AA versus Resolution

[jaykishankrk]

Hi guys,

I was wondering, whats the point in having AA beefed up to the maximum level possible when playing a game at lets say 1900 X 1080 resoultion.. does it really make any difference? we can think of two or three parameters which are directly affected by enabling AA,

1) Performance (in terms of FPS gained or lost)

2) Image Quality (The more the AA level better the IQ, ofcourse can be contradictory!)

3) Useful setting to bench the Hardware.

This thread is open for some serious discussion.. I know we find enough material on the net about this but it would augur well, if people who play games the most put forth their practical experience to conclude the answer in a better way

cheers,
Jay

 

[ViRGE]

I suppose it depends on what the maximum level is. On even fine dot pitch monitors (24" 19x12 and the like) I can easily see jaggies, so I would argue that some AA would be ideal. With that said, I'd never be able to tell you the difference between 4xAA and anything higher unless you gave me a magnifying glass and a few days. Of course this is only practical if performance isn't chugging in the first place.

 

[dguy6789]

Having a lot of both is the best. However higher res with no AA is superior to lower res with some AA. This is because AA only reduces how easy it is to see jaggies, higher res does both this and helps the overall image quality in numerous other ways.

 

[jaykishankrk]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
I suppose it depends on what the maximum level is. On even fine dot pitch monitors (24" 19x12 and the like) I can easily see jaggies, so I would argue that some AA would be ideal. With that said, I'd never be able to tell you the difference between 4xAA and anything higher unless you gave me a magnifying glass and a few days. Of course this is only practical if performance isn't chugging in the first place.

I couldn't agree more.. It would be ideal if you can post some screenies for other people to witness as to what you are trying to convey over here

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: jaykishankrk

I was wondering, whats the point in having AA beefed up to the maximum level possible when playing a game at lets say 1900 X 1080 resoultion..

To increase image quality, especially in the case of a middling resolution like 1920x1080.

does it really make any difference?

Yes.

 

[Keysplayr]

Some AA, no matter what the resolution, and when one is able, is always preferable over none. At least in my gaming experiences.

BFG: 1024x768 : 1400x900 : 1280x1024 : 1680x1050 : 1600x1200 : 1920x1080 : 1920x1200 : 2560x1600

How is 1920x1200 a "middling" resolution? Looks one step below the highest end to me. And to play at that tier, the highest end, would require very expensive monitors and a multi GPU solution to cover all games.
Since you are permanently set on single GPU solutions, (until multi GPU is perfected) would you be able to play at the highest end? With AA no less?

Before you discount the lowest resolutions I have listed, you must know that there are gamers who do play in that realm. Those with budget/value cards, and even some mainstream cards depending on the game. And they may or
may not be able to use AA.

 

[jaykishankrk]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: jaykishankrk

I was wondering, whats the point in having AA beefed up to the maximum level possible when playing a game at lets say 1900 X 1080 resoultion..

To increase image quality, especially in the case of a middling resolution like 1920x1080.

does it really make any difference?

Yes.

Good read BFG10K... I didnt realise that it was your article until the end of it.. so it does make difference but as you ended the article you did mention about the screenies not doing any justice as to how will it look when playing the game real time..

to your notice, one of the links to screenies is broken by the way.. Supersampling one to be exact..

Considering that the majority of gamers over here and elsewhere would be intended to play First person shooters most of the time.. is it worth to dampen the performance of the card by notching up AA levels when there is very little time to roam around and witness the Aura(I mean to say as a metaphor).

 

[SunnyD]

If your video card can provide (nearly) free AA of any sort - 2x, 4x, custom mode - why not just use it anyway? If there is a negligible performance impact, just go for it. Most modern cards are providing at least some level of AA for nearly no performance cost these days.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

BFG: 1024x768 : 1400x900 : 1280x1024 : 1680x1050 : 1600x1200 : 1920x1080 : 1920x1200 : 2560x1600

He didn't say 1920x1200, he said 1920x1080.

That and I'm not sure why you have such a huge gap between your top two resolutions. Where are 1760x1320, 1856x1392, 1920x1440 and 2048x1536, all of which have more pixels than 1920x1200? Put those in there and suddenly the LCD 19xx resolutions start moving towards the middle.

Since you are permanently set on single GPU solutions, (until multi GPU is perfected) would you be able to play at the highest end? With AA no less?

How is this question relevant to the original question?

Before you discount the lowest resolutions I have listed, you must know that there are gamers who do play in that realm. Those with budget/value cards, and even some mainstream cards depending on the game. And they may or may not be able to use AA.

Again the original question was:

I was wondering, whats the point in having AA beefed up to the maximum level possible when playing a game at lets say 1900 X 1080 resoultion.. does it really make any difference?

What me, you or anyone else can or can't run is irrelevant to that question.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: jaykishankrk

to your notice, one of the links to screenies is broken by the way.. Supersampling one to be exact..

Yes, unfortunately the hosting of those particular images is out of my control.

But I am planning on revisting AA on more modern cards and I have a proper place to host my articles (see my sig below).

Considering that the majority of gamers over here and elsewhere would be intended to play First person shooters most of the time.. is it worth to dampen the performance of the card by notching up AA levels when there is very little time to roam around and witness the Aura(I mean to say as a metaphor).

It's all about running AA while keeping performance respectable; I don?t like a slideshow so I don?t expect anyone else to either.

I try to attain a minimum of 4xAA and I'll usually drop the resolution and/or game details to get it. Playing games without AA is nasty, regardless of the resolution. The whole image sparkles/crawls/shimmers like a Christmas tree.

AA makes a huge difference in actual gameplay during movement as the pixels have a greater tendency to sit still and in the right place, making the game look closer to an offline CG render.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

BFG: 1024x768 : 1400x900 : 1280x1024 : 1680x1050 : 1600x1200 : 1920x1080 : 1920x1200 : 2560x1600

He didn't say 1920x1200, he said 1920x1080.

Even so, it is still up there.

That and I'm not sure why you have such a huge gap between your top two resolutions. Where are 1760x1320, 1856x1392, 1920x1440 and 2048x1536, all of which have more pixels than 1920x1200? Put those in there and suddenly the LCD 19xx resolutions start moving towards the middle.

And then there is 800x600 : 1152x864 : 1280x720 : 1280x768 : 1280x800 : 1280x960 : 1360x768. All rarely used. Especially with LCD's who's native resultions prevent the use of such resultions without degradation in IQ.

Bolded above ^: Who plays at those resolutions? Oddball is what they are. And all require the 30" monitor.

Since you are permanently set on single GPU solutions, (until multi GPU is perfected) would you be able to play at the highest end? With AA no less?

How is this question relevant to the original question?

Your use of the term, "middling" of course. What else would the relevance be?

Before you discount the lowest resolutions I have listed, you must know that there are gamers who do play in that realm. Those with budget/value cards, and even some mainstream cards depending on the game. And they may or may not be able to use AA.

Again the original question was:

I was wondering, whats the point in having AA beefed up to the maximum level possible when playing a game at lets say 1900 X 1080 resoultion.. does it really make any difference?

What me, you or anyone else can or can't run is irrelevant to that question.

Is it? "I have a HD3850, do you think I can run 1920x1080 with AA for all my games?"

Is it only irrelevant because you deem it so? I think not.

 

[BFG10K]

Keys, seriously, I don't know why you engage in these discussions. Your logic is sorely lacking yet you continue to "debate" issues for reasons unknown to me.

I mean come on:

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Even so, it is still up there.

Up where?

Let?s see your list again, shall we? But this time we?ll slot my resolutions in the right place, in terms of pixel count.

1024x768 : 1400x900 : 1280x1024 : 1680x1050 : 1600x1200 : 1920x1080 : 1920x1200 : 1760x1320 : 1856x1392 : 1920x1440 : 2048x1536 : 2560x1600

So out of 12 resolutions the 1920 LCD ones are at position 6 and 7, which basically puts them in the middle. In fact 1920 x 1080 is in the middle (position six) which is why I rightly described it so.

Who plays at those resolutions? Oddball is what they are. And all require the 30" monitor.

I see. So you expect us to accept 1024x768 because someone out there uses it, but we can't accept mine for the same reason?

And no, you don't need a 30"; my 19" CRT will do all of them except 2048x1536, and any quality 21"/22" will do said resolution.

Your use of the term, "middling" of course. What else would the relevance be?

In terms of pixel count it is middling. That's the definition of resolution: pixel count. A resolution isn't defined around what Joe B Average uses, otherwise using your logic I can claim Intel IGP are ?top end GPUs? because the majority of the market uses them.

Is an Intel GMA top-end because most of the market uses it? No? Then why do you categorize resolution definitions based on what the market uses?

Is it? "I have a HD3850, do you think I can run 1920x1080 with AA for all my games?

I still don't think you understand the original question. Please keep reading it until you do. When you do, you will realize your HD3850 comment is nonsensical.

 

[deerhunter716]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
I suppose it depends on what the maximum level is. On even fine dot pitch monitors (24" 19x12 and the like) I can easily see jaggies, so I would argue that some AA would be ideal. With that said, I'd never be able to tell you the difference between 4xAA and anything higher unless you gave me a magnifying glass and a few days. Of course this is only practical if performance isn't chugging in the first place.

I echo what Jay said and agree 100%. If you are actually gaming and playing then you will never notice the difference at all. Now if you are playing CoD4 and actually stop running around and try to focus is to see the difference you will be dead, lol you cannot tell the difference while gaming; while benchmarking sure POSSIBLY, hehe

 

[Keysplayr]

n/m. Sorry for the OT guys.

 

[jaykishankrk]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: jaykishankrk

to your notice, one of the links to screenies is broken by the way.. Supersampling one to be exact..

Yes, unfortunately the hosting of those particular images is out of my control.

But I am planning on revisting AA on more modern cards and I have a proper place to host my articles (see my sig below).

Considering that the majority of gamers over here and elsewhere would be intended to play First person shooters most of the time.. is it worth to dampen the performance of the card by notching up AA levels when there is very little time to roam around and witness the Aura(I mean to say as a metaphor).

It's all about running AA while keeping performance respectable; I don?t like a slideshow so I don?t expect anyone else to either.

Considering, one is running the game at 1920 X 1200 and 4AA, irrespective of the games he play, will there be substantial amount of performance maintained through out the game play without experiencing much of glitch in frame movement? I don't think one can experience smooth play at the time when there is too much action isnt it? and considering that one engages himself in lot of action other than meagerly running around to admire the environment around him, and this is what FPS games are made for isnt it..?

My question to be very specific is to who is there in the world of FPS GAMES or any genre for that matter, who will be intrigued to check the things around rather than moving on with the excitement of what to expect in the immediate things to come?


I try to attain a minimum of 4xAA and I'll usually drop the resolution and/or game details to get it. Playing games without AA is nasty, regardless of the resolution. The whole image sparkles/crawls/shimmers like a Christmas tree.

I can assume a situation where this point holds its value, There can be situations where the character is aiming at a distant enemy camouflaged to the environment he is in, it can be tricky to knock him down if only 10% of his face is visible behind certain particle which is jagged to an insane extent other than this i hardly see AA playing any noticeable part in the game play..


AA makes a huge difference in actual gameplay during movement as the pixels have a greater tendency to sit still and in the right place, making the game look closer to an offline CG render.

Can u please elaborate on that?

cheers,
Jay

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Keys, seriously, I don't know why you engage in these discussions. Your logic is sorely lacking yet you continue to "debate" issues for reasons unknown to me.

I mean come on:

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Even so, it is still up there.

Up where?

Let?s see your list again, shall we? But this time we?ll slot my resolutions in the right place, in terms of pixel count.

1024x768 : 1400x900 : 1280x1024 : 1680x1050 : 1600x1200 : 1920x1080 : 1920x1200 : 1760x1320 : 1856x1392 : 1920x1440 : 2048x1536 : 2560x1600

So out of 12 resolutions the 1920 LCD ones are at position 6 and 7, which basically puts them in the middle. In fact 1920 x 1080 is in the middle (position six) which is why I rightly described it so.

Who plays at those resolutions? Oddball is what they are. And all require the 30" monitor.

I see. So you expect us to accept 1024x768 because someone out there uses it, but we can't accept mine for the same reason?

And no, you don't need a 30"; my 19" CRT will do all of them except 2048x1536, and any quality 21"/22" will do said resolution.

For all practical purposes, 19x12 is the second highest resolution. High res CRTs are rare and very, very, very few people use them anymore.

As far as the OP goes, love 25X16, and would take the sharpness of 25X16 w/o AA over low res with AA anytime. It does sometimes require a multicard solution to game at 25X16, but the visual payoff is well worth it.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Higher resolutions are always better than using a lower resolutions with AA. It's just not worth the loss in detail. Now if you can do both, then all the power to you.

 

[nyker96]

hi rez > AA.

 

[Sunrise089]

@Rollo, etc above:

1920x1080/1920x1200 may be the 2nd highest resolution, but there are really only like 4 common desktop resolutions anyways. Essentially there are people on 1280x1024 19" LCDs, people on 1680x1050 widescreens, 1920x1200 widescreens (and 1020x1080 TV output folks), and the 30" crowd. I would say the VAST majority of the signle-GPU current-gen purchasers have either a 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 display. Considering the enormous jump to the 30" resolutions (and the fact it often requires dual-GPUs) I think it's fair to say 1920x1200 is a medium resolution.

 

[SSChevy2001]

1920x1080 is the highest 16/9 ratio monitor you can get, unless you want to buy a $50,000 quad HDTV which would make 2560x1600 look like a middle resolution monitor.

http://www.gadgetell.com/tech/...uad-hdtv-gets-a-price/

 

[Phynaz]

I can't stand pixel crawl, so I would turn down the resolution one notch in order to enable AA.

 

[AzN]

Just because BFG runs 19 CRT at 1920x1440 doesn't mean 1920x1080 is middle resolution. This is pretty high resolution. 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 is minimal difference at best.

 

[dguy6789]

CRTs that run at 1920x1440 and 2048x1536 are too rare to even be considered at all. 16:10 is the only aspect ratio that matters anymore.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
higher res with no AA is superior to lower res with some AA.

this is subjective because higher res with noAA usually performs slower than lower res with 2xAA. The image quality is crappier at the lower res.

depends if you want IQ or performance.

 

[ArchAngel777]

My opinions

1) 1920x1080 is not a midling resolution, at least not in the way 99% of techs would come to understand it. The use of the word 'midling' could be accurate if one means that it has half of the pixel count of the highest end resolution such as what BFG is meaning for the term. But the word doesn't convey accurately to the audience if you use in that manner.
Honestly, I think BFG uses the term on purpose to create discussion.

2) I actually prefer 1280x800 @ 4x AA over 1680x1050. I know a lose a bit of detail, but I get a softer, cleaner looking image in my opinion. I can't stand aliasing at all. It really turns me off to gaming. Partly because once you have tasted better, you can't go back. Once getting use to AA, you just can't not have it any longer. I know I am the odd man out on this one... Most people would say I am crazy, but after owning the last 5 monitors here in the last year and have testing great and small sizes, I would say that is my opinion on the matter.