2900XT - Disabiling AA in Drivers?

Jokester · 18 May 2007 at 07:50

Well with the poor performance with AA enabled I thought I would force it off in the drivers (WoW can only go down to x1 and the performance is shocking). Only problem is that in the standard control panel the lowest you can set it is x2.

Any way to completely switch it off?

:mad:

Jokester

FreeStream · 18 May 2007 at 08:36

App Controlled is the lowest you can go

Jokester · 18 May 2007 at 17:42

Meh, might as well throw the things in the bin to be honest. ATI have seriously ****ed up this generation.

Jokester

gt_junkie · 18 May 2007 at 17:46

I was expecting so much from them. Hope they manage to sort them out! Surprised considering the time they've had available to get it right.

Bought the GTX as i was sick of waiting and when i saw the release was coming i expected my card to get demoted to 2nd place.

gt

Defcon5 · 18 May 2007 at 17:58

Whats actually wrong with the AA? could you post a screenie?

Jokester · 18 May 2007 at 17:58

It works, but at only about 20fps.

Jokester

queamin · 18 May 2007 at 18:01

Someone going to get a roasting for this in ati/amd,6 months late and still not right,looks Anandtech hit the nail on the head with his review.

edit:Anandtech
First, they refuse to call a spade a spade: this part was absolutely delayed, and it works better to admit this rather than making excuses. Forcing MSAA resolve to run on the shader hardware is less than desirable and degrades both pixel throughput and shader horsepower as opposed to implementing dedicated resolve hardware in the render back ends. Not being able to follow through with high end hardware will hurt in more than just in lost margins. The thirst for wattage that the R600 displays is not what we'd like to see from an architecture that is supposed to be about efficiency. Finally, attempting to extract a high instruction level parallelism using a VLIW design when something much simpler could exploit the huge amount of thread level parallelism inherent in graphics was not the right move.

not sure if this is why but a good guess it is

Teal · 18 May 2007 at 18:02

.. and the shader performance seems to be a hardware problem so it won't get fixed in the drivers any time soon

Very disappointing, just hope they allow AA to be turned off in drivers soon now.

queamin · 18 May 2007 at 18:07

At this time playing with no AA,s is out of order at this level of card 3 or 4 years ago maybe,but now it isn't

FreeStream · 18 May 2007 at 18:11

Hmmm, ok maybe I won't be buying R600.

ATi fix it, seriously.

Or I stick with my X1900XTX, im sure watered it will last a few more months...

R600 = immense for folding, otherwise ATi buggered it up. :eek:

queamin · 18 May 2007 at 18:14

Not sure if they can do anything if it is hardware when they go to a smaller die for the 2900xt maybe 65nm or what ever it is.

Jokester · 18 May 2007 at 18:14

The thing is, at the resolution I use, you don't really need AA, but to force you into using it where games don't have the option to turn it off is pretty bad, considering the huge performance cost.

Jokester

queamin · 18 May 2007 at 18:16

yes it is,you get a large hit for nothing really i am sure they will patch the drivers so you can turn it off

gt_junkie · 18 May 2007 at 18:47

queamin said:
yes it is,you get a large hit for nothing really i am sure they will patch the drivers so you can turn it off

Should work from the start really though... all the time they've had!

Bit embarrassing!

gt

drak3 · 18 May 2007 at 18:48

Yup, 24" inchers don't need AA. If they can fix the driver tot urn it off, then R600 will be the best choice over 8800's GTS

Giftmacher · 18 May 2007 at 20:39

You sure something else isn't up? AA on should not cause that much of a performance hit on WoW. Looking at the reviews more graphically demanding games manage more than 20fps with AA on, even at higher res.

Gift.

willhub · 18 May 2007 at 20:42

drak3 said:
Yup, 24" inchers don't need AA. If they can fix the driver tot urn it off, then R600 will be the best choice over 8800's GTS

Depends what res it uses dont it.

Jokester · 18 May 2007 at 20:42

2560x1600 with everything else on.

8800GTX would get 60-70 fps at x4
2900XT gets 30 fps at x1
2900XT gets 20 fps at x4

Jokester

chaparral · 18 May 2007 at 20:46

Jokester said:
2560x1600 with everything else on.

8800GTX would get 60-70 fps at x4
2900XT gets 30 fps at x1
2900XT gets 20 fps at x4

Jokester

Do you know what FPS the x1900xt or xt-x would get at this res in wow ??

Vogon · 18 May 2007 at 20:48

drak3 said:
Yup, 24" inchers don't need AA. If they can fix the driver tot urn it off, then R600 will be the best choice over 8800's GTS

Wrong !
24" here, 1920x1200 and I really notice not having AA on, I have an evanjelical (sp?) hatred of jaggies, and since the 9800 days I have never run with anything less than minimum 2x.
Yes some might not be worried about it, but I certainly would

With the res Jokesters running it might be a mute point, but having not seen it at that res personaly I can't comment

Also would disagree with your second point, at £215 for a 640mb GTS that can do AA and has a good level of performance across all games, how can a £250+ card that performs worse across the board, runs hotter and is noisier be a better choice ?
This is from someone who would normally prefer ATi cards too ... but I think they have dropped a clanger this time TBH.

Jokester .... what about just installing drivers with no CP/CCC, would that disable any form of AA ?