• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

NVidia : A closer look At CSAA

David Bisset said:
the namings are inconsistent, and not all levels exist for both sides solutions which is true.

From Anand

hn2U97B.png
Click to expand...

And there you go 16xQ is really only enhanced 8xMSAA while 8xEQ is enhanced 8MSAA.

That chart is a bit out of date because AMD has the EQ enhanced versions of all the base AA levels and 16xAA and up is only an option with xfire.

AMDs 16xEQ has a 16xAA base not 8xAA like NV 16xQ.

And looking closer at NVs other AA levels are inconsistent with the xQ naming which would assume enhanced while they are not and also xAA which should mean base level that are really enhancing lower levels besides other anomalies.
So NV is adding the base level and the enhancing level together to denote the AA which after 4xAA there would be no way of knowing how much of it is base and how much is enhancing without the chart.
 
Last edited:
Silent_Scone said:
Don't forget MFAA. This is why AMD are rehashing this, because MFAA is going to bring a lot to the table.
Click to expand...

Which is the equivalent to ATI/AMD Temporal Anti-Aliasing which came out in 2004.
When the Radeon X800 was introduced, it was accompanied by a new mode called temporal anti-aliasing. It used two different pixel sampling patterns, alternating with every frame of video. When the frame rate was high enough so that the human eye couldn't tell them apart (at least 60 frames per second), the viewer experienced the result of both sampling patterns, virtually doubling the number of anti-aliasing samples without the associated performance penalty. For example, two 2xAA sample patterns could produce a result similar to 4xAA, two 4xAA sample patterns generated an 8xAA result, and so on.
Click to expand...
cUCfUK.gif

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/anti-aliasing-nvidia-geforce-amd-radeon,review-32166-6.html


By alternating AA sample patterns both temporally and spatially, 4xMFAA has the performance cost of 2xMSAA, with anti-aliasing properties equivalent to 4xMSAA.

MFAA is still in development, but once finished it will improve frame rates and image quality in traditional games, as well in Virtual Reality titles , giving Maxwell owners a superior experience that cannot be found elsewhere.
Click to expand...
3zAQsV.png

http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/technology/mfaa/technology
 
Last edited:
Yah.

If I was an ASW maybe this would warrant a new thread but here you are. :)


"What sets Multi-Frame Sampled Anti-Aliasing apart from Temporal AA and similar efforts – and why NVIDIA thinks they will succeed where AMD failed – is the concept of temporal reprojection, or as NVIDIA calls it their temporal synthesis filter. By reusing pixels from a previous frame (to use them as pseudo-MSAA samples), the resulting frame can more closely match true 4x MSAA thanks to the presence of multiple samples. The trick is that you can’t simply reuse the entire last frame, as this would result in a much less jagged image that also suffered from incredible motion blur. For this reason the proper/best form of temporal reprojection requires figuring out which specific pixels to reproject and which to discard.

From an image quality standpoint, in the ideal case of a static image this would correctly result in image quality rivaling 4x MSAA. As a lack of camera motion means that the pixels being sampled never changed, the samples would line up perfectly and would fully emulate 4x MSAA. However once in motion the overall image quality is going to be heavily reliant on the quality of the temporal reprojection. In the best case scenario for motion Multi-Frame Sampled Anti-Aliasing still will not perfectly match 4x MSAA, and in the worst case scenario for motion it could still result in either 2x MSAA-like anti-aliasing, significant blurring, or even both outcomes
Click to expand...
 
Why? It's not my thread and the quote from the article clears up your lack of understanding. I'm glad to lead you in the right direction, this place could do with more facts. If I can do it from my phone you should make the time to read up on it before posting.
 
Silent_Scone said:
Why? It's not my thread and the quote from the article clears up your lack of understanding. I'm glad to lead you in the right direction, this place could do with more facts. If I can do it from my phone you should make the time to read up on it before posting.
Click to expand...

I didn't have a lack of understanding because there was no part of my post that was in error including the quoted information and none of it implied that i didn't understand and none of it nonfactual, you got chip on your shoulder.
The link should be posted so people can always see the full context of the information for themselves.
 
Last edited:
If these forums required facts then their would only be about half a dozen people posting......

And no one from the amd camp.

Good info though, be interested in the benchmarks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom