Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Videocards > Videocards - AMD - ATI Drivers Section
Videocards - AMD - ATI Drivers Section In this section you can discuss everything Catalyst related. AMD Catalyst drivers are for all AMD ATI based graphics cards. This is also the place to discuss modified Catalyst drivers.


View Poll Results: FXAA or MSAA?
FXAA please 13 16.25%
MSAA please 56 70.00%
Just took off my glasses 11 13.75%
Voters: 80. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Just take off your glasses? FXAA? Texture LOD?
Old
  (#1)
nonexistent
Newbie
 
Videocard: HD 7850
Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 965
Mainboard:
Memory: 8 GB DDR3
Soundcard:
PSU: 550W
Default Just take off your glasses? FXAA? Texture LOD? - 02-01-2013, 21:12 | posts: 6

I dunno if this has been discussed before but I am worried abaut the FXAA implementation in games. More and more games do not even allow to switch off FXAA and FXAA has replaced MSAA in many games.
Maybe this is only my point of view but for me FXAA is as if you have forgotten to put on your glasses! The whole HD experience of modern games is blurred. Even MSAA blurrs the textures a little but at least you have some HD highlights. In Assassin's Creed 3 for example the FXAA even has a major impact on performance and you are not able to switch it off. So who has decided that FXAA is the way graphics are meant to be?
Usually I even turn off all antialiasing and set Texture LOD in RadeonPro to -0,2 so that texture details are crisp even on distant objects which gives a more realistic visual experience (for example Age of Conan).
So what do you think? I would not enforce FXAA as the way to go.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#2)
BetA
Ancient Guru
 
BetA's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX670 PEOC@1350Mhz
Processor: Q9550@3,8Ghz@Vendetta2
Mainboard: Asus P5Q Ket“s mBIOS :)
Memory: 4x2048 OCZ-REAPER 1080Mhz
Soundcard: CreativeX-FI X-tremeGamer
PSU: Corsair VX550W 550 Watt
Default 02-01-2013, 21:15 | posts: 3,795 | Location: outside the Box...

i think the same way..
u could use sweetfx (lumasharpen) to counter its Blur effect...

or just use the better AA, sgssaa with neg lod or supersample aa , msaa etc..

-BetA-
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
Espionage724
Maha Guru
 
Espionage724's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI R7850 TF 2GD5/OC
Processor: AMD FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz
Mainboard: MSI 990FXA-GD80V2
Memory: DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) 8GB
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar DG
PSU: Rosewill RG630-S12 630W
Default 02-01-2013, 22:13 | posts: 1,384 | Location: Charleroi, PA

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonexistent View Post
...So who has decided that FXAA is the way graphics are meant to be?
Developers who already skimp-out on making console ported games work properly on PC. AA might take a bit of effort to get right, but why take that effort, when you can just slap FXAA over the entire scene, lessen jaggedness, AND get minimal performance hit? :p

Last edited by Espionage724; 02-01-2013 at 22:17.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
Fox2232
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: Acc7970 XL2420T @120Hz
Processor: i5-2500k@4.5GHz NH-D14
Mainboard: MSI Z68A-GD80[g3]
Memory: 4x4GB 1600MHz 9,9,9,24
Soundcard: Essence ST / AKG K-701
PSU: FSP Gold series 750W
Default 02-02-2013, 18:45 | posts: 1,609 | Location: EU, CZ, Brno

Actually regular textures have soft enough gamma/color transitions to not trigger FXAA/SMAA.
That is why those filters yield better results on scenes without AA than on scenes with 2x/4xAA.

Filter does not work on edges with low contrast too.

If filter is implemented incorrectly then it really makes blurry image no matter if it's FX/SMAA.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#5)
Nichtswisser
Master Guru
 
Nichtswisser's Avatar
 
Videocard: ASUS GTX 670 DC2 4GB
Processor: i5 2500K @4.2GHz @1,160V
Mainboard: ASUS P8P67 Pro Rev 3.0
Memory: GeIL Value Plus 8GB
Soundcard: DT 990 Pro @ASUS Xonar DX
PSU: OCZ ModX Pro 700W
Default 02-12-2013, 19:30 | posts: 263

FXAA and MLAA are crap. The whole reason why we're seeing more and more of it is because of deferred shading which is a vain attempt to make it possible to render more light sources on ancient console hardware. It makes certain things a little cheaper to render, yet one problem, and not the only one, is that hardware AA (MSAA) does not work with deferred shading.

