How much does FXAA take from you? A little tests…(warning：lots of pics)

[walkingdog]

We all know that FXAA plays am important role as a hero against in-game jaggies,
especially for those using deferred shading features. It’s a good start to fight those
ugly jaggies, but FXAA also blurs the images and textures, details lost due to FXAA
in charge. So, FXAA is not so perfect as everybody knows, and its side effect is what
we must endure during the entire gaming experience.


FXAA is a sharp blade for deferred shading and HDR while fighting those unpleasant jaggies,
but what do we lose when taking advantage of its wonderful power?
Since FXAA is a post process AA solution to smooth polygon edges, it also smoothes
the entire textures as well. 『How much is destroyed』is the major concern of this little
test and comparison, and I sincerely hope someday Nvidia or AMD can present a
perfect and beautiful AA solution, not only killing in-game jaggies, but keeping
textures as sharp as it should be (seems TXAA may have the chance).


I used several games as samples, with different 3D engines. FXAA was enabled via
NV driver contorl panel (Deus ex using ingame FXAA). FRAPs was the tool to
capture in-game screenshots, and I kept FPS counter on screen, as a way to show
performance change during testing process.
I converted two bmps into one gif file, this procedure resulted in image quality loss,
a lot I must add, so I made a RAR containing all png files.
You can download it here and compare all the difference as you want.
http://freakshare.com/files/0yo0hf5f/PNG.rar.html


IMO I think FXAA is good, an alternative to suit gamer’s taste, although it blurs
textures to a degree in most cases.
In some games though, it really doesn’t have so much impact on images or textures,
like Dead Space 2、Max Payne 3,etc. This may be due to different 3D engines used,
the resolution of textures, and don’t forget in-game environments
(dark or blight, in dark surroundings AA is less important).
Anyway, an AA solution with the merit of both MSAA and FXAA is highly expected.
I have heard TXAA is as good as FXAA while dealing with deferred shading, along
with less performance drop compared to MSAA, and keeps textures sharp at the same
time. Let’s hope it’s true, and AMD can present its own AA solution like TAXX in the near future…






Test Platform
CPU：E6500
RAM：4GB DDR2-800
VGA：9800GT GREEN
MONITOR：CHIMEI T38D 1400X1050
DRIVER：301.24


1. Wolfenstein (Wolfenstein 3D Engine)
http://i.imgur.com/FYe1D.gif


FXAA is a charm, sentencing jaggies to death.
Take a look at the floor and indentaions on the windowstill, a few details vanish,
not a lot though. I think it’s good to turn on FXAA in this game.



2. Borderlands (Unreal Engine 3)
http://i.imgur.com/LwcLQ.gif


PICs can not show what is really happening in this game.
Yeah, I prefer to bear some jaggies than blurry images,
not serious, but out of focus…



3. Crysis (CryEngine)
http://i.imgur.com/aPPOj.gif


Shadows of mud become less stereoscopic, you can make it out I believe,
don’t know if Nomad wears his grandpa’s glasses…
FXAA does a little damage to the textures, especially when there are trees and grass.
Although endurable, I think in-game AA is more cute…



4. Deus ex： Human Revolution (Re-engineered Crystal Engine)
http://i.imgur.com/gDabv.gif


Look at the electronic panel on the far wall, the words on that panel decline a bit,
and lines of hand mess up…
Still, I think it’s better to enable FXAA in this game, otherwise you’ll earn a lot of doggy-teeth…



5. Gothic 3 (Genome Engine)
http://i.imgur.com/wdVvD.gif


Never have I seen so many disparities in a game like Gothic 3 with FXAA on&off.
The leaves of trees stick together like a mass of shit.
Also take a look at the grain of the planks、ladders、cottages, textures downgrade a lot,
and this forces you to trun off FXAA immediately…



6. Max Payne 3 (Euphoria Engine)
http://i.imgur.com/3btyZ.gif


FXAA looks good in this game. I used driver FXAA instead of in-game FXAA.
It seems in-game FXAA just couldn’t take jaggies away, but blurs all the image.
I don’t know why, maybe a personal issue I guess…

[scope54]

Nice work. I wonder if the NV FXAA is the newest version (4.0), because it seems to be doing a better job than the older version available from here: http://timothylottes.blogspot.com/20...s-for-360.html

Also, Max Payne 3 uses (rockstar advanced game engine), Euphoria is the name of the physics engine.

[newtekie1]

Very nice work.

However, blurring textures isn't a problem with FXAA(or any AA), it is what AA was designed to do. Jaggies aren't just around polygons, jaggies are any line that isn't perfectly horizontal or vertical, be it the edge of a polygon or a line in a texture. Of course, most lines in textures aren't straight, so we notice jaggies a lot less in them, but textures still have jaggies, and AA must be applied to them. So, AA works by blurring, that is what it does. It takes the two sides of the line and blurs them together to make the transition less abrupt. So applying AA to textures means blurring the textures, this is the wanted affect of AA.

The Deus Ex example you provided is a perfect way of demonstrating what I mean. Look at the arm displayed on the wall. That is a texture, and it is filled with jaggies without AA, and with AA it is smooth but blurred.

Blurring isn't a side effect, it is the solution.

[RejZoR]

There is a difefrence between blurring and interpolation. The second one is what most of advanced algorithms do. Bluring was used as cheap anti-aliasing on consoles and it looked horrible (good example is Dead Space 1). Thankfully MLAA (and FXAA) work far better instead.

[phanbuey]

I would rather have jaggies than blurred textures FXAA is horribly blurry, ruins the fidelity of the game IMO... enable it in a racing game and the road in front of you looks like soup. Same thing with any game that has vegetation. The leaves immediately lose quality.

Bring out the retina displays, get rid of AA, and just crank the resolution.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by RejZoR

There is a difefrence between blurring and interpolation. The second one is what most of advanced algorithms do. Bluring was used as cheap anti-aliasing on consoles and it looked horrible (good example is Dead Space 1). Thankfully MLAA (and FXAA) work far better instead.

Interpolation is still a form of blurring, they are just a better way of doing it. But in the end, there is no way to do AA without bluring, that is what AA does. It blurs the lines, every line, including lines in textures.

The real solution is to make AA not needed. Increased resolutions.

[MasterInvader]

To me the more the better.

All game engines need to be as the Frostbite [32x CSAA]

[Slizzo]

Originally Posted by MasterInvader

To me the more the better.

All game engines need to be as the Frostbite [32x CSAA]

Diminishing returns. The higher the resolution, the less that anti-aliasing is needed.

At 30" panel resolutions, I would argue that very little or no AA is needed.

[Frag Maniac]

Originally Posted by walkingdog

FXAA looks good in this game. I used driver FXAA instead of in-game FXAA. It seems in-game FXAA just couldn’t take jaggies away, but blurs all the image. I don’t know why, maybe a personal issue I guess…

Odd, because for me, the in game VSync for MP3 looks noticeably better than when forced via the Nvidia Control Panel. I've yet to check in game vs driver FXAA though.

BTW, does anyone know if there's a MP3 benchmark test that can be done via console command or something?

[Goodman]

AA , FXAA , XAA all the same to me

I never setup or tweaks my drivers i left everything to default except for benchmarks of course...

As for games i setup my AA & Aniso in my game settings & leave my driver to default

I don't care much about AA or FXAA anyways as long as the game is fun to play with couldn't care less what it looks like...

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by Slizzo

Diminishing returns. The higher the resolution, the less that anti-aliasing is needed.

At 30" panel resolutions, I would argue that very little or no AA is needed.

You would be right.