High Res Vs. AA/AF

[gistech1978]

do you lower your resolution to use AA/AF and still get decent fps
or do you prefer a high resolution without AA/AF?

just wanting to hear some opinions on this.

 

[Matthias99]

I'd rather use 1280x1024/960 with AA than 1600x1200 without. I don't notice AF as much, so I suppose if you made me choose I'd take a higher resolution (or, at least, higher-resolution textures) over AF.

 

[JBT]

I could stand dropping AA but not AF I love AF. Banding annoys me much more than jaggies and with a high res there really are no jaggies anyways

 

[Marsumane]

Decently high res w/ some AF w/ decent frames. AA if those are both really high only.

 

[Acanthus]

High res + AF > Low res + AA + AF

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
High res + AF > Low res + AA + AF

i might have to try that out...
i typically run my games at 1280x1024 and with AA at 2x i cannot even tell a difference
4x seems to impact performance a bit too much and 8x forget about it.
whats a good AF setting say at 1280x1024?

 

[Insomniak]

I prefer higher res to AA. AF I barely notice, and really could care less about.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: gistech1978
whats a good AF setting say at 1280x1024?

the highest one that doesn't tank your framerate.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I like 1280X1024 (or 1280X960 on a CRT) with 8X AF (quality setting, or if performance suffers, speed).

No AA for me - I'd rather just run at a higher res.

 

[Acanthus]

I play at 1600x1200 noAA 4xAF

Unless its a very old game, then i crank it.

 

[VIAN]

Resolution of 1280x1024. No AA. You can never get rid of jaggies. Even at 1600x1200 and 6xAA, I could still spot jaggies. The only remedy is High Res. It's a nice workaround however.

AF isn't a workaround, but a way of doing things properly such as trilinear is better than bilinear because trilinear does the same thing without artifacts. AF cleans up some artifacts.

But sometimes performance is really low and I'm able to live without it. I've lived since 2000 without AA and AF until I got a 5900. Then everything suddenly changed and I was able to use it, but still it hurts performance and it makes cards last less as long. I don't want variable settings. It's weird with me because it's either this or not and no in between so, it makes things a bit complicated.

Plus I like high fps. I don't want to play at 30fps with high AA and AF. I don't require those. They are nice to have however. I do require Trilinear to be something for a card to do with very little performance hit.

 

[Concillian]

In BFV, 1280x960 (noAA/AF) and 1024x768 4xAA 8xAF offer about the same performance as far as framerates go (min FPS in the 40-45 range). I prefer the 1024x768 4x/8x to the 1280x960 with none.

I really like AA and AF. Both are big image enhancers to me. The banding sucks, and without AA, seems like foreground and background features don't blend nearly as well.

 

[DarkKnight]

i like playing at 1280X1024 with 4xAF. Don't like AA that much, slows down things alot and I think it makes the textures less sharp. It's hard for me not to play with AF cause games look blurry without it

 

[Gamingphreek]

Lol i just max out every setting i find. Then if i drop a bit too low in the framerate department ill lower resolution to at minimum 10x7. Then lower AA and AF.

-Kevin

 

[biostud]

First I set resolution to 1280x1024/960, then I set AF to 8 and then AA as high as possible, with stuttering.

So FarCry runs 1280x1024 8xAF no FSAA
UT2K4 runs 1280x1024 8xAF 2xFSAA

1600x1200 makes the things look strangely small on a 19" CRT

 

[MajorCatastrophe]

My 17 inch monitor won't do 85hz above 1024x768 and I won't tolerate anything less, so AA/AF for me.

AF definitely makes a big difference. After playing Far Cry on a gf4 4200 with no AF, then a 9800pro with max AF everything looks so much clearer. Higher resolutions must reduce jaggies so reduce the need for AA but AF is a must.

 

[Mem]

I like to use 1280x1024 with 16xAF peformance setting and no AA on my LCD.AA is something I can live without.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: MajorCatastrophe
My 17 inch monitor won't do 85hz above 1024x768 and I won't tolerate anything less, so AA/AF for me.

AF definitely makes a big difference. After playing Far Cry on a gf4 4200 with no AF, then a 9800pro with max AF everything looks so much clearer. Higher resolutions must reduce jaggies so reduce the need for AA but AF is a must.

My monitor is the same way. It wont do 85hz above 10x7, and it's max res is only 12x10. On older games, I'll crank the AA and AF to max, and on newer games where I need to control my framerate, I'll just use 2xAA. I can't spot a difference with AF on in new games, but on something like halflife, it's very noticeable to me.

 

[imported_Nail]

1280 or 1600, 4xAF, I never use AA

 

[BFG10K]

I always use 16x performance AF and then I crank the resolution as high as possible to my monitor's effective limit of 1856x1392. If I still have power to burn I'll enable AA.

 

[MDE]

1024x768, whatever AA I can muster, 8x AF

 

[EvanAdams]

I have never understood these things AF and AA.

I made the dumb purchace of an lcd with 16x12 lcd. It has kept me from playing games on my pc because when I see reviews of vid cards they allways use 16x12 with AA and AF. Are you telling me they are not required at higher resolutions? What are they?

 

[caz67]

High Res with 4x AA and 8x AF