- Sep 17, 2014
- 12,829 (5.94/day)
|Processor||i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v|
|Motherboard||AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370|
|Cooling||beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3|
|Memory||16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16|
|Video Card(s)||MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500|
|Storage||Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD|
|Display(s)||Eizo Foris FG2421|
|Case||Fractal Design Define C TG|
|Power Supply||EVGA G2 750w|
|Mouse||Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum|
|Keyboard||Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)|
Runs minesweeper @ 240 fpsThats some unique graphics card you got there: "GTX 170Ti "
That is my idea too when it comes to ultra. The other examples I gave about the choice for PC however, are not dependant on your bank account but entirely on the platform. PC is the best way to get access to content and this also echoes in price and having many sources to pull from.
Ultra is that typical, 'you didn't know you missed this until you tried it'. A bit like drugs. If you've always done medium, its just fine, and you won't game a second less for it, but still get all of the advantages a PC brings. And really todays reality is that Ultra is 75% unnecessarily heavyweight settings and the other quarter is built on commercial gain. We don't directly benefit from having ultra settings that are very heavy. GPU vendors do. We do instead benefit from code and settings/balance that runs well and efficiently on GPUs. GPU vendors... don't RTX is a nice little example pulled into extremes.
Every once in a while a game gets released that runs so ridiculously well while looking so good, it kinda sets all the other ultra-settings in games straight and shows you how many times you've been screwed over the past years.