2xAA vs 4xAA

[Lonyo]

With my own experiences (see other thread), I would bet that the GTX will perform equally with the X1800xt w/ 2x AA / Full AF

This would narrow things down even more... I mean if it really came down to just a difference from 2x AA to 4x AA??

Which would you choose ?

In this case I'd probably go GTX but I'd like to see a 512 1.2ns version (that should have been out in the first place IMO)

My main points:
Is it better (with lower end cards especially, ie: 6800NU/6600/X800) to run a higher res and 2xAA (ie: 1280x1024 w/2xAA) or is it better to do lower res and higher AA (eg: 1024x768 w/4xAA).
Which gives better image quality, and which gives better performance?
Same with higher end cards at 1600x1200 @ 4x vs 2048x1536 @ 2x where the resolutions are fairly high so jaggies are a minimal issue anyway.
If a game is unplayable on high end with 4xAA, why don't reviewers text 2x?
And of course, what's the hit like from 2x to 4x with nVidia vs ATi, since ATi supposedly have the better AA implimentation with minimal performance hit. Could they give "free" 2xAA?

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Is it better (with lower end cards especially, ie: 6800NU/6600/X800) to run a higher res and 2xAA (ie: 1280x1024 w/2xAA) or is it better to do lower res and higher AA (eg: 1024x768 w/4xAA).

Great question, I would like to hear some people's opinions. I haven't gamed in a while

Originally posted by: Lonyo
If a game is unplayable on high end with 4xAA, why don't reviewers text 2x?
And of course, what's the hit like from 2x to 4x with nVidia vs ATi, since ATi supposedly have the better AA implimentation with minimal performance hit. Could they give "free" 2xAA?

I think 2xAA isn't used much because there is very little IQ increase and isn't as widely supported between games & GPU's, but I could be wrong.

PS Thanks for starting a clean topic again :thumbsup:

 

[Lord Banshee]

Personly i like 1280x1024 in all games. If i get great min FPS, then i will up AA from there.

I just like the look of 1280x1024, when i am running around playing a game, i don't notice jaggies so AA isn't a big deal, but then again i don't have a 7800 to see what it is all like with high res either, so i guess i am baised.

 

[ElFenix]

with nvidia's AA method i'd think you'd want to up the resolution a notch first, whereas ATi it might be better to use a lower res with a higher amount of AA. i could be wrong.

 

[Jeff7181]

It depends on the game. A game that makes heavy use of pixel shaders like F.E.A.R. will likely run better at lower resolution with higher AA. A game like World of Warcraft that doesn't use very intense pixel shaders will likely run better at higher resolution with lower AA.

 

[rbV5]

In virtually every case I've tried 2xAA is virtually a worthless setting. IMO, a higher resolution is always better than a lower resolution@ 2Xaa.

 

[Golgatha]

It would be nice to know benches on 2xAA. I run several games with AF at 8x and 2x or 4x AA on my 7800GTX. I like high minimum FPS and just won't tolerate slowdowns, as it takes away from the game experience IMO.

 

[Matt2]

Hmm.. sounds like the same predicament we were in with the V5 and it's FSAA.

I'd rather have resolution than AA. AA however, does make a very noticable difference. Lower resolution just looks terrible IMO, I'd take high res over AA any day

 

[SynthDude2001]

I wouldn't mind seeing 2xAA benches, but I don't know that I've ever actually seen many. I run all my games at 1680x1050 on my 6800GT (for now), and 4xAA if I can too. But as newer games come out, I may not be able to do that anymore, so I wouldn't mind seeing what kind of performance difference there is between 2x and 4x. 2x is better than nothing and IMO gets rid of the worst jaggies, but it doesn't look "smooth" until 4x to me. Anything above that, it seems I almost have to examine closely with a microscope to see the improvement, so it isn't worth to me it in actual gameplay.

 

[stnicralisk]

2xAA *is* worth it for lower end cards. The reason being that if youre like me and find it is comfortable to play at 10x7 resolution but 1200x is stretched and looks a little funky on your monitor but you have more room in the card then you can use 2xAA.

2xAA is worth it for middle high end cards too because you take less of a hit per IQ increase when you up the resolution and people 1600x1200 who cannot quite make 4xAA with sniper FPS can choose 2x.

Personally I can see a difference on 10x7 but not at 16x12 and I think that a lot of the people who are calling the function worthless are playing 16x12. I play most of my games on my 6800vanilla at 10x7 2xAA 4xAF I could live without AA but never without AF

 

[imported_g33k]

Resolution>AA. Painkiller, Doom 3 and HalfLife 2 all had better image quality with higher res.

I play games to the limit of my 19"monitor. Usually its 16x12@72hz. I'll only enable AA if I can still get acceptable framerates at the highest resolutions. AFAIK, 2x AA has little to no IQ enhancement.

 

[Cali3350]

My 2005fpw is native 1680*1050, so thats deff the most important thing to me. Jaggies are very noticeable still at this res without AA though.

 

[PuppettMaster001]

Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
Personly i like 1280x1024 in all games. If i get great min FPS, then i will up AA from there.

I just like the look of 1280x1024, when i am running around playing a game, i don't notice jaggies so AA isn't a big deal, but then again i don't have a 7800 to see what it is all like with high res either, so i guess i am baised.

ditto

 

[nRollo]

Like I said in the other thread, IMO, 2X AA makes a BIG difference. Enough to warrant considering a higher res and 2X AA rather than a lower res and 4XAA for sure.
Here's my proof:

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce4...age_4/scene1_1024x768_comparison.shtml

Click on the GF4 No AA>2AA or GF4 No AA>QC AA sequentially. See what I mean? Obviously it's not as good as 4X, but that is on 10X7. If you're choosing between 12X10 4X8X and 16X12 2X8X, or 16X12 4X8X and 19X14 2x8X, the choice becomes much harder.

 

[mdchesne]

I game with as high a resolution and AA/AF as i can. but i cannot STAND jagged diagonal lines. so some games i need to drop to 1280x1024 to get my 8AA

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: mdchesne
I game with as high a resolution and AA/AF as i can. but i cannot STAND jagged diagonal lines. so some games i need to drop to 1280x1024 to get my 8AA

You should get 7800GTX SLI and do 16X?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Like I said in the other thread, IMO, 2X AA makes a BIG difference. Enough to warrant considering a higher res and 2X AA rather than a lower res and 4XAA for sure.
Here's my proof:

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce4...age_4/scene1_1024x768_comparison.shtml

Click on the GF4 No AA>2AA or GF4 No AA>QC AA sequentially. See what I mean? Obviously it's not as good as 4X, but that is on 10X7. If you're choosing between 12X10 4X8X and 16X12 2X8X, or 16X12 4X8X and 19X14 2x8X, the choice becomes much harder.

I agree. While 2X doesn't make things perfectly smooth, it gets rid of a lot of the edge crawling that you get without any AA.

 

[mdchesne]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: mdchesne
I game with as high a resolution and AA/AF as i can. but i cannot STAND jagged diagonal lines. so some games i need to drop to 1280x1024 to get my 8AA

You should get 7800GTX SLI and do 16X?

I already noticed my x800xl is lacking in performance. I sure hope I won't have to completely turn off AA in next years game yet :hoping:

I refuse to go SLI or Crossfire. just IMO. Because I figure the cost-benefit ratio is too steep. in a couple months, a single card will come out that pwns my setup for about $100 less. but that's just me (and my mobo is only 1 pci-x 16x). I plan to get the next card after the next 7800GTX

gtx --> next card--> next card (now i upgrade)

 

[dguy6789]

I would always up the resolution before using AA. Upping the AA only reduces jaggies. It does nothing else. Upping the resolution allows you to see farther in a game with more clarity, it also allows for higher quality textures to be more fully appreciated.

Then again, AF is more of an IQ difference than AA is, so AF before AA.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: rbV5
In virtually every case I've tried 2xAA is virtually a worthless setting. IMO, a higher resolution is always better than a lower resolution@ 2Xaa.

jaggies are quite noticeable at 1600x1200 ('edge crawling') but turn on 2x AA and it is much much better.


i seriously wonder if any of you have every bothered turning on 2xAA before.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: rbV5
In virtually every case I've tried 2xAA is virtually a worthless setting. IMO, a higher resolution is always better than a lower resolution@ 2Xaa.

jaggies are quite noticeable at 1600x1200 ('edge crawling') but turn on 2x AA and it is much much better.


i seriously wonder if any of you have every bothered turning on 2xAA before.

I test all my settings both in-game settings and forced with the drivers with several rigs in all my games a couple times "minimum" every month. My statement is "IMO" and is true for me for the vast majority of cases.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: mdchesne
I refuse to go SLI or Crossfire. Because in a couple months, a single card will come out that pwns my setup for about $100 less.

Just to clarify... You could SLI 6800U/GT back in January. There still isn't a single card out that "pwns" it 10 months later. They can equal it (+/- 5-10%), while beating it easily at 20x15 res.

SLI isn't for everyone, but the days of new cards coming out in 6 months and doubling performance over the previous gen are gone. The 6800U was released when-- May 2004 maybe? The GTX came out July 2005 (?). In some cases, it doubles U performance.

Anyone who has SLI GTXs, (granted, is spending a lot of money) won't see equal performance for quite a while. And won't see a single card that "pwns" it for even longer.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Like I said in the other thread, IMO, 2X AA makes a BIG difference. Enough to warrant considering a higher res and 2X AA rather than a lower res and 4XAA for sure.
Here's my proof:

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce4...age_4/scene1_1024x768_comparison.shtml

Click on the GF4 No AA>2AA or GF4 No AA>QC AA sequentially. See what I mean? Obviously it's not as good as 4X, but that is on 10X7. If you're choosing between 12X10 4X8X and 16X12 2X8X, or 16X12 4X8X and 19X14 2x8X, the choice becomes much harder.

:thumbsup:

In my own experience, 2xAA can be very worthwhile, as it can really take the jaggies down on games that make heavy use of high contrast textures.

Nat

 

[xtknight]

What exactly is 2xAA? Isn't it just a 1x1 sample pattern? How would that work?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: mdchesne
I refuse to go SLI or Crossfire. Because in a couple months, a single card will come out that pwns my setup for about $100 less.

Just to clarify... You could SLI 6800U/GT back in January. There still isn't a single card out that "pwns" it 10 months later. They can equal it (+/- 5-10%), while beating it easily at 20x15 res.

SLI isn't for everyone, but the days of new cards coming out in 6 months and doubling performance over the previous gen are gone. The 6800U was released when-- May 2004 maybe? The GTX came out July 2005 (?). In some cases, it doubles U performance.

Anyone who has SLI GTXs, (granted, is spending a lot of money) won't see equal performance for quite a while. And won't see a single card that "pwns" it for even longer.

This is pretty much true, the only thing you're really missing DeadSeaSquirrel is the TAA, second gen PVP, and better performance above 16X12 by having your 6800GT SLI and not a 7800GTX. I would guess if you want it to, that will be a viable gaming rig through next year, and IMO, two years is all you can ask of any vid rig.