• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AF...worth the performance hit?

Avalon

Avalon

Diamond Member
I ran some time demos in FarCry, playing the game high detail @ 10x7 w/low AA
With 1 level of AF, my mean framerate was running around 53
With 4 levels of AF, it was about 39
To me, anything under 40 isn't very comfortable, and I can't even really notice the visual difference
what exactly is AF supposed to do?
 
It makes things clearer at you view it at an acute angle.

I don't like ATIs AF too much though. The adaptive angle is too high.
 
Far Cry doesn't seem to need much AF if any... when playing I can't tell the difference between 8X and 2X... but in Soldier of Fortune 2, or Flight Simulator 2004, I can definately tell the difference between 4X and 8X even.

I don't use any AF in Far Cry and I don't think my gaming experience suffers at all.
 
I always use AF 16X Performance with my 9600 Pro. I don't notice too much of a hit, and I prefer image quality over fps, except in first person shooters.
 
On Radeon cards the performance hit of AF is usually 10%-20% @ 16x. If you're getting more than that then make sure you have "performance AF" selected in the control panel and also make sure AA is disabled.

And yes, it's more than worth it because the gain in IQ is massive. Everything is much sharper and clearer. If you have a Radeon card just leave it on at 16x all the time.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Far Cry doesn't seem to need much AF if any... when playing I can't tell the difference between 8X and 2X... but in Soldier of Fortune 2, or Flight Simulator 2004, I can definately tell the difference between 4X and 8X even.

I don't use any AF in Far Cry and I don't think my gaming experience suffers at all.
Click to expand...

I think on the later missions, AF helps you distinguish enemies from the landscape better. Also makes the grass texture blend better because the flora has a limited draw distance.
 
Originally posted by: stardust
Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Far Cry doesn't seem to need much AF if any... when playing I can't tell the difference between 8X and 2X... but in Soldier of Fortune 2, or Flight Simulator 2004, I can definately tell the difference between 4X and 8X even.

I don't use any AF in Far Cry and I don't think my gaming experience suffers at all.
Click to expand...

I think on the later missions, AF helps you distinguish enemies from the landscape better. Also makes the grass texture blend better because the fauna has a limited draw distance.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the later missions... Dam is fuggin hard... I don't know what the hell to do... ya start out with 10 bullets which is only enough to kill one, MAYBE two enemies. Then there's 50 more rounds way off to the right. I learned that they can't swim, so I lured some into the water so they'd die... but not all of them will follow me, I can stand 10 feet from them and bounce rocks off their face and they don't go after me until I'm within reach, then they kill me, lol. What's the trick to that level?
 
Just keep swimming down the stream...eventually you'll come to a wrecked chopter...take it from there and enjoy 🙂

On Radeon cards the performance hit of AF is usually 10%-20% @ 16x. If you're getting more than that then make sure you have "performance AF" selected in the control panel and also make sure AA is disabled.
Click to expand...

Well, currently my panel has things set for application preference...the only thing I can set to performance is my general bar or the textures etc. (Omega Cats 4.3)
I also do not want to disable my AA...I notice a very significant difference between no AA and low AA in the game...but again, I really can't see any difference between low and high AF in Farcry...perhaps it is just the nature of the game...I'm definitely not seeing any massive improvement :\
I'll give it a closer look, but I think I'm now satisfied with my current settings getting 55fps average
thanks for all the answers
 
IMO, aa and af aren't worth it. I don't play games to admire the graphics, I'm usually too busy fragging to care. When I first get a new game, I like to crank everything up and explore it a bit and admire the engine but when I'm actually playing the game (and I mean multiplayer, is there anything else?) I couldn't care less if it looks like Far Cry or N64.
 
Here?s a couple of shots from Farcry that really show how much better 8AF can make things look. Load the shots up and click back and forth between them.

no AF

8AF

Big difference. Look at the beach, far left ground and water near the end of the dock. Even the dark rock temple textures look better.
 
Keep in mind that performance setting forces bilinaer filtering. quality selects trilinear on the first base textures, and if you want the full quality, select application in the driver and set it to triliniaer/AF in the game. You can force full trilinear with the rtool if the game does not support it in the options.

AF is a major quality feature since the first Radeon. It is sad they changed it to the adaptive kind that lowers quality, however, the rendering quality is still better then without it. I for one will not accept any blurred textures.
 
Originally posted by: Blastman
Here?s a couple of shots from Farcry that really show how much better 8AF can make things look. Load the shots up and click back and forth between them.

no AF

8AF

Big difference. Look at the beach, far left ground and water near the end of the dock. Even the dark rock temple textures look better.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a big enough difference. Yes it's definately noticeable while I'm sitting here staring at it flipping back and forth between the pictures. Will I noticed it while I'm running through the game watching for those little wild apes? Maybe a LITTLE. AA on the other hand is more noticeable... you see edge crawling and flickering on distant objects... I can't stand to play without at least 2XAA no matter what game. I only play at 1024x768 because at 1280x960 my refresh rate drops to 60 Hz and the eyestrain isn't worth the increased detail.

Of course all of that is my opinion, which is based on my eyes, my monitor, my video card, and the lighting in my room.

Oh, also... if you want to get some extra frames per second and don't mind looking at "last generation's" graphics... turn lighting down to low... that'll disable the PS 2.0 lighting effects. Metal objects won't have that shine to them anymore... but the performance will jump quite a bit. I'm able to run everything else at Very High detail (the the exception of shadows which I always set to low) with 4XAA and 8XAF and get the same performance as running with everything at Medium, with 2XAA and 0XAF, with the shiny metal =)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top