A 7900GTX at 700mhz/1800mhz always gets beaten by a X1900XTX at stock

[Nightmare225]

I'm just as confused as you are.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: beggerking
1900xt does perform better than 7900GTX on specific settings( high AA/AF ), its old news. While 7900GTX perform better in OpenGL apps, (no AA/AF, high resolution.)

who buys a 7900GTX and doesn't play with AA/AF?

at high enough resolution AA become pointless.

begger, I refer you to this thread

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: beggerking
1900xt does perform better than 7900GTX on specific settings( high AA/AF ), its old news. While 7900GTX perform better in OpenGL apps, (no AA/AF, high resolution.)

who buys a 7900GTX and doesn't play with AA/AF?

at high enough resolution AA become pointless.

Bullshit, if you use high resolution its very likely youll have a big screen, which makes it so that AA is still needed... Now if you were gonna play 2048x1536 on a 17" monitor, sure AA wouldnt be needed

With a 24" or 30" screen I can bet even if you had 4096x3072 you would still notice jaggies

well, how many ppl have 24" or 30" screens? for 20" or less, 1600x1200 above, AA isn't appearant.

I can see that with higher resolutions you don't need as much AA, but I still notice when I don't have AA on my 21" crt even with resolutions as high as 2048x1536. The jaggies aren't as noticable but I still like AA even at those resolutions and that size of a screen.

I also don't know why wreckage's thread was locked. If it was because of the content I think this one should be locked too, but if it was because of the senseless flaming I could understand locking it.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
begger, I refer you to this thread

and your point is?....
copy and pasted from the thread

"To me I find it hard sometimes to see a difference on a 20" LCD @ 1600x1200 which i run at.
Maybe its just me?? "

to me, 1600x1200 on 19inch monitor, I can't tell the difference.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: fierydemise
begger, I refer you to this thread

and your point is?....
copy and pasted from the thread

"To me I find it hard sometimes to see a difference on a 20" LCD @ 1600x1200 which i run at.
Maybe its just me?? "

to me, 1600x1200 on 19inch monitor, I can't tell the difference.

From that thread

Originally posted by: CP5670
I can easily see the jagged edges at 2048x1536 on a 20" viewable CRT, but I often go without AA anyway for performance reasons even at much lower resolutions.

Originally posted by: redbox
I always need aa I have had games runnig at 2048x1536 and without aa I still noticed jagies. I must say though at that resolution they wern't near as bad as a lower one. This was on a 21" crt so the screen was pretty small for that type of resolution.

Originally posted by: coldpower27
I think AA is helpful all the time

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I still notice jaggies on my 21" IBM P275 at 2048x1536, although it is less noticable, I would say we need even higher resolutions before anti aliasing is not needed at all.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I'll drop my resolution to 640x480 before I turn off AA or AF.

Originally posted by: JBT
Playing at 1920x1200 4x is needed for *most* of the jaggies to go away. 2x is the minimum. This of course isn't the case always I'm sure there are some games where AA isn't needed as much, but the games I play BF2 and CS:S sure do.

Originally posted by: Bull Dog

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I'll drop my resolution to 640x480 before I turn off AA or AF.

QFT

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I'll run a minimum of 4xAA regardless of the resolution.

Originally posted by: josh6079
Playing at 2048x1536, I didn't really see the need for AA when I was on my Trinitron CRT. On my 20" LCD's at 1680x1050 it's a completely different story.

 

[beggerking]

okay. . but I personally don't notice the difference.

must took alot of time to copy and paste all that.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: beggerking
okay. . but I personally don't notice the difference.

I also think that AA becomes a little less needed when going to a higher resolution. Although, my experience has been with a CRT w/VGA, not an LCD w/DVI. That may or may not have an impact on the sharpness, but at 1680x1050, I like to have at least 4xAA.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: beggerking

well, how many ppl have 24" or 30" screens? for 20" or less, 1600x1200 above, AA isn't appearant.

i can see jaggies just fine on an 18" 1600x1200 screen. AA is plenty necessary, even then. anyone who can't see the jaggies needs to get their vision checked

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: beggerking

well, how many ppl have 24" or 30" screens? for 20" or less, 1600x1200 above, AA isn't appearant.

i can see jaggies just fine on an 18" 1600x1200 screen. AA is plenty necessary, even then. anyone who can't see the jaggies needs to get their vision checked

And you need to get checked for things stuck up your butt. Argue your point if you want, but somehow I don't think insulting everyone who disagrees with you before they even present an argument is a good idea.

 

[Polish3d]

You must be joking if you think aliasing isn't apparent in games at 1600x1200

 

[BFG10K]

Aliasing is apparent at 1920x1440, much less a middling resolution like 1600x1200.

In some cases adding 4xAA to the former isn't enough either.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Frackal
They use 6.3 ati drivers which are not that old either

i'm still using them

solid drivers, and newer ones do not offer anything worth upgrading for. unless there are major performance enchances/bug fixes (and there haven't been for drivers from either side in the last several months), there's no reason to "invalidate" a review because the driver revisions are several months old.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: beggerking
well, how many ppl have 24" or 30" screens? for 20" or less, 1600x1200 above, AA isn't appearant.

AA is always apparent, because while monitors can display almost perfectly smooth horizontal and vertical lines, by design they cannot show smooth diagonal lines of any angle, as the screen is made up of pixels arranged in a grid.

less expensive screens tend to require much more AA than others (regardless of resolution) as the size of the actual pixles are larger. the tighter (smaller) the dot pitch, the less apparent the jaggies - which again, are always there due to design.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: beggerking
well, how many ppl have 24" or 30" screens? for 20" or less, 1600x1200 above, AA isn't appearant.

AA is always apparent, because while monitors can display almost perfectly smooth horizontal and vertical lines, by design they cannot show smooth diagonal lines of any angle, as the screen is made up of pixels arranged in a grid.

less expensive screens tend to require much more AA than others (regardless of resolution) as the size of the actual pixles are larger. the tighter (smaller) the dot pitch, the less apparent the jaggies - which again, are always there due to design.

hmm that makes me think -- could it be possible for some new tech to fix this? No AA would be needed?

 

[BFG10K]

could it be possible for some new tech to fix this?

A high enough DPI but that costs $$$ so it's unlikely we'll ever see it.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: beggerking
well, how many ppl have 24" or 30" screens? for 20" or less, 1600x1200 above, AA isn't appearant.

AA is always apparent, because while monitors can display almost perfectly smooth horizontal and vertical lines, by design they cannot show smooth diagonal lines of any angle, as the screen is made up of pixels arranged in a grid.

less expensive screens tend to require much more AA than others (regardless of resolution) as the size of the actual pixles are larger. the tighter (smaller) the dot pitch, the less apparent the jaggies - which again, are always there due to design.

hmm that makes me think -- could it be possible for some new tech to fix this? No AA would be needed?

anythings possible, but it would require a complete rethinking on how monitors display images.. and of course the hardware to implement it.