• 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 GameWorks teams up with Ubisoft for Assassin’s Creed Unity, Far Cry 4, Tom Clancy’s The Divis

shankly1985 said:
Used to use it a lot before I found smaa and I had zero problems with it performance wise.
I not sure how Fxaa can effect performance? It's a blur filter to help reduce edges. It's not rendered by the GPU like msaa is.
So how can it effect performance?

Edit
Smaa not msaa
Click to expand...

Of course it is rendered by the GPU and FXAA is nVidia's creation. Not sure why it runs poorly but poor optimisation perhaps?
 
Gregster said:
Of course it is rendered by the GPU and FXAA is nVidia's creation. Not sure why it runs poorly but poor optimisation perhaps?
Click to expand...

How does it run poorly though? It's a pixel shader it's not doing anywhere as much programing than what msaa does. It should never use more performance than msaa not a chance because how it works is after the game has been rendered.
Msaa gets added while the games is rendered hence the big performance hit.
FXAA stands for Fast Approximate Anti-Aliasing, and it’s an even more clever hack than MSAA, because it ignores polygons and line edges, and simply analyses the pixels on the screen. It is a pixel shader program documented in this PDF that runs every frame in a scant millisecond or two. Where it sees pixels that create an artificial edge, it smooths them. It is, in the words of the author, “the simplest and easiest thing to integrate and use”
 
Gregster said:
Ermmm, it doesn't run poorly on nVidia, so maybe it is poor AMD optimisation? Just guessing bud.
Click to expand...

But it don't run poorly on AMD either? I have used it for years and it's always give better performance over the more demanding msaa. It's not possible for Fxaa to have more performance hit than msaa because how it's added to games.
 
shankly1985 said:
But it don't run poorly on AMD either? I have used it for years and it's always give better performance over the more demanding msaa. It's not possible for Fxaa to have more performance hit than msaa because how it's added to games.
Click to expand...

I think you are getting confused. Tommybhoy posted that 660Ti against a 7870 and they were using FXAA but the 660Ti came out on top and by a long way. You are asking me why this is. I am not a programmer or coder and merely an enthusiast with an interest in how tech works. Ask Roy and post that image of the bench and maybe he can explain :)
 
Shanks means it's not the norm for it to chug with FXAA, or have that much performance disparity.

However, don't look at how much the Nvidia is ahead, look how little performance the AMD loses when MSAA is used, and how massive Nvidia's loss is.
 
Gregster said:
I think you are getting confused. Tommybhoy posted that 660Ti against a 7870 and they were using FXAA but the 660Ti came out on top and by a long way. You are asking me why this is. I am not a programmer or coder and merely an enthusiast with an interest in how tech works. Ask Roy and post that image of the bench and maybe he can explain :)
Click to expand...

Well it be great if someone else here can test this. FXAA should have no performance hit. Just look at all the benchmarks out there showing this.

And who would use Fxaa over smaa anyways. Smaa is similar to msaa without the hit on performance.
 
Something that costs 1 fps in every game known to man, excluding GameWorks titles, happens to cost a big fps hit for AMD cards in a GameWorks title? Shock horror... :D

1heRkAz.gif.png
 
Is there any other benchmarks of Batman AO?

I just find it odd how much Nvidia loses when MSAA is involved (I know it'd be more than AMD, but we're talking a massive massive amount here) compared to the relatively normal amount you'd lose running MSAA with the AMD.
 
Martini1991 said:
Is there any other benchmarks of Batman AO?

I just find it odd how much Nvidia loses when MSAA is involved (I know it'd be more than AMD, but we're talking a massive massive amount here) compared to the relatively normal amount you'd lose running MSAA with the AMD.
Click to expand...

I know Joel did some to verify that a 770 was faster than a 290X when FXAA was used at 1080P.

One thing i do know is that x8AA allows the majority of AMD cards to overpower the GameWorks advantage and swing things back in their favour, or at least gain some sort of parity. Of course that's only an option on certain gpu's. AA is also something that is optimized for at driver level, so they did not need game source code or GameWorks source code to do that optimization.
 
No it's just that MSAA isn't a gameworks library so there is no impact. Perhaps AMD have not just optimised as well as they can for FXAA in this game?
 
Martini1991 said:
Is there any other benchmarks of Batman AO?

I just find it odd how much Nvidia loses when MSAA is involved (I know it'd be more than AMD, but we're talking a massive massive amount here) compared to the relatively normal amount you'd lose running MSAA with the AMD.
Click to expand...

Looks perfectly fine to me, 770 just behind 280X/7970, 670/760 just behind 7950. Odd thing is though that when PhysX is turned on Nvidia jumps into the lead, what the hell?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom