Grand Theft Auto V Image Quality Comparison - Part 5 @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,601
Grand Theft Auto V Image Quality Comparison - Part 5 - In our final look at Grand Theft Auto V we will look at image quality comparisons in this game. We will focus on the main graphics options that affect performance the most and we will get to the bottom of which soft shadow option is best to use. We will also find out if FXAA and TXAA affect texture quality.
 
Thanks for this, pretty comprehensive.
Although I very much wanted to see how DSR and VSR fit into the mix as 1440p VSR+FXAA is what I preferred when I had a 290x @ 1080p.
Now I use DSR in GTA and Witcher 3 with my new NVidia card.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting to see FXAA doing so well. I remember when it first dropped, many complained about the impact it had on texture quality. To see it do so well here, with so little impact is great. The thing is... has FXAA actually gotten better, or are we just getting used to it? I assume that driver updates update the FXAA algorithms over time to be more efficient and more effective...
 
Thanks for another great part of the GTA V review Kyle.

Higher grass quality levels also add additional shadows to the grass, another difference when going from Very High to Ultra. Maybe I overread it but I think it wasn't mentioned in this article.

Have you noticed that square/box that is casted around the character and textures/shadows outside of that box are of lower quality? I still wonder whats that about but on another forum I read the console versions do that too so maybe its by design.
 
Best game (performance) review ever! thanks guys. i think ill just stick to playing it on my ps3 for now.
#Getittogethertsmc
 
love the IQ sliders. very helpful.

but dang nvidia, when FXAA bitch slaps TXAA you know its time to go back to the drawing board.

still a shame about MSAA's massive performance hit, and wheres SMAA? downsampling + SMAA + MSAA is the bee's knees.
 
Modred189 said:
Interesting to see FXAA doing so well. I remember when it first dropped, many complained about the impact it had on texture quality. To see it do so well here, with so little impact is great. The thing is... has FXAA actually gotten better, or are we just getting used to it? I assume that driver updates update the FXAA algorithms over time to be more efficient and more effective...
Click to expand...

I haven't played the game, but standard FXAA blurring and reduction of contrast are very visible in the screenshots. I have yet to see FXAA without this deal braker to me. The only post method I've found acceptable is well implemented SMAA.
 
Meeho said:
I haven't played the game, but standard FXAA blurring and reduction of contrast are very visible in the screenshots. I have yet to see FXAA without this deal braker to me. The only post method I've found acceptable is well implemented SMAA.
Click to expand...

And you detect those issues in the screenshots presented here? I'm just having a tough time seeing much of a difference.
 
I just want to thank you for spending so much time with the game. I'm not terribly interested in the title but just knowing the effort the developer put in to cater to PC enthusiasts makes me want to pick it up at a later date.

I know you already put in so much effort with the title but one thing kind of popped into my mind after the suggested settings were provided at the end of the article. That is how would the cards you reviewed perform at those suggested settings that strike a nice balance between quality and performance. I will have to go back to the previous articles to see if you happened to use some of those settings. Thanks again.
 
Great series. Well beyond anything that any other site does.

Are you guys ready to start all over again with witcher 3?
 
excellent article, as always. very in-depth with the sliders!

also, on page 4, last paragraph, second sentence, it says "Given the fact that Softest shadows has the less impact on performance", which should be "Given the fact that Softest shadows has the least impact on performance" :)
 
Modred189 said:
And you detect those issues in the screenshots presented here? I'm just having a tough time seeing much of a difference.
Click to expand...

Yes. It blurs the image and that makes contrasting edges less pronounced. Sometimes highlights are less pronounced, sometimes dark details. You can see it on the tree bark in the screenshot with the road sign. Not only that, FXAA changes colors (shades of colors) of solid areas, e.g. the green on the road sign.

1432446325kun5585ora_2_3_after.png

1432446325kun5585ora_2_3_before.png

1432446325kun5585ora_2_4_after.png


Basically the same you get with TXAA, but less pronounced.


All that gives FXAA images a sort of hazy, washed out look. It is present though less pronounced in GTAV, but you can clearly see it in every HardOCP's game IQ review.

One could say that the images taken are never 100% the same scene, but in multiple games the FXAA shot always looks blurred and washed out with different shades of color of various objects, but the MSAA shots look the same as NoAA ones aside from aliasing, so I don't believe it is a coincidence.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't GTA 5 support MFAA which makes 2x AA equal 4x. All though TXAA blurs up the scene, I quite like it in GTA 5, makes the game look like a Pixar movie
 
Very impressive series of articles and this one really was the icing on the cake. Awesome demonstration of each IQ feature presented which I am sure most of us really appreciate. Thanks for continuing to kick ASS!
 
the softer / blurred image is a side effect of TXAA. comparing it with FXAA in stills means the side effects are reviewed rather than the actual AA quality which is the main reason for these methods to exist in the first place.

those who say FXAA is better than TXAA must care more for texture sharpness and performance than for jaggies in motion, as TXAA clearly destroys FXAA at the latter. you could also inject some sharpening filter and be done with it.
 
You guys mention that the shadow becoming almost invisible in PCSS is a negative...but isn't that more realistic? In my mind, sun hitting a power line that's dozens of feet in the air WOULDN'T create a a show on the ground, so shouldn't that be how it's represented in a video game?
 
bikeracer4487 said:
You guys mention that the shadow becoming almost invisible in PCSS is a negative...but isn't that more realistic? In my mind, sun hitting a power line that's dozens of feet in the air WOULDN'T create a a show on the ground, so shouldn't that be how it's represented in a video game?
Click to expand...

It does the same thing under ledges, window sills and the such too. It's horribly distracting in motion. I'm an Nv fanboy through and through, but even my twisted/skewed/biased thinking can't justify the loss of IQ with PCSS. It's just a horrible implementation in this game.

I want to say thank you to Brent specifically. The MSAA screencaps are exactly what I was hoping to see here, and the conclusion you've reached I can agree with. It costs too much performance without a God-level rig, but it absolutely improves image quality if you have the hardware to run it. (I meant to post some screenshots in the comments of a previous article to show that MSAA had a large effect on image quality, but a family emergency has pulled me away for a couple weeks, so thanks for saving me that effort)
 
I find fxaa to be horrible. I use dSR UHD + smaa with everything maxed except DOF and motion blur still getting 40+ fps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top