see my post...
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
see my post...
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.That's per card, but he's also not using 8xMSAA there, he's using 4xMSAA and FXAA very high combined.
2.7 would be 2765 mb which would mean only 1383 mb since your 7970 crossfire setup is showing twice the amount.Ya, with 2xMSAA at this resolution it uses around 2.7GB or so as per the settings page.
Sorry but there's just no way Rockstar would have released a game that would cut out 90% of their consumers from being able to play the game properly when about 10% of consumers have video cards with more than 2GB of video memory. 1GB is still often enough in many 1080p games and 2GB is starting to become a standard but still just a plus right now. 3-4GB of video memory is nice but I find it VERY hard to believe any developer is coding games specifically with that target in mind.
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.
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.1.) In Multiplayer the only logical option for the best performance and IQ is FXAA. MSAA causes a big impact on perf, which in multiplayer is bad. FXAA improves more than MSAA does anyway by reducing aliasing on vegetation and whatnot. So for my multiplayer BF3 gaming, yes most certainly I use FXAA, it allows me to play with all "Ultra" in-game settings and reduces aliasing on everything.
2.) I think MP3's FXAA is much better than BF3's. As someone below said, BF3 is a bad representation of FXAA, the game is using a very early version of FXAA also.
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.
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-$500 card can not max every game and give 60fps at this res so I will upgrade my gpu again when the gtx7xxx cards come out...The better question is why would someone spend 500$ 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.
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)
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)
Anyone that is willing to buy a 7950 or 7970 or a 4GB 680 over a 670 just to enable 8xMSAA is Nucking Futs. The game looks better with FXAA than 8xMSAA, yea hard to believe for some people but its true.
Nothing looks with better with FXAA instead of MSAA. It's not possible.
afterburner and precision are showing inaccurate numbers for this game.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
It is possible and it does in this case. You're mistaken and you clearly haven't played it. End of discussion for you.
You're right it is end of discussion. MSAA being better than FXAA is a FACT. There is no discussion to be had.
You're right it is end of discussion. MSAA being better than FXAA is a FACT. There is no discussion to be had.
You're right it is end of discussion. MSAA being better than FXAA is a FACT. There is no discussion to be had.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
So when are we going to see games that make use of the 600-series TXAA?
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.
Big pixels on the 67" and a 24 1920x1200 no wonder.
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.
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.