nVidia vs ATi with 8xAA

[Blacklash]

I'd love to see Anandtech do a round up of ATi and nVidia's current cards to test them in titles that allow 8xAA. I've seen in a few places where ATi catch or pass nVidia in these situations. I'd love to see Anandtech prove it, or debunk it.

 

[imported_Scoop]

Yeah Crysis with 8xAA, that sould be great, can't wait to see the results! So how about Doom 3 with 8xAA? No thanks, better keep the benchmarking up to date.

 

[Hauk]

While ur at it how about nVidia vs. nVidia. In cases where say a G92 GTS outperforms a GTX, look at the resolutions. 1280x1024 w/ no AA, who the heck games with that? To bench such a resolution w/no AA is silly. Reviews should start at 1280x1024 and include AA at least through 1600x1200.

 

[imported_wired247]

Originally posted by: SteelSix
Yep, nV vs. ATi w/AA would be good.

While ur at it how about nVidia vs. nVidia. In cases where say a G92 GTS outperforms a GTX, look at the resolutions. 1280x1024 w/ no AA, who the heck games with that? To bench such a resolution w/no AA is silly, and it begs to question if a reviewer is fishing for results.

Time to evolve... start reviews at 1680x1050 and include at least a 2x AA bench for it and 1600x1200.

lol...... I game with my 720p plasma which is 1280x768

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: wired247

Originally posted by: SteelSix
Yep, nV vs. ATi w/AA would be good.

While ur at it how about nVidia vs. nVidia. In cases where say a G92 GTS outperforms a GTX, look at the resolutions. 1280x1024 w/ no AA, who the heck games with that? To bench such a resolution w/no AA is silly, and it begs to question if a reviewer is fishing for results.

Time to evolve... start reviews at 1680x1050 and include at least a 2x AA bench for it and 1600x1200.

lol...... I game with my 720p plasma which is 1280x768

Edited to make more sense.

 

[BFG10K]

Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

great let's run Crysis with those settings
- after all, it's 2008
:roll:

 

[Syntax Error]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

That's only considering if games haven't progressed at all in hardware requirement. :Q

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

great let's run Crysis with those settings
- after all, it's 2008
:roll:

Sure, you can't do it with Crysis, but 6 out of the 9 games benched by AT in the 3870 X2 review had fps at 80+. Many of those were over 100... Time to bump up the IQ a bit.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

great let's run Crysis with those settings
- after all, it's 2008
:roll:

Sure, you can't do it with Crysis, but 6 out of the 9 games benched by AT in the 3870 X2 review had fps at 80+. Many of those were over 100... Time to bump up the IQ a bit.

Agreed

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SteelSix

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

great let's run Crysis with those settings
- after all, it's 2008
:roll:

Sure, you can't do it with Crysis, but 6 out of the 9 games benched by AT in the 3870 X2 review had fps at 80+. Many of those were over 100... Time to bump up the IQ a bit.

Agreed

T

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SteelSix

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

great let's run Crysis with those settings
- after all, it's 2008
:roll:

Sure, you can't do it with Crysis, but 6 out of the 9 games benched by AT in the 3870 X2 review had fps at 80+. Many of those were over 100... Time to bump up the IQ a bit.

Agreed

i was trying to convey a bit of irony

it's 2008 ... and to bench @ 8xAA/16XAF we need pre'07 games to get playable FPS at high resolutions.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

I'd agree, but too many games are using deferred shading these days...

 

[imported_Scoop]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

great let's run Crysis with those settings
- after all, it's 2008
:roll:

Sure, you can't do it with Crysis, but 6 out of the 9 games benched by AT in the 3870 X2 review had fps at 80+. Many of those were over 100... Time to bump up the IQ a bit.

If the game doesn't have AA settings in game, I don't think they should be forced on and shouldn't be benchmarked using them. And the only game which had such high FPS with 4xAA was HL2. Now how old is this game? OOOOOOLD. Even if it's Ep2.. COD4 took an almost 40fps hit when 4xAA was set @ 1920x1200 so with 8xAA that would most likely make the game unplayable with the HD 3870 X2.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: Scoop

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

great let's run Crysis with those settings
- after all, it's 2008
:roll:

Sure, you can't do it with Crysis, but 6 out of the 9 games benched by AT in the 3870 X2 review had fps at 80+. Many of those were over 100... Time to bump up the IQ a bit.

If the game doesn't have AA settings in game, I don't think they should be forced on and shouldn't be benchmarked using them. And the only game which had such high FPS with 4xAA was HL2. Now how old is this game? OOOOOOLD. Even if it's Ep2.. COD4 took an almost 40fps hit when 4xAA was set @ 1920x1200 so with 8xAA that would most likely make the game unplayable with the HD 3870 X2.

AA is a double edge sword. You can skew benchmarks and playability either way by not using it when its needed, or using too much when its not. For example, not using it with resolutions lower than 1680x1050, or using more than 4x with 1920x1200 or higher.

It's not irony at all apoppin. It's 2008, AA was a breakthrough technology that changed (or should have) IQ standards. Who wants to see jaggies when they don't have to?? To game with grossly visible jaggies is a comprimise.. you're doing it because you have to. Yes there are people who say they don't care or don't notice, but those people (forgive me) should not be considered the norm. It's 2008, the expectation should be that users will want to minimize jaggies using available technologies at resolutions that call for it.

Benchmarks should cater to the norm, the majority. To not use AA when it's obviously needed, or to bench using too much AA, neither scenario makes sense.

This is an old argument falling on deaf ears it seems. For a person in a highly technical line of work to ignore a common desire for minimal jaggies, you're either in the wrong line of work, or you're aiming for certain results.

 

[BFG10K]

great let's run Crysis with those settings - after all, it's 2008

What resolution does your monitor top out at? I'll bet a high-end rig could do 4xAA and even 8xAA at your resolution.

it's 2008 ... and to bench @ 8xAA/16XAF we need pre'07 games to get playable FPS at high resolutions.

But you don't even run a high resolution so why are you concerned?

I'd agree, but too many games are using deferred shading these days...

I can only think of one game that uses deferred rendering that doesn't allow AA and that's Stalker.

If the game doesn't have AA settings in game, I don't think they should be forced on and shouldn't be benchmarked using them.

What a load of nonsense.

And the only game which had such high FPS with 4xAA was HL2.

What a load of nonsense.

 

[nullpointerus]

OP:

Please add a poll to the topic!

 

[Vikendios]

Resolution is the key factor. I always use 2650 x 1600 on my Dell monitor, and AA becomes a non-issue because pixel size is so small. Crysis, Witcher, Oblivion, are all better at high resolution and no AA, rather than lo res and high AA.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

great let's run Crysis with those settings - after all, it's 2008

What resolution does your monitor top out at? I'll bet a high-end rig could do 4xAA and even 8xAA at your resolution.

it's 2008 ... and to bench @ 8xAA/16XAF we need pre'07 games to get playable FPS at high resolutions.

But you don't even run a high resolution so why are you concerned?

i doubt it ... 16x12 with all settings "very high" in DX10 and not dropping below 30 FPS [in the last chapter] ... you try it and let us know how smooth it is; i doubt my Xfire rig can manage it at 10x7


and Why are you concerned ? - considering that 99% of gamers play at 16x10 or below

Most of us don't give a CRAP about your 30-34 inchers or the fact that most *modern* games will be a slideshow with even 4xAA/16AF on them

my monitor top out at 16x12 and 16x10 respectively [with a 14x9 LCD also]
*perfect* for me

Most reviewers are concerned with the practical gaming considerations of most of us - not the very few loud and demanding HW snobs who represent than 1% of PC gamers.

 

[SLU Aequitas]

BFG, I actually believe that those with 8 series video cards can force AA with S.T.A.L.K.E.R., so...yay?

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: Vikendios
Resolution is the key factor. I always use 2650 x 1600 on my Dell monitor, and AA becomes a non-issue because pixel size is so small. Crysis, Witcher, Oblivion, are all better at high resolution and no AA, rather than lo res and high AA.

I was actually curious about this. I've only got a 19" monitor at 14x9, but that's really interesting.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Benchmarks with 16xAF combined with 4xAA and 8xAA should be mandatory. It's 2008 for heaven's sake.

great let's run Crysis with those settings
- after all, it's 2008
:roll:

Sure, you can't do it with Crysis, but 6 out of the 9 games benched by AT in the 3870 X2 review had fps at 80+. Many of those were over 100... Time to bump up the IQ a bit.

At least for me, that doesn't indicate any extra headroom and is pretty representative of what I would be playing at. Averages of 100 generally mean minimums of 40-50, which is about the lowest I would want them. Although it would indeed be nice if they tested the higher AA modes in some slightly older games, which is where they really come in handy.

 

[BFG10K]

i doubt it ... 16x12 with all settings "very high" in DX10 and not dropping below 30 FPS [in the last chapter] ... you try it and let us know how smooth it is; i doubt my Xfire rig can manage it at 10x7

Nobody runs Crysis like that regardless of the resolution. Invariably some detail levels are reduced, even if you?re running tri-SLI with no AA.

and Why are you concerned ? -

You're the one that was talking about high resolutions; 1600x1200 is a middling resolution at best.

considering that 99% of gamers play at 16x10 or below

All the more reason to use high AA levels in testing.

Most reviewers are concerned with the practical gaming considerations of most of us

Then for practical purposes they're running CPU tests even though they claim they're testing graphics cards. Also 4xAA/8xAA can be tested regardless of what resolution the masses use.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Most reviewers are concerned with the practical gaming considerations of most of us - not the very few loud and demanding HW snobs who represent than 1% of PC gamers.

It's not about being snobbish at all. I read benchmarks because I want to see a comparative analysis between 2 (or more) cards. IMO, it's better to bench at settings that really push the hardware as it gives you a better idea of what it can and can't handle. I'm more interested in what it won't do than what it will. I assume that a high end GPU will play most current games out well enough, which the 8-series and HD3870 cards do, I want to see what games and settings really push them though and how well they handle AA.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin
Most reviewers are concerned with the practical gaming considerations of most of us - not the very few loud and demanding HW snobs who represent than 1% of PC gamers.

It's not about being snobbish at all. I read benchmarks because I want to see a comparative analysis between 2 (or more) cards. IMO, it's better to bench at settings that really push the hardware as it gives you a better idea of what it can and can't handle. I'm more interested in what it won't do than what it will. I assume that a high end GPU will play most current games out well enough, which the 8-series and HD3870 cards do, I want to see what games and settings really push them though and how well they handle AA.

it wasn't posted to apply to you ... look up one post [before yours]
--the 'one' who looks down his nose at 16x12 as "middling resolutions"

to him - i would like to see Crysis tested at "very high" before screwing around with AA/AF


i also agree ... with you