• 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.

Anisotropic filtering in Oblivion

mazeroth

Golden Member
I'm running an Athlon64 3500+ @2500mhz and an X1800XL 512mb at 650/650. I've always played Oblivion at 1600x1200 with High Quality 8xAF and 0xAA, with everything maxed and no grass and I get very playable framerates. I decided to do a few tests tonight and lower my AF down to 2x and see if I could notice the visual quality or framerate difference. I made four saved games, with all being outside in different parts of the world. Here's what I observed:

8xAF 2xAF
SG1 - 34fps 38fps [+12%] (Outside, up high, looking over a waterfall)
SG2 - 23fps 29fps [+26%] (Outside, by a pond, facing an imp with lots of folliage visible)
SG3 - 37fps 37fps [+0%] (In one of the fire boards, outside, looking at a tower)
SG4 - 20fps 22fps [+10%] (At a statue with 3 NPCs)

Overall, a 12% increase. If you neglect the 0% increase one, which we really don't need a boost in framerate as 37fps is fine, then we gain an average of 16% speed, which is pretty significant and very noticable in areas where a lot of filtering is taking place.

I took screenshots at 1600x1200 and loaded them in Photoshop and did A/B comparisons and they're actually quite similar, granted, the 8xAF does look better. However, using 2xAF looks plenty good in my book, and that will be the setting I'll be using from now on. I did some quick 4xAF framerate tests and they proved to be around 10% faster on the three slower framerate scenes, compared to the 16% speed increase we see from going from 8xAF to 2xAF.

Just thought I'd post my observations and try to help some people out that could use a 10-15% speed boost and not sacrifice much IQ.


 
Nice test, but 2x doesn't cut it for me in Oblivion. 🙂 Ever since I did AF comparisons in it, I can't go back to any lower than 8 or 16x. I notice the ground being very blurry and seemingly smoothing out as you get closer to it, and the water looks odd from far away.
 
Thank you for sharing this information!

Let me get this straight...anisotropic filtering is how clear you see in the distance, correct?
 
Originally posted by: mazeroth
Originally posted by: BFG10K
16xAF has been my minimum for about four years now.

Ummm...what computer and what game were you playing 3-4 years ago that you could do 16xAF?

Did Knights of the Old Republic have 16xAF? I don't recall.
 
Ummm...what computer and what game were you playing 3-4 years ago that you could do 16xAF?
I was using a 9700 Pro and I was playing games as old as GLQuake to the latest 2002 titles.
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Ummm...what computer and what game were you playing 3-4 years ago that you could do 16xAF?
I was using a 9700 Pro and I was playing games as old as GLQuake to the latest 2002 titles.

Nothing like GLQuake with 16xAF. Looks leaps and bounds better than 4xAF!
 
16x AF is the standard for 4 years? 😱 To think i always play with AF and AA off...AA makes things too blurry for my tastes (not to mention preformance hit on a ti4200!!!) and AF makes some difference...but when i play i'm more engaged about what is going on then to pause and look around

and yes when i play CS i can see the mip mapping occur at like 3 feet, 6 feet, and 9 feet in front of my character 😉

i'm thinking about getting a 7600GT and even then i don't think i'd turn on all that fancy stuff (especially not AA...jaggies have never bothered me)

...part of it is i'm scared that i WILL get used to it and then I NEED to keep updating graphics cards and be caught in the habit of buying a new one every year because I can't stand the shimmering, or jaggies (though these honestly don't bother me and i would play my dreamcast on a monitor because things were so much clearer despite being jaggy as heeeel), or whatever else you guys deem inferior 😉
 
Originally posted by: magomago
16x AF is the standard for 4 years? 😱 To think i always play with AF and AA off...AA makes things too blurry for my tastes (not to mention preformance hit on a ti4200!!!) and AF makes some difference...but when i play i'm more engaged about what is going on then to pause and look around

and yes when i play CS i can see the mip mapping occur at like 3 feet, 6 feet, and 9 feet in front of my character 😉

i'm thinking about getting a 7600GT and even then i don't think i'd turn on all that fancy stuff (especially not AA...jaggies have never bothered me)

...part of it is i'm scared that i WILL get used to it and then I NEED to keep updating graphics cards and be caught in the habit of buying a new one every year because I can't stand the shimmering, or jaggies (though these honestly don't bother me and i would play my dreamcast on a monitor because things were so much clearer despite being jaggy as heeeel), or whatever else you guys deem inferior 😉


hey a nice 7600gt will do a lot for you. you don't have to upgrade every year to play the new games. just lower the settings of the newer games.

ps. i love AA and AF. i can't stand living without them. infact i play oblivion with 4xAA and 16xAF, even though its not always very playable cuz i insist on playing at 1280x1028.
 
Originally posted by: magomago

...part of it is i'm scared that i WILL get used to it and then I NEED to keep updating graphics cards and be caught in the habit of buying a new one every year because I can't stand the shimmering, or jaggies

that's what happenend to me. i was just fine playing at 800*600 with no AA or AF on my geforce4... then i got my 6800 and started to use AA and AF. now it really bugs me if the resolution is any lower than 1280*1024 and i dont have AA or AF on :|


 
Back
Top