PDA

View Full Version : FSAA & AF


ikickpigeons
07-14-2004, 06:30 PM
If i were to run a game like Call of Duty at 1600x1200 would i notice any jaggies? Also would the IQ be better at 1280x1024 with 4xAA. I already know that i wil run all games at the highest AF i can either 16x or 8x. Im planning on running a 6800 ultra or x800xt pe. thanks for the replies.

Regs
07-14-2004, 06:37 PM
Some perfer either one. You will likely get less of a performance hit running 1600x1200 other than 1280x 1024 with 4x/8x filters. Look at the benchmarks on this site and you'll see. Even though, I bet you can run Call of Duty with 1600x1200 with 4x AA at playable framerates with any new generation video card.

kylebisme
07-14-2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by: ikickpigeons
If i were to run a game like Call of Duty at 1600x1200 would i notice any jaggies?


depends on how bad your eyesight is, upping the resolution just makes the jaggies out of more pixels. if your vision is blurry enough and the resolution is high enough, then you won't notice the jaggies, but only aa makes the jaggies really go away.

Blastman
07-14-2004, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by: ikickpigeons
If i were to run a game like Call of Duty at 1600x1200 would i notice any jaggies?
Yes. You wil still see jaggies.


Originally posted by: ikickpigeons
Also would the IQ be better at 1280x1024 with 4xAA.
Yes. 12x10 - 4AA will be alot better than 16x12 with no AA.

VIAN
07-14-2004, 09:14 PM
No matter how much AA you have, you will always be limited by resolution. So there will always be jaggies unless the resolution is like 10 times what we have right now.

But then we wouldn't need AA. AA is just a nice polisher, but not for low resolutions such as 640x480 and below. for everything else above it. There will also be a point where the resolution is high enough that it won't be needed and that is the desired setting.

SickBeast
07-14-2004, 09:26 PM
I find 1600x1200 perfectly fine with no AA. That said, I have no way to enable AA at that resolution on my R8500. ;)

I would just put on 8XAF and call it a day. AA is too much of a performance hit, and at that resolution most people only use 2XAA anyway.

ikickpigeons
07-14-2004, 09:28 PM
so what u guys r saying is that 1600x1200 will run faster but have less quality while running at 1280x1024 with AA is going to run slower with better quality? please correct me if im wrong.

Regs
07-14-2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by: ikickpigeons
so what u guys r saying is that 1600x1200 will run faster but have less quality while running at 1280x1024 with AA is going to run slower with better quality? please correct me if im wrong.

I doubt 1600x1200 max details will show any real noticeable lower quality imaging than 1280x1024 4xAA. Especially for that particular game. The only real limiting factor is your monitor. Not many CRTs can handle 75+ Hertz at 16x12. So you may have to play the game with a minimal refresh rate of 65. Which means your visible framerate will be capped at 65 relatively speaking. But then again, I think call of duty is driver limited.

SickBeast
07-14-2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by: ikickpigeons
so what u guys r saying is that 1600x1200 will run faster but have less quality while running at 1280x1024 with AA is going to run slower with better quality? please correct me if im wrong.

It depends. Higher resolutions rely on fillrate, whereas AA/AF are more dependant on the memory speed and bus on the graphics card AFAIK. Just look at some Far Cry benchmarks and compare the two settings.

Regs
07-14-2004, 09:53 PM
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040414/geforce_6800-30.html

I think that will solve your question. You can run the game at 1600x1200 with 4x FSAA & 8x Anisotopic and still have over 80 FPS avg. So...um. wow!

BFG10K
07-14-2004, 10:15 PM
If i were to run a game like Call of Duty at 1600x1200 would i notice any jaggies?
Probably.


Also would the IQ be better at 1280x1024 with 4xAA.
There will be less jaggies but it won't be as sharp. Also the performance hit will be higher.

1280x960 with 6xAA is usually slower than 1856x1392 with 0xAA.

Try going to a higher resolution if you can and use something like 2xAA if you still have issues with jaggies. Also always use 16x performance AF.


Higher resolutions rely on fillrate, whereas AA/AF are more dependant on the memory speed and bus on the graphics card AFAIK.
Actually both rely on both.


Just look at some Far Cry benchmarks and compare the two settings.
Far Cry introduces a third bottlneck: shader performance. Because of this it's not always possible to isolate the other two bottlenecks.

ikickpigeons
07-14-2004, 10:24 PM
thats good news. Let me rephrase my question if i was playing a game and the only way i could get playable frame rates was either the two. 1600x1200 with 8xAF or 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 8xAF which would have higher frame rates and which would have better image quality. One last thing is if i had 1600x1200 running a game would the jaggies be very noticable?

BFG10K
07-14-2004, 10:31 PM
1600x1200 with 8xAF or 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 8xAF which would have higher frame rates and which would have better image quality.
1280x1024 (you should use 960) with 4xAA will look better in terms of less jaggies though 1600x1200 with 0xAA will be a bit sharper. You really have try it out for yourself to see which you prefer.


One last thing is if i had 1600x1200 running a game would the jaggies be very noticable?
Again it depends on the person so you have to try it out.

For me personally I always put resolution ahead of AA.

ikickpigeons
07-14-2004, 10:33 PM
ok thanks eveyone and BFG10K i guess ill wait untill i get my card to make the decision.