Support NeoGAF

[-griffy-]

Yeah, I messed up. Had forgotten that I forced it through driver so redid shots after removing forcing through driver.

Setting being changed between Low and Ultra;


Low;

Ultra;

Something's still up, those both look low compared to the shots in your other post (I wonder if BF1's in game setting is crap?). So let's combine the two!

Here you have low AF:

And good AF:

 

[Bony Manifesto]

A) Didn't upload nor link same picture twice.

B) Changed only AF value in-game

C) In drivers had all AF forcing disabled and set to application enforcing AF setting

Not sure what else I need to do.

Do you have to restart the game for the settings to take effect?

Edit: Aha - the poster above me has got a decent comparison out of your two posts!

 

[5taquitos]

A) Didn't upload nor link same picture twice.

B) Changed only AF value in-game

C) In drivers had all AF forcing disabled and set to application enforcing AF setting

Not sure what else I need to do.

Pick a different example?

 

[John Kowalski]

Phew, i thought my eyes had gone bad.

 

[Gray-Fox]

Er, I think you've messed up again. Both those shots have exactly the same level of anisotropic filtering.

lol

 

[Durante]

Now that combined comparison looks like what I'd expect.

 

[Greatest Ever]

lol this thread suddenly turned into free pickings for console players

"None of these settings even make a difference, why spend hundreds extra for this?"

 

[Locuza]

A) Didn't upload nor link same picture twice.

B) Changed only AF value in-game

C) In drivers had all AF forcing disabled and set to application enforcing AF setting

Not sure what else I need to do.

It seems weird that between low and ultra there is no difference, if you really overwrote the ingame settings then there are worthless in this regard and forcing the AF level in the driver is the only way to get good filtering.
The FPS are nontheless the same ~80 FPS in every case.

Aside from the BF1 example I found one user test in Rise of the Tombraider with a 390 I believe.
https://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=11179446&postcount=4305

62fps 1xAF, 47fps 16xAF.
And even 4x AF is costing him ~15% performance.

 

[Lord Error]

Now that combined comparison looks like what I'd expect.

I think the Low setting on his picture is almost for sure not AF completely disabled, but maybe 2x or even 4x.

 

[c0de]

AF is of course not free. The uncharted collection had varying levels AF which shows that the developer didn't overlook it but had to adjust it according to the load the game has on the computing units and bandwidth.

 

[Marmelade]

Something's still up, those both look low compared to the shots in your other post (I wonder if BF1's in game setting is crap?). So let's combine the two!

Here you have low AF:


And good AF:

His "good AF" shot is probably because he forced 16x AF via driver which, I guess, gives a better result than the ultra ingame setting.
Not the first time that would be the case.

 

[Ricky_R]

Er, I think you've messed up again. Both those shots have exactly the same level of anisotropic filtering.

lol, yeah.

 

[Durante]

This thread rekindled my interest in seeing if anything had actually changed in terms of AF impact since I last had a look (probably 10 years ago, since I've just forced it to 16x since then). The most graphically high-end game I have immediate access to is Deus Ex MD, so I chose that:

Not particularly surprising or different from what I remember.
(This is a comparison of 16x AF and trilinear filtering)

 

[dr_rus]

From the same guides Locuza posted. It's not major, but it's still a few frames that are very costly on consoles.


Edit: AF impact also differs per game. In Gears 4 for example it's just one frame.

What this shows mostly is that there's little difference between 2x and 16x AF so there's little reason to use anything lower than 8x - unless a texture clearly don't need it.

 

[Easy_D]

This thread rekindled my interest in seeing if anything had actually changed in terms of AF impact since I last had a look (probably 10 years ago, since I've just forced it to 16x since then). The most graphically high-end game I have immediate access to is Deus Ex MD, so I chose that:


Not particularly surprising or different from what I remember.
(This is a comparison of 16x AF and trilinear filtering)

Wow a whole frame lost, that's awful. Also why is your core clock at a mere 570Mhz during heavy load? Is it that beefy that it can run the game smoothly despite that lol?

 

[Sinatar]

Regardless of the performance impact, AF has a HUGE impact on the visual quality of a game. Turn off something else if the performance suffers in your console game with AF on.

I nominate Chromatic Aberration. Shut that garbage off and turn on some AF you idjits.

 

[Durante]

Wow a whole frame lost, that's awful. Also why is your core clock at a mere 570Mhz during heavy load? Is it that beefy that it can run the game smoothly despite that lol?

Nah that's a display error. (I should update RTSS)
It doesn't have an impact on the FPS measurement though.

I nominate Chromatic Aberration. Shut that garbage off and turn on some AF you idjits.

I think CA is the only graphical feature DE:MD has that is off in my screenshots.

 

[Lettuce]

Regardless of the performance impact, AF has a HUGE impact on the visual quality of a game. Turn off something else if the performance suffers in your console game with AF on.

I nominate Chromatic Aberration. Shut that garbage off and turn on some AF you idjits.

This!.

Shadows is always a good one to lower, as that always seems to be a system hog and to be honest i always seem to find medium setting for shadows has a more realistic look than higher settings as then the shadow edges are too sharp!!

 

[coastel]

I take it we can't get any idea of how the pro is doing with AF from any media shown?

 

[M3d10n]

I think it's because the performance cost of AF varies a lot depending on the amount of oblique surfaces on the screen and how much screen area they cover, adding an unpredictable factor during optimization.

 

[Chabbles]

I hope the Pro sorts this issue out once and for all on the PS4, Good AF should have been a top priority in console gaming since the dawn of HD tvs.

 

[Ran rp]

This thread rekindled my interest in seeing if anything had actually changed in terms of AF impact since I last had a look (probably 10 years ago, since I've just forced it to 16x since then). The most graphically high-end game I have immediate access to is Deus Ex MD, so I chose that:


Not particularly surprising or different from what I remember.
(This is a comparison of 16x AF and trilinear filtering)

This is the latest DE? .... why does it look like Half-Life 2?

/exaggerating of course

 

[mrklaw]

But it isn't a free effect. On PC you can choose to use 8x or 16x, and perhaps you don't notice a meaningful impact to framerate, but perhaps that means you have some headroom that is being utilised.

On a fixed target console, the devs may balance various settings to tune and get the best performance:quality ratio. That might mean making trade offs on 'small' bandwidth impacting areas such as AF


Personally I think a reasonable amount (4x-8x) makes a huge difference to the image quality, so I'm surprised if developers are prioritising their power budget elsewhere.

 

[morpix]

I always figured AF to be a CPU thing, and since the XBone had a tad upclocked Jaguar, they could afford the extra filtering.
On PC, you have CPU for days which is why there's a very minor impact.

 

[Yarbskoo]

Yeah, I messed up. Had forgotten that I forced it through driver so redid shots after removing forcing through driver.

Setting being changed between Low and Ultra;


Low;

Ultra;

Oh dear.

Here's one from GTA V

Off

16x

Makes a huge difference on those ground textures.

 

[Wonko_C]

I always figured AF to be a CPU thing, and since the XBone had a tad upclocked Jaguar, they could afford the extra filtering.
On PC, you have CPU for days which is why there's a very minor impact.

AF is GPU bound.

 

[dr_rus]

AF is GPU bound.

It's actually mostly texture bandwidth bound and modern texture cache sizes is the main reason why it's so fast nowadays.

 

[SapientWolf]

I always figured AF to be a CPU thing, and since the XBone had a tad upclocked Jaguar, they could afford the extra filtering.
On PC, you have CPU for days which is why there's a very minor impact.

I think it's a bandwidth thing, and PC's are bandwidth monsters.

IIRC, the PS4's CPU and GPU share bandwidth which is maybe not that optimal for something like AF.

 

[mieumieu]

any game should have at the very least 4x AF. Anything lower is not acceptable.

 

[morpix]

I think it's a bandwidth thing, and PC's are bandwidth monsters.

IIRC, the PS4's CPU and GPU share bandwidth which is maybe not that optimal for something like AF.

In that case, I don't get how the XBone gets AF where the PS4 doesn't.
GDDR5 vs DDR3 is a pretty substantial memory bandwidth difference, and the PS4 should win that.

 

[lord pie]

If you are bottlenecked by texture filtering, then turning up AF will have a catastrophic affect on performance. The 15%+ numbers are not unusual. I've seen worse.

However, if you are *not* bottlenecked by texture filtering, then AF can appear 'free', because of the pipelined nature of a GPU.

 

[Abhor]

I force 16x, high quality AF through my driver. It makes a huge visual difference, it's better than the AF options implemented in a number of games, AND it costs a neglible amount of performance loss.

This really should just be a standard, default on, and a higher priority above everything else.

 

[Liabe Brave]

This thread rekindled my interest in seeing if anything had actually changed in terms of AF impact.... (This is a comparison of 16x AF and trilinear filtering)

I'd say these examples, as well as others in the thread, show exactly why console devs might not prioritize AF, regardless of hardware restrictions. Frankly, there's just not enough difference that it would matter to most people. I mean, the loss of detail on a TV at an 8-10 foot viewing distance just isn't going to be noticed that often. And that's going from trilinear to 16x, when on consoles we're usually talking 4x as the base.

Personally, I totally agree that high AF is a big part of preserving the detail devs work so hard to generate. But I, and most of the folks here on GAF, care a lot more about that than average. Think about it this way: many people are fine playing 900p (or less) games on their 1080p displays, and lower resolution introduces blur everywhere on screen, not just on oblique surfaces. A little smudgy ground won't stop them from buying, any more than framerate dips do.

 

[Jedi2016]

In that case, I don't get how the XBone gets AF where the PS4 doesn't.

This.

This isn't a PC vs Consoles argument.

 

[Liabe Brave]

This.

This isn't a PC vs Consoles argument.

