• 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.

FSAA/AA @1600x1200?

T

Touareg

Junior Member
A quick question.... (this is not to start a war ie. ATI vs nVidia)

Tuition payments finally done and now its time to finally build the system I want. I'm putting together an FX51 system and using an LG-Phillips LCD monitor (16ms refresh - 1600x1200 native resolution). I have read ALL of the reviews.... 9800XT vs. 5950 (with the new drivers).

It appears:
1. ATI has better hardware - usually wins when FSAA and AA are enabled.
2. nVidia usually has better FPS when FSAA/AA are disabled.
3. ATI's FSAA/AA appears "better" than nvidia's (although their new drives help alot).
4. nVidia's texturing may be "better".
5.There is some controversy as to if ATI has fudged their drivers/hardware to speed up FSAA/AA at the expense of image quality at higher texture resolutions with some of the newer games.

(1 and 2 appear to be pretty much "fact" while 3 -> 5 are subject to "opinion")

Now the question:
I understand that the higher the resolution the less that FSAA/AA becomes a factor - less noticable. At 1600x1200 (which will be my native resolution) I will most likely be running games with FSAA/AA OFF. Will I notice any degradation of image quality? If not - would I be better off going with nvidia for their faster FPS especially if I will be attempting to run games at a higher resolution?

Thanks for any info....
 
I'd go 9800XT because is very tight with 5950U w/o IQ settings, but it blows the Nvidia in DX9 performance. Anyway I believe you'll have to play DX9 in lower res than 1600x1200 for playable framerates. With 9800XT you can turn "16xAF performance" with very little performance hit and great IQ.

9800XT IMO.
 
first off, by "FSAA and AA" i assume you mean aa and af, as most aa is not "fs" - full sceen and we use af - anisotropic filtering to take care of texture alising as well as blend mip-map transitions and sharpen the textures away from your view. as for a higher res negating the need for aa or af, for aa it is true to some extent as everything is made of smaller pixels so lines are not as jagged although at some angles this makes things even worse, and high res does nothing to blend mip-map transitions and sharpen the textures away from your view which is why we have af.

second, i wouldn't get a lcd for gameing, especialy one with a naitive resolution of 1600x1200, sense many games will not run with decent framerate at that resolution no matter what video card you have and anything will look like crap when not runing on the naitive res. a nice flat tube is much better suited for gameing.
 
Thanks....

Yes, I meant "aa" and "af". It seems that if these remain important regardless of the resolution, than ATI is the way to go.

Was it ATI's handling of "af" that was in question - dropping from 3d to 2d to handle some of the transitions/speed? How important is this.... other that for static screen shots would it even be noticeable in actual game play?

As to the LCD... space considerations, although if it doesn't work out I can use it elsewhere (business) and go with a CRT.

Thanks again for the info and help.
 
At 1600x1200 you're not going to be happy with 4XAA and 8XAF performance in many games... Quake 3 being one of the few exceptions... and forget about Half Life 2 at 1600x1200 with 4XAA and 8XAF.
 
Personaly I would probably use 2xAA and 8xAF at 1600x1200, AF does not become any less necessary at high resolutions like AA.
 
Will the newer LCD's allow games to play in lower resolutions without:

1. Windowing the image
2. Just looking bad

I haven't received mine yet to play with. Would one with a lower native resolution have been better (I know, a CRT would have been better)?
 
With a native resolution of 1600x1200 I wouldn't reccomend either the 9800XT or the 5950, I'd actually say go with one of the less expensive solutions for a temporary part. The only resolutions you are going to want to run games at are 1600x1200 or 800x600. With Half-Life2 and DooM3 around the corner you are going to have problems running 1600x1200 with AA and AF with either part in one of those two games, and even in some current titles 16x12 w/AA+AF is going to be too slow for you to enjoy it properly(Halo, KoTOR as a couple examples).

Q1 should see the launch of both the NV40 and R420 which should both be far better solutions then what is available now. With both of them scheduled to hit inside of a few months buying a card for half the price of the 5950 or 9800XT(a 9700Pro or 5900SE/NU as an example) and saving the rest for a few months and picking up one of the next gen parts you should be much better off for games that you will want to play on your new rig(which should haul @ss). I know you can always play the 'wait a few months' game, but in all honesty neither the 9800XT nor the 5950 is much faster then the 9700Pro which came out well over a year ago, the NV40 and R420 should both be considerably faster then any of the current parts.
 
I understand that the higher the resolution the less that FSAA/AA becomes a factor - less noticable. At 1600x1200 (which will be my native resolution)
Click to expand...
AA becomes less of a factor but AF becomes even more necessary to match the inherent sharpness that high resolutions provide.
 
Q1 should see the launch of both the NV40 and R420 which should both be far better solutions then what is available now. With both of them scheduled to hit inside of a few months buying a card for half the price of the 5950 or 9800XT(a 9700Pro or 5900SE/NU as an example)...
Click to expand...

Actually I like that idea! I have to buy a card now, however my "ultimate" system may have to wait until spring when the new cards are available. In the meantime the 9700Pro or 5900SE would do pretty much the same as the current top model cards particularly when it comes to their ability (or lack of) to perform at 1600x1200.

Thanks again!
 
I don't have any advice to offer. However if this helps nVidia does better at DX8 games while ATI does better with DX9 games, shaders, etc.
 
Wouldn't you just rather wait to buy your ultimate system in spring then, think about it - all prices would be much lower and if you buy a system now, you might want something else later. I would say wait for it completely. I bought a system except for a video card and now, by the time I get to buy the video card, the system went to waste for those months and will be almost worthless when the video card arrives. If you're not gonna use the full system power until spring then dont buy the full system. And by the way the FX51 seems like too much money for its performance, it might be cheaper, and/or better CPUs are gonna be out by that time.
 
I would wait till the Spring for your new game machine. The new cards are probably 2-3 months off and should be much better for games like HL2 and Doom3 compared to current hardware. You will be paying the same price so you might as well get faster equipment.

I found this comparison rather interesting for AF quality. Notice how the more sides you add the worse the ATI filtering gets.

AF comparison

Gen
 
Originally posted by: Touareg
5.There is some controversy as to if ATI has fudged their drivers/hardware to speed up FSAA/AA at the expense of image quality at higher texture resolutions with some of the newer games.
Click to expand...
That`d be nVidia. Not ATI.
nVidias older drivers started to do that, reduced IQ for speed. Dunno bout the latest though.

ATIs apartently cant do AF with textures at certain angles, but despite what some ppl here will have you belive, isnt noticeable.
And the person who posted that link; As above, only in testing programs, and if you spend ages looking at still screens, will it be noticeable in games.

To be honest, and only true fanboys would argue, ATI cards are best in this generation of cards. At all levels.
Originally posted by: high
How much better will the rv420 be over 9800's??
Click to expand...
No-one knows. No-one can. Its WAY to early to tell.



 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I found this comparison rather interesting for AF quality. Notice how the more sides you add the worse the ATI filtering gets.
Gen
Click to expand...

I dont need a program to tell me how my card filters, I have games for that, and none of my games look like that
 
Originally posted by: reever
Originally posted by: Genx87
I found this comparison rather interesting for AF quality. Notice how the more sides you add the worse the ATI filtering gets.
Gen
Click to expand...

I dont need a program to tell me how my card filters, I have games for that, and none of my games look like that
Click to expand...
Rock On!!!
LOL. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top