AMD 16-core Ryzen a Multi-Chip Module of two "Summit Ridge" Dies

[cdawall]

you said you don't need AA which is factually wrong and spreads bad info. AA still makes a significant differences especially 2x AA.

Stop trying to save face.

This gmae does really well without AA but still 2x makes a good difference
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...ng-were-glitching-our-way-to-gaming-nirvana/3

I play mostly older games and AA makes a world of a difference. I think newer games have done better at not needing AA as much.

He is correct you don't "need" AA, you don't "need" anything there is nothing in your life that requires a screen to be more or less clear in video games.

 

[idx]

you said you don't need AA which is factually wrong and spreads bad info. AA still makes a significant differences especially 2x AA.

Stop trying to save face.

This gmae does really well without AA but still 2x makes a good difference
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...ng-were-glitching-our-way-to-gaming-nirvana/3

I play mostly older games and AA makes a world of a difference. I think newer games have done better at not needing AA as much.

Save face ? what kind of mentality are you...

Anyway, what I am saying is a fact, everyone agree that having 4x the pixels (as real physical pixels) is way better than having 4x AA that is trying to repeat pixels in order to fill up the aliasing in pictures.

 

[pantherx12]

your dumb. You need AA at 4K 27 in monitor.

Surely someone's AA requirements depend on many factors.

Here's a few!

Distance from screen, people all tend to have a preference for how close or far away a screen is.

Eyesight, people may not be able to distinguish between no AA and 8xAA thanks to poor genetics or other factors.

Performance : Is the visual improvement worth the performance hit, can the end users hard ware handle the game.


Game engine : Some games engines handle edges better than others and barely need AA in the first instance.


Try not to get your personal preferences confused with "needs". Less friction that way and every body gets to enjoy the forum without being insulted.

Anywhom!



Anyone going to be buying one of these 16 core behemoths?

What do you intend to use yours for.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

I was never able to see 2xMSAA's benefits. 4x is the minimum required. 2x makes a little difference that I can only see in screenshots or if I sit still in game and look for details.

And those pictures tell us squat. Of course you're going to see jaggies when you look at a 4k screenshot on a FHD monitor (you're actually zooming in). The question is: are those jaggies visible when the pixel is physically 4x smaller?

I have 27in 1440P and 27 in 4K screen...I play at 4K all the time but mostly older games and AA helps a ton.

Save face ? what kind of mentality are you...

Anyway, what I am saying is a fact, everyone agree that having 4x the pixels (as real physical pixels) is way better than having 4x AA that is trying to repeat pixels in order to fill up the aliasing in pictures.

never said 4x pixels wasn't better. I simply said its fact that AA helps even on 4K.

 

[cdawall]

never said 4x pixels wasn't better. I simply said its fact that AA helps even on 4K.

I bet you couldn't see the difference on my monitor.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

I bet you couldn't see the difference on my monitor.

huh?

 

[cdawall]

huh?

I would bet money you would not be able to tell the difference between 16af/8aa on my monitor and none.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

I would bet money you would not be able to tell the difference between 16af/8aa on my monitor and none.

I don't know what monitor you have so can't comment.

any AA makes a difference but going from 8x-16x or whatever is not anywhere as near dramatic as no AA to 2/4x AA.

More AA usually helps but there are diminishing returns.

It also depends the game on content on screen.

Older games show jaggedness way more than new games due to graphics differences.

old games had far more straight lines/

 

[cdawall]

I don't know what monitor you have so can't comment.

any AA makes a difference but going from 8x-16x or whatever is not anywhere as near dramatic as no AA to 2/4x AA.

More AA usually helps but there are diminishing returns.

It also depends the game on content on screen.

Older games show jaggedness way more than new games due to graphics differences.

old games had far more straight lines/

It is listed in my sys specs... 23.8" 4k

 

[bug]

It is listed in my sys specs... 23.8" 4k

I would bet money he's one of the people that can tell 4k from FHD on a 5" smartphone

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

I would bet money he's one of the people that can tell 4k from FHD on a 5" smartphone

4K vs FHD...yes...thats still in the range of human eye. 8K vs 4K no (beyond human eye). 4K vs 1440P not likely for me. I know people who can.

Human eye can see 720 PPI at 1 foot away. That is why prints are done at 600-720 DPI.

Again you prove to be a twit and fail to understand basic knowledge.

1080P 5 in=440.58ppi
1440P 5 in =587.44 PPI
4K 5 in = 881.16 PPI

300 DPI prints vs 600 DPI prints are very noticeable. I must prefer 600 DPI prints.

“If the average reading distance is 1 foot (12 inches = 305 mm), p @0.4 arc minute is 35.5 microns or about 720 ppi/dpi. p @1 arc minute is 89 microns or about 300 dpi/ppi. This is why magazines are printed at 300 dpi – it’s good enough for most people. Fine art printers aim for 720, and that’s the best it need be. Very few people stick their heads closer than 1 foot away from a painting or photograph.”

http://techdissected.com/ask-ted/ask-ted-how-many-ppi-can-the-human-eye-see/

 

[cdawall]

I would bet money he's one of the people that can tell 4k from FHD on a 5" smartphone

I never argued that I argued the ability for him specifically to see the difference between aa and not on my specific monitor.

 

[infrared]