Rise of the Tomb Raider PC - Min. vs. Med vs. Max | Graphics comparison

Rise of the Tomb Raider PC Graphics comparison.

Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
masterfox1530d ago (Edited 1530d ago )

lol what happen to those days in PC gaming when minimum settings and max settings where a miles ahead of difference?, definitely not impressed.

and lara is sure enjoying something on that pic :D

DarkOcelet1530d ago (Edited 1530d ago )

The difference can be seen especially Lara's face.

The minimum settings looks like a PS3/360 game and the Max settings just looks amazing.

The lightning difference at 1:02 is huge.

kraenk121529d ago (Edited 1529d ago )

You should clearly watch the Digital Foundry comparison. The difference is quite huge. Minimal setting has barely any shadows at all.

I_am_Batman1529d ago

Well graphics have become much better over the years so that for an untrained eye it may seem that there isn't much of a difference between lower and higher settings. Compressed videos amplify this effect.

ABizzel11529d ago


Because now current GPUs and on board graphics have jumped so far ahead of early 2000 PC days, so minimum settings can be far closer to Max than they ever were. Back then Intel HD Graphics would have been considered top tier, and although games have become more demanding, the hardware has obviously grown at a faster pace than the developers budgets to push graphics.

There are clear differences, but overall Minimum vs Medium vs High vs Ultra all boils down to the Texture Quality, the FOV, the Lighting, and the Post Processing at this point. I agree the base of current-gen games look good, and low setting on pretty much all AAA games have looked anywhere from solid at low settings (Tomb Raider for example) to nearly being unable to barely tell the difference between them and Ultra (Batman Arkham Knight for example).

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1529d ago