2xAA vs 4xAA

[Avalon]

I typically use 2xAA, as it smooths the jaggies just enough so that they won't be annoying, and the framerate hit for it is miniscule. If I do have extra headroom in a game I play, then sure, 4xAA it is. AF and vsync come first, though.

 

[rbV5]

For my eyes, at low resolutions, it doesn't matter if the jaggies are a little smaller with 2XAA...they're still there, and still just as distracting. At high resolutions, 2XAA offers very little IQ improvement as well. I'll always take a higher resolution over a lower resolution w/ 2XAA, and I'll take higher levels of AF, before considering AA at all.

Of course I can see the differences in the screenies, but now put some screenshots up at different resolutions and different AA/AF levels along with performance #'s and then it starts to paint a different picture IMO.

 

[DRavisher]

I took some comparison shots in FarCry using FRAPS:

No AA: http://img426.imageshack.us/my.php?image=noaa5za.jpg
2xAA : http://img426.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2xaa3ct.jpg
4xAA : http://img421.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4xaa7ar.jpg

I for one think the difference is difficult to see even in the screenshots, and when I game I notice no difference what so ever between 2xAA and 4xAA. No AA is quite unacceptable though.

Edit: AA was applied with the ingame settings, not forced thorugh the display driver.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: DRavisher
I took some comparison shots in FarCry using FRAPS:

No AA: http://img426.imageshack.us/my.php?image=noaa5za.jpg
2xAA : http://img426.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2xaa3ct.jpg
4xAA : http://img421.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4xaa7ar.jpg

I for one think the difference is difficult to see even in the screenshots, and when I game I notice no difference what so ever between 2xAA and 4xAA. No AA is quite unacceptable though.

Edit: AA was applied with the ingame settings, not forced thorugh the display driver.

AA in a game like Far Cry does not do a lot, since there are not many straight lines... It does do something, but not a lot. When you move into an indoor complex or next a builting, then you will start to see the difference between AA on and off. Anyway, thanks for the screenshots to compare to.

 

[BFG10K]

I can't understand how you can say that. Looking at the screenshots show that 2xAA versus no AA is a big difference.

There are clear and visible jagged edges even after 2xAA is enabled. Of course during actual gameplay it's much worse than a screenshot because of movement. 4xAA is generally the minimum level of AA you need to see a significant reduction of jagged edges, both at low and high resolutions.

There is clearly a noticeable diffference in the screenshots I posted

Sure, just like there's a clear and noticeable difference between 8 bit colour and 16 bit colour. Following that reasoning 16 bit colour is a satisfactory and viable solution then?

Yet you say only 4X AA makes a difference.

No, I said it's generally the minimum level at which you start seeing a worthwhile and significant reduction in jagged edges. I mean 2xAF makes a difference too but for all intents and purposes it's quite useless compared to 16xAF.

I say to you your 4X AA is "useless, not worth bothering with" because my 8X and 16X SLI AA offer "superior" IQ.

How so, given you never dare to stray from 4xAA for fear of some digital reprisal?

A. Deem only the settings they run as "useful" or "worthwhile"

This is an open forum and the topic is AA. If you don't like what I'm saying because it doesn't jive with the masses and/or whatever emotional attachment you may have to low-end SLI then that's your problem, not mine.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I say to you your 4X AA is "useless, not worth bothering with" because my 8X and 16X SLI AA offer "superior" IQ.

How so, given you never dare to stray from 4xAA for fear of some digital reprisal?

Go figure. Last I heard, you were on the other side of the world, not looking over my shoulder at the level of AA I was using? I've used SLI AA many times.

A. Deem only the settings they run as "useful" or "worthwhile"

This is an open forum and the topic is AA. If you don't like what I'm saying because it doesn't jive with the masses and/or whatever emotional attachment you may have to low-end SLI then that's your problem, not mine.

[/quote]
Why have an "emotional attachment" to entry level SLI BFG, when I have the best gaming video card setup on the planet?


You're misunderstanding me, let me help:

I'm saying 2X AA has two possible uses:
1. For people who have less powerful video card whose only choice is 2XAA or none.
2. People who have monitors capable of high resolutions whose choice might be 16X14 4X8X, or 20X15 2X8X.

There's nothing wrong with either, I think you're overgeneralizing when you say 2XAA is "worthless". It has it's place.

 

[xtknight]

In BF2, forced 2xMSAA multisampling and in-game 2xAA multisampling were identical to the pixel, besides the fact that the forced version garbled the console because it forced the whole screen whereas BF2 skips AA'ing the console. It also confirms that BF2 uses multisampling in the game, and not supersampling. With that aside, I have recorded the FPS numbers as well.

Noticed something very odd, probably Battlefield 2's FPS meter broken. It reported 66 FPS on the super AA mode and lower on the no AA mode. I know it feels slower on 4xAA than No AA as well, but that's not what BF2 reports.

FPS on first screenshots-
No AA: 37.5/26.6
2x AA: 37.5/26.6
4x AA: 37.5/26.6

So I thought it may be bottlenecked by my CPU and I took shots from a different scene this time. It turns out BF2's meter is just screwed or I don't know what kind of FPS it's reporting.

(FPS current/average in the top left)

BF2 Daqing Oilfields 64 No AA - #2
BF2 Daqing Oilfields 64 2x AA - #2
BF2 Daqing Oilfields 64 4x AA - #2
BF2 Daqing Oilfields 64 2x2SS+4xRGMS - #2

IMO, these paint a different picture of 2xAA.

This one is beautiful: BF2 Daqing Oilfields 64 2x2SS+4xRGMS - Random shot

And, of course, uncompressed: bf2aa-2.zip - bitmaps

 

[BFG10K]

I've used SLI AA many times.

In what games and at what settings?

Why have an "emotional attachment" to entry level SLI BFG, when I have the best gaming video card setup on the planet?

You tell me.

I'm saying 2X AA has two possible uses:

You still don't get it, do you? What you, I or Joe Average can or can't run is irrelevant. 2xAA by definition provides next to no IQ gain and I'd be saying exactly the same thing if I had a Voodoo1 or a 7800 SLI.

 

[nRollo]

Meh. Sent it in a PM. The board needs less debate of what's "worthless".

 

[xtknight]

Comments on my 2nd screenshots? I think 2xAA looks a lot more viable in this case.

 

[Acanthus]

At 1600x1200 and above, anything more than 2x AA is excessive.

 

[Pete]

2xAA is always viable, as it doubles your edge resolution. But, again, it's a personal preference.

 

[BFG10K]

At 1600x1200 and above, anything more than 2x AA is excessive.

4xAA makes a huge difference at 1920x1440 and even at that setting if you get a stress-test like a sagging (curved) power line you can still see subtle jagged edges in some cases.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

At 1600x1200 and above, anything more than 2x AA is excessive.

4xAA makes a huge difference at 1920x1440 and even at that setting if you get a stress-test like a sagging (curved) power line you can still see subtle jagged edges in some cases.

Thats worth a massive performance hit? 1 situation where you have to specifcially look for a difference in a screenshot?

 

[BFG10K]

Thats worth a massive performance hit?

Like with any setting it depends on the game and your hardware as to whether you can run it acceptably.

Take a look.

 

[aka1nas]

My 19inch CRT can't do 1600x1200 at a decent refresh rate, so I usually play games at 1280x960 with 4xAA with my 6800nu. I find 2x to be pretty lackluster at this resolution the jaggies still are annoying to me.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Thats worth a massive performance hit?

Like with any setting it depends on the game and your hardware as to whether you can run it acceptably.

Take a look.

Again, if you cant notice it without taking screenshots and looking for it, i dont care if its 1%, its not worth the peroformance hit.

1024x AA is crap!! OMFG IF I TAKE THIS SINGLE PIXEL AND BLOW IT UP IN PHOTOSHOP YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THERE ARE JAGGIES IN THE CORNER!