Per earlier in the thread, Xbox One doesn't always have better AF than PS4. In some games it does, in some games it has worse AF, and in most games they're the same. No explanation is required.

 

[Electret]

Per earlier in the thread, Xbox One doesn't always have better AF than PS4. In some games it does, in some games it has worse AF, and in most games they're the same. No explanation is required.

I can recall at least one PS4 game that's been post-release patched to have equivalent AF with the XB1 version. I think the number of games where XB1 does have an AF advantage is exceedingly small, and this is largely an unfounded narrative.

 

[Timu]

Here you have low AF:


And good AF:

This is more accurate.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

In that case, I don't get how the XBone gets AF where the PS4 doesn't.
GDDR5 vs DDR3 is a pretty substantial memory bandwidth difference, and the PS4 should win that.

XOnes eSRAM should give some advantages here under certain circumstances.

 

[televator]

I can force AF on Gamecube games that didn't originally have it enebled... on an actual Gamecube.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

Someone post it when you check your images

Gta is better.

Original Xbox is a prime example. Ps2 often looked better to me for it.

Riddick

 

[RowdyReverb]

Why I can't hold all this super cheap 16x AF:

https://www.computerbase.de/2011-12/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970/7/

There are different examples also with far less performance difference but if I remember correct AF is very costly on Radeons on the recent Tomb Raider title.
In addition 16x is simply wasteful, you never need to force 16x globally and in many cases won't even see a difference in comparison to 4x.

Just look at Rise of the Tombraider or Fallout 4:
http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/rise-of-the-tomb-raider/alt/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-anisotropic-filtering-interactive-comparison-001-16x-vs-4x.html?ClickID=ca7pakwszwaqfsffsvwqqvipai7lelelvnsn

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-anisotropic-filtering-interactive-comparison-001-16x-vs-4x.html?ClickID=dkzckx0mh0kwnmnnm20ww2rckrzobobo2ymy

Wow I zoomed in as far as I could and could not convince myself of a difference in the TR pic

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Shame with the PS4 Pro releasing with both a more power GPU and faster RAM giving it more bandwidith, there isn't a way to automatically force higher AF on unpatched titles.

 

[dogen]

Yet still have a unified pool of memory. Which is the problem. Unlike your PC which has memory for the CPU and memory for the GPU.

No it's not that. It's just the developers try to find a balance point that will look good enough for most customers without costing too much performance.

Yeah, it's only a small performance hit, but with console games that shit is metered tight. They figure most people won't notice or care, so why spend the gpu time on it.

 

[Durante]

This is the latest DE? .... why does it look like Half-Life 2?

/exaggerating of course

It actually looks very good. Great consistent use of PBR and screen-space reflections to model surface behaviour, really good shadows (after they fixed the highest settings in a patch), nice volumetric lighting.

I'd say these examples, as well as others in the thread, show exactly why console devs might not prioritize AF, regardless of hardware restrictions. Frankly, there's just not enough difference that it would matter to most people. I mean, the loss of detail on a TV at an 8-10 foot viewing distance just isn't going to be noticed that often. And that's going from trilinear to 16x, when on consoles we're usually talking 4x as the base.

Personally, I totally agree that high AF is a big part of preserving the detail devs work so hard to generate. But I, and most of the folks here on GAF, care a lot more about that than average. Think about it this way: many people are fine playing 900p (or less) games on their 1080p displays, and lower resolution introduces blur everywhere on screen, not just on oblique surfaces. A little smudgy ground won't stop them from buying, any more than framerate dips do.

I don't know, the difference when I looked at the screenshots was actually way more stark than I expected going into this. The ground turns into complete mush even right in front of the camera.

 

[Bedlam]

16x Anisotropic filtering is super cheap

Yeah, no. It's not cheap at all.

 

[Izuna]

Titanfall 2's TSAA adds so much texture smoothing that even with 16xAF it looks like it has none. haha

 

[Hypron]

I think AF is more apparent when you're playing than when you look at screenshots. It's fairly distracting to see textures become blurry at a distance on the road, and especially so when the blurriness moves as you move.

 

[Durante]

Yeah, no. It's not cheap at all.

Well, it depends on the hardware and workload.

For example in DE:MD above I measured a ~1.7% impact on my system, going from "1x" to 16xAF.

 

[dr_rus]

If you are bottlenecked by texture filtering, then turning up AF will have a catastrophic affect on performance. The 15%+ numbers are not unusual. I've seen worse.

However, if you are *not* bottlenecked by texture filtering, then AF can appear 'free', because of the pipelined nature of a GPU.

Texture filtering is free since it's handled by dedicated hardware (unless you use your own shader for this for some reason). What's not free is texture fetches from memory. It's rather unlikely though that anything would be limited by texture fetches on modern h/w, most games are shader limited these days. One could also argue that 15% is not much for a 30 fps / 33ms title, and it's usually less than that for AF cost.

 

[Durante]

I'm now curious to see if I can get at least 5% in any game/location/settings combination on my system.

So far, I've been unsuccessful.