Gotta get a new video card

[Kooldino]

Leech - I've experimented w/ wha you're talking about. I have found that most games look better at 1024 w/ FSAA and anisotropic filtering than they do at just 1600 w/ aniso. Believe it or not, jaggies are far less visible @ 1024 w/ FSAA then they are at 1600 or even 2048 without it.

[Tomasz]

Originally posted by leech
Speaking of AA, Sampling, etc.... I have a simple question. WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT? When you're running 1600x1200 resolution, what is the point in having AA on? Whenever I see a post that says "Oh my card xxx is so fast because I can play xxx at 1600x1200 with full AA and AF blah blah blah blah blah." Granted having the Trilinear filtering and Anisotropic filtering on DOES make a difference in how everything looks (especially Serious Sam!) But really, do people NEED to have 1600x1200 with AA? I understand having it on in lower resolutions from 1024x768 on down, but really it shouldn't be needed at the resolutions where all it does is slow down the game play. If I ran something like say Grand Theft Auto:Vice City at 1600x1200 with and without AA, the only difference I would notice is that with AA it'd be less playable.

I honestly want to know who can really notice any difference? The pixels are so small at that resolution that anti-aliasing things doesn't do any good (especially FSAA)

Just a quick rant.

Leech

For me, this depends a lot on the monitor size that is used. On a 21/22 inch and to a lessser degree on a 19 inch monitor I still find jaggies and crawling artifacts at 1600x1200.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Kooldino
The price is doable...although the "FX" name is a bit scary. Anyone know any more about the card? How well/fast it caps video? How about IQ? Speed?

Read sig!

Great card, though the Analog 2D quality is obviously worse than MGA cards (my G550). However, now I am completely used to it.

The VIVO is great. (Though this is my first VIVO card... so I don't know how to compare)

The DVD playback quality is great. Love it!

Now... 3D... obviously every game is playable... UT2k3 performs fine here. But I think the 3D quality is worse than Radeon 8500 under normal usage.

My default settings are Quincunx AA and 2X AF... playable in most game.

Overall I think this is a great card and I am glad I mdae this purchase. Definitely a great upgrade for G550!

[bsdgeek]

To add on to my previous post, after reading some more apparently neither ATi nor NVidia offer full Trilinear AF, but a mix of tri and bi AF.

[Kooldino]

Chrono - I'm not a fan of Quincunx - I'd rather just use 2xfsaa.

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Kooldino
Leech - I've experimented w/ wha you're talking about. I have found that most games look better at 1024 w/ FSAA and anisotropic filtering than they do at just 1600 w/ aniso. Believe it or not, jaggies are far less visible @ 1024 w/ FSAA then they are at 1600 or even 2048 without it.

Exactly my opinion. 1024 with 4x FSAA looks better than 1600x1200 without. Besides 1600x1200 on a 22" is about the same as 1024x768 on a 15"....
And FSAA does more than only smooth edges (in the case of the R300 cards even gamma-corrected which gives it another advantage): it mostly eliminates the annoying pixel-popping that can otherwise occur at the junction of triangles.

P.S. Sorry to be nitpicking, but the GF FX series still uses an ordered grid for its FSAA, only 3dfx and ATI use the vastly superior rotated grid throughout their FSAA settings.
And Quincunx is not even really antialiasing, more like a simple "blur" filter - if you ask me, Quincunx even degrades image quality in comparision to having no FSAA enabled at all

[Admiral]

Exactly my opinion. 1024 with 4x FSAA looks better than 1600x1200 without.

Yes, but in 1600x1200 you have the better geometric detail if the game doesn't support truform. Plus, a wider view in certain games.
On a 19" I guess 1280x960 (or 1152x864) with 4x FSAA would balance things.

[leech]

Originally posted by Kooldino
Leech - I've experimented w/ wha you're talking about. I have found that most games look better at 1024 w/ FSAA and anisotropic filtering than they do at just 1600 w/ aniso. Believe it or not, jaggies are far less visible @ 1024 w/ FSAA then they are at 1600 or even 2048 without it.

I totally agree with you, that's why I run my games generally at 1024x768 or 1280x960 with FAAx16 on.

Leech

[leech]

Actually to the resolution with AA vs. without AA, I would say that certain games almost need to be at 1600x1200. Think high-resolution on sniping games.... Pin-point accuracy is quite nice in some instances. I have a 21inch monitor by the way. You want to see some nasty aliasing, try playing a Playstation2 on a 55 inch TV!

Leech

P.S. I really want to build a HTPC with Mame and other emulators and play it on my brother's 55inch widescreen TV! 6 inch Mario would be a blast!

[Marshmallowman]

My moniter determines what AA is used

eg. I want to a game at 85hz or better....moniter is recomended to run 1024x768 @ 85.

So I run at that res with AA tweaked...if I went to 1600 Iwould be suck at 60Hz or 75 at 1280x1024.

If my card could at a reasonable speed at 1600 it would be pointless becasue I would only get 60hz on my moniter

[Chrono_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Kooldino
Chrono - I'm not a fan of Quincunx - I'd rather just use 2xfsaa.

Isn't 2X faster than Quincunx? (I think quality is closer to 4X without huge performance cost)

Is there any where I can read about Quincunx AA? I wonder how it works.... (Apparently I am too lazy to find an article hahahaha) :O

[3dfx]

If you have a GF3 then hold on a little longer tbh as the 5200 sucks ASS ! get on Ebay and pick yourself up a 9500 Pro as they are going so cheaply otherwise wait

Also I have seen the GF4 4200 going for less than the 5200 and the gf4 4200 kicks it's ass ! avoid the 5200 at all costs as it is too slow

EDIT: sorry about all the ASS !

[Kooldino]

Originally posted by Chrono_Wanderer
Isn't 2X faster than Quincunx? (I think quality is closer to 4X without huge performance cost)

Is there any where I can read about Quincunx AA? I wonder how it works.... (Apparently I am too lazy to find an article hahahaha) :O

IIRC, in terms of speed, it goes 2xFSAA, Quincunx, 4XFSAA. But based on my own personal tests, I felt that Quincunx is the WORST FSAA method in terms of quality. I honestly forget how Quincunx works...I think maybe it's a less selective form of FSAA or something (it's been awhile), but I DO remember being unhappy with the look of things (for some reason I want to specify texture maps).

[ALBPM]

Just ordered a Sapphire Radeon 9800, 128MB non pro from :

Allstarshop

$254 which includes free UPS ground shipping

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Admiral
Yes, but in 1600x1200 you have the better geometric detail if the game doesn't support truform. Plus, a wider view in certain games.
On a 19" I guess 1280x960 (or 1152x864) with 4x FSAA would balance things.

Luckily with the 9700Pro, you can use 1600x1200 with 4x FSAA in most cases...


To Quincunx: As mentioned earlier, this is not really even a genuine FSAA method, as it mainly involves a simple blurring of the output picture, thus reducing image quality
For an excellent article (unfortunately german) about FSAA methods, check 3DCenter.