What stresses a card more, higher res or AA?

[krooton]

Given the recent bout of 1080p 22-23" monitors, I was wondering, given how small the pixels will be on them, if they would perform better or worse than having a lower res with higher AA to compensate?

 

[Admiral Huddy]

I may stand corrected, but a higher AA/AF will always have a greater detrimental effect on the frame rate than the resolution.

 

[linktoinsanity]

I may stand corrected here too, but I've always thought that resolution changes make much more of an impact on how good it looks than AA/AF. As far as how much stress it is I can't say.

 

[magicroundabout]

I may stand corrected here too, but I've always thought that resolution changes make much more of an impact on how good it looks than AA/AF. As far as how much stress it is I can't say.

i can only say that playing games on my TFT @ 1440x900 compared to the tv @ 1920x1080 the picture is a 100x better. Maybe my screen size isn't letting my card run to it's full potential and the tv is??!!
Adding AA does slow it down considerably though.

 

[widdyst]

In my experience running a sli 8800 gts 512 setup AA and AF definitely have the biggest effect. I think it may depend on what type of card though as cards with higher onboard memory deal with AA and AF a lot better

 

[lunarwolf]

AA does

 

[Schnippzle]

As we have seen with certain cards, AA and AF cripple them whilst higher resolutions do not really affect them. Think the 2900XT and the 3870 were quite badly affected by this.

 

[jvowles]

AA and AF imo

 

[gurusan]

AA+AF

I still find I need just as much AA on my 23" 2048x1152 as on my 22" 1680x1050 though

 

[Randell]

AA does, especially SSAA. Think of it as follows;

resolution 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels. With 2xAA = effective resolution of 3,528,000 pixels.

2048x1152 = 2,359,296 pixels.

This is simplistic but you get the idea.

 

[krooton]

So, getting a 22" monitor with this higher res would be like enabled AAx1.5?

Standard 22" = 90.05 PPI, 0.2821mm dot pitch
1080p 22" = 100.13 PPI, 0.2537mm dot pitch
1920x1200 22" = 102.92 PPI, 0.2468mm dot pitch <-- but are WAY more expensive than the 1080p ones

 

[krooton]

AA does, especially SSAA. Think of it as follows;

resolution 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels. With 2xAA = effective resolution of 3,528,000 pixels.

2048x1152 = 2,359,296 pixels.

This is simplistic but you get the idea.

1680x1050 = 1,764,000, with 4xAA effective 7,056,000
1920x1080 = 2,073,600, with 4xAA effective 8,294,400

hmmmm, not as big a jump as I thought... oh well!

 

[Randell]

So, getting a 22" monitor with this higher res would be like enabled AAx1.5?

Standard 22" = 90.05 PPI, 0.2821mm dot pitch
1080p 22" = 100.13 PPI, 0.2537mm dot pitch
1920x1200 22" = 102.92 PPI, 0.2468mm dot pitch <-- but are WAY more expensive than the 1080p ones

yes a smaller dot pitch on the same size screen would reduce the need for edge AA.

 

[Randell]

1680x1050 = 1,764,000, with 4xAA effective 7,056,000
1920x1080 = 2,073,600, with 4xAA effective 8,294,400

hmmmm, not as big a jump as I thought... oh well!

Yeah which is why I still game at 1680x1050. I'll make the bigger jump to 2560x1200 when its almost the standard!