Who actually uses AA and AF?

Dev2

Dev2

Dev2

Associate
Joined
5 Jul 2006
Posts
959
Location
Dublin
For years I have read benchmarks and AA and AF are used to sort the good graphics cards from the low performance ones. But in actual games do you guys use them. I mean I rather play at a higer res and more detail than have AA and AF on. For the drop in framerate it costs its hard to justify using. If you have a X1900XTX and a FX60 you might aswell stick it on in Counter Strike Source. I'm sure many of you do use it but does anyone else here find AA and AF almost too demading on your hardware.
 
Dev2 said:
For years I have read benchmarks and AA and AF are used to sort the good graphics cards from the low performance ones. But in actual games do you guys use them. I mean I rather play at a higer res and more detail than have AA and AF on. For the drop in framerate it costs its hard to justify using. If you have a X1900XTX and a FX60 you might aswell stick it on in Counter Strike Source. I'm sure many of you do use it but does anyone else here find AA and AF almost too demading on your hardware.
Click to expand...

I use it all the time, varying levels depending on the game, so long as fraps doesn't report less than 60FPS I'm happy.
 
I prefer dropping the res to get AA. I just can't stand those jaggies in game.

I don't tend to bother with AF though, I don't really notice any difference with it on.
 
AA i can live without. Everyone should use AF though, it really makes the textures a lot better and it barely decreases performance at all.
If I have fps to spare, i'll use AA however because it does improve image quality
 
If you run 1600x1200 or higher AA isn't really needed I find. AF is needed though in a lot of games, especially ones where you're constantly moving one way. Go play PGR3 on 360 and take a look.
 
Personally I think there's a huge graphical difference between antialiasing on and antialiasing off. I definitely ensure it's on at all times. I think it makes games look a lot better. Jagged edges stick out like a sore thumb in some games.
 
AA and AF and a res of 1280 or 1600 x 1200 depending on the game. I have taken to having a 1280 res in CS to have a 100hz refresh rate though. 2048 x 1536 makes games supper fine, but I still leave the AA on at 2x minimum.

If it were HDR, I find it more of a hindrance than any use.
 
Dev2 said:
For years I have read benchmarks and AA and AF are used to sort the good graphics cards from the low performance ones. But in actual games do you guys use them. I mean I rather play at a higer res and more detail than have AA and AF on. For the drop in framerate it costs its hard to justify using. If you have a X1900XTX and a FX60 you might aswell stick it on in Counter Strike Source. I'm sure many of you do use it but does anyone else here find AA and AF almost too demading on your hardware.
Click to expand...


I can't play games now a days without AA, it does my head in, AF on the other hand im not too fussed about as I dont actually know what it does. AA is a MUST for me though
 
AF filters the texures, more or less stops them being blurred. If you don't have it on you can clearly see (Well I can) sort of contours going outwards from you with the textures getting blurrier and blurrier.
 
Never used to use them much as I only really played Source engine games such as CS:S, which to be fair haven't got as much aliasing as other games.

Once I started using it though I couldn't go back, it is a pet hate of mine now when games have very bad AA and AF is a MUST for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom