Is it really worth using FSAA and AF at all with the performence hit it can have ? I use to know nothing about these settings but ever sense finding out about them, dawn it, I want to be able to turn them on just because I can. I don't think I notice a difference but what do I look for or should I try staying away from FSAA and AF or else I may need to spend more money and upgrade my video card more often if I always want FSAA and AF on ? Sometimes I wish I still didn't even know about FSAA and AF.
FSAA and AF
- Thread starter pcslookout
- Start date
AF is worth it, you can see farther into the distance (less blur). Don't know if I notice jaggies in FPS much, tho.
Zenoth
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2005
- 5,202
- 216
- 106
Usually, starting from G80 and R600, Anisotropic-Filtering isn't much of a strain even at 16x, but there are a few games out there that could probably slow down your game if you applied 16x A-F, compared to 8x for example. Such games like Oblivion (especially noticeable with high-resolution textures modifications like Qarl's Textures Pack III) for example. But generally speaking it is safe to assume that if you own a GeForce 8xxx card, especially one from the 88xx series, or a Radeon X2xxx card (mostly the X29xx series) then A-F should almost be a free setting to use without wondering if the slow downs are coming from it. Chances are that if a game slows down considerably then it might simply come from overall on-screen elements like the actual number of polygons, or the strain on the shader processing power of the card (too many soldiers on-screen, too many cars, to many objects, generally speaking), and not necessarily coming from the A-F setting used (although it might play a role as well).
In my humble opinion, A-F is a much better IQ (Image Quality) affecting setting than A-A could ever do. That's because I cannot stand blurry textures, but I can stand jaggies, mostly because I cannot notice them while trying to save the world from aliens battling my way in a crazed war-thorned map, or while chasing that rebel war-plane in the sky, or while trying to be the first in that racing game with the backgrounds passing on the screen at infernal speeds. But in all those examples I will be picky enough to notice that the textures on my gun, or on my sword are blurry, or in a game like Oblivion, with tons of terrain and roads to walk and run on, I will always see how ugly the scene can be without any A-F at all.
Usually I create my own profiles for my games, some of them only have A-F, and only a few have some A-A with reduced A-F, but really, I have never used more than 4x A-A in any of my games even with my GTS. I know I could use 16x A-A if I wanted to, but I can barely notice any difference between 4x A-A or 8x A-A while playing. Of course if I stand still doing nothing in my game I might notice it, but really I don't play games to .... hmmm, not to play them and stand still. When nVidia or ATi announce some kind of super A-A setting like 24x or more and all those extravagant technologies that make those so called undesirable jaggies seem to go away a little more with passing GPU generations I keep laughing because I know I don't care about that for a second, I have no reasons to.
16xAF isn't going to reduce performance significantly on a modern GPU.
AA can really kill performance, especially on low-end and midrange hardware.
apoppin
Lifer
even STALKER ? oh yeah, you sacrifice other visuals, maybe?
--don't you game at a rather high resolution.?
AF means a "lot" more to me than AA .. but i always found 2xAA very useful ... and sure ... i'd run with 8xAA if i even thought it made a noticeable difference and i could "get away" with it
Even 2x AA is a huge improvement over no AA. Try it out and see what you think. Also, AF is almost free nowadays; I played KOTOR on a crappy Radeon 9600 and I could run it with 16x AF without noticing any slowdown. Once you get used to AF, blurry textures will disgust you. AA is less necessary since most gamers who care about it would probably be playing at at least 1280x960, but it can also make a big difference.
Warning: Using AA/AF for the first time is like using a larger monitor. You will feel amazed at first, but after a while you will become used to it and demand it in all your games. You will internally mock those who play without AA/AF and your eyes will notice every blurry texture and jagged edge that they come across. Eventually, you will shell out $150 to $500 for video cards and you will encounter those who will mock you for this, who will tell you that it's all about gameplay and that graphics don't matter...
...those guys can screw themselves.
Warning: Using AA/AF for the first time is like using a larger monitor. You will feel amazed at first, but after a while you will become used to it and demand it in all your games. You will internally mock those who play without AA/AF and your eyes will notice every blurry texture and jagged edge that they come across. Eventually, you will shell out $150 to $500 for video cards and you will encounter those who will mock you for this, who will tell you that it's all about gameplay and that graphics don't matter...
...those guys can screw themselves.
apoppin
Lifer
so we have a different set of priorities .... as evidenced by our noise tolerance - he-he, my GTs 640-OC is quiet but i have no problem with my 2900XT as it is not "loud".
no big deal ... i would much rather run with 2xAA plus maxed shadows, bloom and HDR then turn up my AA to 4x and lower anything else ... can you say your way is "better" ?
--for you, yes
How about 4xAA/16xAF + Maxed out visuals? That's what high-end cards are for, you never have to make a trade-off. :thumbsup:
Personally, I can't stand jaggies. One of the things I can't stand about playing GRAW, for example, is all the jaggies I see - and it just so happens that in a wide-open game world like GRAW's, jaggies are very obvious.
I enable 16xAF all the time so I don't have to worry about that, but when playing Oblivion on my 360, I can really see the blurry textures in the distance and how they get clearer as you get closer. It doesn't bother me as much as lack of AA, but I still like AF.
apoppin
Lifer
i'd like that - very much - but to get it in every game you need a no-compromise system ... a single GTS or 2900xt does not provide it and a GTX ultra, barely ... surely no single card will provide 4xAA/16xAF in games like Crysis
i also enable 16xAF all the time AND i also enable 4xAA - all of the time - CURRENTLY .. but then "my compromise" is to run at 14x9 .. my 'no compromise' would be to run at 16x10 ... and evidently - from my testing, so far - i can 'get away with it' with current games
I leave AF at 16x for everything. AF has a minimal performance hit on most cards from the last three years or so. It's less than 5% except in a few rare cases.
As for AA, I generally use only 2x or none at all in recent (late 2005 or newer) games. 4x and higher settings make a big difference to the image quality, but my X1900XTX isn't all that fast anymore and I would rather have the extra performance. I use 4x or 6x in most games older than that.
Newer games use motion blur and have better lighting, resulting in softer edges and reducing the effect and need for AA.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter