• 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."

No need for AA @ 4k ?

hahallur

Member
Apr 17, 2013
30
0
16
I was just thinking about all the reviews that have come out for the R9 290x and most of them include 4k res benchmarks. Yet they always seem to include some AA in the settings and I'm wondering why the hell?

Isn't the image and corners smooth as butter when you game @ 4k ?

And if so (I haven't seen a 4k display) wouldn't it be a better real world benchmark just to leave it off?
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
You will still want AA. The only thing that I find questionable is every review using unrealistic settings such as 8X MSAA. Personally I use FXAA for nearly everything now, as it has no performance hit. Conversely, the performance hit for 8X MSAA is rather huge - so I only use that in older games (and combined with SGSSAA at times).
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
I was just thinking about all the reviews that have come out for the R9 290x and most of them include 4k res benchmarks. Yet they always seem to include some AA in the settings and I'm wondering why the hell?

Isn't the image and corners smooth as butter when you game @ 4k ?

And if so (I haven't seen a 4k display) wouldn't it be a better real world benchmark just to leave it off?
As the owner of a 15.6" 1080p laptop (basically identical PPI to a 31" 4K display) I will say that AA is nice but not needed. Yes you can notice a little difference if you look for it but its not something that jumps out at you. I expect this to be even less noticeable at 4K resolutions as you will be farther from the monitor than you would be from a 15.6" laptop (hands on the keyboard).

Given the difficulty of powering 4K, getting 60fps at high or ultra no AA should be your priority.
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
3
81
My next monitor is probably going to be a 32" 4K panel (maybe the new Dell that's coming out). Granted I have not experience that particular monitor in person, but I agree with Enigmoid in that I've seen similar PPI's and I really don't feel it's needed. Also, there's no way I would destroy the beautiful crispness of such an image with any kind of FXAA or super sampling garbage. It would have to be SMAA or MSAA if I did feel the need.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
why does aliasing vary so much from game to game? like Crysis 3 has almost none yet plenty of other games have jaggies going everywhere. even on the same engine I can see insane crawling in one game yet another you have look hard to see any. also the different AA techniques seem to have massively varying results from game to game too.
 
Last edited:

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
2x MSAA is usually fine for me now especially on a TV. I like low MSAA more than FXAA. 4x used to be my go-to setting before upgrading to 1440p on my desktop.

To answer the OP's question. I remember seeing an article a while ago relating aliasing to resolution and even at 8K per eye, AA was still needed on hard lines. I think it was an Oculus Rift article. I'll try to find it.

Here's the link:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/virtual-perfection-why-8k-resolution-per-eye-isnt-enough-for-perfect-vr/
 
Last edited:

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
As the owner of a 15.6" 1080p laptop (basically identical PPI to a 31" 4K display) I will say that AA is nice but not needed. Yes you can notice a little difference if you look for it but its not something that jumps out at you. I expect this to be even less noticeable at 4K resolutions as you will be farther from the monitor than you would be from a 15.6" laptop (hands on the keyboard).

Given the difficulty of powering 4K, getting 60fps at high or ultra no AA should be your priority.
excellent observation. finally someone else that can correlate PPI and view distance into the equation.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
Lets say that we start getting 4k panels at normal monitor sizes - ie 24" or so. So you can get a monitor in the future that is the same size as your current one but its got 4x as many pixels. There are now 4 pixels where there used to be 1 so the visual fidelity has gone up to such an extent that now its "retina" levels. Does that mean you wont need AA?

Unfortunately the answer is you will still need AA, but not as sophisticated. The point where AA is believed to no longer be necessary is around 12k or so, before that point our eyes can still distinguish that something isn't right.
 

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
38
86
why does aliasing vary so much from game to game? like Crysis 3 has almost none yet plenty of other games have jaggies going everywhere. even on the same engine I can see insane crawling in one game yet another you have look hard to see any. also the different AA techniques seem to have massively varying results from game to game too.
Crysis 3 has a sharpen filter after the blur filter. This is the poor man's MSAA, as it trades real resolution for speed.

All of deferred rendering's speed benefit is from rendering at a lower resolution than destination resolution. This is the initial blur filtering. The sharpen filter is applied after that to make it look less bad. The blur of deferred rendering is clearly seen in most games.

Watch all of these to get a general overview of how deferred rendering works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMaL6j7Ry6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAgWi6hQ0Mk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN549g0GNgc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20ZYkYiCdrg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EKECcdKXbs

Offtopic: This kind of thing was what I expected from the Battlefield 4 demonstration at AMD/ATi's Hawaii announcement of the preview of the launch of R9 290x.
 
Last edited:

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
bumping this up. anyone had the chance to see a side by side comparison with your own eye?

*** side by side must be SAME physical size.

24" 1920x1080 w/ AA vs 24" 3840x2160 no AA
27" 2560x1440 w/ AA vs 27" 3840x2160 no AA
 
Last edited:

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
There aren't any 27" 4k monitors that I know of. I can try get a SS later if I remember and can find a suitable spot.
 
Sep 27, 2014
92
0
0
bumping this up. anyone had the chance to see a side by side comparison with your own eye?

*** side by side must be SAME physical size.

24" 1920x1080 w/ AA vs 24" 3840x2160 no AA
27" 2560x1440 w/ AA vs 27" 3840x2160 no AA
I have a 28 inch samsung, I ran witcher 2 at 1440 w/ antialiasing enabled (no idea what it is) and then at 4k with AA off. I saw fewer jaggies @4k w/ no AA. of course my poor 780 was chugging as well @~20-30 FPS (estimated)
 

Eric1987

Senior member
Mar 22, 2012
748
22
76
Yeah I don't turn AA on. If I can't see it and I am a foot from my monitor its not necessary. Each to their own though.
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
sperglordactual
are you testing 2560x1440 "non native" on the 28" samsung for that comparison? or is that native on another 27" monitor.



should have noted that it also need to be "native resolution".

closest apples to apples comparison would be:
dell up2414q 23.8" IPS 60hz 3840x2160
vs
quality brand 23.8" IPS 60hz 1920x1080
 
Sep 27, 2014
92
0
0
sperglordactual
are you testing 2560x1440 "non native" on the 28" samsung for that comparison? or is that native on another 27" monitor.



should have noted that it also need to be "native resolution".

closest apples to apples comparison would be:
dell up2414q 23.8" IPS 60hz 3840x2160
vs
quality brand 23.8" IPS 60hz 1920x1080
Sorry, yeah mine is non native. for the 1440p, native is 4k
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,200
283
126

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,288
171
106
In those examples both 1080 pics look noticeably worse compared to both 4k pics. I can't tell the difference between each version of either though.
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
screen shots are worthless. by the time we see it on our monitor. the original rendered image already have too much processing done to it. screen capture program captures differently, everyone have a different quality panel and non native viewing and etc.



need a side by side eyeball by someone trustworthy.
someone with a good eye. someone who understands AA.
 

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,276
815
136
The smaller the screen the less AA you'll need.

Less PPI = More AA
More PPI = Less AA
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
The smaller the screen the less AA you'll need.

Less PPI = More AA
More PPI = Less AA
This.

Resolution without screen size is a meaningless metric when it comes to the visibility of pixels/aliasing. You can have a 1600x900 screen with less noticeable aliasing than a 4k screen if it was small enough.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY