That's per card, but he's also not using 8xMSAA there, he's using 4xMSAA and FXAA very high combined. He's saying it uses almost another full 1GB per card going to 8xMSAA from 4xMSAA.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
2GB VRAM is not simply enough. (sorry 670/680 owners)
- Thread starter ShePearl
- Start date
That's per card, but he's also not using 8xMSAA there, he's using 4xMSAA and FXAA very high combined. He's saying it uses almost another full 1GB per card going to 8xMSAA from 4xMSAA.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
well yes with 8x MSAA it will go over 2gb of vram at 2560 but how many people have a screen like that? and if you do then using just 2x MSAA will leave you with plenty of room to spare with a 2gb card.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
2.7 would be 2765 mb which would mean only 1383 mb since your 7970 crossfire setup is showing twice the amount.
Regardless of whether is uses more than 2GB is irrelevant. What's most important is that attitudes like this are the reason the PC will NEVER again get a crysis like blockbuster. Because people think they're entitled to run it on max specs REGARDLESS of what is in their computer.
It makes no sense logically, let's say, arbitrarily, that crysis is a 100 on the graphics scale. Now, let's assume that crytek downgraded it for release to an 80 on the graphics scale so more people could max it out. Well, the people who have the hardware to max it out at 80 are getting the same graphics they would if it released at 100, the only difference is that they can't max it, so they whine like the little self-entitled babies that they are. It's a shame that we now have to rely on consoles to raise the bar because of this. Can't wait to see the whining when next-gen console ports start releasing.
Relativist
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2008
- Messages
- 473
Well... $ talks, so those that think this will just pony up for the 4GB cards. after all it's a pay to play sort of world. Between the choice at the BB website today of a stock 2GB 680 and 4GB 670, it was the 2GB 680 that won out and got my $s.
The ironic thing is that my hard drive started to die today...
The ironic thing is that my hard drive started to die today...
Last edited:
Not really sure what you mean by Crysis like blockbuster. Do you think after Crysis was released to such negative press about the system demands being too high that every other developer started coding their games to be overly demanding? In fact, Crysis was a lesson for Crytek since they didn't code Crysis 2 to be nearly as demanding. What you're saying it that every developer should code games to be so demanding that people won't buy it because they can't run it. Does that make much sense to you financially? Certainly not from a developer and publisher standpoint.
I don't know, 4X MSAA in BF3 on my rig still lets me hold 60fps constantly even in 64 player multiplayer except in very extreme scenarios. I use "Low" FXAA for things that MSAA doesn't work on, but any higher than that starts to blur too much for my taste.
Glad to hear that MP3's FXAA is a big step up
The better question is why would someone spend 500$ on a GPU and pair it with a 23" crap TN panel with a low 1080p res??
I can't believe people sometimes. Your display is the most important part of your experience. And I just read that FXAA is better than 8x MSAA...unbelievable. Next thing you know, someone will say that FXAA is better than SGSSAA or CSAA (which requires native MSAA support to function)
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
plenty of people, including myself are quite happy with a 23 or 24 inch 1080 screen. for everything I do its fine and actually very well suited for gaming. maybe in your world 1080 is low res but not for the vast majority of us. and even a $400-$500 card can not max every game and give 60fps at this res so I will upgrade my gpu again when the gtx7xxx cards come out...
I use a GTX 670 on a 67" Samsung 1080p TV, quite happy with it actually.
If you haven't played Max Payne 3 yet then you don't have much room to comment on the anti-aliasing issue. I've played it, I have it, I've checked FXAA vs 4xMSAA and its considerably better in this implementation. I've stated in a previous post that FXAA doesn't always look better than MSAA but in this game it does. There are still LOTS of jagged edges with MSAA in Max Payne 3.
Master_of_Sparks
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2012
- Messages
- 264
Nothing looks with better with FXAA instead of MSAA. It's not possible.
It is possible and it does in this case. You're mistaken and you clearly haven't played it. End of discussion for you.
heatthegreat
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 424
Hmm, I had 4x MSAA enabled with 670sli and even though it showed 60 fps it still felt a lil choppy at 2560x1440. A quick trip to the nvidia control panel, I just created a MP3 profile, set FXAA on and also adaptive vsync and turned off MSAA in game, and it was smooth as butter and it looked the same. Also, the game shows I'm using 2170 MB of my alloted 4GB...even though I only have 2GB in SLi.hrm
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
afterburner and precision are showing inaccurate numbers for this game.
Master_of_Sparks
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2012
- Messages
- 264
You're right it is end of discussion. MSAA being better than FXAA is a FACT. There is no discussion to be had.
Its an opinion, shared by some, not by all. How can you state something as a fact when its subjective? Duh. Do you realize what looks good to you might not to someone else? That's called subjective, Google it!
You clearly haven't played the game with both modes to A/B comparison. If you still feel MSAA looks better after you've done the comparison, then that's fine, its YOUR opinion and not one shared by many others that have seen it in MP3.
Stating something as a fact without providing any sources? Yes everyone should believe you since you obviously work in the game industry.
The problem with that is that MSAA doesn't get all the edges that need to be anti-aliased. So it may look better on the ones it gets, but FXAA gets all the edges and so can provide a better overall image quality.
There are always trade off's, i would rather have sharper and not getting all the edged than blur everything, because to me it does not give over all image quality.
They both have there problems and its up to the individual to which they prefer.
christpunchers
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 501
What about SMAA? Last time I used the SMAA injector, the results were miles ahead of FXAA. It had all the advantages of FXAA without any of the color changes or blurring of FXAA.
According to Brent, who has the game and has done comparisons, the FXAA implementation in MP3 is much newer than the implementation in BF3, and does not blur the image quality.
