Anti-Aliasing @ 1920 x1200 needed?

A

Afterburntdw

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
171
I just purchased a Dell 2407. I have been using a 19" Viewsonic with an ATI X1950XT 256M. I'm at a crossroads here. I'd like some input from people who have had experience with a similar setup. Here's basically my options:

1) Do nothing and continue to game on the 256M card.
2) Buy another X1950XT and do crossfire.
3) Buy an 8800 series card.

Money is not really a concern, as I simply want the best experience gaming on this new monitor (which should be here by Wed). My main question, besides picking a setup that works well, is related to the anti-aliasing on larger monitors. I had read somewhere that the larger the screen, the less AA is needed because you don't notice jaggies as much. Is this true?
 
Afterburntdw said:
I just purchased a Dell 2407. I have been using a 19" Viewsonic with an ATI X1950XT 256M. I'm at a crossroads here. I'd like some input from people who have had experience with a similar setup. Here's basically my options:

1) Do nothing and continue to game on the 256M card.
2) Buy another X1950XT and do crossfire.
3) Buy an 8800 series card.

Money is not really a concern, as I simply want the best experience gaming on this new monitor (which should be here by Wed). My main question, besides picking a setup that works well, is related to the anti-aliasing on larger monitors. I had read somewhere that the larger the screen, the less AA is needed because you don't notice jaggies as much. Is this true?
Click to expand...

Not really. The size of an individual pixel on the display affects how noticeable jaggies are in this respect. The 2407 does have a slightly finer pitch than your current display, but I doubt you'll really notice. 2xAA makes a good difference even on a 22" CRT (visible area roughly equivalent to a 20" TFT) running at 2048x1536, which is about the smallest pixel size you're going to get.
 
Ok. If I'm looking at going with the Nvidia 8800 camp, is there really going to be that much difference between the GTS and GTX in image quality capabilities? There is still about $150 price difference between the two atm. I'm more than happy to spend the extra cash if it is really warranted, but I'm just not sure if I need a GTX. Thoughts?
 
This article may help.

In some games my GTX still gets choked up at ultra high settings (hell it even dips below 30 FPS in DOOM III if I turn on 8xAA at 1920x1200), so you're definitely not wasting money on a GTX. I think you should get the monitor first, and then determine whether going from no AA or 2xAA to 4x/8x AA is worth $150.\

*edit* nm, you got the monitor already :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, that might be a good thing to find out. I'm really on the fence. I'd like to get something that will AT LEAST hold me over until the 9-series cards from NV come out. Right now, I think my ATI card isn't going to cut it at that rez....Hell, I even have problems if I crank up the settings on Oblivion at 1440x900.
 
Afterburntdw said:
Yeah, that might be a good thing to find out. I'm really on the fence. I'd like to get something that will AT LEAST hold me over until the 9-series cards from NV come out. Right now, I think my ATI card isn't going to cut it at that rez....Hell, I even have problems if I crank up the settings on Oblivion at 1440x900.
Click to expand...

Then you'd probably be much happier with a shiny new GTX ;)
 
To make a long story short: Yes, antialiasing is needed @ 1920x1200. But that's my opinion, someone might disagree.
 
i was in this situation not too long ago.

i had a X1900XT256 and a 19" samsung LCD, i then got a 2407WFP for christmas and ran the X1900XT256 on it. i was satisfied somewhat with that combo but i knew i would need more video power in the future.

i waited for a good deal on a 8800GTS 640 which came in mid-May with the buy.com deal and grabbed one. i haven't look back since. i mainly play FPS games and the occasional RTS.

between a GTS and GTX, if you have the money to spend then get the GTX, it'll last longer than a GTS. i didn't want to spend the much on a new video card so i went with the GTS.
 
Afterburntdw said:
Is there really that much difference between 2/4x AA and 8AA?
Click to expand...

2 -> 4 yes, 4 -> 8 no. But neither is there much difference in speed either. Nvidias 16x AA isn't much slower than 4, nor does it use much more memory. 8xQ and 16xQ is a different matter. 16x AA is actually a very good setting and I mostly have that forced in the control panel.
 
Ok. Knowing that there is a significant performance hit in using the 8Q and 16Q, is there a massive difference in IQ? Sorry for all the questions. I'm just wanting to make sure I have a good basis of information to make a decision.
 
Well, in my opinion, no there isn't a great difference in IQ. Sure it looks a little different but seriously not worth the major performance hit and massive use of onboard memory. 640mb gts is going to run out of memory at even moderate resolutions and 8xQ aa in many games. And the framerates just seriously drag. I'm sure theres alot of info about the G80 AA modes in the early 8800 GTS/GTX reviews from november and I'm no expert so I think you're better of checking one of them out..

something about performance:

http://guru3d.com/article/Videocards/391/22/
quality:
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/geforce-8800/index.x?pg=8
 
i notice when anti-aliasing is on/off with my dell 2001FP (1600x1200)


i have it set as 4x, anything more is a waste of processing power cuz you cant see it.
 
I remember when people used to say that Anti-aliasing wouldn't be needed at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolution. Imho, AA always looks fantastic regardless of the resolution. I'd honestly go for an 8800GTS or GTX and have at it from there. Not only will you get the added benefit of improved anti-aliasing performance, but you'll likely see an overall image quality improvement with the AF settings as well.
 
Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I think I am going to get an EVGA 8800GTX. I figure that it probably overclocks well, and the Ultra's nearly $100 extra really isn't worth it right now.
 
Why all the talk about normal AA? and no mention of Nv's Transparency AA?? c'mon! alpha textures need some lovin too. With the GTS and GTX you'll be able to crank those out as well, and to me that adds alot more to the IQ then normal AA on pretty damn straight edges.
 
Yes, from my experience, it makes a huge difference still at 1920x1200. I don't know how someone couldn't notice jaggies (they're still highly apparent..) at this resolution unless they had completely terrible eyesight.
 
It does make a huge difference @ 1920 x 1200. I would get an 8800GTX for one of the best gaming experiences out there. :D
 
As already mentioned, the dot pitch of the display is what is important, resolution tends to scale upwards with panel size so there isn't an awful lot of variation in dot pitch, there are some more extreme exceptions however. My change from a 19" CRT (18" viewable) @ 2048x1536, to a 22" widescreen TFT @ 1680x1050 was an incredible change in dot pitch.

I'd go as far to say that games at 2048x1536 across 18" viewable area don't really need AA, I played a lot of older games like that quite happily.
 
I think from my own observations that any resolution ABOVE 1920x1200 do not need antialiasing. But on 1920x1200 and below yes you do, especially on some games.
 
I think it realy depends on the title your trying to play. I run 2560x1600 and I noticed AA made a difference in racing games but not anything else. Turning on AA made a big difference on the NFS titles in my opinion. However, the AA choked my 7950GX2 so Im now in the process of upgrading.
 
I play some games at 2560x1600 on a 30" and still find that aliasing is noticeable. You only need x2 though to completely eliminate it at that rez.

On my 24" 1920x1200 LCD I still used 2-4XAA.

On my 30" playing at 1920x1200 I definately need 4XAA to get rid of aliasing.
 
Do you stop to appreciate the eye candy? If so then yes, AA is needed/worth it.

If all you do is run and gun and care about that constant 100, 125, 200 fps you need to kill people, then no, it wouldn't be needed at that high of a rez.

And of you're like me, you want it all. High rez, high detail, AA/AF maxed and high fps. :D I'm visually greedy. lol
 
The only way to eliminate jags is to let dot pitch approach ZERO or resolution approaches infinity within a defined space. In reality this is not possible. However, our eyes can't do it either...so. the following is a good table of how many dots per inch our eyes can see:

Code: 
Dist 20/20    20/15

36"   68       90 
24"   101      135 
18"   135      180 
12"   203      270 
 8"   304      405 
 6"   405      540

Therefore the average geek sitting about 12-18" should be about 180 DPI or a dot pitch of 0.14mm in order to not see Jags. However...that is only for a static image. Tests have shown that we can resolve via our brain power at nearly double this for objects in motion. So until the screens get that good, you sit far enough back, or you get that old...we need some old fashioned AA eye-foolery.
 
Uberbob102000 said:
Thats a cool chart... where did you get that, Trepidation?
Click to expand...

Had it in a text file from a couple years ago (part of the stuff you should never forget when buying geek stuff). I think the website I got it from is still around. Basically it was a photographer who was trying to figure out how good the quality of his digital prints had to be so his customers wouldn't notice.

A friend of mine in college (this was almost 8 years ago) found a way to get dot pitch below 0.1mm for a few dollars (sarcasm here). He took a 640x480 PJ and used a rear projection screen. Smart little bugger.

I just wish I could find that article relating dot pitch vs AA.
 
heh, my 17inch laptop has a dot pitch of .191

sadly the GPU can't handle max settings with AA @1920x1200, so i have to play with AA off, and there's still some jaggies :(
 
Finkus said:
I play some games at 2560x1600 on a 30" and still find that aliasing is noticeable. You only need x2 though to completely eliminate it at that rez.

On my 24" 1920x1200 LCD I still used 2-4XAA.

On my 30" playing at 1920x1200 I definately need 4XAA to get rid of aliasing.
Click to expand...

blam! that's the real truth of it right there. more res = less AA. However, without AA, you really do suffer. AF is beautiful and can be cranked without hit. 1920x1200 2xAA would probably be almost the same as like 6x within reason. HDR though screws up AA and seems to never be wed to it properly.
 
Well, I got my Dell yesterday and I must say that it's massive coming from a 19" WS. I mostly like it, but the stand isn't as steady as I would like.

On the topic of video cards, just for kicks I fired up three of my favorite games - BF2142, Oblivion and HL:2. I was really surprised at how smooth it actually played, even with quality settings enabled. On BF2142 and HL:2, I could set maximum details without an issue. On Oblivion, I couldn't have everything up and the IQ was generally not the best, but it played fairly smoothly. I guess Oblivion is a good test of a video card's shader capabilities?

Anyways, I'm really on the fence about the 8800's....Maybe the GTS will be just fine.
 
If you have the money GTX...you won't be sorry.

You already bought the 24" wide, now buy the GPU thats gonna compliment the rest of your hardware. If you can push for clearer, crisper pictures, why not do it?

Read my sig, I always use 4x AA and 8x Anisotropic settings at 1920X1200. Do I see a difference? Yes I do, but I also know what I am looking for.

Always try to get the most out of your hardware, otherwise whats the point in having that hardware if you are not going to use its power to the fullest that you can.
 
~El~Jefe~ said:
blam! that's the real truth of it right there. more res = less AA.
Click to expand...

You can have a resolution of 160000000000x9000000000 but if each pixel is 1 inch and you are 10 feet back...you will see jags...and quite visibly. The only way your statement is true is if you said "more res within the same area = less AA"

Next thing I know people will be telling me that a video card that consumes 250W of power generates less heat than a card that consumes 200W of power
 
based upon the reality of displays offered for PC's on earth, my idea is correct.

yeah.
 
~El~Jefe~ said:
blam! that's the real truth of it right there. more res = less AA.
Click to expand...

This is off the mark considering everything we've just discussed.

Larger resolution monitors tend to be bigger in phyical size, what ACTUALLY MATTERS is the amount of pixels per area, so the statement above is over simplified and potentially wrong in some cases.

What people should be looking at is dot pitch, the size and spacing of the pixels.

For example, my new 22" widescreen has an especially large pixel size, it's a 22" viewable screen but only runs 1680x1050 which is the same resolution that some (most?) 19" widescreens also use.

In my case the resolution is larger than for example a smaller TFT panel of 17" which would probably run 1280x1024, but has a slightly larger dot pitch because it's stretching a relatively small resolution over a large area.

In my case AA is very much needed, but then with such a large panel I can always sit further back from the screen which again helps.
 
Oblivion may be a year old, but at high resolutions it's still a severe test of any graphics card. Probably the only games out now that require more GPU horsepower are the 3 or 4 that support DirectX10.

I read an article a while back saying that around 1600x1200 and above you don't get any advantage out of AA. Well last night I was playing F.E.A.R. at 1680x1050 and decided to enable AA. It did make a subtle difference. Most of the time you don't notice on stuff like edges of doors and stuff that has larger textures. Where you see the difference is in thin objects like wires, hand railings and stuff like that. The AA smooths the edges and makes them look more realistic. After testing this last night I'm now of the opinion that AA still has value at higher resolutions, if you have the GPU horsepower.
 
I play at 19x12 and I always notice the "Jaggies" when playing with No AA on. I keep mine on 4x for AA and 16x for AF.

I am a graphics freak and I need as few jaggies as possible.
 
Do you need AA? Run the game and find out. It's going to depend on the title, your monitor, your preferences, the resolution you want to/can run, and your graphics card capabilities.
 
I've had a 24" for about 3 weeks now and I still push AA as high as the game is playable b/c you can still notice the jaggies. The "hopeful" justification that gaming @ 1900x1200 means no AA is unfounded.
 
AA needed? Of course not.

AA prefered? Absolutely. If you want the best visual experience, you want AA turned on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top