Anti-aliasing, my rig and my tv

[Indy11]

Hey everyone, I have few questions....

First my rig:

Windows 7 64 bit
I5 3.4 ghz
8 gb ram
Geforce gtx760 2 gb( most up to date driver)

I use my 46 inch Samsung 120 hz tv( in game mode) for my PC gaming. I sit approx 3 feet from screen.

Now I generally use fxaa if I have to. But I read that at 1080 p AA is hardly needed. Is there any truth to this?

I try and go X8 or X16 if available. Is this too taxing on my GPU?

Also should I use other AA techniques or stick to FXAA since its an Nvidia AA?

Thanks and any additional info is greatly appreciated!!

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Originally posted by Indy11:

Now I generally use fxaa if I have to. But I read that at 1080 p AA is hardly needed. Is there any truth to this?

This is about 4K monitors or 4K TVs. 1080p usually looks jagged without AA.
FXAA is least demanding.

YouTube™ Video: Different Types of Anti-aliasing as Fast As Possible 

Views: 852,971

There are many forms of anti-aliasing available... what are some of the differences between them? Sponsor message: lynda.com is your one stop shop for learning a variety of skills online, at your own...

[Ray tracing is faster]

Well, go with what your eyes see. Aliasing is strongly visible to me at 1080p with anything less than 4x SSAA, with few exceptions. FXAA is useless; all it does is apply a blur shader to edges.

How demanding AA is also depends on the game/engine in particular. MSAA in modern games is so demanding because these games tend to use deferred rendering, which is incompatible with MSAA. But if a game isn't using it then MSAA won't be demanding at all.

TAA is not very demanding either, and it's highly effective all around, but few games use it.

So if I were you, I'd always use AA unless it kills my performance. But then again most people don't notice aliasing as much as I do. To me it's a big problem at 2560 x 1440, and is still an issue at 3840 x 2160. Only 5k (5120 x 2880) and higher are sufficient.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Prob good idea to swap that GTX 760 to GTX 1060, it has GTX 980 level performance while GTX 760 has GTX 950 level performance. 2 Gb VRAM is starting to be not enough for latest games even in 1080p.

[Ray tracing is faster]

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

Prob good idea to swap that GTX 760 to GTX 1060, it has GTX 980 level performance while GTX 760 has GTX 950 level performance. 2 Gb VRAM is starting to be not enough for latest games even in 1080p.

For sure. If you want to be safe in the long run at 1080p, I suggest 4GB VRAM. For 1440p, 6GB. The more the merrier though.

[Indy11]

Thanks for the replies!!

I'd love to get a new GPU, but money is tight with a family and mortgage, I'm lucky if I can save 150.00 at the end of the month. I only have the rig I have now because of a good tax return.

Is there a preferred AA ? Do you guys find it better to lower shadows, textures etc to be able to boost AA or change to MSAA or CSAa?

Also is it better to use the in game options for AA or Nvidia control panel?

Thanks again!!

Also,

[Ray tracing is faster]

Preferred method of AA? Well, supersampling is objectively the best, but you probably can't run it. After supersampling, MSAA (CSAA just has different amounts of coverage samples but is the same thing basically) is the best for geometry aliasing. It is useless in most modern games, since modern games suffer from shader aliasing more than anything, plus modern games often use deferred rendering like I said so they will run terribly with MSAA.

MLAA/SMAA/FXAA are worthless except for older integrated graphics, since they can't run anything better. TAA makes them, and MSAA in modern gaming, pointless. Plus TAA is easy to run.

Forcing AA through NVIDIA Control Panel won't do anything in DX10, DX11, DX12, and Vulkan games. For Pre-DX10 games it is usually the best way to go, if you can run forced supersampling that is. See my thread called "How To: Improve Image Quality in Pre-DX10 Games" on GND-Tech or Overclock.net (google it).

[Revelene]

The amount of aliasing is not just caused by resolution, but screen size and viewing distance as well. It can also depend on the game at hand.

Your personal preference plays a bit part too.

My past monitor setup was a 24 inch 1080p with a viewing distance of about 2-3 feet. I don't believe I ever played without some form of AA.

I now have a 27 inch 1440p and it still needs AA in most games.

I've played on a 32 inch 4K monitor... It still needed AA.

I don't care what people say, it still needs aliasing clean up of some sort. Still get temporal and spatial aliasing... just the way computer graphics work.

The key is to use enough AA to satisfy your visual experience, but not ruin the performance to detrimental levels. Find your own balance.

My favorite AA is good old MSAA. FXAA is good as well, for temporal aliasing, but can blur the image. I've started to like TXAA, but it still blurs the image. Pretty much anything that'll try to resolve temporal aliasing will blur the image in some way. Spatial aliasing is a lot easier to get rid of but is usually rather taxing on the hardware. Temporal filtering can about demolish AA completely... But it severely blurs image quality.

[Ray tracing is faster]

^ MSAA is awesome for geometry, but it does nothing for shader aliasing which is why many modern games with MSAA are still aliased to hell, while Fallout 3 with MSAA isn't.

We seem quite similar with our aliasing tolerance though; it's low. I do think 5k resolution is enough on its own though, based on screenshots at least (haven't used a 5k monitor),