1650x1080 0xAA
or
1366x768 2xAA
just wondering if AA is more demanding that a higher resolution, and which would most likely result in better fps.
thanks!
-
It depends on your card and the game. If you have an ATI card, there are 3 types of AA and if the card is a DX10.1 or 11 one, 4xMSAA is free (but MSAA sucks)
I think the perfs wil lbe similar -
It really depends on your card and the game. You'll be surprised how different two games respond to the same settings.
-
masterchef341 The guy from The Notebook
in general i think 1366x768 with 2x aa will be less intensive, because many modern cards get 2-4x aa basically for free.
-
-
Better to play at native resolution. No scaling results in better quality.
-
ViciousXUSMC Master Viking NBR Reviewer
Depends on the game, your video card, what type of AA, and your drivers as to witch is more intensive.
It would be easier to test and monitor your FPS with FRAPS than it would be for anybody to answer that question. -
yeah its right,
all depends on your card,the game and the type of AA you have. -
jenesuispasbavard Notebook Evangelist
Crysis, for example, takes a pretty big performance hit with 4xAA, so I run it at 1680x1050 0xAA instead of 1440x900 4xAA (or even 2xAA).
-
Out of curiosity, what cards get this "free" 4x MSAA, and how does that differ from other types of AA?
-
If I understood correctly, most new cards can offer 4xAA without taking much a performance hit. I tested this actually and found it true, at least for dragon age, but i hear that's a more cpu intensive game, so i don't know any more than that =p
It did however slightly raise my temps, but only a C or so.
What setting is more intensive?
Discussion in 'Gaming (Software and Graphics Cards)' started by llmercll, Nov 19, 2009.