 

[StrangerGuy]

IMO, 2xAA at 1024x768 is enough to eliminate significant aliasing for day-to-day gaming unless you are deliberately scanning for jaggies.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Thats worth a massive performance hit?

Like with any setting it depends on the game and your hardware as to whether you can run it acceptably.

Take a look.

Again, if you cant notice it without taking screenshots and looking for it, i dont care if its 1%, its not worth the peroformance hit.

1024x AA is crap!! OMFG IF I TAKE THIS SINGLE PIXEL AND BLOW IT UP IN PHOTOSHOP YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THERE ARE JAGGIES IN THE CORNER!

Way to over exaggerate. Trying to be cool?

2x to 4x is easily noticable in BF2 for me.

 

[gxsaurav]

well, my 17" monitor goes to a maximum of 1280X1024 at 60 Hz, so I play all the games at 1024X768, 2XQ AA & 4X Anis (where aplicable) on my FX5900XT, the last game I played was riddik, & in F.E.A.R demo I had to drop down to 800X600 with no & AA & Anis for playable frames

at the settings, I hardly notice any jaggies, weather it's Far cry, or NFS Underground 2, or any game, haven't played BF2 & CoD2 as of yet, untill I m not getting more then 45 frames, i m happy with these settings, if required I drop down to 800X600 with 2X AA & 2X Anis

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Thats worth a massive performance hit?

Like with any setting it depends on the game and your hardware as to whether you can run it acceptably.

Take a look.

Again, if you cant notice it without taking screenshots and looking for it, i dont care if its 1%, its not worth the peroformance hit.

1024x AA is crap!! OMFG IF I TAKE THIS SINGLE PIXEL AND BLOW IT UP IN PHOTOSHOP YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THERE ARE JAGGIES IN THE CORNER!

Way to over exaggerate. Trying to be cool?

2x to 4x is easily noticable in BF2 for me.

Im not trying to do anything, im sick of BFG being an elitist tool and saying his way is the only way. Youre in the same boat ackmed.

You say 2x to 4x is noticeable at the native resolution of a 2405fpw, in motion? WTF are you looking at in bf2?

 

[cbns]

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

how do you get 8xAA? when i try to set my driver profile settings to not-application controlled and run a game my PC always crashed (black screen and stops responding)

 

[nRollo]

Works for me, I was just using it to try it out for that 31" CRT thread.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Thats worth a massive performance hit?

Like with any setting it depends on the game and your hardware as to whether you can run it acceptably.

Take a look.

Again, if you cant notice it without taking screenshots and looking for it, i dont care if its 1%, its not worth the peroformance hit.

1024x AA is crap!! OMFG IF I TAKE THIS SINGLE PIXEL AND BLOW IT UP IN PHOTOSHOP YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THERE ARE JAGGIES IN THE CORNER!

Way to over exaggerate. Trying to be cool?

2x to 4x is easily noticable in BF2 for me.

Im not trying to do anything, im sick of BFG being an elitist tool and saying his way is the only way. Youre in the same boat ackmed.

You say 2x to 4x is noticeable at the native resolution of a 2405fpw, in motion? WTF are you looking at in bf2?

Actually, I have said many times before, different people have different opinions and needs.

You try and claim I act as if my way is the only way? Thats pretty hypocritical;

Originally posted by: Acanthus
At 1600x1200 and above, anything more than 2x AA is excessive.

Seems to me you're trying to say anything above 4x is usless.

As I said, its easy to see a difference from 2x, to 4x to me. If you dont agree, thats fine. It doesnt matter, I can tell.

 

[CP5670]

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.

Definitely 20x15 2x AA. I even prefer 20x15 with no AA to 16x12 4x AA. The jaggies are actually still pretty noticeable at 20x15 no AA, but the difference between 2x and 4x seems to be smaller than at other resolutions. I don't think those settings are quite comparable though except on 7800 cards, since on everything else, 20x15 no AA is generally quite a bit slower than 16x12 4x AA and 20x15 2x AA is even worse.