Indeed, I guess both you and Durante forgot in which year you are living.
First, we are no longer in the 2000s when max settings actually meant something. Take Far Cry for example. From low, to ultra, graphics improves almost linearly with "horsepower requirement". Now already take even Crysis: can you actually notice any difference between "high" and "very high" settings? Except for the performance hit and your ego screaming: "I'm not cool", of course.
So, it's not all this dare to compare GTA5 medium settings to this other game highest one, even though yes, I get what you are saying.
You at least seems to acknowledge that it's not the "relative preset name" to matter, but the absolute [image] quality you get in the end. And indeed I don't understand why 50% gpu utilization (in 4K, sure, but @30FPS) with that monster GPU (because it is, right? I'm not so into the hardware market lately) would be all that of an accomplishment.
Though, couldn't it just be you are CPU limited sometimes? Because Durante perhaps wasn't with his i7 3820k, but it's a pretty common case on a laptop.
If you want to further discuss the dissimilarities between "optimized", "lightweight", "heavy", "smooth" and other words in this semantical field then, we already had a thread