Talking Point: How Often Do You Pick 'Quality' Over 'Performance' Modes On Xbox Series X|S?

Series S owner here. I usually go for quality, or whichever is the default setting. But it depends on the game. Halo infinite felt much better at 60fps for me, where as AC Mirage looks great on quality mode and I don’t think the lower frame rate affects the gameplay at all.

The question between quality and performance kinda depends on the game for me. Unless a game has a questionable frame rate or pacing quality gets chosen. If there's not a lot of difference, then performance. Playing Cyberpunk 2077 in quality mode right now. Will go for ray tracing when I get the new SKU of the Xbox Series X.

It depends on the game as others have said but I'll usually always go for the 60fps mode if it's an option especially for shooters and other faster paced games.

Lucky to have a tv that supports all options, always go visuals as a preference!

Just depends on the game really for me!

i tend to go for the highest framerate. if it caps at 60, i use 60. if it has 120fps, i use 120.

I'm a Performance type of guy, in and out of the game!

I don't even fiddle with it and rarely know how to adjust to be honest. I did however put fallout 4 in performance mode. Not sure I'd be able to tell the difference.

For me, it really is a Game by Game basis. I tend to start with whatever the Default option is and give that a try and after a while, will switch it over to try the other mode.

Some games, like Forza Horizon, I prefer the Quality mode as I think the visual downgrade is not worth it for the extra Frames. It really does depend on the game as I'd take a 'locked' 30fps over a 45-58fps performance mode or a '60fps' 720p FSR upscaled to 4k mode. The 'unstable' frame rate, artefacts and low res are far more of a distraction than playing at 30fps is.

It really does depend on the game as some are no 'better' at higher frame rates and the visual hit can be more distracting - whilst others can look almost as good and feel significantly more responsive at 60fps so I'd rather try both to see which I prefer.

As for 120 - or any Frame Rate above 60fps, I can't do that with my TV, but again I'd try both the 60fps and higher frame rate modes and decide which I feel is the 'best' from my perspective - it would come down to the way the game 'feels' to play and the difference in Visual Quality.

I usually compare the 2 and pick what feels best. Some games are fine at 30fps others not so much.

I prefer Performance mode but will try quality first but more likely end up on Performance. Prime example I've been chipping away at Valhalla since 2020 and since late 2021 on a Oled C1, which I had it set to quality but since playing more games in Performance I've had to change as it looks smoother.

I actually prefer how the game performs rather than the visuals. I tend to play older games, so I don’t exactly mind how the visuals look. If the FPS drops maybe a few times I don’t mind it, but if it does constantly, that’s where I start having issues.

I have a Series S, so I have played games in 120 FPS before on a high-quality TV. However, because of where the TV is located, I play it on a smaller TV that lacks 120 FPS support, but it doesn’t really affect game performance, at least for me. Xbox One games, as well as 360 games, run smoothly on the Series S, even when I’m not using a high-quality TV.

For me I prefer stability, a locked 30FPRS is way better than 60FPS when it feels like it..

Beyond that... depends on the game and depends on the sacrifices that have to be made for 60fps. Like I happily take the FPS hit for ray-tracing but if the implementation RT is poor then I'll opt for performance

I never mess with the defaults.

Quality vs Performance!
I choose quality!
Each and every time!

I wonder the ratio of Quality vs Performance in comparison to Owning Movies/Music/TV Shows vs Streaming.

Performance every time. 30fps just feels too janky most of the time now although it can feel alright (RDR2).

Always performance. Always.

Slower paced games I might pick quality but, otherwise, performance.

Whether you like games to look good or feel good the choice is obvious, performance. Quality looks choppy and feels terrible.

I have an XSX and choose performance all of the time!

Sometimes, I'll go back and forth between performance and quality modes to see if I can tell much of a difference in visual quality. I usually can't, but the difference between 60/30fps is obviously noticeable.

I definitely go with 120fps if the option is available. DOOM Eternal, Overcooked 2, & Mad Max come to mind.

Even on pc I usually just rock the default settings unless it is noticeably bad performance. Sometimes I like to see how high I can push the resolution and framerate but I don't really care that much.

I play enough retro games like n64 that it doesn't bother me much if a game is stuttering occasionally. I tinker with retro handhelds and everything looks good compared to some of them on the cheaper end trying to run n64 or dreamcast.

Performance all the way. How it feels to play trumps stuff like ray tracing or whatever every time.

Performance… always.

I have skipped games that don’t give me 60fps.

Also I’m willing to take graphical hits to achieve 60fps. I wish developers would understand this.

Starfield only being 30fps was a deal breaker for me. I tried it but just couldn’t hack it. And their excuse for it being 30fps being a design choice and so forth was just plain marketing b/s.

If I can start it on quality then I might go that route because it's practically unplayable if I get used to performance and try to see what quality mode is like.

I like that we have the choice. This is something that started with Xbox One X, if I remember well. This generation, I don't think it's acceptable that some games don't include a 60fps mode or at the very least 40 and VRR support. I choose performance mode, unless there is a 60 or 120fps choice. In that case, I usually choose quality or resolution instead of 120fps. I have stopped playing and also skipped certain games because of the low frame rate. It feels like the camera is torturing my brain, depending on the game.

Please, update Spyro The Reignited Trilogy! It's one of the jerky ones.

Performance every time 60 FPS is better for me personally no matter what the game is.

Always performance 60fps with VRR, no motion blur.
30fps looks so blurry when panning around and in some games like Avatar looks like a mess.

I never ever play 30fps and any game without a 60fps performance mode I do not buy the game, just makes me think, look at that mess when panning around and un-smoothness.

@Banjo-
Totally agree, no 60fps no buy for me.

Series X here, I almost always go performance. The only time I won’t is if the quality mode manages to hit 60fps somehow or if the performance mode somehow makes the game look substantially worse in a game with little motion (like EA Sports PGA Tour).

On Series X Quality mode is typically worth it as most titles that have one are including Raytraced reflections (Hogwarts Legacy, Guardians of the Galaxy, GTA V), or use it for vastly improved lighting (Cyberpunk 2077) and typically have very good motion blur implementation and locked 30 with no frame drops which make it still feel acceptably smooth.

Some titles shouldn't even include the option **cough*Elden Ring*cough** as they'll have no significant quality improvement and performance suffers horrendously.... if "quality mode" in a game is not LOCKED 30fps without 1 single dropped frame EVER, it shouldn't even be there as an option.

It depends on the game. Fast-paced games performance.

Games with more graphics/environmental focus or slow-paced games I play on quality.

But anyway if a game don't offer 60fps performance it doesn't bother me too much. I prefer play in 60 or better but it won't stop me from playing.

Finished both Cyberpunk 2077 (Series S) and Redfall (Series X) on 30fps modes at launch time.

Always quality. I don't care about FPS.

I will choose performance if my options are 30 and 60 fps. If my options are 60 fps and 120 fps, it really depends on the situation. What good is all of that extra detail if you can't see it properly? It is hard to see detail in motion at 30 fps. Games screens are moving a lot most of the time. One of the reasons higher frame rates exist is for that exact reason.

A smooth 30 is good especially with a finely tined motion blur, but 60 is definitely worth the small drop in quality/resolution in almost all cases for me. Sure screenshots will look prettier in quality mode but when your playing a game you won't notice small differences. The key here though is that some people like it one way and others like it the oppsite way. As the player, WE should get an option to choose regardless for all games. Me personally, I'm always going the 60 fps option unless the frame rate is all over the place or the drop in quality is literally distracting. As for 120fps, the drop in quality is too extreme on the current consoles to be worth it imo.

I typically choose framerate over quality. I am glad gamers get to choose. There are some games where the graphics are so good though that I will choose resolution over framerate.

It usually depends on the game but I tend to like quality over performance.

I always go for performance and turn off blur and camshake.

Always performance. 30fps looks so choppy.

The 120 Hz display option is good if it lets you play the game at 40 fps. It's a huge improvement over 30, and often the visuals are similar to Quality mode. A Plague Tale Requiem is a good example.

I want both, but I'll sacrifice resolution from 4K to 2K. At 1440p, I should have really high framerates and quality. On PC, I usually have settings maxed out.

Always choose performance.

What's the use of quality, in an action game, when everything turns into blur and stutter, when you move around, due to the low framerate?
30 fps is fine in a slow game, like a strategy game, when the camera barely moves.

I pick quality only if the frame rate is consistent. Otherwise, I have to stick with the balanced or performance modes

Performance all day long for me. I don’t want to do 30fps anymore, would love to see a performance mode added for Starfield and the upcoming Hellblade 2

I play on 120hz 1080p monitor. I think you can probably tell that I almost never prioritize image quality.

@BIG3 exactly this.

Almost always performance. 30fps is just painful. The only 3 exceptions so far are Hogwarts at the 40fps balanced mode Even on a 60fps display it was a great compromise.

FFXIV, for now full 4k with dynamic res on seems to mostly be 60ish anyway. It's fantastic. That might change with the July graphics overhaul though if it bogs down.

And on PS5 FFXVI because 30fps mode runs terrible but performance mode both runs nearly as terrible most of the time but also reduces lod to ps360 level and smears Vaseline on the camera.

Speaking of FFXIV @FraserG I know square is notoriously stingy with publishing numbers but have you Heard how xiv is doing on Xbox? It might be early since free perk starter edition is only just now getting to expiration and requiring subs, but I figure xiv is a big factor for future square support of Xb, and we still haven't heard anything about octopath 2.

Depending on the type of game and performance on console, I opt to play on PC. If I have to shoot, overwhelmingly I play on PC, driving & sports games I play on console. 2K always tanks the PC version with last year's engine, away. Play Anywhere is a godsend. On PC, I'm shooting for 90-244 FPS, depending on the display I'm using.

Might be smarter to do the comparison once Quality Mode is actually patched. Currently it's Performance Mode no matter what setting you have it on...

Only performance mode on my SX. I never test Quality Mode, is like it does not exists.

Quality is the priority for me. As long as the game is hitting about 30fps and isn't choppy then I'd rather have it look nicer than have a higher frame rate. I only seem to notice FPS if it's fluctuating.

Yeah, I've always though a game is perfectly playable at 30 fps, but I guess I started playing a long long time ago when these terms were not really a thing.

That said, what I found is that I typically do not really notice much difference between quality and performance in terms of the image quality. Must be I do not have such good eyes as other people out there. So, I typically end up going for performance becuase it's the noticeable one for me.

That said, there have been instances where there is a clear difference in image quality in which case I end up going for quality. An example of this was Everspace, where the change in graphics was pretty big between Quality and Performance.

I play on a 1440/120 monitor, and I'll go 60/120 fps whenever I can.
That said, if people REALLY care about playing @60, with next-gen games (and no. UE4 games are last gen games), they should be saving for a PC. It is what it is.

I usually play the game for a bit to see. If it’s fast paced with a lot of movement, I’ll go for frame rate, otherwise I go for resolution.

I have never picked graphics over performance. Always 60fps when it’s there.

120fps every time it is an option. Not even a debate. Between my TV, monitor, and phone, all my screens are a minimum of 120hz.