Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,499
- Location
- Dormanstown.
So between 1366x768 and 1920x1200 or whatever you noticed no performance hit at all from using this?
Bulldozer, quite a CPU bottleneck

So between 1366x768 and 1920x1200 or whatever you noticed no performance hit at all from using this?
The posted screenshots are at different resolutions. The linked site simply allows you to view both at the same viewable resolution. Right click on each image and check image information for actual resolution or save to desktop.
This method is clearly not comparable to FXAA in any shape or form. The only method it is vaguely comparable to is supersampling AA. In any case, if you prefer to use FXAA/NO AA for games games where SSAA is not available then that's your choice.
To each their own.
So between 1366x768 and 1920x1200 or whatever you noticed no performance hit at all from using this?
Bulldozer, quite a CPU bottleneck![]()
Zero, it ran about 25-30ish on all of them. Installed a car mod though, and that murdered my FPS. I've re validated GTA IV and got the old cars back, so I'll have a look.
Well then this means you're already bottlenecked somewhere. As I could definitely notice a difference between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 in performance.
Is there any way whatsoever to effect whether your hardware bottlenecks? I bought my machine on here pre-built (wish I went custom built, though) HD6850 + fx4100, should support eachother quite well, right?![]()
The FX is a bottleneck with its sub 2007 IPC.
Had a Phenom II X2 here the other day, unlocked and clocked to an X4 at 4GHZ, that'd push that 6850 all day long.
I'm sorry, which part are you saying is false? The comparison articles/screenshots on here are showing blur, along with the personal experiences of Omaeka showing blur on desktop.
I'm not saying that this is an awful technique or should never be used....what I'm saying is that there are tradeoffs.
You see, the problem with those images is that they're the same physical size. Meaning that they had been super-sampled for comparison. If you took a screenshot from a downsampled render, it would come at full resolution.
You can force SSAA in most games. He's right to say that downsampling with lower scaling won't provide the same quality. It's certainly not comparable to post-processing methods, you're spot on with that.
Lol bulldozer.
You mean loldozer.
And a CPU bottleneck isn't always a bad thing Omek.
In L4D my CPU's a bottleneck, a 4.8GHZ 2500K, although when I'm pushing almost 300 frames, it's a moot point.
No one in their right mind should buy a loldozer for gaming.
Click on the following thumbnails for a side-by-side comparison. To view at original resolution, right click and save to your desktop.
I just see them in 2 different sizes when I click on them. Maybe it's due to my monitor resolution being a bit higher?
Tried on 1080p and and yeah show as same size but surely the downsizing I see is being done by that website and not necessarily indicative of what you will see in game. Or I can right click and view images and let firefox do the downsampling. Either way the effect does looks underwhelming in the given pictures.
I saw a method for doing the same thing on Nvidia cards on a different forum and comparison shots there were using GTA IV (a particularly 'jaggy' game) and it did looks a little better but not by much.
Personally I'm not sold so I'll take the blur hit from FXAA myself![]()