Does Anti-Aliasing make a difference?

[Locky]

I have at 2560 res and still have 4x AA in games, just looks better.

 

[arc@css]

Anything from no AA enabled to 4 AA for me. Depends on the game. My resolution is usually 1920x1200.

 

[Orangey]

I despise jaggies and will do anything I can to get rid of them. My preference is for slower paced gameplay like the Stalker games, where you notice all the little deficiencies in the visuals as you're walking around and looking for loot etc. In the one I'm playing now (Clear Sky) you actually have to jump through a hoop or two to get the full benefit of AA because it doesn't work like in other games where you can brute force it. Some objects still had jagged edges until I maxed the DX10 settings. Once I did that it made a world of difference to me and I saw the game as the devs intended it, the immersion really increased and I was able to just enjoy playing it.

In the COD / BF games you're basically being funnelled down a linear path at breakneck speed so there's very little time to stop and admire the view. But if I can enable AA I still will. In such games I really prefer 60fps to AA - that's another argument though.

 

[Final8y]

If the pixel size stays the same, then you're just going bigger and bigger with the size.

What you want is smaller pixels, the smaller the pixel the less antialiasing you need.

+1

 

[V4nger]

If the pixel size stays the same, then you're just going bigger and bigger with the size.

What you want is smaller pixels, the smaller the pixel the less antialiasing you need.

so if you have a 22" monitor at 1080p and a 24" monitor at 1080p, the pixels will be smaller on the 22" and will need less AA right?

 

[Alex74]

so if you have a 22" monitor at 1080p and a 24" monitor at 1080p, the pixels will be smaller on the 22" and will need less AA right?

Basically yes..ultimately it's a judgement call though. You have to see how it looks to you on your screen and decide what settings look best for your situation.

 

[rounddodger]

Unless you're being really pedantic, or in a very few very select games anything over 4xaa is barely noticeable in quality difference.

When Anandtech zooms in a 1cm square area and blows it up to a 5 inch box and shows the difference, yeah its noticeable, just about. In real gaming in all but a handful of games that have lots and lots and lots of diagonal lines all over the place 2xaa will make the biggest difference, 2 to 4xaa is a far FAR smaller quality jump and 4-6 or 8xaa will barely show a difference when you're at 1920x1200 and above.

Pretty much agree on this. I just use 4xAA as a minimum and as long as I can vsync at 60fps and get away with more then good stuff.

I can definitely notice when you jump from 4x to 16xQ though, the picture just seems really nice and solid, hard to describe. Devil May Cry 4 was such a game where I noticed this.

 

[bhavv]

I like having 8x AA on in all my games. I like them as spotless as possible.

 

[james.miller]

i havent used a top end gpu for so long that i've forgotten what AA looks like

 

[bledd]

I find a good way of seeing the difference is load up Half Life 2, hopefully you'll get a title screen with trees on it...

When the title screen is there, go in and change your settings, huge difference

 

[Duran]

it makes a massive difference no matter what resolution u are using

 

[muppet]

yea hl2 is the worst game ive played to run without aa with all those pylons , trees etc

 

[Ricardox1]

On bfbc2 on no anti-aliasing there was a lot of judder but I bumped it to 8x and its smooth as silk now

 

[mr griffin]

I always thought it is better to run at the native resolution of the monitor with maybe lower 2 xAA than run at say 1440 x 900 with 8x aa?. In an ideal world max the lot

 

[james.miller]

I always thought it is better to run at the native resolution of the monitor with maybe lower 2 xAA than run at say 1440 x 900 with 8x aa?. In an ideal world max the lot

that is correct.


one way you have a sharp picture with some jaggy lines, the other you have a blurry picture with less jaggy lines. but, everything is blurry.

 

[jakspyder]

personally i like to put as much AA on as i can keeping fps above 40 in the slower paced games like arma2 which i play a lot and in those fast games like cod and ut3 then i want 60+fps before i add any AA. having said that. cod and ut3 both run extremely well maxed out lol.

 

[dmxdex2020]

2 aa to 4aa is enough for 1920x1080.

 

[ooEy]

I always use 2 or 4 AA @ 1920 x 1080. If i cant I upgrade. I really think that modern games without AA can look really old.

 

[Locke]

Yep same, I run 4 as a minimum which is forced through the Nvidia CP or in the game if that doesn't work.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

I always thought it is better to run at the native resolution of the monitor with maybe lower 2 xAA than run at say 1440 x 900 with 8x aa?. In an ideal world max the lot

If you're using a TFT, yes. If using a CRT, you can sometimes be better off lowering resolution and raising AA. It's best to experiment to find out.