The quality of FXAA depends largely on which version the game uses and supports. Making blanket statements like "MSAA is always better than FXAA" is not accurate. There are some games where MSAA misses a large % of the scene, which FXAA does not.
The best image quality is SSAA, but good look running that on newer titles.
I have the game and it blurs.
MSAA accurate in the fact that it does not blur and i would rather have missed textures than blur everything so yes its accurate to what i like.
Last edited:
ShePearl
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 417
If I'm not mistaken, FXAA doesn't get the edges at all. It's a post-process algorithm. It just works on entire screen as a whole.
I have the game and I'm not seeing any blurring with FXAA compared to MSAA, however I'm seeing a lot of aliasing with MSAA even at 4xAA which I don't usually see in many other games.
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
Personally, my experience with FXAA makes the whole screen look blurry as opposed to crisper and less jagged. I'm still waiting until post processing AA can do what msaa does on 3D object, but to the whole scene.
Though currently, I run games at 2x or No AA and sit rather far from my monitors. The farther you sit, the less AA you need and you perceive less jaggies on objects (it's how consoles get away with low resolutions and no AA). I sit about 3-4' from my 30"rs. for text I render them bigger so I don't strain to read them. But it works out for me.
Also, for me. At again 3-4' 1920x1200 @ 4xMSAA looks like 2560x1600 @ 2xMSAA. This is with blurring because of upscaling on a non-native res.The former is easier to drive than the latter. Just things to think about.
On a side note, I'm am of the same opinion that the biggest, highest resolution, best quality display you can afford is the best thing for anyone. But I also know that the personal computer is just that... personal. So people can augment there computer how they prefer.
Though currently, I run games at 2x or No AA and sit rather far from my monitors. The farther you sit, the less AA you need and you perceive less jaggies on objects (it's how consoles get away with low resolutions and no AA). I sit about 3-4' from my 30"rs. for text I render them bigger so I don't strain to read them. But it works out for me.
Also, for me. At again 3-4' 1920x1200 @ 4xMSAA looks like 2560x1600 @ 2xMSAA. This is with blurring because of upscaling on a non-native res.The former is easier to drive than the latter. Just things to think about.
On a side note, I'm am of the same opinion that the biggest, highest resolution, best quality display you can afford is the best thing for anyone. But I also know that the personal computer is just that... personal. So people can augment there computer how they prefer.
I noticed it as soon as i switch it on, if you don't noticed it then good for you.
Yep, agreed. And if you do see something that isn't there, I'm sorry to hear that. Good thing they included MSAA for people like you that want to believe its still better in this game.
Its a given fact that FXAA blurs, its intrinsic to how it functions, just because you don't notice it that does not mean its not there and very likely your using a smaller monitor.
I have not really had much convo with you but i can see from your history that your quite the arrogant dictator,
I have no problem with people who like FXAA and prefer it to MSAA, but they have no right to tell me i should, but you clearly have a problem with others who don't prefer your choice.
Last edited:
FXAA in MP3 certainly does blur. Especially at "Very High". However, it does blur much less then previous games I've used it in, I can see where someone may not notice it depending on the resolution or the quality of their monitor. MP3 looks fantastic with FXAA on the highest setting, but MSAA on 4x (the highest I can run smoothly on my GTX480 @ 1920X1080) is crisper and clearer.
I have a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and I have a 67" 1920x1080p HDTV. Both look great with FXAA enabled, both look rather rough with 4xMSAA enabled. I never told you that you couldn't prefer MSAA. I said that's why they included both options. I told a previous member that you can't tell someone that MSAA is better than FXAA as a factual statement when its a subjective opinion. In some games, I do like MSAA just fine, and it does the job well, in MP3 it misses a LOT of edges, more so than most games and its quite distracting for me so my eyes and my displays are working just fine.
Likely by the end of the year or next year. Took a while for even FXAA to get going too, lots of games still don't support it yet but at least Nvidia allows you to force it in the control panel.
I still prefer old school supersampling AA but I realize what a performance hit it causes. There's just nothing like it though when it comes to image quality.
Big pixels on the 67" and a 24 1920x1200 no wonder.
Blurring and Missing things are to different things, you cant say its not blurry because it doesn't miss anything.
Its a given fact that some people will notice things that others wont, my job relies on that fact and there is a huge amount of things that i notice that others don't and thats why i'm the highest paid at what i do for a living and i was involved in the hardcopy side of MP3.
Last edited:
Yea 24" and 67" are REAL small displays. I laugh at your tiny .25mm pixel pitch in the face of my HUGE .27mm pixel pitch.
How does it feel to be God among mortals? I think I speak for everyone when I say, if only we could walk in your shoes for just ONE day.
Last edited:
Yea 24" and 67" are REAL small displays. I laugh at your tiny .25mm pixel pitch in the face of my HUGE .27mm pixel pitch.
How does it feel to be God among mortals? I think I speak for everyone when I say, if only we could walk in your shoes for just ONE day.
Again your missing the point and its nothing to do with mine is bigger than yours.
As soon as people move upto a 30" 2560x1600 they will notice details that they didn't before.
But your starting to go into your usual childish mode so im done with you.
Cool story man.
I don't think he's being a dick. 1080p on a 67" screen is going to look quite a bit different than 1080p on a 23" monitor, depending on your viewing distance. The pixels are much larger.Yea 24" and 67" are REAL small displays. I laugh at your tiny .25mm pixel pitch in the face of my HUGE .27mm pixel pitch.
How does it feel to be God among mortals? I think I speak for everyone when I say, if only we could walk in your shoes for just ONE day.