Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-14-2004, 06:30 PM   #1
ikickpigeons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 393
Default FSAA & AF

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.
ikickpigeons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 06:37 PM   #2
Regs
Lifer
 
Regs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 16,358
Default FSAA & AF

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.
Regs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 06:54 PM   #3
kylebisme
Diamond Member
 
kylebisme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 9,396
Default FSAA & AF

Quote:
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.
kylebisme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 07:56 PM   #4
Blastman
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,734
Default FSAA & AF

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
i3-530 - 2.93Ghz 1.01v undervolted | or O/C 4.0Ghz 1.21v
Gigabyte GA-H55M-UD2H | Kingston 2x2GB 1333 ValueRAM
Seagate 500GB 7200.12
Blastman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 09:14 PM   #5
VIAN
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,575
Default FSAA & AF

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.
VIAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 09:26 PM   #6
SickBeast
Lifer
 
SickBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 14,305
Default FSAA & AF

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.
SickBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 09:28 PM   #7
ikickpigeons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 393
Default RE: FSAA & AF

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.
ikickpigeons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 09:33 PM   #8
Regs
Lifer
 
Regs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 16,358
Default FSAA & AF

Quote:
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.
Regs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 09:34 PM   #9
SickBeast
Lifer
 
SickBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 14,305
Default RE: FSAA & AF

Quote:
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.
SickBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 09:53 PM   #10
Regs
Lifer
 
Regs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 16,358
Default RE: FSAA & AF

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...e_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!
Regs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 10:15 PM   #11
BFG10K
Lifer
 
BFG10K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20,645
Default RE: FSAA & AF

Quote:
If i were to run a game like Call of Duty at 1600x1200 would i notice any jaggies?
Probably.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
4790K | Titan | 16GB DDR3-1600 | Z97-K | 128GB Samsung 830 | 960GB Crucial M500 | 1TB VelociRaptor | X-Fi XtremeMusic | Seasonic X 560W | Fractal Arc R2 Midi | 30" HP LP3065
BFG10K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 10:24 PM   #12
ikickpigeons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 393
Default RE: FSAA & AF

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?
ikickpigeons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 10:31 PM   #13
BFG10K
Lifer
 
BFG10K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20,645
Default RE: FSAA & AF

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
4790K | Titan | 16GB DDR3-1600 | Z97-K | 128GB Samsung 830 | 960GB Crucial M500 | 1TB VelociRaptor | X-Fi XtremeMusic | Seasonic X 560W | Fractal Arc R2 Midi | 30" HP LP3065
BFG10K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2004, 10:33 PM   #14
ikickpigeons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 393
Default RE: FSAA & AF

ok thanks eveyone and BFG10K i guess ill wait untill i get my card to make the decision.
ikickpigeons is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Alpha 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.