AntiAliasing with 1920x1080 resolution

[nicuwork]

Few years ago if you had full hd resolution, you didn't have to turn on AA because the game were build (i think) on full had resolution, that was the real image/resolution.
Is this still available with newer games ?
What is the difference between 1080p and 1440p without AA or with AA ?

 

[futurefields]

Every resolution needs AA.

 

[Attic]

at 1080p you still get aliasing, particularly on ropes and fences and alpha textures. The amount of aliasing and it's effect as seen by a gamer depends on the game engine somewhat.


1080P still needs AA I think, i'd toss 4xSSAA at it if I had the power, but I try to stick to 2xSSAA or 4xMSAA or nothing. A lot of the gimmick AA like TXAA and MLAA or FXAA just blur the image, better off with aliasing IMO.

Haven't gamed at 1440p but i'd expect you'd want 2xAA there.

3840x2160 may no longer need AA.

 

[BSim500]

Whether or not you see aliasing artefacts, is a function of both screen size & resolution. 1920x1080 on a 7" screen = they're far less visible than 1920x1080 on a 24" screen. Same with 1440p - eg, on a 20" screen they're far less visible than on a 32" screen. You do still see them on typical desktop size monitors though (especially strong diagonal lines), unless you use really small screen sizes with high PPI (which many will find less enjoyable than a decent sized screen + AA).

 

[Dankk]

Every resolution needs AA.

Totally subjective. Some people have lower tolerance thresholds for jaggies (and absolutely need AA for everything), others have higher tolerance for jaggies at lower resolutions. It's up to personal preference. Although of course, it is generally agreed upon that aliasing is not as big of an issue at higher resolutions (past 1080p).

I would say that aliasing is still pretty noticeable on most games at 1080p, unless you have some sort of built-in post-process AA being used.

 

[mikeymikec]

+1 Dankk

As I grew up with 8/16-bit gaming, noticing a bit of a jagged line at 1080p and complaining about it seems a bit silly If it made no difference to the game's performance, I would switch AA on.

In Batman AC for example (which I play at 1080p), I see much greater frame rate drops when I switch on AA, and as I would rate smoother gameplay as a higher priority than the presence of jagged lines (unnoticeable when concentrating on making Catwoman do her thing at high speed while taking down 20 bad guys), I switch AA off in such a situation.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Whether or not you see aliasing artefacts, is a function of both screen size & resolution. 1920x1080 on a 7" screen = they're far less visible than 1920x1080 on a 24" screen. Same with 1440p - eg, on a 20" screen they're far less visible than on a 32" screen. You do still see them on typical desktop size monitors though (especially strong diagonal lines), unless you use really small screen sizes with high PPI (which many will find less enjoyable than a decent sized screen + AA).

First correct information in the thread.

Aliasing is an artefact of the pixel size in your vision being too large. How big a pixel is in your vision is a function of BOTH the physical pixel size, and the distance that pixel is from your eye (things further away look smaller).

The physical size is itself a function of both screen area (size) and number of pixels, so a 1920x1080 24" monitor at 2ft away will likely still give percievable benefit from some AA, however a 5" smart phone screen at 1920x1080 at the same distance of 2ft away will almost certainly not require any AA what so ever.

So you need to determine several things.

1) How much pixel density do you have, or rather how small are the pixels, that's a function of both resolution and screen size.
2) What's the expected distance of use for this panel?

A more simple answer to the OP is that for "average" screen sizes for 1080p on desktops which tends to be somewhere beteen 23" and 27", positioned on an average sized computer desk in front of you, you'll still see observable benefits from AA.

 

[BrightCandle]

Its estimated we'll need a resolution somewhere around 10k vertical pixels in a 24" monitor before we can't resolve the pixels. Its going to be a long time before antialiasing is unnecessary.

 

[nicuwork]

Whether or not you see aliasing artefacts, is a function of both screen size & resolution. 1920x1080 on a 7" screen = they're far less visible than 1920x1080 on a 24" screen. Same with 1440p - eg, on a 20" screen they're far less visible than on a 32" screen. You do still see them on typical desktop size monitors though (especially strong diagonal lines), unless you use really small screen sizes with high PPI (which many will find less enjoyable than a decent sized screen + AA).

That is a very logical explanation, and very true.

 

[nicuwork]

i'm glad i have open this threat, because there were nice explanations.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I tend to never run it and just leave all other settings on ultra in games.If the game is old of course i will enable it but for these newer games it doesn't even cross my mind.

I would need a second 770 just to keep my minimums in 2 year old BF3 from hitting low 40s with 4x MSAA and stay above 60 if i am lucky but kill it and with 337.50 drivers i am hard pressed to find hardly a situation where my single 770 dips below 60.

 

[BFG10K]

I run 2560x1600 and there are clear differences between 2x, 4x and 8x AA modes. 0xAA is a huge step backward in quality.

 

[xantub]

Totally subjective. Some people have lower tolerance thresholds for jaggies (and absolutely need AA for everything), others have higher tolerance for jaggies at lower resolutions. It's up to personal preference. Although of course, it is generally agreed upon that aliasing is not as big of an issue at higher resolutions (past 1080p).

I would say that aliasing is still pretty noticeable on most games at 1080p, unless you have some sort of built-in post-process AA being used.

+1. In fact, I don't really notice aliasing unless someone asks me or says something about aliasing in the game. Guess that comes from playing games for so long, when you start your playing life on 320x200 resolution, jaggedness becomes your way of life

 

[_Rick_]

Whether you need AA depends a lot on the content of the game.
Flight sims need AA, as there are plenty of large, straight geometric surfaces at odd angles to the pixel pitch, resulting in pretty glaring jaggies.

Many other games are less sensitive, as they have less straight edges on which the jaggies accumulate. Of course, there's also distance-aliasing, where fine detail becomes discontinuous at a distance, instead of blurring and gradually disappearing. But for those, sometimes even FXAA is enough, to just blur out the problematic bits.

And yes, at sufficient angular resolution, none of this matters anymore.

 

[Anubis]

i never run AA (besides the lowest default game setting), never have, not worth the preformance hit at any resoloution

 

[Bateluer]

Totally subjective. Some people have lower tolerance thresholds for jaggies (and absolutely need AA for everything), others have higher tolerance for jaggies at lower resolutions. It's up to personal preference. Although of course, it is generally agreed upon that aliasing is not as big of an issue at higher resolutions (past 1080p).

I would say that aliasing is still pretty noticeable on most games at 1080p, unless you have some sort of built-in post-process AA being used.

PC players are more 'sensitive' to it, being they can see it more. Console players are simply used to it, with most of their games running lower than 720p. That said, it does vary by the game and engine. I game at 1440p, and usually keep 2x AA on, occasionally 4x, Sometimes 8x if its an older game and I just want to 'max it out' .

It kills me, though, when people claim 4K gaming won't be possible until 10nm cards are available, ignoring the benchmarks on today's 28nm cards showing that its fully possible. Even on these forums. I think they forget you don't need 4x+ AA on at 4K, or just plain don't understand the performance of today's high end cards.

i never run AA (besides the lowest default game setting), never have, not worth the preformance hit at any resoloution

Modern hardware shouldn't have any discernable performance hit with 2-4x AA levels. Skyrim, for example, is pegged at 60fps@1440p whether I have 2x or 4x AA on. 8x, it drops into the 40s, 30s when there's lots of weather effects going on. If 2x AA affects your game drastically enough to make it unplayable, its high time you upgraded that ancient hardware.

 

[mizzou]

play a game that uses great draw distances, and compare your experience with no AA and full AA enabled

it's nice

 

[JBT]

AA is still needed at all resolutions I've ever seen.

 

[borderdeal]

I play at 1440p and normally I never use AA since I do not really see much difference with it on or off and I rather use higher quality settings. I know some people that cannot run a game without AA though.

 

[Rakehellion]

Depends.

If there are 10,000,000 polygons on screen you'll need more anti-aliasing than if there are just 10,000. That's probably the main difference between then and now.

 

[BrightCandle]

I play at 1440p and normally I never use AA since I do not really see much difference with it on or off and I rather use higher quality settings. I know some people that cannot run a game without AA though.

Might be time to see an optician. Aliasing is very obvious on todays displays (including 4k) and if you don't really see it then chances are you need glasses.

2048p (aka 4k and UHD) is still going to need antialiasing especially if what people do is use a bigger monitor as well as the higher resolution.

 

[Anubis]

Modern hardware shouldn't have any discernable performance hit with 2-4x AA levels. Skyrim, for example, is pegged at 60fps@1440p whether I have 2x or 4x AA on. 8x, it drops into the 40s, 30s when there's lots of weather effects going on. If 2x AA affects your game drastically enough to make it unplayable, its high time you upgraded that ancient hardware.

my comp can run it just fine at well over 4x, there is however to me absoutly no point to do so even if the preformance hit is small or not there at all. so i dont use it

3770k dual 7950s, 2560x1440 x2

 

[xantub]

Might be time to see an optician. Aliasing is very obvious on todays displays (including 4k) and if you don't really see it then chances are you need glasses.

2048p (aka 4k and UHD) is still going to need antialiasing especially if what people do is use a bigger monitor as well as the higher resolution.

It's not really about needing glasses, at least in my case, it's just built-in tolerance. I may be playing a game and enjoying it immensely. Then someone can come and say "wow, look at the jaggies! is AA on?" and I'd be like "oh, yes guess you're right, let me turn it on". So basically, I don't care about it until someone makes me notice it

 

[Throckmorton]

+1. In fact, I don't really notice aliasing unless someone asks me or says something about aliasing in the game. Guess that comes from playing games for so long, when you start your playing life on 320x200 resolution, jaggedness becomes your way of life

I think there's some truth to that. I started gaming in the mid 90s with the first 3d games when they were low res and anti-aliasing wasn't possible without massive slowdown. If I pay attention, of course I can see the aliasing, but generally it doesn't affect my experience.

 

[videogames101]

Aliasing is an artifact of the precision of the in-game rendering coordinates being much higher than the precision of the monitors pixel positions, and this is always the case, although it is reduced as monitor resolution increases. So in a sense every resolution "needs" AA only if you can see the difference.