- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
32x AA
- Thread starter Wreckage
- Start date
well no it couldnt, you'd be lacking alot in detail at 320x240, even though, yes, your lines wouldnt be jaggy.
DeathReborn
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2005
- 2,786
- 789
- 136
Considering in most cases HDR is a washout and to me, not implemented properly yet that's a moot point.
:thumbsdown: to your post, :thumbsup: to nVidia for 32xAA.
32xAA is what GRAW needs, and interior fighting and better use of PhysX.
So does this mean it will run even slower than their current 16x AA, or did they finally do it right this time?
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
The point may be moot to you because you don't care for current HDR implemetations. However, HDR+AA look awesome and are implemeted just fine in Oblivion IMO, and is one of the reasons that I choose ATI over NVIDIA. Personally, I think that NVIDIA needs to get on the ball with HDR+AA, as it has become feasible to play games with HDR+AA on even a single high end GPU. Sure, 32xAA is probably cool, but with the price of a quad-SLI setup, I would be irritated to put up that much cash and still be outstripped in the feature department by a single ATI card.
Of course I am speaking in terms of the lack of jagged lines. 320x240 could never hope to have the texture quality or general image clarity that a higher resolution would have.
Should performe about as good as AAx16.... which is not that great... but hopefully it will look better. (it will but by what mesurable differance.
Honestly I don't want to start a flame, but I find this comment right on target..
Who honestly is gonna spend so much $$$ to have admittendly such an incredible feature as 32xAA is, when he will not be able to combine it today or for future games with HDR? (UT2K7,Crysis etc).
It doesn't make sense IMHO..
Very nice. Too bad it probably wont be playable. If 16x isnt playable* with two cards, 32x probably wont be with four.
*playable to me in newer games
*playable to me in newer games
PFFT! Spoken like someone who owns an nVidia card that can'd to HDR + AA :roll:
HDR + AA >>> 32xAA
SonicIce
Diamond Member
- Apr 12, 2004
- 4,771
- 0
- 76
but it still cant play oblivion with AA off!
anyways this is purely bragging rights. if you're sitting 2 inches away from the screen trying to tell the differance between 4x and 32x then you just need to go outside. high resolution would be much more performance economical unless you're limited by a small lcd, in which i dont know why u would have spent this much on gpu's.
anyways this is purely bragging rights. if you're sitting 2 inches away from the screen trying to tell the differance between 4x and 32x then you just need to go outside. high resolution would be much more performance economical unless you're limited by a small lcd, in which i dont know why u would have spent this much on gpu's.
too bad they couldnt have 2 cores do AA and 2 do HDR
don't start calling me stupid, i know that it wont happen....
don't start calling me stupid, i know that it wont happen....
DeathReborn
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2005
- 2,786
- 789
- 136
Now check the specs of the rigs in my sig and say that, both X1800's. To me HDR is not a selling point, it's a bonus that's nice but i'll take AA over it. I choose not to use it as I don't like it, you don't like it, fine but at least read before you start shooting off your mouth.
Once again, this whole thread was already discussed
Quad SLI discussion
People can argue the preferences between HDR+AA all day, but it just depends on what they like.
The biggest drawback I see is that it is the same old card just coupled with more of them. I really am getting tired of the same exact thing...only a little better (if Wreckage's quote about 32xAA still being playable is accurate). Way too much $ for what you get IMO. Higher resolutions and 4x AA will do fine.
I do admit though that if someone is made of that much cash, that these are probably about the only things you can have that will let you game at the 30" LCD resolutions. (At least pretty well). That's pretty cool for Nvidia. This technology will mostly likely be useful sometime (maybe not so much now though). Which brings me to my next point.
I'm wondering if it would be possible to assign one of the GPU's as a Physx processor, and the other 3 as visual rendering. That would still let you game really really well (once again, until Vista in which case all of our current video cards will be useless) and rule out the necessity for a Physx processor. Of course, even if each GPU gave an input of 25% to physics, all four could be one segregated Physx processor. I guess what I'm tying to get at is, with Dual CPU's and Quad GPU's, why can't there be an easier way for physics to be implemented as effeciently as one PCI slot Physx core? That's another subject however. Sorry, just day dreaming.
It's cool, ahead of its time, but that is what also makes it pretty useless.
Quad SLI discussion
People can argue the preferences between HDR+AA all day, but it just depends on what they like.
The biggest drawback I see is that it is the same old card just coupled with more of them. I really am getting tired of the same exact thing...only a little better (if Wreckage's quote about 32xAA still being playable is accurate). Way too much $ for what you get IMO. Higher resolutions and 4x AA will do fine.
I do admit though that if someone is made of that much cash, that these are probably about the only things you can have that will let you game at the 30" LCD resolutions. (At least pretty well). That's pretty cool for Nvidia. This technology will mostly likely be useful sometime (maybe not so much now though). Which brings me to my next point.
I'm wondering if it would be possible to assign one of the GPU's as a Physx processor, and the other 3 as visual rendering. That would still let you game really really well (once again, until Vista in which case all of our current video cards will be useless) and rule out the necessity for a Physx processor. Of course, even if each GPU gave an input of 25% to physics, all four could be one segregated Physx processor. I guess what I'm tying to get at is, with Dual CPU's and Quad GPU's, why can't there be an easier way for physics to be implemented as effeciently as one PCI slot Physx core? That's another subject however. Sorry, just day dreaming.
It's cool, ahead of its time, but that is what also makes it pretty useless.
Aren't they already doing a pretty good job though? That's only using a little bit of the GPU right now (in most peoples current setups), imagine if a game had a whole 7 series GPU to itself as a physics processor. In fact, I thought people could already do that with a regular SLI rig i.e. two 7800GT's or something.
It would be pretty nice if someone who has these components were to set up an example where they utilize one of their cards for physics.......and post some results......................
I'm sort of curious to see if maybe taking all of the physics processing away from one card will give the other one enough room to where maybe it can run 8x AA without being as much as a performance hog.
It would be pretty nice if someone who has these components were to set up an example where they utilize one of their cards for physics.......and post some results......................
I'm sort of curious to see if maybe taking all of the physics processing away from one card will give the other one enough room to where maybe it can run 8x AA without being as much as a performance hog.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter