Cuban Legend
Member
but I like double-digit framerates *throws infantile fit*SGSSAA or bust.
Best is getting a higher pixel density monitor (4k I need youuuuuuuu).
Next best is SGSSAA.
but I like double-digit framerates *throws infantile fit*SGSSAA or bust.
Best is getting a higher pixel density monitor (4k I need youuuuuuuu).
Next best is SGSSAA.
but I like double-digit framerates *throws infantile fit*
this method is not simple enough yet.
If there is "horrible blur" with SGSSAA, then it's not being correctly applied or supported. That shouldn't be used to evaluate the technique. When SGSSAA is used correctly, it gives the best quality (per sample) out of any AA method.
Downsampling is the purest form of SGSSAA thought right?
-getting rid of aliasing and textuer shimmering is better with a higher res on a smaller dot pitch of your monitor's max res, a one-size fits all solution.
-than doing the same with a post processing filter on top of the low res image(AA) that needs to be tweaked precisely to attain the same effect, which isn't always compatible.
So wouldn't down-sampling be the purest form of removing AA? Think of how it works when you down-sample a screenshot. It works then, and why shouldn't it be superior in motion?
Please don't hurt me, screenshot gods.
Perfect, I got decent results on my monitor and on my tv. nice guide, thanks.
It might be more direct to say that he's saying that at the same performance hit, it gives better results; the point is that taking samples in a weird pattern can give better results than taking samples in a regular grid pattern. This is why if you go into the b3d resolutions thread, it lists the MSAA sample patterns as looking like this, all staggered and rotated funny.I don't actually think Durante means SGSSAA is better looking than SSAA in terms of image quality as SGSSAA per definition takes less samples from fewer grids (?). I think he means it's better in the sense that when it works as intended, it gives an image quality VERY close to that of SSAA but at a smaller performance hit - thus making it the "better" AA - method.
So much THIS!I think what makes downsampling so convenient is that, once you set up your custom resolutions, getting in-game AA is simply a matter of choosing one of them from the menu.
There's no need to mess around with Nvidia inspector compatibility profiles or settings on a per-game basis.
I get this when I try to test higher resolutions.
That is my native resolution.Try 1920 and 1080. If your not at that already.
When do people stop seeing any further noticeable improvements?
My limit is 4x SGSSAA combined with 4x MSAA on a 100.63 PPI (0.2524mm dot pitch) monitor.
To my eyes anything above that is wasted. I can't see the difference. At least with moving images. Maybe in a screenshot I don't know.
Will this decrease my FPS at all?
Will this decrease my FPS at all?
Downsampling avoids the horrible blur often associated with SGSSAA and which is difficult to accurately correct. That alone is a huge positive.
I get this when I try to test higher resolutions.
same.
I have a gtx 295
GPU needs to be able to run a resolution natively for scaling to work.
I don't understand, does this mean there are more pixels or less? Where are my pixels going?
This is hard
haha i think its pretty clear i have no idea what im doing, im just letting others who dont know what they are doing know what the problem is.
The gtx 295 is a weird card. It is old as hell, but i still run most games pretty damn well. According to that toms hardware hierarchy it still isnt worth upgrading to anything that is near affordable
Discrete: GTX 690
~~~
Discrete: GTX 590
~~~
Discrete: GTX 680
~~~
Discrete: GTX 670
~~~
Discrete: GTX 580, 660 Ti
~~
Discrete: GTX 295, 480, 570, 660
Go (mobile): 680M
So i would basically have to get a 680 to see any real change? Wanted to get a 660ti but from what i have heard i wouldn't really notice an improvement.
I get this when I try to test higher resolutions.
Can you link us to the exact model of your GPU? I see a discontinued one from a few years back on newegg that would support the resolution you are trying for, but it has 1792 mb's of memory, so I doubt that is the model you have.
To put it simply a videocard has limits on how high a resolution it will support.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500094
I'm less concerned about the downsampling honestly, and just wating for a card worth upgrading to that isn't $500
What is your monitors native resolution.
I get this when I try to test higher resolutions.
1920 x 1080
My Samsung TV managed 3600 x 2025. Mirrors Edge was a slideshow though.
Downsampling is the purest form of SGSSAA thought right?
-getting rid of aliasing and textuer shimmering is better with a higher res on a smaller dot pitch of your monitor's max res, a one-size fits all solution.
-than doing the same with a post processing filter on top of the low res image(AA) that needs to be tweaked precisely to attain the same effect, which isn't always compatible.
So wouldn't down-sampling be the purest form of removing AA? Think of how it works when you down-sample a screenshot. It works then, and why shouldn't it be superior in motion?
Please don't hurt me, screenshot gods.
I don't actually think Durante means SGSSAA is better looking than SSAA in terms of image quality as SGSSAA per definition takes less samples from fewer grids (?). I think he means it's better in the sense that when it works as intended, it gives an image quality VERY close to that of SSAA but at a smaller performance hit - thus making it the "better" AA - method.