How much AA do you need?

[warup89]

As 97% of us now have LCD monitors, AA does make a decent difference when enabled, so now I ask how much AA do you need to have nice image quality while keeping things running smoothly?

-I'm personally set with x2 AA, anything else i believe is just a waste since the rough edges disappear with only x2 AA. Anything more and it only makes the edges "thinner" per say. Then again the max resolution i have ever played at was 1680 X 1050. I dont know the difference, with anything higher than that.

[kurosagi01]

i would say either 2x or 4x is enough for Anti-aliasing.

[yaji]

4xAA + 2x Temporal multipler.

[Clement]

Originally Posted by yaji

4xAA + 2x Temporal multipler.

I second this notion. I don't even notice a difference until I enable 4x on my x1950GT, but with temporal aa enabled I see a noticeable difference with what feels like no hit to frames. At least not enough to bother me, I no longer run my games with fraps running. It just works.

[robal]

I can't live without AA.
At least 4x.

It's funny, but some (many!?) people barely see the difference. And even if you show them exactly what's what... they don't seem to care.
I guess they are the same kind of people that say they don't need HDTV and enjoy blurry photos made with phone...

Some people don't have "HD brain"... em.. "HD aesthetic feel" - better said.

Cheers,

I use 4AA @ 1920x1080 if not 8AA, i preffer more AA at high res than some game effects to keep the fps up, but at 1024x768 i used to turn AA oFF or 2AA

i believe that resolution scales whit AA

[Easo]

4X, but since my 4850 usually takes more, like x8, sure, why not.

[ste2425]

meh never used AA and dare say i never will. Ive never had the equipment to max out game with AA so just got used to it without. Dnt get me wrong i do see the jaged edges but id rather have smooth gameplay.

[AsRock]

x2 seems to be the sweet spot for near any game.

[kurosagi01]

Originally Posted by ste2425

meh never used AA and dare say i never will. Ive never had the equipment to max out game with AA so just got used to it without. Dnt get me wrong i do see the jaged edges but id rather have smooth gameplay.

just over your CPU to 3GHZ or something and you can play games with 2-4X AA easily.
Even my system can play games with 2-4X AA at 1680x1050 and i get about 50+fps on every game still.

[pantherx12]

I max out settings when ever I can.

AA included, I can actually see the difference between x2,x3,x4 etc etc mind you, its only after x6 that the difference becomes negligible on all but dodgy edges .( you know the ones, the kind that look jagged even with 16x aa)

on most games, as high as they go, cause I can, on batman Arkham Asylum - 2-4x otherwise its unplayable on ATI cards

[Melcar]

I'm one of those people that can't tell the difference . Honestly, I sometimes just can't tell the difference between a scene running with AA an another one with no AA. This is specially true with most modern games. On some older titles too, but there I can sometimes tell the difference when not using AA. I use x4, even if I can't tell the difference visually most of the time; I just leave it at that for the times I load up an older game (which is rather often).
As for the different levels, when I do bother to notice AA, x2 looks the same as x8 unless I pixel hunt. When I play games I'm too busy you know, playing the game for me to bother with visuals that much... unless it's a boring game and I have nothing else to do but to look at the pretty pictures (which is about 90% of games nowadays).

[Nick259]

I'm happy with 2xaa although if I can maintain a good framerate then i'll run it with 4xaa. Anything more is just a waste to me as I can't tell the difference, even in older games I run 4xaa max.

I'm running 1680x1050.

[pantherx12]

Do you guys really not see a difference past x4?


Try running a predefined bench mark with AA off x2,x4,x6 etc and you should be able to see the difference clearly even up until x8 as you'll be watching the exact same thing only difference is AA, where as in game if you get into playing the game things like AA would be missed XD

[KieX]

Whenever maxed out runs smoothly, that's the way to go. Otherwise 4xAA is where I find the sweetspot between eye candy vs performance.

Agree with you panther, up to 8x you can see the differnce between 2,4,6

[Clement]

Originally Posted by pantherx12

Do you guys really not see a difference past x4?


Try running a predefined bench mark with AA off x2,x4,x6 etc and you should be able to see the difference clearly even up until x8 as you'll be watching the exact same thing only difference is AA, where as in game if you get into playing the game things like AA would be missed XD

Who plays benchmarks for entertainment?

[Black Panther]

I'm a bit finicky when it comes to AA. On the laptop which has got a res of 1920x1200 I normally use 2xAA if the game allows it, but I would be fine with no AA since the LCD size is only 17".

On the desktop 4xAA was barely enough when I had my 8800GT using a 22" 1680x1050 and I still had some lagging. That's one reason why upgraded GFX card.

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by vnl7

I use 4AA @ 1920x1080 if not 8AA, i preffer more AA at high res than some game effects to keep the fps up, but at 1024x768 i used to turn AA oFF or 2AA

i believe that resolution scales whit AA

Thats very interesting, the theory is in fact that the Higher your resolution the less AA is needed, simply because, if you think about it, the higher the res, the less visible (as opposed to quantety) pixelation and therefore by it's very nature, less visible jagged edges etc.

[Goodman]

I still got an CRT & i'm using 4xAA wich it's enough for me (1600x1200)

[erocker]

I use as much as I can before performance goes kaput. It really depends on the game. Left 4 Dead 2 I can force either x32 or x24 (haven't played a while), but with most games I just set it to the highest MSAA they offer.

[Black Panther]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

the higher the res, the less visible (as opposed to quantety) pixelation and therefore by it's very nature, less visible jagged edges etc.

Precisely.
The smaller the monitor and the higher the res the less AA you need to apply.
The larger the monitor... the more AA you'd need.

That's why I can game with no AA on a 17" 1920x1200 but given now that I'm "spoilt" using it, were I to buy a 50" LCD at 1920x1200 I'd find myself needing to use 4xAA for the game not to appear jaggy to me...

[Clement]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

Thats very interesting, the theory is in fact that the Higher your resolution the less AA is needed, simply because, if you think about it, the higher the res, the less visible (as opposed to quantety) pixelation and therefore by it's very nature, less visible jagged edges etc.

Less polygons/inch = more jagged edges, does it not? (Or if they are stretched to a higher resolution than they were designed at)

Hence the need for more triangular roundation.

What theory do you speak of?

[Black Panther]

Originally Posted by Clement

Less polygons/inch = more jagged edges, does it not? (Or if they are stretched to a higher resolution than they were designed at)

Hence the need for more triangular roundation.

Does that mean that by having tesselation increased (as in DX11) the need for AA would lessen?

[Goodman]

-->Tatty_One no need to get a picture of you as avatar... your mistress pictures were lot better to look at