cucker tarlsonI'm not saying it's different, I'm even convinced that RTX and ATAA will be under the gameworks brand. And why bring AMD into the discussion,no one mentioned AMD. I can name a few problems worse than gameworks they have just off the top of my head.

BTW you have old info on gameworks, like most of red team supporters you like to complain more than you like to absorb information

HTCThat's different then ... say ... gameworks ... how, exactly?

They'll be "happy" to take the performance hit, so long as any AMD cards have a BIGGER performance hit.

Vayra86Yes because you totally can't turn most of those 'features' off...

Just because a setting's there doesn't mean it needs to be used. This type of AA falls right into that category.

At the same time Gameworks and the funding poured into it has also brought good stuff to games. As long as its optional I really don't see the issue.

bugHe wouldn't have an issue either. If AMD did it.

bugIf it can't do better than what that image shows, yes, it will probably die.
About the added delay, any form of post-processing adds delay, it's not like can look at 2-8 million pixels in zero time. Much less compute something about them. The 33ms is a meaningless number as long as we don't know what delay other AA techniques introduce.

Prince ValiantI presume they'd be all too happy to tout ms comparisons to other PP options if this is faster. Fair point nonetheless.

HTCWrong: i most certainly would. It's the practice that's wrong, dude!

bugAt the same time, is 33ms would be embarrassing, they wouldn't have mentioned it at all ;)
We can assume anything, without numbers we're either venting or just keeping ourselves busy.


The practice of what? Of features not being perfectly equally taxing on all hardware?

In our investigation we found that across a sample of Tessellation heavy games and benchmarks that the AMD Radeon R9 285 was either ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 or at most 13% behind. Seeing as how Tessellation x32 is what’s used for HairWorks we were anticipating a similar 13% delta between the R9 285 and GTX 960.
But what we have found with HairWorks is that the performance cost on the R9 285 is double that of the NVIDIA GPUs and it’s nearly three times for the R9 290X. If AMD’s tessellation performance was the real reason behind this huge penalty running HairWorks as NVIDIA claims, then we would would’ve seen it reflected in our other tessellation tests but that’s clearly not what we’re seeing.
A 13% delta between the R9 285 and GTX 960 turns into a whopping 206% delta, in both instances running tessellation x32. The main difference is that in the first instance both cards were running a standard piece of code that both companies can optimize while in the second instance the R9 285 is running code developed by NVIDIA that AMD cannot even see.

TheGuruStudTXAA is still completely broken (headache inducingly blurry), so time to release some new fast method garbage.

FordGT90ConceptNo game developer is going to waste their time on this. The cost is too high and the reward is not competitive.

megamanxtremeD.S.R. up the resolution and apply FXAA.

FordGT90ConceptSSAA 4x looks better than ATAA 8x IMO. Why keep reinventing the wheel?


And that's on a Titan V. How bad is it on a 1060 GTX (you know, a card gamers actually use)? Even if it was intended for real estate renders, why use the more expensive ATAA when you can get a better results with SSAA? I think NVIDIA just built another bridge to no where to sell GameWorks.

HTCThis article explains the problem nicely.



This video also shows something interesting: start watching from around 10 minute mark.

FordGT90ConceptSSAA 4x looks better than ATAA 8x IMO. Why keep reinventing the wheel?


And that's on a Titan V. How bad is it on a 1060 GTX (you know, a card gamers actually use)? Even if it was intended for real estate renders, why use the more expensive ATAA when you can get a better results with SSAA? I think NVIDIA just built another bridge to no where to sell GameWorks.

bugWell, if your best argumet is wtftech, then I guess my job here is done.

bugAt the same time, is 33ms would be embarrassing, they wouldn't have mentioned it at all ;)
We can assume anything, without numbers we're either venting or just keeping ourselves busy.

Nvidia Research ATAThe algorithm removes blurring and ghosting artifacts associated
with standard temporal antialiasing and achieves quality approaching
8× supersampling of geometry, shading, and materials while
staying within the 33ms frame budget required of most games.

XzibitWhen you think most games run at 30fps

Nvidia Research ATA said:
The algorithm removes blurring and ghosting artifacts associated
with standard temporal antialiasing and achieves quality approaching
8× supersampling of geometry, shading, and materials while
staying within the 33ms frame budget required of most games.

You throw it out there.

ppn33ms lag, no way, too high. I prefer pure 4K, noAA, 16AF.

bugIf it can't do better than what that image shows, yes, it will probably die.
About the added delay, any form of post-processing adds delay, it's not like can look at 2-8 million pixels in zero time. Much less compute something about them. The 33ms is a meaningless number as long as we don't know what delay other AA techniques introduce.

FluffmeisterThere you go Nvidia, AMD fans have spoken... they love 4K.

So just keep releasing faster GPUs.

Done.