# How much AA do you need?



## warup89 (Feb 11, 2010)

As 97% of us now have LCD monitors, AA does make a decent difference when enabled, so now I ask how much AA do you need to have nice image quality while keeping things running smoothly?

-I'm personally set with x2 AA, anything else i believe is just a waste since the rough edges disappear with only x2 AA. Anything more and it only makes the edges "thinner" per say. Then again the max resolution i have ever played at was 1680 X 1050. I dont know the difference, with anything higher than that.


----------



## kurosagi01 (Feb 11, 2010)

i would say either 2x or 4x is enough for Anti-aliasing.


----------



## yaji (Feb 11, 2010)

4xAA + 2x Temporal multipler.


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

yaji said:


> 4xAA + 2x Temporal multipler.



I second this notion. I don't even notice a difference until I enable 4x on my x1950GT, but with temporal aa enabled I see a noticeable difference with what feels like no hit to frames. At least not enough to bother me, I no longer run my games with fraps running. It just works.


----------



## robal (Feb 11, 2010)

I can't live without AA.
At least 4x.

It's funny, but some (many!?) people barely see the difference. And even if you show them exactly what's what...  they don't seem to care.
I guess they are the same kind of people that say they don't need HDTV and enjoy blurry photos made with phone...

Some people don't have "HD brain"...   em..   "HD aesthetic feel" - better said.

Cheers,


----------



## vnl7 (Feb 11, 2010)

I use 4AA @ 1920x1080 if not 8AA, i preffer more AA at high res than some game effects to keep the fps up, but at 1024x768 i used to turn AA oFF or 2AA

i believe that resolution scales whit AA


----------



## Easo (Feb 11, 2010)

4X, but since my 4850 usually takes more, like x8, sure, why not.


----------



## ste2425 (Feb 11, 2010)

meh never used AA and dare say i never will. Ive never had the equipment to max out game with AA so just got used to it without. Dnt get me wrong i do see the jaged edges but id rather have smooth gameplay.


----------



## AsRock (Feb 11, 2010)

x2 seems to be the sweet spot for near any game.


----------



## kurosagi01 (Feb 11, 2010)

ste2425 said:


> meh never used AA and dare say i never will. Ive never had the equipment to max out game with AA so just got used to it without. Dnt get me wrong i do see the jaged edges but id rather have smooth gameplay.



just over your CPU to 3GHZ or something and you can play games with 2-4X AA easily.
Even my system can play games with 2-4X AA at 1680x1050 and i get about 50+fps on every game still.


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 11, 2010)

I max out settings when ever I can.

AA included, I can actually see the difference between x2,x3,x4 etc etc mind you, its only after x6 that the difference becomes negligible on all but dodgy edges .( you know the ones, the kind that look jagged even with 16x aa)


----------



## InTeL-iNsIdE (Feb 11, 2010)

on most games, as high as they go, cause I can, on batman Arkham Asylum - 2-4x otherwise its unplayable on ATI cards  :shadedshu


----------



## Melcar (Feb 11, 2010)

I'm one of those people that can't tell the difference .  Honestly, I sometimes just can't tell the difference between a scene running with AA an another one with no AA.  This is specially true with most modern games.  On some older titles too, but there I can sometimes tell the difference when not using AA. I use x4, even if I can't tell the difference visually most of the time; I just leave it at that for the times I load up an older game (which is rather often). 
As for the different levels, when I do bother to notice AA, x2 looks the same as x8 unless I pixel hunt.  When I play games I'm too busy you know, playing the game for me to bother with visuals that much... unless it's a boring game and I have nothing else to do but to look at the pretty pictures (which is about 90% of games nowadays).


----------



## Nick259 (Feb 11, 2010)

I'm happy with 2xaa although if I can maintain a good framerate then i'll run it with 4xaa. Anything more is just a waste to me as I can't tell the difference, even in older games I run 4xaa max.

I'm running 1680x1050.


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 11, 2010)

Do you guys really not see a difference past x4?


Try running a predefined bench mark with AA off x2,x4,x6 etc and you should be able to see the difference clearly even up until x8 as you'll be watching the exact same thing only difference is AA, where as in game if you get into playing the game things like AA would be missed XD


----------



## KieX (Feb 11, 2010)

Whenever maxed out runs smoothly, that's the way to go. Otherwise 4xAA is where I find the sweetspot between eye candy vs performance.

Agree with you panther, up to 8x you can see the differnce between 2,4,6


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Do you guys really not see a difference past x4?
> 
> 
> Try running a predefined bench mark with AA off x2,x4,x6 etc and you should be able to see the difference clearly even up until x8 as you'll be watching the exact same thing only difference is AA, where as in game if you get into playing the game things like AA would be missed XD



Who plays benchmarks for entertainment?


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 11, 2010)

I'm a bit finicky when it comes to AA. On the laptop which has got a res of 1920x1200 I normally use 2xAA if the game allows it, but I would be fine with no AA since the LCD size is only 17".

On the desktop 4xAA was barely enough when I had my 8800GT using a 22" 1680x1050 and I still had some lagging. That's one reason why upgraded GFX card.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 11, 2010)

vnl7 said:


> I use 4AA @ 1920x1080 if not 8AA, i preffer more AA at high res than some game effects to keep the fps up, but at 1024x768 i used to turn AA oFF or 2AA
> 
> i believe that resolution scales whit AA



Thats very interesting, the theory is in fact that the Higher your resolution the less AA is needed, simply because, if you think about it, the higher the res, the less visible (as opposed to quantety) pixelation and therefore by it's very nature, less visible jagged edges etc.


----------



## Goodman (Feb 11, 2010)

I still got an CRT & i'm using 4xAA wich it's enough for me (1600x1200)


----------



## erocker (Feb 11, 2010)

I use as much as I can before performance goes kaput. It really depends on the game. Left 4 Dead 2 I can force either x32 or x24 (haven't played a while), but with most games I just set it to the highest MSAA they offer.


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 11, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> the higher the res, the less visible (as opposed to quantety) pixelation and therefore by it's very nature, less visible jagged edges etc.



Precisely. 
The smaller the monitor and the higher the res the less AA you need to apply.
The larger the monitor... the more AA you'd need.

That's why I can game with no AA on a 17" 1920x1200 but given now that I'm "spoilt" using it, were I to buy a 50" LCD at 1920x1200 I'd find myself needing to use 4xAA for the game not to appear jaggy to me...


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> Thats very interesting, the theory is in fact that the Higher your resolution the less AA is needed, simply because, if you think about it, the higher the res, the less visible (as opposed to quantety) pixelation and therefore by it's very nature, less visible jagged edges etc.



Less polygons/inch = more jagged edges, does it not? (Or if they are stretched to a higher resolution than they were designed at)

Hence the need for more triangular roundation. 

What theory do you speak of?


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 11, 2010)

Clement said:


> Less polygons/inch = more jagged edges, does it not? (Or if they are stretched to a higher resolution than they were designed at)
> 
> Hence the need for more triangular roundation.



Does that mean that by having tesselation increased (as in DX11) the need for AA would lessen?


----------



## Goodman (Feb 11, 2010)

-->Tatty_One no need to get a picture of you as avatar... your mistress pictures were lot better to look at


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

Black Panther said:


> Does that mean that by having tesselation increased (as in DX11) the need for AA would lessen?



Tesselation, simply put, is a more efficient manner of creating polygons.


----------



## shevanel (Feb 11, 2010)

Clement said:


> Who plays benchmarks for entertainment?



me


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

shevanel said:


> me



LOL


----------



## zithe (Feb 11, 2010)

I love 8x QAA. It's absolutely required with trees just for a look. I want to be able to run it regularly.


----------



## Jeffredo (Feb 11, 2010)

With my hardware generally above 4X starts being a bit of a drag on FPS in some graphically intensive games (at 1680x1050).  Fortunately, 4X is enough in almost all cases.  Even when there is still some noticeable aliasing, its been pared down enough by the setting I can live with it.  I would rather max view distance and shadow/texture quality vs. AA anyway.


----------



## KainXS (Feb 11, 2010)

I usually use 2x or 4x, for me anything beyond 4x dosen't do much most of the time


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 11, 2010)

Clement said:


> Who plays benchmarks for entertainment?



Its not for entertainment, you know what to look for later when you play in game, and appreciate the finer edges more : ]

Love a game with realistic character models and just looking at them when its a game with decent graphics and the AA is ramped up.


But then I am very visual person so little flaws do stick out like sore thumbs to me


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Feb 11, 2010)

I _have to have_ AA enabled and in any game I'll max it out where I can. Jaggies ruin my games and also make me trip balls. I swear I see things that aren't actually there, which is the difference between life and death in some games.


----------



## DirectorC (Feb 11, 2010)

As a user of 1440 I say 8x is necessary.  I have COD4 set to 8xQ.


----------



## t77snapshot (Feb 11, 2010)

x4 AA @1920X1080 res is good enough for me. My system can handle more, I just prefer performance over high AA.


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 11, 2010)

I cant live without AA, I seriously cant, but if a game doesnt support it (Im looking at you Bioshock 2) I will still play it and enjoy the game but its always better to have at least 4x AA on, but everyones different.


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Its not for entertainment, you know what to look for later when you play in game, and appreciate the finer edges more : ]
> 
> Love a game with realistic character models and just looking at them when its a game with decent graphics and the AA is ramped up.
> 
> ...



I love the models in Dragon Age: Origins. Very nice faces, LOL


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> I cant live without AA, I seriously cant, but if a game doesnt support it (Im looking at you Bioshock 2) I will still play it and enjoy the game but its always better to have at least 4x AA on, but everyones different.



Could you still try to force it on? No experience to speak of from me I'm afraid.


----------



## Frick (Feb 11, 2010)

robal said:


> I can't live without AA.
> At least 4x.
> 
> It's funny, but some (many!?) people barely see the difference. And even if you show them exactly what's what...  they don't seem to care.
> ...



You can't really compare AA with HDTV and VGA photos man. The actual difference AA makes is not worth the performance hit imo.

Most games I play comes from the time before AA though. Not that I care about graphics anyway.


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

Frick said:


> You can't really compare AA with HDTV and VGA photos man. The actual difference AA makes is not worth the performance hit imo.
> 
> Most games I play comes from the time before AA though. Not that I care about graphics anyway.



Classic mistake of thinking the majority of people care about HOW things work.

Frick, your realization is an effect of people only caring that things DO work, not how they do.

Point taken though, and sadly, its true.


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

Frick said:


> You can't really compare AA with HDTV and VGA photos man. The actual difference AA makes is not worth the performance hit imo.
> 
> Most games I play comes from the time before AA though. Not that I care about graphics anyway.



I'm intrigued, what games?


----------



## Frick (Feb 11, 2010)

Clement said:


> I'm intrigued, what games?



Heroes of Might and Magic 3, ZangbandTK and Deus Ex. ^^

(sometimes I actually play Europa Universalis 3 though, and that has AA)


----------



## kyle2020 (Feb 11, 2010)

If I can max a game out, thats what ill do. If not I aim for 4x as 2x still seems a bit rough for my liking.


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

Frick said:


> Heroes of Might and Magic 3, ZangbandTK and Deus Ex. ^^
> 
> (sometimes I actually play Europa Universalis 3 though, and that has AA)



Never played the others, but Deus Ex was a GREAT game!! Back then I was programming all the time and didn't take the time to have fun. tsk tsk.

Back on topic...ops!


----------



## TIGR (Feb 11, 2010)

warup89 said:


> How much AA do you need?



All of it! 

Okay honestly, it varies from game to game. In CoD4 online play I have my max FPS set to 150, and I use 4x AA. If 4x AA made my rig unable to maintain 150fps, I'd drop it to 2x. If the GPUs were getting over 70*C, likewise I'd turn it down to 2x, or even turn it off.

Otherwise, whatever lets me maintain bare minimum 30fps and preferably 60fps while keeping GPUs under 70*C.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 11, 2010)

Clement said:


> Less polygons/inch = more jagged edges, does it not? (Or if they are stretched to a higher resolution than they were designed at)
> 
> Hence the need for more triangular roundation.
> 
> What theory do you speak of?



I simply meant that the higher the resolution (obviously in relation to screen size), then the less need for AA as the quality to put it simply is better.


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> I simply meant that the higher the resolution (obviously in relation to screen size), then the less need for AA as the quality to put it simply is better.



Ah sorry. Up to the limit of the textures design resolution of course. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 11, 2010)

Clement said:


> Ah sorry. Up to the limit of the textures design resolution of course. Thanks for clarifying.



I need some AA as my 28 inch monitor is 1900 x 1200 so I usually run her at 4x.


----------



## DanishDevil (Feb 11, 2010)

I personally can tell the difference between 0x, 2x, and 4x on my 26" 1920x1200 Samsung T260HD. I prefer 4x, but Modern Warfare 2 had a couple slips under 60FPS when I'm recording with Wegame at 4x, so I usually run 2x. Once I snag a different GPU, I should be able to push 4x, though.


----------



## warup89 (Feb 11, 2010)

TIGR said:


> All of it!
> 
> Okay honestly, it varies from game to game. In CoD4 online play I have my max FPS set to 150, and I use 4x AA. If 4x AA made my rig unable to maintain 150fps, I'd drop it to 2x. If the GPUs were getting over 70*C, likewise I'd turn it down to 2x, or even turn it off.
> 
> Otherwise, whatever lets me maintain bare minimum 30fps and preferably 60fps while keeping GPUs under 70*C.



I do the same thing, I normally try to keep the IQ : performance ratio stable, unless I get an average fps of 70+ on some game, then i try to reach for the stars and raise the highest option available as long as my min is 30+ fps.


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

If temperature is a limitation of your visual quality, I would install/modify a more efficient cooler first and foremost. Not to mention it could increase the life of your components.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 11, 2010)

I'd want the Highest AA capable by my hardware. 

Need? I guess I just need 4x AA depending on resolution, no lower than 4x though. I had 32x forced in some games from time to time.


----------



## Kreij (Feb 11, 2010)

I can't tell the difference running at 2560x1600 so I just leave it off.
No sense in making my poor little X2 work harder if I can't tell the difference.


----------



## TIGR (Feb 11, 2010)

warup89 said:


> I do the same thing, I normally try to keep the IQ : performance ratio stable, unless I get an average fps of 70+ on some game, then i try to reach for the stars and raise the highest option available as long as my min is 30+ fps.



Yeah, to me that's the best way to choose AA [and other IQ] settings; first choose your resolution, then tweak until you're not wasting available performance on higher-than-needed FPS, and staying within temps you're comfortable with.



Clement said:


> If temperature is a limitation of your visual quality, I would install/modify a more efficient cooler first and foremost. Not to mention it could increase the life of your components.



I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but if so: when I had my main rig in a case, the cards heated up over 80*C and that's too high for my taste. If you can find a cost-effective cooling solution for two 9800GX2s and an 8800GTS side-by-side, I'm all ears. My solution was to eliminate the case altogether (which should prove a good choice when I move to putting four cards on the rig). Note that this is primarily for Folding@home and gaming is secondary.

But more on-topic: sure, if a better cooling solution is practical and within your budget, go for it—and if your temps are _really_ forcing a lot of available graphics processing power to go to waste, it'd be foolish not to. But if you're stuck with what you've got, then tweaking AA is one way to help keep your GPU load in check.


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 11, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> I max out settings when ever I can.
> 
> AA included, I can actually see the difference between x2,x3,x4 etc etc mind you, its only after x6 that the difference becomes negligible on all but dodgy edges .( you know the ones, the kind that look jagged even with 16x aa)



Years ago I played Oblivion on 640X480 with minimum settings with a X300. Looks ugly but it didn't stop me from enjoying the game. Nowadays, I get better graphics (low mid settings) but I still tinker with the settings so that I get playable framerates with maximum eyecandy, so AA will usually be set at 0 or 2x, very rarely 4x.


----------



## zithe (Feb 11, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Years ago I played Oblivion on 640X480 with minimum settings with a X300. Looks ugly but it didn't stop me from enjoying the game. Nowadays, I get better graphics (low mid settings) but I still tinker with the settings so that I get playable framerates with maximum eyecandy, so AA will usually be set at 0 or 2x, very rarely 4x.



If I want a setting playable, I make an appropriate upgrade that allows it.


----------



## Clement (Feb 11, 2010)

TIGR said:


> Yeah, to me that's the best way to choose AA [and other IQ] settings; first choose your resolution, then tweak until you're not wasting available performance on higher-than-needed FPS, and staying within temps you're comfortable with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only setup I can think of is a custom water setup that would be able to adapt to your upgrade path. With that kind of power, I would find a way to cool those bad boys.

This time of year, you could just put them outside  Or better yet, even cheaper than the water setup and still not too inconvenient, duct some cold air from outside right into the case  Old skool style!


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 11, 2010)

zithe said:


> If I want a setting playable, I make an appropriate upgrade that allows it.



I adjust my visual settings to fit the graphics card, not the other way around.


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 11, 2010)

Clement said:


> Could you still try to force it on? No experience to speak of from me I'm afraid.



Nah I already tried that, didnt work, also tried supesampling just for the sake of it but its a no go, apparently nvidia cards work, not too sure


----------



## freakshow (Feb 11, 2010)

i max my out if i can and im playing at 1920x1080


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 12, 2010)

I play crysis, both of them, max settings at 1920x1080 16xAF 4xAA, its smooth for me!


----------



## Champ (Feb 12, 2010)

ste2425, that avy got me ballin'


----------



## zithe (Feb 12, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> I adjust my visual settings to fit the graphics card, not the other way around.



I'm an art major, so reducing visual quality bothers the crap out of me.

Although, I have a lot of fun playing with laptops and trying to tweak them.


----------



## Frick (Feb 12, 2010)

zithe said:


> I'm an art major, so reducing visual quality bothers the crap out of me.



Is there a connection between the two? I'm curious.


----------



## Indra EMC (Feb 12, 2010)

I didn't need AA. i just want play game as smooth as possible, with largest resolution as possible too.


----------



## Nick89 (Feb 12, 2010)

Melcar said:


> I'm one of those people that can't tell the difference .  Honestly, I sometimes just can't tell the difference between a scene running with AA an another one with no AA.  This is specially true with most modern games.  On some older titles too, but there I can sometimes tell the difference when not using AA. I use x4, even if I can't tell the difference visually most of the time; I just leave it at that for the times I load up an older game (which is rather often).
> As for the different levels, when I do bother to notice AA, x2 looks the same as x8 unless I pixel hunt.  When I play games I'm too busy you know, playing the game for me to bother with visuals that much... unless it's a boring game and I have nothing else to do but to look at the pretty pictures (which is about 90% of games nowadays).



I made this.

AA ------V


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 12, 2010)

Nick89 said:


> I made this.
> 
> AA ------V



Hahahaha thats the best example of AA I've seen lol


----------



## BraveSoul (Feb 12, 2010)

very nice thread,,
love to enable AA,, as long as the game supports it,,,8x is the winner at 1680x1050 for me,, but if game slows down 4x looks great as well


----------



## Wile E (Feb 12, 2010)

I only use 2xAA most of the time. On titles with particularly bad aliasing, I use 4X.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 12, 2010)

I use as much aa as my card is capable of handling for that given title. that said I use 2x max on current titles atm.


----------



## imperialreign (Feb 12, 2010)

Depending on the title - as much as possible without sacrificing performance.

Larger LCD displays can make jagged edges a lot more noticeable, and sometimes x2 doesn't cut it.  I tend to average x4.

I also make use of ATI's Temporal AA, and usually have that set to x2 - it can make the AA appear as a higher setting than it really is.  As well, I also have some advanced AA techniques enabled: EATM, SAAOM and another (can't remember right now).


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 12, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> I play crysis, both of them, max settings at 1920x1080 16xAF 4xAA, its smooth for me!



if it didnt on that beast of yours I would throw the damn thing out of the window!


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 12, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> if it didnt on that beast of yours I would throw the damn thing out of the window!



My bad, Im not refering to the HD5970, Im using my new HIS HD5870 now, havent updated the system specs yet.


----------



## Clement (Feb 12, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> Nah I already tried that, didnt work, also tried supesampling just for the sake of it but its a no go, apparently nvidia cards work, not too sure



I can't spend money on a nVidia card yet. Every time I look at the hardware specs I gag. I prefer more processors than a higher bus width. For graphics it just makes more sense for gaming. The fact that Auto cad is still very usable is a nice side benefit. I haven't had a look at the new stuff out either, never do, its too new and foolish to waste money on.

When I built one computer for a client I tried a 4850 OCed in my setup. It was only slightly better than my video card, and could handle more AA and AF which aren't deal makers for me. Yes I know my board limits the maximum bandwidth, I considered that also. This was at least 4 months ago though so I can't say for the newer lineups.

I'm still waiting for the x2 line to get the kinks worked out, and I'll go for at least two of those, maybe.


----------



## imperialreign (Feb 12, 2010)

Clement said:


> I'm still waiting for the x2 line to get the kinks worked out, and I'll go for at least two of those, maybe.






Kinks?  What kinks?

I've never had any issues with either of mine - nor any of my crossfire setups over the years . . .


----------



## Clement (Feb 12, 2010)

imperialreign said:


> Kinks?  What kinks?
> 
> I've never had any issues with either of mine - nor any of my crossfire setups over the years . . .



Compatibility...but that was back when they first came out (3850(&70)x2 I believe were the only ones at the time). Don't remember exactly but I wasn't fond of it at the time.

Maybe its time to do some research


----------



## imperialreign (Feb 12, 2010)

Yeah, they're great - two 4870x2s are enough to plow any title out there, even at 1920x1200 . . . only thing that sucks is if a title doesn't support more than two or three GPUs - but it'll still make use of what it can.

One will need Vista or WIN7 to run more than two GPUs, though, XP doesn't support it.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 13, 2010)

imperialreign said:


> Depending on the title - as much as possible without sacrificing performance.
> 
> *Larger LCD displays can make jagged edges a lot more noticeable*, and sometimes x2 doesn't cut it.  I tend to average x4.
> 
> I also make use of ATI's Temporal AA, and usually have that set to x2 - it can make the AA appear as a higher setting than it really is.  As well, I also have some advanced AA techniques enabled: EATM, SAAOM and another (can't remember right now).



Depends. If the larger screen also has a larger resolution, then jaggies are not any more noticeable, often times, it's even less noticeable. Depends on the size and pitch of the monitor's pixels. My 24" 1920x1200 needs less AA than my 19: 1440x900 backup display. The 24" has 77% more pixels, but only 26% more diagonal area. It's a much finer picture.

And I am unhappy with my 4870X2. So many little annoying bugs with ATI drivers the past year.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Feb 13, 2010)

Wile E said:


> ... I am unhappy with my 4870X2. So many little annoying bugs with ATI drivers the past year.



Time to sell up and pick up a 5 series or they little enough to not annoy you to that extent?


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 13, 2010)

Wile E said:


> And I am unhappy with my 4870X2. So many little annoying bugs with ATI drivers the past year.



