What do you like better?

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Kromis
High Quality

Screw AA!

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Can't play games without AA... Just can't do it... I try, but I can't. Then again, I really don't like low resolution textures either. Some shadow effects that have a very high performance hit aren't even all that great, and these can certainly be sacrificed... Soft shadows in FEAR are an example of this. You really have to weigh it out on a game-to-game basis what eye candy can be sacrificed if necessary.

q]Originally posted by: Regs
Jaggies? What is this, 2001?

I haven't seen jaggies in a long time at 1600x1200. I'd take HQ over any filtering anyday.

It all depends in screen size. The pixels in a 24" 1920x1200 LCD are the exact same size as those on a 19" 1280x1024 LCD or a 21" 1600x1200 CRT, so the possibility of seeing jaggies is still there. Now, if you run 1600x1200 on a 15" CRT then I guess I could see what you mean.[/quote]

17" 12x10 ftw.

 

[BFG10K]

I run at a minimum of 4xAA and will drop the resolution if required.

The only details I drop in games are performance sucking ones like shadows, HDR and bloom.

I always leave game shaders and textures at maximum.

 

[VERTIGGO]

Originally posted by: s1rwilliam
why not low quality with 16xq aa

because that reminds me of Xbox

 

[gramboh]

I always try to use at least 2X AA as long as the performance hit isn't bad, it makes a HUGE difference in image quality. Even at 1920x1200 (on a 24in LCD) jaggies are very evident in games like Oblivion and Test Drive Unlimited.

 

[ForumMaster]

depends on what game. for Supreme Commander, i can dream about AA. first, it barely runs with out it on my rig, and second, strategy games don't really need AA. but for FSP games, i prefer AA.

 

[chrismr]

I am more inclined to notice jaggies than I am to notice a drop in some of the quality options. For example, f.e.a.r I can turn down to medium without noticing and actual difference in quality. However, playing the game without AA I get very irritated with the aliasing. Oblivion never bothered me without AA though.

Rainbow 6 Vegas, which Ijust got this week as I refused to pay full price for a bad port, is absolutely awful without AA. I need to run 2xAA. Performance hit in R6:Vegas and AA is pretty big though. I really want to enjoy this game, but the poor performance and bluriness are annoying me. Everything looks so bloody hazy and makes me feel like my eye sight is going.

So AA > HQ, expcept for the odd game.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
It all depends in screen size. The pixels in a 24" 1920x1200 LCD are the exact same size as those on a 19" 1280x1024 LCD or a 21" 1600x1200 CRT, so the possibility of seeing jaggies is still there. Now, if you run 1600x1200 on a 15" CRT then I guess I could see what you mean.

That's incorrect. You may be thinking of the 22" LCDs at 1680x1050, but the 24" have a .270mm pixel pitch compared to the 19" @ .290-.300mm or so. Only panel that has higher pixel pitch I believe are the 27" 1920x1200s, with the 20" 1600 and 30" 2560 with the lowest. Its almost the same vertical height but the 24" have the extra 176 lines of vertical resolution.

Edit: Just re-read and saw you stated pixel size. Might be right on that, but I'll have to double check. Eye-balling it on my 24" Gateway and my 19" Dell though, that doesn't seem to be the case either.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: nitromullet
It all depends in screen size. The pixels in a 24" 1920x1200 LCD are the exact same size as those on a 19" 1280x1024 LCD or a 21" 1600x1200 CRT, so the possibility of seeing jaggies is still there. Now, if you run 1600x1200 on a 15" CRT then I guess I could see what you mean.

That's incorrect. You may be thinking of the 22" LCDs at 1680x1050, but the 24" have a .270mm pixel pitch compared to the 19" @ .290-.300mm or so. Only panel that has higher pixel pitch I believe are the 27" 1920x1200s, with the 20" 1600 and 30" 2560 with the lowest. Its almost the same vertical height but the 24" have the extra 176 lines of vertical resolution.

Edit: Just re-read and saw you stated pixel size. Might be right on that, but I'll have to double check. Eye-balling it on my 24" Gateway and my 19" Dell though, that doesn't seem to be the case either.

When talking about 'pixel size' I was actually referring to the pixel pitch. Your 19" probably has a higher pixel pitch than your 24", so the pixels will be smaller on the 24". You still need AA on the 24" though... I know, I have one also...

Check out the table at the bottom of this page:

http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?sitesize=yes&i=2961

...you'll see that a 17" WS @1440x900 and a 20" WS @ 1680x1050 have almost the same pixel pitch as a 30" WS @ 2560x1600. So, the possibility of seeing jagged edges is the same for these respective screens. I do agree with you 100% that the lower the pixel pitch the less likely the need for AA will be, but that isn't what people are saying, nor does a low pixel pitch necessarily correlate with higher resolutions.

Basically, the notion that you don't need AA as much on a 1920x1200 24" screen as you do on say a 1280x1024 17" screen is false... That's all I'm trying to say. The proof of that is in the pixel pitch.

 

[Munky]

I'd rather have HQ than AA. Usually I run both, except when it's not possible in games like Stalker.

 

[CKent]

Whichever looked better to me. I'll usually take IQ over performance.

 

[Looney]

I can't stand jaggies. I grew up with it, so i should be use to it, but since the invention of AA, i haven't looked back. But usually 2x AA is enough for me... and i've tested it on more than a few dozen occasions, and i rarely get more than a 20% hit on performance from that. However, if i'm gaming on my laptop, where 1920x1200 on a 17" screen doesn't show jaggies, i leave AA completely off.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: CP5670
I like smooth motion more than anything else, so I often turn down both to get good framerates. In general though, I would take the game's graphical options over any AA, except for some effects that cut down on the performance a lot (shadows are a common culprit here).

 

[imported_flounder]

HQ
I don't even notice the jaggies

 

[JBT]

I run 1920x1200, While I love AA, I will sacrifice it if I can't have High textures and nice AF levels. I will drop shadows down if need be.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I run 2X AA usually, maybe 4X but 2X is all that is needed at 1680x1050 to smooth out the jaggies. No real performance hit either on my X1950XT