The perk of using FXAA is that it has a negligible effect on performance with very little vram usage. And higher quality tends to lead to less performance. The number at the beginning refers to the total number of coverage samples per pixel.
Google is your friend Im not interested in performance. I want the best image quality. Ive red that FXAA tends to blur the image but the first image shows the opposite. FXXA can only by on or off and not high. Pls asked me to the 1st question: Is that order corect for better image quality? So I m not interested in performdnce just want tthe best settings in Nvidia CP best quality oriented for antialisng setting, antialiasing-transparency and if FXAA should be turn on or off?
If FXAA is turned on then what level to set the antialiasing? Super-sample is a higher level than multi-sample. Which AA works best, including multi or super sampling, is determined by the game, and your perception. As you can see in the close ups above, the edges all get smoothed, but 32x CSAA apparently is not as blurred as the other two examples assuming the shot is taken from the same location on the piece of wood, or whatever , as the dark spots - detail - are still there as they are on the photo using no AA.
Reduce the size to what you see in game, and factor in that you are not always analysing every detail while playing a game, and the difference between the types of AA image quality is small for many of us.
If the difference between settings can only be seen with screen shots then the difference is not enough to worry about - imo. As with other settings.
Experiment, and decide for yourself. AA is a large, complex subject. There are heaps of articles in the either. Mar Certainly, more MSAA samples result in a definite visual improvement, while more coverage samples can result in no quality increase at all. Topics AMD. See all comments Awesome article. I am unfortunately not one of the elite few who know all the ins and outs of graphics performance, so this was very enlightening for me.
Great article, very informative. I've never really used forced anti-aliasing through the driver, and from what I've read it doesn't really sound like a good idea anyway, given the fact that most modern games provide adequate AA levels through in-game settings these are usually better optimized as well.
Seems like forced driver level AA is pretty hit-or-miss. With a few rare exceptions it just doesn't seem like it's worth the effort. The graphics card renders to a surface that is larger than the final image, but in shading each "cluster" of samples that will end up in a single pixel on the final screen the pixel shader is run only once. We save a ton of fill rate, but we still burn memory bandwidth.
This technique does not anti-alias any effects coming out of the shader, because the shader runs at 1x, so alpha cutouts are jagged. This is the most common way to run a forward-rendering game. MSAA does not work for a deferred renderer because lighting decisions are made after the MSAA is "resolved" down-sized to its final image size.
Besides running the shader at 1x and the framebuffer at 4x, the GPU's rasterizer is run at 16x. So while the depth buffer produces better anti-aliasing, the intermediate shades of blending produced are even better. There is indeed a visible quality difference between zero, 2x, 4x and 8x antialiasing.
0コメント