Monday, August 2nd 2010
AMD Rolls Out Catalyst 10.7a, Forces AA for Starcraft II Wings of Liberty
Barely a week after releasing the Catalyst 10.7 WHQL software suite, AMD rolled out the Catalyst 10.7a BETA. This new version packs all the features and fixes of Catalyst 10.7, with the added feature of letting users enable forced anti-aliasing for Starcraft II Wings of Liberty from Catalyst Control Center to improve image quality. The fix affects all ATI Radeon graphics processors from Radeon HD 2000 series to HD 5000 series, supporting all Windows client versions from Windows XP. The other added feature is improved 4-way CrossFireX performance in ATI Eyefinity setups.
DOWNLOAD: ATI Catalyst 10.7a BETA
DOWNLOAD: ATI Catalyst 10.7a BETA
71 Comments on AMD Rolls Out Catalyst 10.7a, Forces AA for Starcraft II Wings of Liberty
while this allows AA, the performance hit is massive (which may be why blizzard didnt add an AA option into the game in the first place)
Settings were everthing maxed(ultra, high for a few since they don't go ultra). at 1680x1050. stock HD 5770
But i re-ran my results without AA and with 2xAA(msaa) with the 10.7a drivers.
No AA
min:11
avg:55.596
max:72
AA
min:11
avg:38.769
max:53
recorded w/FRAPS
EDIT:....and now SC2 is sayin i need to re-install. fml my bro has the dvd for the guest pass.
OT: I did notice the lag more, but only when i clicked, not really with unit movement. Though i have had some big MP battles, so gonna leave AA off until performance is more optimized for it, but for missions i'll probly leave the AA on
I play this game for story 99%, and if it were not for the 2 expansion packs, after finishing the campaign (last mission now), I would just have sold it.
The thing is, in my opinion, it has too much action for you to stare at the graphics and try to observe the difference between AA or no AA.
The only thing close to what you say was some Guitar Hero on a Xbox or PS3, have no idea (there were both consoles there, was in a store) - it was kinda jaggy, but I was very close to the screen.
Nice to have a place (and money!) for such a big screen...
Anyone else run comparisons?
It's 1366x768.
1280x720
1360x768 (or 1366x768 if you're anally retentive/OCD)
1920x1080
And the res never made much sense to me either, especially on a TV, considering HD is 1280x720 anyway.
oh and its not displayed at 1366 at all, when using HDMI i actually get those 6 pixels as a very very thin black line on each side of the screen.
you obviously have NO idea whats going on here.