Be sure to sell it on TPU if you get rid of it


----------



## assaulter_99 (Feb 13, 2010)

2 to 4, depends actually. Otherwise performance suffers. I rather have more frames than less jaggies.


----------



## imperialreign (Feb 13, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Depends. If the larger screen also has a larger resolution, then jaggies are not any more noticeable, often times, it's even less noticeable. Depends on the size and pitch of the monitor's pixels. My 24" 1920x1200 needs less AA than my 19: 1440x900 backup display. The 24" has 77% more pixels, but only 26% more diagonal area. It's a much finer picture.



I can understand that . . . especially considering not all LCDs are equal in terms of construction . . . 

TBH, I think the game in question can have a lot to do with it too, and how well it supports widescreens resolutions - if they've used a stretched FOV technique to support 16:9 or 16:10 (which is usually stretching the same exact image displayed for a 4:3 res), it can make those jagged edges appear worse - especially towards the edges . . .

There are quite a few variables mixed in to all of this IQ nonsense 



> And I am unhappy with my 4870X2. So many little annoying bugs with ATI drivers the past year.



Just curious, what bugs have you run across?

TBH, I've been overly lazy and haven't upgraded the drivers since CAT 9.8 . . . I've noticed there's been an unusual amount of hotfix drivers, though - I'm starting to wonder if that little "poll" ATI had about a year ago (the questionaire on the driver download page: which do you prefer "better IQ" or "better performance" in your drivers?) might have lead something to do with it . . . ATI seem too focused on performance, now, instead of stability and IQ - their primary concerns "back in the day."


----------



## Mussels (Feb 13, 2010)

2x works nicely for me. Tiny performance hit, noticeable quality gain.


I find 4x tends to make little difference, as the thigns i notice that look worst in games tend to be engine related - EG, a game that doesnt apply AA to its shadows, doesn't matter if its 2x or 16x... those shadows will still be ignored, and look like ass.


----------



## Yukikaze (Feb 13, 2010)

The more the merrier. I always go for the highest AA I can as long as the framerates hold up at over 30-35 at the minimum. In practice is usually turns out of be 2xAA or 4xAA.


----------



## hat (Feb 13, 2010)

2x works for me. It's enough to smooth out the edges. I'm not going to be staring at a scene for a few minutes like you would stare at a painting or something... I'm going to be too busy moving around and shooting things.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Feb 13, 2010)

i usually set a x16AA or whatever is the highest.


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 13, 2010)

Clement said:


> I can't spend money on a nVidia card yet. Every time I look at the hardware specs I gag. I prefer more processors than a higher bus width. For graphics it just makes more sense for gaming. The fact that Auto cad is still very usable is a nice side benefit. I haven't had a look at the new stuff out either, never do, its too new and foolish to waste money on.
> 
> When I built one computer for a client I tried a 4850 OCed in my setup. It was only slightly better than my video card, and could handle more AA and AF which aren't deal makers for me. Yes I know my board limits the maximum bandwidth, I considered that also. This was at least 4 months ago though so I can't say for the newer lineups.
> 
> I'm still waiting for the x2 line to get the kinks worked out, and I'll go for at least two of those, maybe.





I bet AA is starting to rust on your X1950GT


----------



## Clement (Feb 13, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> I bet AA is starting to rust on your X1950GT



I don't know exactly what you are trying to say, but YES, this card is old!!  

I like old stuff though .

I installed all the 2.0 HD textures for Dragon Age: Origins. I had to tighten my memory timings and put the video core/mem a little high to maintain in ostagar and beyond.

Lets just say I'm not going to use AA anymore in this game. I should try it though, although with HD textures all over, it hardly seems necessary. It plays/looks great and I don't want it to become unplayable for no reason.

I'm more of a statistics guy than visual I suppose.

The whole reason I kept the card is because my last system wasn't using it to its full potential (2400+@3200+ / AN35N Nforce2 Ultra board). It still amazes me though. I can almost OC it 200mhz on the core/mem and its stable!!

Eventually I'll break down and build something with two xxxxX2's in probably a Pxx chipset, depends how the X58 and the x2 Radeons progress.

I can't play Mass effect 2 yet (hoping I can, guessing yes), last time when I played the first one I abandoned all other games and work productivity dropped severely


----------



## Wile E (Feb 13, 2010)

imperialreign said:


> I can understand that . . . especially considering not all LCDs are equal in terms of construction . . .
> 
> TBH, I think the game in question can have a lot to do with it too, and how well it supports widescreens resolutions - if they've used a stretched FOV technique to support 16:9 or 16:10 (which is usually stretching the same exact image displayed for a 4:3 res), it can make those jagged edges appear worse - especially towards the edges . . .
> 
> ...


Things like scaling issues, microstutter in some titles. Flashing textures in others. Most games are fine tho, and those titles I had troubles with aren't titles I actually play. It not so much I'm disappointed in my X2, as it is I am disappointed in ATI's drivers as a whole. The X2 performs beautifully in my titles. Just really not happy with drivers since about 8.10. It's like you said,the stability and IQ seems to be slipping.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 14, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Things like scaling issues, microstutter in some titles. Flashing textures in others. Most games are fine tho, and those titles I had troubles with aren't titles I actually play. It not so much I'm disappointed in my X2, as it is I am disappointed in ATI's drivers as a whole. The X2 performs beautifully in my titles. Just really not happy with drivers since about 8.10. It's like you said,the stability and IQ seems to be slipping.



IMO, drivers are only glitchy in crossfire. things seem just fine with one card.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 14, 2010)

Mussels said:


> IMO, drivers are only glitchy in crossfire. things seem just fine with one card.



My 4850 in rig 2 begs to differ.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 14, 2010)

Wile E said:


> My 4850 in rig 2 begs to differ.



Okies. sad face for you 



Shall we discuss AA again?


----------



## Wile E (Feb 14, 2010)

Mussels said:


> Okies. sad face for you
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we discuss AA again?



