What is your opinion on AA ?

NJspeed

Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
533
Reaction score
1
Like the title says, what's your opinion? I know the general consensus is that AA looks better, and I generally agree, but I have a few differing comments.

Firstly, on high resolutions like 1600x1200 and above, is AA really necessary? (or worth the hit) Probably not unless you can afford the hit. I've done lots of tests comparing 1600x1200 with 4x AA versus 2048x1536 with no AA and 2048 clearly looks better. Same with 1600x1200 with 0xAA versus 1024x768 with AA. So first I'd say jack up your resolution before you jack up your AA.

Slightly off topic - running a game in high res with lower textures or effects is a great way to have a game look great and perform great - and is better than having a lower res with everything else on ultra high or whatever, imo

(get a high res monitor)

The second part is that with AA lines DO look better and less jagged, however close up, round things also look less round. For example, a round tire with no AA looks less like a round tire and more like an octagon. Trees look less round and more octagonish.

Anyway, comments? There's no right or wrong answers, personally I do use AA when I can handle the performance hit. I also think AA looks better than HDR but thats a whole another thread.
 
No AA for multiplayer games (can't take the hit), 2x for SP.

HDR is a waste of time + performance imo.
 
AA is a cheap way to make things look smoothed IMHO
 
I perfer to run at higher resolution and lower AA than the reverse. AA blurs things a bit too much when used heavily at low resolution for my tastes.
Since I have a LCD I run at 1280x1024 and usually 2xAA.

FYI ATI cards can do an extra light pass with AA enabled. Can't remember where I read that. Was probably more than a year ago. But I believe it had to do with Doom 3 where Nvidia cards are faster with the lighting calculation used. Although I have not done any testing to see how this changes performance.
If you don't want the performance drop of 4x or 6x AA and run at 60+ fps with 2xAA then temporal AA would be good (ATI cards).
 
i use highest resolution(1440x900) and then AA if my fps can handle it
 
At 1280x1024 I have it on the highest my system can take, it's just that for the majority of games it makes them look better.

Also, any Source engine game looks 10x better with 4xAA and on games like AoE3 it adds a bit.
 
I agree. AA and AF are big waste of energy. Lower them as much as you can and higher other settings in return, including resolution. My games look better that way IMO.

Also settings games to low-med will increase you MP performance and lower your Ping.

High on SP.
Med-low on MP.

Good Luck.
 
I love AF. Can't stand blured ground in the distance. I want those textures just as sharp/detailed as they are up close. And it hardly reduces performance! :D
(compared to using AA or even increasing resolution)
 
AA and AF is poor on my 9600XT.

AA doesn't really make anything look smooth and AF looks terrible D:

But I would say that AA is good on x2 as anything higher just seems pointless.

And AF is a must-have.
 
Can't play without AA or AF, I'm a complete graphics whore. I'll play at 15fps if I have to.
 
I prefer better texture quality over higher res. I can't go over 1280x1024 anyway. Although I usually give up lightning or special effects quality for AF. High textures without AF is still blurry shit.
 
I'm surprised at the amount of people wahhing at me when they find out I don't use AA on most games.

I just tell them that I can't run it! Then I wake up in hotels in bath tubs full of ice.

D:
 
Iceeeeeeeeeeeeee Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I usually set AA to 2x and AF to 4X on SP mode everything else on med-high depending on whatnot.

Since COD2 is the only MP game I play (JamR0Ck), settings are all at low-med setting. In that case I got ping less than a 100.
 
It's too system intensive mostly, a high resolution is usually better.
 
Back
Top