24xAA

willhub · 22 Jul 2007 at 16:43

LoadsaMoney said:
Thats because your not playing games like all these above, zoomed in 1000%, do that then you'll be complaining of jaggies.

I'll just go get a magnifying glass

helmutcheese · 22 Jul 2007 at 17:11

Pottsey, FFS, digital zoom is a joke, my screen is made up of dots looked at through a mag glass, forget sofware for 1 min.

fornowagain · 22 Jul 2007 at 17:21

willhub said:
32xAA looks fine to me, but of course, its not realy 32xAA coz the 8800's cant do it.

The same as it can't do x16, neither can the 2900XT, the highest direct sample is x8. After that its coverage or custom filters. It does have twice the base count of the x16 version which is why its pretty much useless in newer games.

There were some Jpeg artifacts in the other shots. Here is some lossless 32x from an older game, looks ok I think.

willhub · 22 Jul 2007 at 17:36

The 8800 does have 16xAA, its even in the drivers :confused:

fornowagain · 22 Jul 2007 at 17:47

willhub said:
The 8800 does have 16xAA, its even in the drivers

No the highest 'real' AA is 8xQ which is 8xMSAA. The next one is 16x which is 4xMSAA+16 coverage samples. After that its 16xQ which is 8xMSAA(8xQ)+16 coverage samples. They're composites, not real AA. You'll also notice that moving from 4x to 16x doesn't take as big a hit as you'd think, thats because its the same base sample.

I guess they call it 16x cos 4xMSAA+16CS is a mouthful.

helmutcheese · 22 Jul 2007 at 17:47

My 8800 Ultra is a special Rev4 Core Engineers sample, it does 48xAA without taking a frame hit.

willhub · 22 Jul 2007 at 17:49

helmutcheese said:
My 8800 Ultra is a special Rev4 Core Engineers sample, it does 48xAA without taking a frame hit.

jaykay · 22 Jul 2007 at 17:53

fornowagain said:
No the highest 'real' AA is 8xQ which is 8xMSAA. The next one is 16x which is 4xMSAA+16 coverage samples. After that its 16xQ which is 8xMSAA(8xQ)+16 coverage samples. They're composites, not real AA. You'll also notice that moving from 4x to 16x doesn't take as big a hit as you'd think, thats because its the same base sample.

I guess they call it 16x cos 4xMSAA+16CS is a mouthful.

Why cant you make 16xaa real? And not composites.

fornowagain · 22 Jul 2007 at 17:56

jaykay said:
Why cant you make 16xaa real? And not composites.

They could, its just a hell of a lot of direct samples. More ROPs etc. Next gen maybe?
From Anandtech. See the way the performance scales when you look at base samples.

helmutcheese · 22 Jul 2007 at 18:01

I thought that was the idea of Stream Processors, unlike a Shader or Rop, they can do more then 1 thing, if its sitting doing nothing it can be made to do something.

fornowagain · 22 Jul 2007 at 18:04

helmutcheese said:
I thought that was the idea of Stream Processors, unlike a Shader or Rop, they can do more then 1 thing, if its sitting doing nothing it can be made to do something.

The G80 uses ROPs for AA resolve. A stream processor is the combination of pixel shaders and vertex shaders in one. They still do one thing at a time, just now its whatever operand they're told to do. They've let the Stream Processors deal with shading/vertex/physics for rendering more frames and the ROP hardware get on with post processing.

helmutcheese · 22 Jul 2007 at 18:07

I did read that, bah

Pottsey · 23 Jul 2007 at 09:03

“Pottsey, FFS, digital zoom is a joke, my screen is made up of dots looked at through a mag glass, forget sofware for 1 min.“
It’s not a joke it’s working the way it’s meant to. 100% correctly. The image pixels are made up of squares and digital zoom shows squares as that’s what the image is made up off. Yes your screen is made up of dots but that doesnt matter as it use's dots to make square pixels which make up the image.

That’s why people where asking if that other guy was for real when he complained he zoomed in and still got squares.

Dutch Guy · 23 Jul 2007 at 09:24

I am a member of the 'what's the point' camp.

ATI should make sure the card performs well with 4xAA/8xAA and not spend time developing 24xAA

helmutcheese · 23 Jul 2007 at 11:57

ATI should make sure their card performs well period

Participant · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:02

silversurfer said:
I zoomed in and the pixels are still square

Ah-hahahahah

Supreme.

ergonomics · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:47

Dutch Guy said:
I am a member of the 'what's the point' camp.

ATI should make sure the card performs well with 4xAA/8xAA and not spend time developing 24xAA

YES thankyou. i suggested this earlier. all this hassle for something that doesnt look much different, yet they still have issues with lower AA. it can support 1000AA, but if it wasnt working at 4x/8x whatever, then its wasted

Dutch Guy · 23 Jul 2007 at 12:58

ergonomics said:
YES thankyou. i suggested this earlier. all this hassle for something that doesnt look much different, yet they still have issues with lower AA. it can support 1000AA, but if it wasnt working at 4x/8x whatever, then its wasted

I guess they can't get 4xAA/8xAA any faster and now try to take the attention away from that by introducing a new FSAA option.

Tom|Nbk · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:10

Dutch Guy said:
I guess they can't get 4xAA/8xAA any faster and now try to take the attention away from that by introducing a new FSAA option.

What are you on about?, have you checked some of the latest reviews. Fair enough performance is down in one or two games but it's mostly up there with the GTS and beating the GTX/Ultra even with AA enabled somtimes.

helmutcheese · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:31

I still would not own one this time around