• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Geforce GTX 670 for 2560 x 1440 gaming

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Why do you continue to mix up HD 7970 with the Ghz edition? They're different sku's.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Imho,

Don't disagree really in your premise over-all. At 1600p and multi-monitor resolutions -- AMD is starting to show separation from a combination of driver and node maturity. With x8 AA - the difference is starting to get significant.

If nVidia's efficiency and feature set differentiation is not important -- AMD certainly offers compelling choice based on price drops. It depends on what is important to each individual.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,867
286
126
AA off looks terrible no matter how high your resolution is. What matters is pixel density, and a 27" 1440p panel doesn't have enough to remove aliasing.
I have gamed at 2560x1600 and didnt feel I had to have aa. Stop being a snob really. No single gpu will handle these resolutions with aa on like you think is absolutely necessary.

Are you one of the people who said crysis 1 looked terrible without aa but continued to complain that it ran at 10fps now?

Youll have to turn off aa to even play some games (or use fxaa) at 1440p. Try running 4x msaa on metro 2033 maxed all out at that rez on a single card.
 
Last edited:

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
At 2056x1440 it isnt that bad to turn aa off.
At 2560x1600 you definitely still notice no AA and it is still annoying. That said, AA may be difficult in some games with a single card due to the performance hit, but you would still notice "jaggies". I suppose you could use FXAA in that situation since the performance hit for FXAA is pretty minor...
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Usually never argue with subjective views because subjective tastes and tolerances differ. I know what my eyes see and that is all I can share. Anti-aliasing is very important to me.
 

KingFatty

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2010
3,034
1
81
I know for the "retina display" concept, you can use math to show that a given pixel density at a given viewing distance causes the eye to physically be unable to distinguish individual pixels.

Is there a similar math-based calculation for pixel density/viewing distance but for Anti-aliasing? I think jaggies show up way more prominently than the pixel density, so even with a "retina display" where you are at a distance to not be able to perceive individual pixels, you'd still be able to perceive jaggies from aliasing and anti-aliasing would still be needed.

So maybe like how "retina display" concept comes into play, maybe the anti-aliasing becomes indistinguishable at a certain multiple of the distance for retina display? Like, just guessing here, maybe at 4x the retina distance you won't need anti-aliasing? I guess that it's 4x distance because people seem to be satisfied with 4x AA, but wondering if anyone has any ideas on this or if there are already studies describing this etc. like it has already been explored for retina display concept where you know which distance and pixel density to use?
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,354
1,212
126
I don't see how this thread is any different than if a person asked if FX8120/8150 is good enough for gaming. Yes, it is, but is it as good as the alternative?
I absolutely agree with that. There is no harm in providing more information to the OP. If he/she SPECIFICALLY said "I will not buy an AMD card", and then RS still was recommending an AMD I can see why people would get angry.

In this case, OP never said they would not consider an AMD card and RS provided an alternative, no harm in that IMO.
 

JAG87

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
3,921
3
76
I have gamed at 2560x1600 and didnt feel I had to have aa. Stop being a snob really. No single gpu will handle these resolutions with aa on like you think is absolutely necessary.

Are you one of the people who said crysis 1 looked terrible without aa but continued to complain that it ran at 10fps now?

Youll have to turn off aa to even play some games (or use fxaa) at 1440p. Try running 4x msaa on metro 2033 maxed all out at that rez on a single card.

You're so ridiculous. How am I a snob? I'm not saying that I refuse to play the game unless I can enable AA. That would be snobby.

I'll play regardless, and if I absolutely love the game so much that I must have my cake and eat it too, I'll buy more GPUs.

Do I love Metro 2033 that much (a SP game with zero replay value, are you kidding?) that I absolutely must have 4xAA and shell out another $400? Not really, FXAA will do just fine.

The point is that without any kind of AA I can clearly see jaggies all over the place, and I'll always feel the need for AA, but not necessarily enable it.

If you can't, well that's you eye doctor's fault.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
8
76
I still think its so random that oldtime users from this enthusiast forum suggesting that AA is not important. No matter your resolution, aliasing is annoying not because your edges aren't crystal sharp in a blown up screenshot.. they are annoying because in motion, the aliasing shimmer and really distract the eye in focussing on the image.

I mean back when BF3 was out, the same crowd repeatedly piss on the radeons for their poor MSAA performance, when the gtx580 reign supreme getting "unplayable" and worse than gtx670 performance, but still, 4x MSAA is a MUST!!

ps. AA is definitely the most important feature for PC gaming to me. Id sooner lower shadow quality or particle effects than game with no form of AA. Cannot stand to watch the screen for long with aliasing everywhere. Too distracting, can't immerse.
 
Last edited:

Destiny

Platinum Member
Jul 6, 2010
2,309
1
0
I'm jelly because my threads with requests for advice/recommendations never get this much slapping around...o_O
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,867
286
126
I'd rather take playable performance over AA. AA isn't 100% absolutely necessary. If you can have both fine, with a single card at 2560x1440/1600 you can't. That was my point. I'm saying you can show 8xaa is better with one card over another but when both are around 35fps I'll take neither and remove AA entirely.
 

MTDEW

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 1999
4,284
37
91
AA is the reason I still use my 1920x1200 monitor for gaming and my new Catleap 2560x1440 for just surfing.
My x-fired 2gb 6950's just struggled way too much at 2560x1440 with AA enabled.
I tried running at 2560x1440 with no AA ,but those jaggies are still very noticable.
So I guess i'm another one of those where AA is more important, i'd rather play at the lower resolution with AA on.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,082
1,224
126
I don't intend for it to be snobbish, but I couldn't play without AA in any game. As Silverforce mentioned, when a game is in motion without AA you see crawling on edges and it really detracts from the experience, for me.

Anti-aliasing is a must for me, real anti-aliasing. MSAA, CSAA, SGSSAA whatever, so long as it's not any of that post-AA blurfest stuff. Maybe it's just me, but I'm just not getting the whole higher resolution no need for AA business. I see aliasing at 1080P, 1200P, 1600P, makes no difference to my eyes as the jaggies are always there without AA.
 
Last edited:

KingFatty

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2010
3,034
1
81
I see aliasing at 1080P, 1200P, 1600P, makes no difference to my eyes as the jaggies are always there without AA.
But if you stood further back, would there be a point where your eyes just couldn't tell? Then take the flip-side instead of moving away from the monitor, you increase the pixel depth. Would you be able to tell on a 4K display at the same screen size and distance as before without standing further back? There has to be an objective math-based way to calculate when the jaggies are no longer resolvable by a human eye, I think? I know subjectively some people are more sensitive, but I also think there is a physiologically limit to the human eyeball.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
8
76
>1600p on a 10 inch screen is about where the human eye cannot tell. Here we're talking about 27 - 30 inch screen users on 1440p and 1600p, its well below the saturation point and aliasing is still an eyesore.
 

The_Golden_Man

Senior member
Apr 7, 2012
816
0
0
I just tried Crysis 1 without Anti Aliasing (using 26" LCD 1920x1200) and it looked like crap with no AA. I can imagine this being an issue for me, even with a 2560x1400/1600 display.

FXAA is a terrible solution, as it blurs everything down.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
I'd rather take playable performance over AA. AA isn't 100% absolutely necessary. If you can have both fine, with a single card at 2560x1440/1600 you can't. That was my point. I'm saying you can show 8xaa is better with one card over another but when both are around 35fps I'll take neither and remove AA entirely.
That's why flexibility is a gamer's best friend and actually my signature at Rage3d. You may be fine with no AA; another with FXAA or MLAA; another with x2 AA ; some need super-sampled; some need x4 AA or X8 AA. Which way is correct? As long as there is flexibility for gamers -- pretty happy over-all. That "right" balance may differ from each individual based on subjective tastes, tolerances, platform and display.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,867
286
126
A lot of these new games don't even support AA or only allow fxaa.

Or at the least have broken MSAA modes that tank performance and really don't work (Max Payne 3).
 

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,388
586
126
AA off looks terrible no matter how high your resolution is. What matters is pixel density, and a 27" 1440p panel doesn't have enough to remove aliasing.
I disagree.

I think as resolution goes up the need for AA is less.

This isn't Hardocp!

I'm staring to wonder if some of you play these games or just sit there and look at still images.

I play BF3 with no AA and just FXAA at 1920x1200 and don't really have time to be sitting still looking for aliasing or i'm dead.

Granted depends on the art style and textures some games do really need it but in general the higher the res I find less is needed.

I would drop AA in a heartbeat if it boosted my minimum frames per second 20%.
 

f1sherman

Platinum Member
Apr 5, 2011
2,243
0
0
People claim they are graphic whores and conversely they can't live without TRUE AA, FXAA is a blurry mess etc...

yet they fail to notice/acknowledge what an awful job MSAA does on majority of deferred engines - from white outline artifacts, and often having to internally use supersampling with crippling performance effect to nothing being done on specular and transparency aliasing.

FXAA is far from perfect, but it's also a gift from gods!
It's a high-performance, lowish quality solution with no compatibility issues whatsoever,
which can sometimes even beat MSAA.

How high-end does that make MSAA??

I am not calling out anyone in particular.
But I am disgusted with ungratefulness of average blindos who have to flip through STILL images to proclaim

"AHA FOUND YA - YOU AWFUL BLURRY TEXTURE!
SEE NOW WHY MY ROYAL HIGHNESS CANT USE THIS FXAA GUAARBAGE?"

Pixel crawling is my biggest gripe with FXAA, TXAA can't come soon enough.
 
Last edited:

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
IQ is truly subjective based on tastes and tolerances. Personally would trade-off a bit of clarity for a clean screen while moving. My beef has been, really since the introduction of the shader and specular to titles is innovation was needed to combat the aliasing of the modern abilities.

Doom3 and FarCry were staples with benchmarking years ago -- always numbers but what these titles offered were screaming aliasing from specular to alphas.. Would see investigations zoomed in to compare image quality but in motion, where most aliasing was seen was rare in discussions.

Transparency AA was a god send to have.

FXAA and MLAA are a god send based on compatibility, low hit, enhances the entire screen.

Super-sampled is a god send if one has the performance for the gaming title.

Multi-sampling is a god send.

Tools offered to the gamer to try to find the right balance for their subjective tastes, tolerances, application, platform and display. If developers can have tools; why not gamers?

What will be the quality of TXAA? How well does it help with temporal aliasing? What kind of quality and performance? Secret World seems to be a nice title to see how effective TXAA may be but can't enable it yet.
 

LxMxFxD4

Senior member
Oct 6, 2007
359
0
0
Despite what everyone says in this thread

My single 7970 with 12.6 catalyst drivers at 2560x1440 gets about 55fps on ultra in BF3 on 64 man servers. This is overclocked to only 1100/1500. I'm not sure what the min frame rates are, probably something around 35 but I average 55.

Keep in mind that gulf of oman for example, uses a TON of vram (beyond 2GB) so the 7970 simply crushes the competition simply because of the ram issue.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY