AA and AF good in moderation - Tabb sucks.

[VIAN]

AA never ever completely removes all the jaggies. Even at 8x Nvidia still has some jaggies. AA just makes a little less jaggies and definitely isn't worth the performance.

 

[Jeff7181]

:cookie;

*EDIT* Seriously though... I don't use AA necessarily for removing "jaggies." I use it to help reduce/eliminate that edge walking/shimmering that you see on the edge of objects and on thin objects that makes it look like it's waving as you move.

 

[Matthias99]

Did you have something *useful* to add here?

 

[VIAN]

Even 1600x1200x32 with AA8x there are still jaggies.

Even AF is lowsy. I can still see the mipmaps far away even at 8x. IMO these are not worth the performance drop that they cause.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Even 1600x1200x32 with AA8x there are still jaggies.

Nobody claimed otherwise... what's the point of this?

 

[VIAN]

The point is that I just realized that it sucked. I thought that there were various levels, but at the highest level, it was completely Anti-Aliased, but unfortunately it isn't. Same thing with AF.

 

[Richdog]

What are you expecting, a miraculous improvement in graphics? The features are designed to help smooth the jaggies and increase visual detail, it doesn't say they eliminate them completely and provide you with perfect graphics. I find the difference definately noticeable and a large improvement with them on.

Pointless thread.:beer:

 

[VIAN]

many are pointless.

 

[wicktron]

Notice it's 8x AA/AF, not Infinite AA/AF.

 

[Richdog]

Originally posted by: VIAN
many are pointless.

Good point, lol.

 

[modedepe]

IMO they improve image quality quite a bit, though I usually leave them off since a 4200 isn't exactly the best at supporting them.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
:cookie;

*EDIT* Seriously though... I don't use AA necessarily for removing "jaggies." I use it to help reduce/eliminate that edge walking/shimmering that you see on the edge of objects and on thin objects that makes it look like it's waving as you move.

Same for me, totally removes all of that with 9700pro. I find the shimmering quite distracting, especially in racing games.
:beer:

 

[Pete]

What card are you using, VIAN? nV will have poorer AA than ATi (though 8xAA should be equal to ATi's 4x), and their AF doesn't reach as far into the background as ATi's.

Though I must admit I'm baffled why you think both suck. Even the bilinear-only AF on my 9100 is a huge improvement from none at all. And 8xAA really shows jaggies at 16x12?(!)

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Pete
What card are you using, VIAN? nV will have poorer AA than ATi (though 8xAA should be equal to ATi's 4x), and their AF doesn't reach as far into the background as ATi's.

Though I must admit I'm baffled why you think both suck. Even the bilinear-only AF on my 9100 is a huge improvement from none at all. And 8xAA really shows jaggies at 16x12?(!)

Dont even start this here. nVs AF is superior to ATis. ATi has better AA. Leave it at that.

 

[THUGSROOK]

not all games support AA or AF.
some games will only support certain max settings... (6x works ~ 8x doesnt etc)

i personally could care less about AA or AF ~ im much more interested in a smooth panning screen (first person shooters) not smooth edges!

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
not all games support AA or AF.
some games will only support certain max settings... (6x works ~ 8x doesnt etc)

i personally could care less about AA or AF ~ im much more interested in a smooth panning screen (first person shooters) not smooth edges!

In first person shooters you don't really have time to look at the fine detail... but fire up Flight Simulator and watch building edges "crawl" as you fly toward them, away from them, past them, etc. It's hardly a quality gaming experience when that happens. 4XAA pretty much removes all of that.

I'm actually tempted to get a 9700 Pro or 9800 just to see how image quality differs. You can look at as many screen shots as you want, but you really have to play a game to see the significant differences.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Pete
What card are you using, VIAN? nV will have poorer AA than ATi (though 8xAA should be equal to ATi's 4x), and their AF doesn't reach as far into the background as ATi's.

Though I must admit I'm baffled why you think both suck. Even the bilinear-only AF on my 9100 is a huge improvement from none at all. And 8xAA really shows jaggies at 16x12?(!)

Dont even start this here. nVs AF is superior to ATis. ATi has better AA. Leave it at that.

uh-oh Pete, you have incurred the wrath of the dillusional fanboy.

 

[kylebisme]

oh and VIAN, if you don't like the performace hit of aa and af cranked then you might want to try turning them down. i have a freind that is useing the orignial geforce3 i sold him and he still gets away with good performace at atleast x2aa and x2af in nearly every game he plays at a decent resolution for his 17". sure it doesn't make everything look perfect but it looks beter than none at all.

 

[Cerb]

One thing I can say for my 9600 XT...turn alternate pixel centers on and its 4x (performance--the quality AA looks like crap) gets rid of jaggies as good as Quincux did. That was one thing I was really afraid of going to ATi.

 

[MDE]

Congrats VIAN.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Cerb
One thing I can say for my 9600 XT...turn alternate pixel centers on and its 4x (performance--the quality AA looks like crap) gets rid of jaggies as good as Quincux did. That was one thing I was really afraid of going to ATi.

lol, you are jokeing right? your 9600xt doesn't have performace and quality settings for aa and alternate pixel center just changes the way textures are aplied for compatablity with a few old games.

 

[BFG10K]

VIAN, your posts are like a giant pendulum - swinging from one end of the opinion scale to the other on a daily basis.

I'm gonna have to say it buddy, but if you had gone with a R300 board you would have had better AA and AF. Also it would've been faster too.

I thought that there were various levels, but at the highest level, it was completely Anti-Aliased, but unfortunately it isn't. Same thing with AF.

Of course not. If it was the case then ATi's 6x and 16x settings would be useless. There's a very good reason why they're there.

nVs AF is superior to ATis.

False.

not all games support AA or AF.

It doesn't matter - the control panel should be able to force any values you like (unless it's a horrendously bad console port that is).

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Even 1600x1200x32 with AA8x there are still jaggies.

Even AF is lowsy. I can still see the mipmaps far away even at 8x. IMO these are not worth the performance drop that they cause.

games at 1600x1200 dont have jaggies. if you see em, on what games??

JBlaze

 

[Jeff7181]

Did someone say Halo???

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Cerb
One thing I can say for my 9600 XT...turn alternate pixel centers on and its 4x (performance--the quality AA looks like crap) gets rid of jaggies as good as Quincux did. That was one thing I was really afraid of going to ATi.

lol, you are jokeing right? your 9600xt doesn't have performace and quality settings for aa and alternate pixel center just changes the way textures are aplied for compatablity with a few old games.

It changes the way the AA looks to me. All I have to do is set it on or off and just preview the gargoyle clock to see a difference.
...and where, exactly, does the GF4 Ti 4200 overtake the 9600 XT in AA & AF performance?

Edit: fully believing you about the pixel centers, I just checked it several times (on, off, on, off, on, off)...I see smoother sides with them on, whatever it actually does.
Then again, most people seem to think 8xSS looks better than Quincux did, so I might just be wierd in how I see things.