For action/fast or competitive games (e.g., DMCV, SFV) I'll always choose 60fps

 

[Scruffy8642]

Performance. A few more pixels/foliage or reflections don't really make a big difference when the game's in motion.

 

[Deleted member 11008]

My TV can't accept resolutions over 1080p. Do performance mode for me always.

 

[Deleted member 14089]

Some of you people are just caught in a infinite loop.

 

[PixelsandPinewoods]

I lived through the n64. I can handle a lower framerate. Gimme them grafix, baby