New graphics mode

Castagere

Wow, my game has never looked and run better. Has anyone else tried this out?

Katlefiya

Castagere wrote: »

Wow, my game has never looked and run better. Has anyone else tried this out?

A more verbose description other than "new graphics mode" would have been helpful.

essi2

Katlefiya wrote: »

Castagere wrote: »

Wow, my game has never looked and run better. Has anyone else tried this out?

A more verbose description other than "new graphics mode" would have been helpful.

FSR 1.0 presumably, since it is the only new gfx option.

FSR frankly looks terrible, BUT from my understanding it can be a real gfx boost for lower-end PCs

Castagere

LOL yeah, it's the FSR 1.0 which is the new option. Thanks, ZOS for this one.

Czeri

The Unmaker world boss is now invisible in my game. Wonder if new graphics are to blame...

Holycannoli

So FSR makes the game run better on older PCs? What if I have a GTX 970?

danno8

Holycannoli wrote: »

So FSR makes the game run better on older PCs? What if I have a GTX 970?

Your GTX 970 should be fine without it frankly.

Were talking maybe back into the GTX 6xx days, and only if you need to since at 1080p FSR (or the DLSR Nvidia option) make the games look decidedly blurrier and worse.

FSR and DLSS are really meant for 1440p and higher as the scaling that they do has a less discernable cost (ie blurry, blocky textures) compared to 1080. And where it really, really shines is with Ray tracing since it can make a game with RT actually playable at higher resolutions as opposed to a slideshow.

If I were you, I would try turning down just about any other setting before trying FSR with your 970 at 1080p.

Tommy_The_Gun

I think it only makes sense if you have 4K screen. I have 1080P screen and my game runs at 1080P too. Turning FSR on just makes everything blurry lol. Very similar thing happens if I turn on DLAA or DLSS. It is either too blurry or over-sharpen & after a while of looking at it my eyes start to hurt...

For native 1080P, TAA anti-aliasing still works best for me.

DagenHawk

So even with a High end Video card (RTX 380 Ti founders ed) I can notice a significant difference especially with DLSS. With everything on high to ultra I keep a steady 70 to 65 FPS. ESO is one of the if not the best looking MMO's currently.

Castagere

I play on a PC with a 25-inch PC monitor. My PC is 2 years old so I guess it's on the low end. But still, the world looks amazing, and last night I watched a sunset in the game. I haven't done that in years in any MMO. My 3 character skills look so good when they go off too. I used to get a lot of lag at dolmens and now that is so much better depending on how large the crowd is.

katorga

I run an ancient Intel 4790K and an RTX2080. The game stays rock solid 60fps on my 4K display with Ultra settings (I only turn off grass). It never deviates. 60fps.

My display's max refresh is 60, so everything is gravy.

Holycannoli

danno8 wrote: »

Holycannoli wrote: »

So FSR makes the game run better on older PCs? What if I have a GTX 970?

Your GTX 970 should be fine without it frankly.

Were talking maybe back into the GTX 6xx days, and only if you need to since at 1080p FSR (or the DLSR Nvidia option) make the games look decidedly blurrier and worse.

FSR and DLSS are really meant for 1440p and higher as the scaling that they do has a less discernable cost (ie blurry, blocky textures) compared to 1080. And where it really, really shines is with Ray tracing since it can make a game with RT actually playable at higher resolutions as opposed to a slideshow.

If I were you, I would try turning down just about any other setting before trying FSR with your 970 at 1080p.

It only really struggles in Cyrodiil with the sheer amount of people in one spot spamming so many skills and visuals.

Thecompton73

I have a 4GB RX 570 video card and I could always run with everything maxed at 1440P and get nearly a 60fps average. With the same settings and using FSR set to Ultra I see a noticeably sharper image while also getting a couple of FPS higher average. Lighting effects really stand out as an area of improved visuals but literally everything looks better. There are a few instances where textures will shimmer or look generally glitchy but all in all I'm really really happy with the results it gives.

Kiralyn2000

Castagere wrote: »

My PC is 2 years old so I guess it's on the low end.

Eh, depends on how much it cost/it's specs. "Low end" would be cheap computers, or 8-10+ year old ones.

"2 years old" is a recent computer, to me at least.

(heck, I just rebuilt my PC a bit less than 2 years ago, replacing the build from 2011. )

Castagere

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Castagere wrote: »

My PC is 2 years old so I guess it's on the low end.

Eh, depends on how much it cost/it's specs. "Low end" would be cheap computers, or 8-10+ year old ones.

"2 years old" is a recent computer, to me at least.

(heck, I just rebuilt my PC a bit less than 2 years ago, replacing the build from 2011. )

It's an old i5 system with 16 gigs of ram and an old graphics card that uses legacy drivers. It was built two years ago.

francesinhalover

Castagere wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Castagere wrote: »

My PC is 2 years old so I guess it's on the low end.

Eh, depends on how much it cost/it's specs. "Low end" would be cheap computers, or 8-10+ year old ones.

"2 years old" is a recent computer, to me at least.

(heck, I just rebuilt my PC a bit less than 2 years ago, replacing the build from 2011. )

It's an old i5 system with 16 gigs of ram and an old graphics card that uses legacy drivers. It was built two years ago.

not bad, drivers for mine don't even exist anymore

Castagere

francesinhalover wrote: »

Castagere wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Castagere wrote: »

My PC is 2 years old so I guess it's on the low end.

Eh, depends on how much it cost/it's specs. "Low end" would be cheap computers, or 8-10+ year old ones.

"2 years old" is a recent computer, to me at least.

(heck, I just rebuilt my PC a bit less than 2 years ago, replacing the build from 2011. )

It's an old i5 system with 16 gigs of ram and an old graphics card that uses legacy drivers. It was built two years ago.

not bad, drivers for mine don't even exist anymore

My card's legacy drivers were last updated 20 months ago. So it is an old card.

Ermiq

Tried it. It makes everything look blurry even at the "ultra quality" setting of FSR.
As mentioned above, it's probably designed for 4k+ resolutions. Since I have 1080p it doesn't look as good as intended.

Kaelthorn_Nightbloom

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

I think it only makes sense if you have 4K screen. I have 1080P screen and my game runs at 1080P too. Turning FSR on just makes everything blurry lol. Very similar thing happens if I turn on DLAA or DLSS. It is either too blurry or over-sharpen & after a while of looking at it my eyes start to hurt...

For native 1080P, TAA anti-aliasing still works best for me.

DLAA doesn't make textures look blurry. That's not what it does.

I do agree with DLSS and FSR making textures look super blurry though. It's pretty bad.

I run 43" 4k @ 144hz (the high end Asus ROG gaming monitor)

Ermiq

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

I think it only makes sense if you have 4K screen. I have 1080P screen and my game runs at 1080P too. Turning FSR on just makes everything blurry lol. Very similar thing happens if I turn on DLAA or DLSS. It is either too blurry or over-sharpen & after a while of looking at it my eyes start to hurt...

For native 1080P, TAA anti-aliasing still works best for me.

DLAA doesn't make textures look blurry. That's not what it does.

I do agree with DLSS and FSR making textures look super blurry though. It's pretty bad.

I run 43" 4k @ 144hz (the high end Asus ROG gaming monitor)

As a tech geek, I have a strong will to correct you here: it's not about the textures, it is about the resolution of the final frame image. People often call everything in games "textures", whether it is an actual texture, a collision shape of the wall/floor through which they fall, a polygon count of a model which is often referred to as a "low polygon texture", and as in this case even the resolution of the final image that is basically a photo of polygons and textures with graphics effects (pre processed and post processed) which affects the overall image resolution rather than just textures resolution is also called a "texture".

Kaelthorn_Nightbloom

Ermiq wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

I think it only makes sense if you have 4K screen. I have 1080P screen and my game runs at 1080P too. Turning FSR on just makes everything blurry lol. Very similar thing happens if I turn on DLAA or DLSS. It is either too blurry or over-sharpen & after a while of looking at it my eyes start to hurt...

For native 1080P, TAA anti-aliasing still works best for me.

DLAA doesn't make textures look blurry. That's not what it does.

I do agree with DLSS and FSR making textures look super blurry though. It's pretty bad.

I run 43" 4k @ 144hz (the high end Asus ROG gaming monitor)

As a tech geek, I have a strong will to correct you here: it's not about the textures, it is about the resolution of the final frame image.

Sure but the textures still look blurry.