Which do you prefer - higher res/no aaaf lower res with aaaf?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nick25
  • Start date Start date
N

nick25

Guest
Just wondering what people prefer when it comes to gaming? Full aa/af with a low res or high res but no aa/af? Does it come down to what sort of monitor you have with LCDs looking better at their native res or do you feel full aa/af outweighs all this?

Interested on your thoughts.
 
My monitor is limited to 1280x1024 but even at that I dont run with AA, AF HDR etc. Ive tried with and without, and...tbh..I dont notice the difference. In a fast-moving game in particular, i`m not paying attention to how nice the walls and reflections look. I`d rather have the FPS, and my card will be able to play games for longer :) i`m DL the F.E.A.R. demo right now, so might try with and without with this and see how it looks.

Potentially very good discussion question though :)

K
 
I prefer a high res with aa/af :p

With my CRT if i cant play 1600*1200 with reasonable aa/af i drop the res to 1280 and then it has been fine with all the games i have played, if i cant get high res i prefer to balance res and aa/af than to just go for high res. Dont really do low res too much.

I have never owned a LCD, so havent gamed on one enough to really comment, but i would personally try to keep it at its native res, most people dont have 1600*1200 LCDs AFAIK so you cant really get the very high res.

G
 
You do notice the textures and reduced jagged lines with AA and AF as long as framerates stay above 60FPS I'll maxx it out every time.

But i take Kenny's point as fast moving games you hardly notice, unless you purpously stop to look around.

Mav
 
I game at 1600x1200, for some games i can't use much AA/AF, i prefer to use a higher res, with no AA, and ful AF, AF has little effect on modern cards.
 
I find running 1920x1200 res AA makes little difference, although I can notice when AF is enabled at that res. Obviously we all prefer full res and full aa/af but unless we have 'mav type' super computer recent games can struggle :p

Going back to the scaling thing - I think the dell2405fpw copes quite well with this? Just being playing PES 5 which only allows max 1280x1024 and it looks pretty decent - I just have to sit further back as its pretty large. So at this point I'm still undecided whether I prefer res over aa/af - I need to do more testing with the latest games.
 
like k404 said - i dont really pay attention to brick detail etc, i play on 1280*1024 - 2AA,8AF good enough for me tbh, runs ok on my 6600GT - might be crap to you AA/AF obsessed people :p but i dont really care tbh, as long as i get good enough quality and can pwn some noobs - its all good
biggrin.gif
 
well if i take for instance bf2, it takes my 7800gtx reasonable clocked to play it right at 1280x1024 withe verything all on high, for instance when im in a chopper i dont notie my surroundings i.e. aa/af but when im a snipe and lying in the grass its nice to see straight and non jagged grass blades and also i like to see peoples face who are very detailed and if you do play bf2 on high details look at people faces they are very detailed.

Hence why i like high detail lots of aa/af

Phil
 
I play at 1024x768 with no aa/af on CSS...mainly cause my card cant take any higher without me takin an FPS hit :) Fps = everything online.
 
Bf2 everything on high or medium I don't realy play with the settings but then again I dont have any problems either everything looks natural ie no jagged lines etc 1024x1280 with my gtx's in sli with no clocking the game is also fps restricted to 100 fps
 
technically, this question is slightly silly. The only reason why we have AA+AF et al are becuase generally we can't run at very high resolutions. Higher resolutions mean fewer jaggies and other problems that low resolutions create so no need for AA+AF. All AA+AF and all the filtering does is make a lower res image look as if it were possibly a high res one by covering up imperfections and improving depth etc. So resolution every time - only problem is that you need more than 1600x1200 and that is hard.
 
name='chris_ah1' said:
technically, this question is slightly silly. The only reason why we have AA+AF et al are becuase generally we can't run at very high resolutions. Higher resolutions mean fewer jaggies and other problems that low resolutions create so no need for AA+AF. All AA+AF and all the filtering does is make a lower res image look as if it were possibly a high res one by covering up imperfections and improving depth etc. So resolution every time - only problem is that you need more than 1600x1200 and that is hard.
Click to expand...

Lol, I was just going to say that as my conclusion and how higher res is supreme but you beat me to it :( :D
 
name='nick25' said:
Lol, I was just going to say that as my conclusion and how higher res is supreme but you beat me to it :( :D
Click to expand...

great minds etc. :P

Anyway, you've already had some input on the thread - I can't let you steal all the thunder lol.
 
Maybe the question should have been - high res/low detail or low res/high detail?
 
Well then I would say in between :D

My LCD is 1024x1280 so I just adjust the settings to match, and even the older lot of cards can have max everything and still keep the FPS :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Do some people never learn from the past?
Replies
2
Views
935
Pugsport
P
AlienALX
Making lemonade with a Tag Mclaren.
2 3
Replies
52
Views
12K
AlienALX
AlienALX
P
Smooth old school Corsair 600T
Replies
16
Views
7K
WillSK
WillSK
Dawelio
Which one is the better one?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dawelio
Dawelio
Dawelio
Which memory is the best?
Replies
5
Views
4K
looz
looz
Back
Top