AA article at [H]

[thilanliyan]

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...wxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

[Elcs]

Awesome read!!!

Very interesting!

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Hmm basically AMD=Nvidia image quality.

Does AMD do SSAA, though? Like 8xs, 16xs, 32xs, 2x2 SSAA, etc?
SSAA IMO contributes a load to IQ.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: gersson
Hmm basically AMD=Nvidia image quality.

Does AMD do SSAA, though? Like 8xs, 16xs, 32xs, 2x2 SSAA, etc?
SSAA IMO contributes a load to IQ.

In my opinion, they are 99.9% the same, but juding from the pictures if anything AMD's gets a very slight edge. They even mention the same in the Crysis screens. There just seems to be better contrast to me with the AMD screenies. But, I think it's the type of difference you have to mull over still shots to really notice, I don't think any one would really notice any difference when in game.

 

[CP5670]

That's a very good article, especially by HardOCP's standards. The AA scaling is impressive but seems to be limited to the lower resolution they tested.

Hmm basically AMD=Nvidia image quality.

Well, Nvidia still has an edge with their excellent AF algorithm. I can tell the difference in some very specific situations (without comparing screenshots), although it's not major by any means.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
In my opinion, they are 99.9% the same, but juding from the pictures if anything AMD's gets a very slight edge. They even mention the same in the Crysis screens. There just seems to be better contrast to me with the AMD screenies. But, I think it's the type of difference you have to mull over still shots to really notice, I don't think any one would really notice any difference when in game.

Does AMD still do gamma-correct AA in hardware? That might be the difference.

 

[BFG10K]

A good article but they screwed up the explanation of AAA + CFAA. All they should've said was that the pattern of AAA matches the base MSAA pattern in CFAA and that would've been far clearer.

Originally posted by: gersson

Hmm basically AMD=Nvidia image quality.

The other thing [ H ] missed is that ATi's AAA functions in OpenGL while nVidia?s TRAA does not which means it's currently possible for ATi to attain far higher IQ in alpha textures in OpenGL than nVidia. Even 32xS only gives you 4xOGSS while ATI can have up to 8xSGSS on alpha textures.

I spent a weekend testing my old X800XL and even with its inferior filtering AAA was working well in OpenGL.

Does AMD do SSAA, though? Like 8xs, 16xs, 32xs, 2x2 SSAA, etc?

No, except possibly in Super AA modes if they ever decide to re-enable it.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Does AMD still do gamma-correct AA in hardware?

Yes and so do nVidia but I don't think theirs is enabled by default.

 

[soccerballtux]

why would anyone need 48x AA?

 

[unr3al]

Why would anyone need a bigger hard drive than 5MB? lol

 

[ViRGE]

Interesting article. I'm not sure it's worth it though. In their only benchmark edge-detect AA was slower than both 4x and 8x MSAA; I'd be hard pressed to tell you the difference between 4x AA and their new modes, never mind 8x AA. AMD is touting the memory benefits, but if you're running out of memory just from 8x MSAA and yet still have more than enough power to use it, then the card wasn't equipped with enough memory in the first place.

BFG: TRAA doesn't work in OpenGL mode? I thought NVIDIA took care of that years ago?

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

BFG: TRAA doesn't work in OpenGL mode? I thought NVIDIA took care of that years ago?

Nope and in fact it's quite a recent development from ATi.

 

[unr3al]

I found the article to be UNDERwhelming... In most of the images I had trouble to distinguish the differences they pointed out so clearly.

To tell the truth, I don't see why I should be running 12x AA and in the process perhaps crippling performance, if your card performs better at 8x. 24x yes, but I wouldn't raise AA levels unless I can double what I already have.

Not to mention MSAA vs CSAA and whatever xxAA they can think of. Personally I would be happy if I had a maximum of 8x AA with no added frills. I haven't really found myself stopping to look at the slightly jaggy edges on some overhead cables; I'm too busy playing to notice.

Don't get me wrong; these developments are as important as any other, but I really don't know why I should buy a graphics card for the sole reason that it handles AA better than the next, or it supports a higher level of AA.

Keep AA and AF for CGI purposes and I will be glad to look at smooth pre-rendered scenes; unlike the awful scenes some games have (coughs); like Resident Evil 4... Or great CGI movies. Other than that, I don't see myself using these insane levels of filtering any time soon. Personal preference, but each to their own. I just want to play the game!

 

[LittleNemoNES]

unr3al ... I think you contradicted yourself from one post to the next. (if I understand you correctly, that is)

First:
"why would anyone need 48x AA?" - soccerballtux
"Why would anyone need a bigger hard drive than 5MB? lol" - unr3al

Then you said:
"I found the article to be UNDERwhelming... In most of the images I had trouble to distinguish the differences they pointed out so clearly"
"...I don't see myself using these insane levels of filtering any time soon"