And thanks to that we get a poor mans AA that has trouble to work when things are moving, which they usually do constantly in games, and which makes everything blurry.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
Mr Terry Turnip
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Intel iGPU
Processor: Intel 4670K @4.3Ghz
Mainboard: Asus Z87 Pro
Memory: 8GB Corsair
Soundcard: ATI HD Audio
PSU: Corsair RM850W
Default 02-12-2013, 19:38 | posts: 257 | Location: UK

The only time I use FXAA is when MSAA is too heavy performance wise, unfortunately with this new AA it does not equal the devs thinking ideal we can make much better gfx now we have an AA option with such a small performance hit, it equals less work for the devs, instead of m..

Actually I cba anymore.

More powerful GPU? IDEAL means we don't have to spend extra time with optimization.

LESS DEMANDING AA? IDEAL! SAME!

You get the idea.

It's all a con.

We are not paying an extra £250 for a super powered GPU so we can get better performance we are [paying that so devs can be less arsed to work to get the games looking great and running well.

There are many ways you can look at this, it's all the same in the end.

We lose. (money as well)

Last edited by Mr Terry Turnip; 02-12-2013 at 19:42.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
AbjectBlitz
Ancient Guru
 
AbjectBlitz's Avatar
 
Videocard: R290 PColorPCS+ 1250/1620
Processor: i7 2700k @ 5Ghz H80
Mainboard: Asus P8Z68-V Gen3
Memory: 8gb RipJaws @ 2133 mhz
Soundcard: X-FI Fatal1ty pro
PSU: Crosair TX 750W
Default 02-12-2013, 20:41 | posts: 3,379 | Location: United Kingdom

I just use downsampling, FXAA and similar are terrible implementations that just blur the image. Cant stand anything that blurs my games.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
NiColaoS
Master Guru
 
NiColaoS's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX770 WindForce
Processor: i5 3570K
Mainboard: P8Z77-V Plus
Memory: 2x4GB CL8 1,6Ghz BaliStiX
Soundcard: X-Fi FatalPro & Z5500 5.1
PSU: TPX-575M TOUGHPOWER XT
Default 02-12-2013, 22:03 | posts: 386 | Location: Macedonia, Greece

On DX9 games, MSAA is more than enough ( e.g., Skyrim ). I don't like FXAA; especially when in motion. Also, FXAA defeats the purpose of HD Textures. I see guys using the best HD Textures on Skyrim while they have FXAA enabled... Madness. Although despite the blurriness, it seems you get better results on some "normal" edges.

On DX11 games with tessellation and more edges/objects in menu, I prefer a combination of both. On Bf3 for instance, 4xMSAA + FXAA on Low gives the best results. And that's because the game is heavily optimised for this combination.

I really wonder when the time that we'll be able to afford 4x SSAA will come.

Last edited by NiColaoS; 02-12-2013 at 22:17.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Danny Nissan
Member Guru
 
Videocard: Radeon HD 4890 1GB
Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 965
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: Silverstone Strider 600W
Default 02-13-2013, 01:26 | posts: 88

I agree with OP, FXAA/whatever blurs the image too much. The "HD" is totally gone in todays games - looks like you play in 1680x1050 on a 1920x1200 LCD....
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
Dwarden
Master Guru
 
Dwarden's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire HD7850 2048MB
Processor: Intel C2D E8500@4200MHz
Mainboard: MSI P45 Neo3-Platinum Z
Memory: KINGMAXDDR2-1066 4x1024MB
Soundcard: CL X-Fi Fatal1ty XRAM64MB
PSU: CHIEFTEC 620W
Default 02-14-2013, 03:37 | posts: 166 | Location: Czech Republic

this poll is flawed by default ... as no SMAA mentioned ...

SMAA is way better in quality than FXAA with sharpen filter

so if you going to try run discussion about post process AA like MLAA, FXAA, SMAA

hint, don't confuse SMAA with MSAA ... two different things

SMAA is http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/

then please talk about all of them

note: if there is better ppAA than SMAA please smash me with URL/ docs / details ... thanks

Last edited by Dwarden; 02-14-2013 at 04:29.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#11)
Redemption80
Ancient Guru
 
Redemption80's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 570
Processor: i7-2600K @ 4.5ghz
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 PRO Intel P67
Memory: G.Skill RipJawsX 8GB
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar D2
PSU: Corsair GS800
Default 02-14-2013, 04:08 | posts: 15,080 | Location: Glasgow

It depends on the implementation, MSAA just doesn't work very well in most new game engines so even if the game has MSAA i still need a bit of post processing to stop the image looking a jaggy mess.
FXAA looks good in screenshots, but in motion it's a different story and can end up making the aliasing even more distracting, TXAA has alot of potential though, but still needs some work i think.

I don't mind a little blurring here and there, if i need to do a before and after to notice it then it's not an issue.

Personally i think alot of people are half blind anyway.
Nothing worse looking than a jaggy image and ever since things like SweetFX have appeared i've noticed more and more that people crank the sharpening up so high it makes me pull back from the screen
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
Lowki
Master Guru
 
Lowki's Avatar
 
Videocard: 7970
Processor: i5 3570k
Mainboard: msi z77a-ga45
Memory: corsair vengence 8gb
Soundcard: sound blaster z
PSU: Corsair HX850
Default 02-14-2013, 05:31 | posts: 533 | Location: miami

In most games i prefer no aa looks way more crisp. Some games look god awfull without it one in particular is skyrim then i like super sample aa with edge detect.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
AbjectBlitz
Ancient Guru
 
AbjectBlitz's Avatar
 
Videocard: R290 PColorPCS+ 1250/1620
Processor: i7 2700k @ 5Ghz H80
Mainboard: Asus P8Z68-V Gen3
Memory: 8gb RipJaws @ 2133 mhz
Soundcard: X-FI Fatal1ty pro
PSU: Crosair TX 750W
Default 02-14-2013, 13:18 | posts: 3,379 | Location: United Kingdom

Kind of depends if one plays singleplayer or multi I guess. In single I don't really care, but in multi I want super crisp image. Any blurring is most certainly a no, I would rather have jaggies than a blurred image making pixel hunting headshots difficult.

One of the main reasons why I always loved PC gaming was the crisp, sharp high rez graphics. So these blur cheap AA implementations bother me and so do the games that try to look cinematic with ridiculous motion blur.

Last edited by AbjectBlitz; 02-14-2013 at 13:25.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
Nichtswisser
Master Guru
 
Nichtswisser's Avatar
 
Videocard: ASUS GTX 670 DC2 4GB
Processor: i5 2500K @4.2GHz @1,160V
Mainboard: ASUS P8P67 Pro Rev 3.0
Memory: GeIL Value Plus 8GB
Soundcard: DT 990 Pro @ASUS Xonar DX
PSU: OCZ ModX Pro 700W
Default 02-14-2013, 13:53 | posts: 263

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbjectBlitz View Post
and so do the games that try to look cinematic with ridiculous motion blur.
Yeah, motion blue is just terrible. As are DoF effects. For cut scenes those are ok as they produce a cinematic effects which fits those well, yet not for actual gameplay as you don't see those in real life either.

Really not sure what's up with the blurriness movement apparently going on in the gaming industry. Blurry textures, blur-shader-AA, motion blur, depth of field blur.... Would I want blurry, I would play in non-native resolutions and stop cleaning my monitor.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
CPC_RedDawn
Ancient Guru
 
CPC_RedDawn's Avatar
 
Videocard: 3GB HD7970OC/2GB HD7770
Processor: 4770K@4.5GHz/Q6600@3.6GHz
Mainboard: Z87-GD65 / P5K PREMIUM
Memory: 16GB@1866MHz/4GB@1066MHz
Soundcard: Creative SoundBlaster Z
PSU: 1200W/900W
Default 02-14-2013, 14:06 | posts: 6,049 | Location: Wolverhampton/United Kingdom

I think its pretty unanimous that everyone would prefer the much better IQ of MSAA compared to FXAA and other such injectors that clearly just mask the image by adding a filter to the image which blurs out jaggies.

I want Nvidia and AMD to focus more heavily on MSAA or even SSAA (Super Sample AA) our graphics cards nowadays are so powerful yet if we apply super sample AA to our latest games our fps plummets in most cases. Super Sample AA destroys jaggies and the IQ is simply without question the best. Our graphics cards now come with Tessellation engines, part out our cards architecture and drivers have been specifically designed for Tessellation. So why can't they do the same thing for AA?? Make a graphics card architecture that is made from the ground up to push as many frames as possible at high resolutions with high levels SSAA applied and Tessellation. Our games would looks so much better for it, and if graphics manufacturers start to better support it in their architecture then maybe devs will also apply it to their games as well.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16)
plywood99
Member Guru
 
plywood99's Avatar
 
Videocard: 7970 @1300 / 1750
Processor: AMD 8350 @5ghz
Mainboard: Sabertooth 990FX Rev.2
Memory: 32gigs Ripjaws 1600
Soundcard: mobo sound
PSU: PCP&C Silencer 750
Default 02-14-2013, 23:39 | posts: 125 | Location: Ohio

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarden View Post
this poll is flawed by default ... as no SMAA mentioned ...

SMAA is way better in quality than FXAA with sharpen filter

so if you going to try run discussion about post process AA like MLAA, FXAA, SMAA

hint, don't confuse SMAA with MSAA ... two different things

SMAA is http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/

then please talk about all of them

note: if there is better ppAA than SMAA please smash me with URL/ docs / details ... thanks
Agree 100%
SMAA looks awesome. SMAA with a decent sharpen filter looks amazing.
Honestly I wonder why AMD/Nvidia don't support SMAA and other post processing effects. It's simple to include with the driver and gives the user a ton of options to play with to set each game how the user sees fit.

The future is in post processing effects people. Time to get on board.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
NiColaoS
Master Guru
 
NiColaoS's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX770 WindForce
Processor: i5 3570K
Mainboard: P8Z77-V Plus
Memory: 2x4GB CL8 1,6Ghz BaliStiX
Soundcard: X-Fi FatalPro & Z5500 5.1
PSU: TPX-575M TOUGHPOWER XT
Default 02-15-2013, 06:31 | posts: 386 | Location: Macedonia, Greece

SMAA/SweetFx/FXAA/MLAA same crap, slightly different settings. Since it's not working when in motion and on some specific objects at all, there's no fundamental difference. You place them all in one category, "Post Processing AA" and you're done.

Without the solidness that MSAA or SSAA provide in the environment, this AA method will remain bad, no matter what. Think of the wires on Operation Firestorm or the poles generally on Battlefield 3. Try to go from one flag to another on Firestorm that you have a big open area in front of you, and tell me how it looks... Everything is flickering/flashing, along with the blurriness. Then, apply 4xMSAA and lower the FXAA to 'Low' -It's almost perfect.

I really prefer to lower the eye-candy as much as I need in order to maintain at least the 4xMSAA and 60FPS VSync'ed. If there's a reason to make me get a second GPU, that would solely be for 4xSSAA. But I'm not so mindless yet. :S

Last edited by NiColaoS; 02-15-2013 at 06:45.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
Dwarden
Master Guru
 
Dwarden's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire HD7850 2048MB
Processor: Intel C2D E8500@4200MHz
Mainboard: MSI P45 Neo3-Platinum Z
Memory: KINGMAXDDR2-1066 4x1024MB
Soundcard: CL X-Fi Fatal1ty XRAM64MB
PSU: CHIEFTEC 620W
Default 02-15-2013, 14:39 | posts: 166 | Location: Czech Republic