How does the higher AA settings compare on your 720p television? I would imagine it benefits from higher AA than the 1080p monitor does.


----------



## zithe (Feb 14, 2010)

No matter what resolution you run, a cluster of trees in the distance will always look like ass. So will chain link fences and those sorts of things.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 14, 2010)

I set it as high as the game will go and still run smooth.  I really don't care if it ends up being disabled though.  I never really pay attention to that level of detail.


----------



## DonInKansas (Feb 14, 2010)

I don't NEED any AA.
I WANT as much as my card will let me have.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 14, 2010)

Wile E said:


> How does the higher AA settings compare on your 720p television? I would imagine it benefits from higher AA than the 1080p monitor does.



i find the AA doesnt really make much of a difference. it cant make large pixels smaller, and has the same limitations i mentioned before (some things just dont get AA applied, so they never look any better)


----------



## Wile E (Feb 14, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i find the AA doesnt really make much of a difference. it cant make large pixels smaller, and has the same limitations i mentioned before (some things just dont get AA applied, so they never look any better)



I'm not talking in reference to shadows missing AA and such or any other specifics. I meant more in general terms.


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 14, 2010)

Does anyone talk much about AF, I even notice the difference easily with AF applied and without it let alone AA!


----------



## KieX (Feb 14, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> Does anyone talk much about AF, I even notice the difference easily with AF applied and without it let alone AA!



I find AF doesn't affect performance quite as much. That I can max out all the time, so I wouldn't even know what 2x or 4x AF looks like


----------



## Mussels (Feb 14, 2010)

KieX said:


> I find AF doesn't affect performance quite as much. That I can max out all the time, so I wouldn't even know what 2x or 4x AF looks like



4xaf is my minimum... but i pretty much always max it out.


----------



## imperialreign (Feb 14, 2010)

zithe said:


> No matter what resolution you run, a cluster of trees in the distance will always look like ass. So will chain link fences and those sorts of things.



Kinda depends - some of the more advanced AA techniques (which, for ATI cards, are accesible with ATI Tray Tools) were put into effect to address some issues . . . even some of the newer AA styles (like "edge detect") make a major difference.  But, the more advanced AA techniques can throw a major, major performance hit - even at minimal settings.




Mussels said:


> 4xaf is my minimum... but i pretty much always max it out.




I max out AF as well . . . doesn't seem to affect my rig too much


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 14, 2010)

I use 2x AA i see no diff any higher with a few exceptions then I'll use 4x..But that's rare


----------



## zithe (Feb 14, 2010)

Yeah, I find AF is more difficult to live without than AA. Sometimes I'll put a couple settings from high to medium so I can turn on one more level of AA.


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 15, 2010)

I figured everyone maxes out AF, I have it on 24/7


----------



## audiotranceable (Feb 15, 2010)

Honestly playing with 2048x1152. I use 2x just to clean up the edges little bit. But honestly I do not have enough time to even notice the edges with fast motion games like FPS or racing


----------



## entropy13 (Feb 15, 2010)

4x at least


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 16, 2010)

Seems to me 4x is the way to go!


----------



## LifeOnMars (Feb 16, 2010)

I'm only at 1280x1024 and obviously with the gtx275 i'm finding i can heap it on and vsync pretty much every game bar crysis. Obviously when i get a better monitor (soon i hope) i expect my 16xAA to all but vanish down to 2xAA


----------



## 99vw (Feb 20, 2010)

I like to use atleast 4xaa. However, the more the better.


----------



## Joe Public (Feb 22, 2010)

4x has always been satisfactory for me.


----------



## richjordan255 (Feb 22, 2010)

Joe Public said:


> 4x has always been satisfactory for me.



+1 seems to be the sweetspot for performance


----------



## wolf (Feb 22, 2010)

4xMSAA is pretty much what I always use, unless the performance hit goes COMPLETELY unnoticed, otherwise I prefer the extra FPS over 8x or higher.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Feb 23, 2010)

Question... If you run your games on an LCD and use native panel resolution... Where will the AA pixles go?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 23, 2010)

Lazzer408 said:


> Question... If you run your games on an LCD and use native panel resolution... Where will the AA pixles go?



silly question. you arent modifying the pixels at all. Think of it as looking at a picture through a wire mesh - the finer the mesh the clearer the image, but you still need a good image in the first place.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Feb 23, 2010)

Mussels said:


> silly question. you arent modifying the pixels at all. Think of it as looking at a picture through a wire mesh - the finer the mesh the clearer the image, but you still need a good image in the first place.



Ok that made no sense. Doesn't AA interpolate to make a pixle in an image that would otherwise not be there without AA?

Wiki.
"In digital signal processing, anti-aliasing is the technique of minimizing the distortion artifacts known as aliasing when representing a high-resolution signal at a lower resolution. Anti-aliasing is used in digital photography, computer graphics, digital audio, and many other applications."







But if the game is rendered at native resolution, where will the interpolated pixles go?

EDIT - Here's an eample. Lets say this line is a wire on a telephone pole in some game. The game is running in the LCDs native resolution and produced this image. If you were to turn on AA, where would the AA pixles go? There's no room for them between the stair-step of pixles that make the wire. How could it smooth it?






EDIT - Example 2. If the game is rendered in 1/2 native LCD resolution, then AA would have room to do it's job. AA pixles shown in gray.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 23, 2010)

i meant pixels on the SCREEN, not pixels as in the rendered image.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Feb 23, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i meant pixels on the SCREEN, not pixels as in the rendered image.



The screen doesn't perform AA so why would I care what the screen does? I'm talking about the pixles used to fill in the steps of a jagged image. If there's no pixles left on the screen to fill in the steps then where will AA draw those pixles? It can't as far as I can tell.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 23, 2010)

it was asked about native resolution. thus, the screens pixels came into play.


I took your original post at its simplest meaning: if a screen is at its native resolution, where does the AA go?

Native resolution is mentioned, which would only apply if NON native resolution was applicable in any way - and its not, therefore i made the logical assumption you were referring to physical pixels on the screen and not 'software' pixels in the rendered image.

if this is a misunderstanding, oh well... the last few posts will just serve to confuse the hell out of people.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Feb 23, 2010)

Mussels said:


> it was asked about native resolution. thus, the screens pixels came into play.



The screen pixles are always in play. I guess your on a different page then I am. Anyone else understand what I'm saying?


----------



## Lazzer408 (Feb 23, 2010)

Mussels said:


> it was asked about native resolution. thus, the screens pixels came into play.
> 
> 
> I took your original post at its simplest meaning: if a screen is at its native resolution, where does the AA go?
> ...



The OP didn't mention if they were running native or not. So my question was. If someone IS running native resolution, will AA even work?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 23, 2010)

Lazzer408 said:


> The OP didn't mention if they were running native or not. So my question was. If someone IS running native resolution, will AA even work?



yes. because its altering the image prior to it being rendered on the screen - this making native res/physical pixels irrelevant.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 23, 2010)

Mussels said:


> yes. because its altering the image prior to it being rendered on the screen - this making native res/physical pixels irrelevant.



no kidding, game programmers don't program for a set resolution unless it's for consoles. On pc's they have no way of knowing what that native resoltion is and thus programm for all fo them. 

That wiki article is referencing photogrophy in which case the camera DOES have a native resoltion. We are not capturing live images like digital cameras do when we game so that article is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Feb 23, 2010)

yogurt_21 said:


> no kidding, game programmers don't program for a set resolution unless it's for consoles. On pc's they have no way of knowing what that native resoltion is and thus programm for all fo them.
> 
> That wiki article is referencing photogrophy in which case the camera DOES have a native resoltion. We are not capturing live images like digital cameras do when we game so that article is completely irrelevant.



It's totally relevant if you read it. I still haven't heard anyone explain how it works yet when you run a game at your LCD's native resolution.

HL2 1920x1200


----------



## zithe (Feb 23, 2010)

Lazzer408 said:


> It's totally relevant if you read it. I still haven't heard anyone explain how it works yet when you run a game at your LCD's native resolution.
> 
> HL2 1920x1200
> 
> http://i48.tinypic.com/10ftdmq.jpg



At lower resolutions, AA is less effective. It looks like ass if you run anything non native on an LCD anyways lol.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 24, 2010)

Lazzer, AA in gaming does not interpolate pixels to be interjected in between the original pixels. What you are insinuating is essentially adding more pixels to the image. This is not what happens.

To simplify, game AA just averages adjacent pixels to smooth out gradients.

If you are in doubt as to the effectiveness of AA on an LCD, try it for yourself. There is a clear difference in most games, unless the AA engine in a particular title is bad, or there is a driver bug, etc.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Feb 24, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Lazzer, AA in gaming does not interpolate pixels to be interjected in between the original pixels. What you are insinuating is essentially adding more pixels to the image. This is not what happens.
> 
> To simplify, game AA just averages adjacent pixels to smooth out gradients.
> 
> If you are in doubt as to the effectiveness of AA on an LCD, try it for yourself. There is a clear difference in most games, unless the AA engine in a particular title is bad, or there is a driver bug, etc.



Thanks Wile E. I tried AA running native res and it didn't effect the image (see opost 124). When running lower then native it did effect the image. I didn't know if it's a limitation of the game, hardware, or something else. Everything runs great at native so I don't use AA since it never had any effect.


----------



## Frick (Feb 24, 2010)

zithe said:


> At lower resolutions, AA is less effective. It looks like ass if you run anything non native on an LCD anyways lol.



It totally doesn't.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 24, 2010)

Lazzer408 said:


> It's totally relevant if you read it. I still haven't heard anyone explain how it works yet when you run a game at your LCD's native resolution.
> 
> HL2 1920x1200
> 
> http://i48.tinypic.com/10ftdmq.jpg



trouble is this doesn't match anything I've done with hl2 screen shots. rather than zooming in on a specific spot post up both screen shots as they are in their full res. 

Also pop up the built in frame count for hl2 when you do it. atm it almost looks as if you've cropped the same image twice.

edit: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=849239&postcount=88 this is the type of comparison shots I'm lookign for, menu then shot followd by menu then shot. So we can clearly see what you're posting then merely direct us to look at a sp[ecific section of the screen. As it stands your screenies have no reference or proof of settings.


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 24, 2010)

Lazzer408 said:


> Thanks Wile E. I tried AA running native res and it didn't effect the image (see opost 124). When running lower then native it did effect the image. I didn't know if it's a limitation of the game, hardware, or something else. Everything runs great at native so I don't use AA since it never had any effect.




Probably the AA engine used then, I get improvements with AA using native res.



Normally I wouldn't link to wiki but the article explains things fairly well


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing

( scroll to the Full screen AA section)


----------



## boise49ers (Feb 24, 2010)

InnocentCriminal said:


> I swear I see things that aren't actually there, which is the difference between life and death in some games.



And good drugs and bad drugs


----------



## Mussels (Feb 24, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Probably the AA engine used then, I get improvements with AA using native res.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



its also likely his eyesight is bad enough (lucky bastard) that he just cant see the aliasing at his native res on his screen. those of us with better eyesight require higher AA to get that 'perfect' image.


----------



## boise49ers (Feb 24, 2010)

With my Main gamer I worry about it because I don't lose many FPS when I use it, but my other older LAN stand bys I tone it down because it effects the FPS and game play. Oh and I have one blind eye and the other is like 20/40 and I see the difference. Went and seen Avatar 3D !
Paid extra for nothing. The rest of the family really enjoyed it. The grand daughter tried to grab the pieces of ash floating around. It was pretty funny. 
Point being bad eye sight doesn't really play into it as much as not giving a crap about rough edges. JMO !


----------



## Morgoth (Feb 24, 2010)

Depending on the game
i allways run maxium settings
with 2x aa 45 fps minium
older games i run 4x 8x (16+ aa )

btw is aa operated by gpu or cpu?


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 24, 2010)

boise49ers said:


> With my Main gamer I worry about it because I don't lose many FPS when I use it, but my other older LAN stand bys I tone it down because it effects the FPS and game play. Oh and I have one blind eye and the other is like 20/40 and I see the difference. Went and seen Avatar 3D !
> Paid extra for nothing. The rest of the family really enjoyed it. The grand daughter tried to grab the pieces of ash floating around. It was pretty funny.
> Point being bad eye sight doesn't really play into it as much as not giving a crap about rough edges. JMO !




Aye older cards struggled with AA.

For ATI it wasn't til the 4 series that you got "free" 4xAA ( Not take much of a FPS hit)


----------



## EarlZ (Feb 24, 2010)

I play at 1680x1050 and usually i set it at 2x or 4x as long as i get 60fps


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 24, 2010)

I shoot for 30 fps minimum, seeing as TV plays at that rate the difference in smoothness is not that obvious unless you've just been playing @ 60fps.


----------



## ty_ger (Feb 24, 2010)

> It's totally relevant if you read it. I still haven't heard anyone explain how it works yet when you run a game at your LCD's native resolution.
> 
> HL2 1920x1200
> 
> ...



Yes, it definately looks like lazzer messed up the test somewhere.  Maybe he was forcing AA in the video card's control panel without realizing it.  You can definately see AA in the shot which claims to use No AA.  



> zithe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It totally doesn't what?  It totally doesn't look like crap to run a LCD at resolution lower than its native resolution?  If you think so, you should try again.  And if you still think so, you should check your eyes.

I do disagree though that AA is less effective at lower resolutions; in part.  I agree that at lower than native resolution with a LCD monitor, the image quality is worse ("fuzzier"/blurred) and therefore AA may not be as necessary since the fuzzy blurred image you get kind of filters itself automatically.

Monitors tend to be available to the public in certain groupings.  By this, I mean that if you want to buy a 1680x1050 monitor, most of them you will find will be 20-22" for instance.  This holds true for many resolutions.  I will call monitors which fall into these groupings "standard monitors".

So, lets say you compare a standard monitor at native 1680x1050 resolution to a standard monitor at native 1920x1080 resolution.  The 1920x1080 resolution monitor will have a great number of pixels per inch which means that each individual pixel will be smaller.  Smaller pixels / greater pixels per inch means that less AA will be necessary to have the same amount of "jaggies".  So in this situation, the lower resolution monitor would be the one which would benefit more from AA than the high resolution monitor.

But this doesn't hold true for non-standard monitors.  For instance, 19" 1680x1050 monitors exist.  This means that the pixels per inch density is increased and may need less AA than a standard 1920x1080 monitor.

So it all comes down to pixels per inch when running native resolution to determine how much AA is necessary to minimize "jaggies".

EDIT:  This all assumes that you are playing the game in full-screen mode ("the way it was meant to be played").  Throw everything out the window if you are playing in windowed mode.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Feb 24, 2010)

ty_ger said:


> Yes, it definately looks like lazzer messed up the test somewhere.  Maybe he was forcing AA in the video card's control panel without realizing it.  You can definately see AA in the shot which claims to use No AA.



It's hard to judge two pictures on top of one another on an LCD monitor. I knew I should have put them side-by-side. Try moving your head so your looking straight on each screenshot.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 24, 2010)

it depends on the game. a FPS i use 4x because im not that busy looking for jagged edges, im busy shooting things. if it is a RTS it is maxed.


----------



## zithe (Feb 24, 2010)

I notice it in oblivion and crysis because there's some wandering around time. My pc can handle 8x in Oblivion, but over 4x standard AA doesn't work very well. 8x Q looks far better than normal 16x on nvidia cards. Don't know what the ATI equivalent is so I get ticked sometimes lol.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 24, 2010)

I use as much as possible, or ususally at least 4X, but with my shiny new GPU I can run all full settings to make it pretty.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 24, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> it depends on the game. a FPS i use 4x because im not that busy looking for jagged edges, im busy shooting things. if it is a RTS it is maxed.


Yeah....
come to think of it...
that's exactly as i see it..

I guess if things are running slow jagged edges would be more noticeable but then again at that point I don't think any amount of AA is gonna help you.

I honestly play to fast to notice any jagged edges.

But hey campers may notice it right?

i guess it's a subjective feature and probably depends equipment and personal preference.

Personally I don't see the need for a lot of AA, But my monitor is a HDTV monitor and has it's own edge smoothing which i'm sure helps more than AA in my case.


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 24, 2010)

I noticed jagged edges even when playing FPS so I always have to try and max out AA best I can, even if game ends up playing at 30 fps ha ha.


----------



## troyrae360 (Feb 24, 2010)

jmcslob said:


> Personally I don't see the need for a lot of AA, But my monitor is a HDTV monitor and has it's own edge smoothing which i'm sure helps more than AA in my case.



+1 , Im sure my Samsung helps out in that area


----------



## xBruce88x (Feb 25, 2010)

4x at the most usually, of course i'm still using a CRT. a pretty big one at that (20in). also, at least in source games, anything higher than 4x doesn't seem to apply. and i never notice any difference with AF in source games either...


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 25, 2010)

jmcslob said:


> Yeah....
> come to think of it...
> that's exactly as i see it..
> 
> ...



I'm not camping, I'm admiring the stone work while I wait for you to run by, totally different, totally.


----------



## r9 (Feb 25, 2010)

It very much depends on a Game engine. Usually 2x-4x. I`v never owned GPU that can deliver more with smooth gameplay.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't go above 4xAA because I think it actually looks worse in most games. It softens the image too much. I don't like sacrificing texture details for soft edges.


----------