Nicolaos I guess you don't even bothered compare the quality of SMAA vs rest ...

for me the SMAA is only usable ppAA compared to normal MSAA ...

and yes I use it already together with SSAA ...

our ARMA 2: OA and TOH supports ppAA (FXAA or SMAA) which can be combined with super-sampled (200% render then downscaled) and MSAA ...
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
Fox2232
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: Acc7970 XL2420T @120Hz
Processor: i5-2500k@4.5GHz NH-D14
Mainboard: MSI Z68A-GD80[g3]
Memory: 4x4GB 1600MHz 9,9,9,24
Soundcard: Essence ST / AKG K-701
PSU: FSP Gold series 750W
Default 02-15-2013, 17:22 | posts: 1,609 | Location: EU, CZ, Brno

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarden View Post
Nicolaos I guess you don't even bothered compare the quality of SMAA vs rest ...

for me the SMAA is only usable ppAA compared to normal MSAA ...

and yes I use it already together with SSAA ...

our ARMA 2: OA and TOH supports ppAA (FXAA or SMAA) which can be combined with super-sampled (200% render then downscaled) and MSAA ...
Yes, I love downscaling posibility in ARMA 2. I use 1.33/1.5 multiply of native screen res. Those are pretty nice.

And I would love to have such thing incorporated in Driver or RadeonPRO.
In some cases I use SoftTH to get it working but it sometimes results in smaller text/hud.

And in game like Path of Exile external SMAA filter from RadeonPRO gives less blurry image than game's own AA method.

I personally consider best thing (atm.) to have SMAA + 1.33/1.5x downscaling.
From visual it is somewhere between 4x and 4x EdgeDetect. But performance hit is much smaller.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
Mr Terry Turnip
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Intel iGPU
Processor: Intel 4670K @4.3Ghz
Mainboard: Asus Z87 Pro
Memory: 8GB Corsair
Soundcard: ATI HD Audio
PSU: Corsair RM850W
Default 02-15-2013, 18:09 | posts: 257 | Location: UK

Graphics cards are piss weak, 4xSSAA 1080p should be bog standard stuff in 2013

Every BS excuse in the book to release next gen cards charging £500 a pop, which barely get 15-25% increase AT BEST over last gen cards - pitiful

If they use much better tech, they even be sure to crap it out by clocking it so damn low... said increase remains at.. you guessed it.. about 15-25%


Pitiful.

They could, if there was proper demand for it ofc (there is not, people are satisfied with the power available in 2013) actually release cards with proper next gen tech and NOT cripple them with hideous slow clock speeds etc, therefore giving a WORTHY, and ACCEPTABLE 50-80% performance increase over LAST gen cards - this should be the god damned EXPECTED shizzle, but it's not, people just have become accepting of the weak increases latest gen cards provide, and throw in the FANBOYS who love to spout garbage like "well you do not have ot buy a new card every generation..." idiots, you do, because GPU's are so damned piss weak and games coded so lazily we need to get every damned increase we can possibly get, so we end up so desperate (as perfectly manipulated by the likes of Nvida etc etc) we will pay absurd amounts to play games at 1080p maxed out.

Poor.

Last edited by Mr Terry Turnip; 02-15-2013 at 18:40.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
Lowki
Master Guru
 
Lowki's Avatar
 
Videocard: 7970
Processor: i5 3570k
Mainboard: msi z77a-ga45
Memory: corsair vengence 8gb
Soundcard: sound blaster z
PSU: Corsair HX850
Default 02-16-2013, 01:05 | posts: 533 | Location: miami

because GPU's are so damned piss weak and games coded so lazily we need to get every damned increase we can possibly get, so we end up so desperate (as perfectly manipulated by the likes of Nvida etc etc) we will pay absurd amounts to play games at 1080p maxed out.

Poor.[/QUOTE]

I would say its the game coding man because a 7970 has 2000 more shaders then an xbox 360 witch has 48 and were only playing ports at twice the frame rate and higher res. well atleast the most of us. I think it comes down to developers not caring to put in the time to make pc version of a game pc centric because its not that profitable. If they just do a fast port no changes basicly more sales of the same game for them. All these douche bags pirating every game....
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
Redemption80
Ancient Guru
 
Redemption80's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX 570
Processor: i7-2600K @ 4.5ghz
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 PRO Intel P67
Memory: G.Skill RipJawsX 8GB
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar D2
PSU: Corsair GS800
Default 02-16-2013, 02:22 | posts: 15,080 | Location: Glasgow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Terry Turnip View Post
because GPU's are so damned piss weak and games coded so lazily we need to get every damned increase we can possibly get, so we end up so desperate (as perfectly manipulated by the likes of Nvida etc etc) we will pay absurd amounts to play games at 1080p maxed out.

Poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowki View Post
I would say its the game coding man because a 7970 has 2000 more shaders then an xbox 360 witch has 48 and were only playing ports at twice the frame rate and higher res. well atleast the most of us. I think it comes down to developers not caring to put in the time to make pc version of a game pc centric because its not that profitable. If they just do a fast port no changes basicly more sales of the same game for them. All these douche bags pirating every game....
It's not just that it's not as profitable, though that does play a large part in the process, it's also to do with the fact it costs more as when developing for the PC they have to test it with a crap load of hardware from AMD/Nvidia/Intel, it's more work for less money.
If it was you and it was your job, would you work harder for less money, no sensible person will answer yes to that.

It also isn't as simple as twice the framerate with a higher res, running a game at 1280x720 at 30fps works out as 27,648,000 pixels per second, while 1920x1080 at 60fps is 124,416,000 pixels per second.
That means it takes 5 times the hardware to run a very basic port with no AA or AF.
Add in AA/AF and the GPU need increases, even moreso with high res textures or high performance shader post processing and that is just DX9, once you go to DX11 then it's a whole new league of performance killing visual features.

It would be handy if people actually knew what 4xSSAA was when they were talking about it, but they clearly don't if they think it should be it's normal for a modern game to run at 60fps at such a high setting.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
Fox2232
Maha Guru
 
Videocard: Acc7970 XL2420T @120Hz
Processor: i5-2500k@4.5GHz NH-D14
Mainboard: MSI Z68A-GD80[g3]
Memory: 4x4GB 1600MHz 9,9,9,24
Soundcard: Essence ST / AKG K-701
PSU: FSP Gold series 750W
Default 02-16-2013, 20:01 | posts: 1,609 | Location: EU, CZ, Brno

As far as performance goes, our current HW is so much above requirements for 1080p even for next 4 years.

Developers are just not capable/willing to make decent engine.
I believe everyone remembers time when Painkiller came out. It was April 2004.
Game looked better than many current AAA titles, It was so smooth even on average hardware.

And they just used few things to make it happen: Geometry instancing, shader cloning

New release of game just added higher resolution textures since we have 1080p displays everywhere and game still kicks ass.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
Lowki
Master Guru
 
Lowki's Avatar
 
Videocard: 7970
Processor: i5 3570k
Mainboard: msi z77a-ga45
Memory: corsair vengence 8gb
Soundcard: sound blaster z
PSU: Corsair HX850
Default 02-16-2013, 22:27 | posts: 533 | Location: miami

I think what it comes down to is were going to have to wait for the next generation of consoles then direct x 11 will take off.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
Lane
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: 2x HD7970 - EK Waterblock
Processor: I7 4930K H2o EK Supremacy
Mainboard: Asus X79 Deluxe
Memory: G-Skill C9 2133mhz 16GB
Soundcard: X-FI Titanium HD + SP2500
PSU: CM 1000W
Default 02-17-2013, 18:46 | posts: 5,661 | Location: Switzerland

When i like better MSAA, quality wise... problem is still many games engine ( defferend render ) dont allow proper implementation of it... Then for peoples who have low performance hardware, its still a good possibility in term of usablity.

On this i like Crysis3, you have the choice between FXAA, MSAA, SGAA etc.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.