Ati Crossfire capable of 14X FSAA

[_xxx_]

Bugger. "Mine is bigger than yours" all over again...

 

[dizietsma]

Wow! 14x is a big number.. supersmooth edges but still flickerin tree leaves

Think a little...

Dave has been reading the tea leaves about the tree leaves.

 

[RejZoR]

Remember,Matrox Parhellia was able to output 16xFAA (Fragment AntiAliasing). I wonder why noone impliments this method... It works where it suppose to. Thats on edges of objects only.

 

[KimB]

Remember,Matrox Parhellia was able to output 16xFAA (Fragment AntiAliasing). I wonder why noone impliments this method... It works where it suppose to. Thats on edges of objects only.

Because it wasn't able to detect all edges all the time.

 

[nAo]

I think Dave is hinting to the fact higher AA sampling rate will be achieved via supersampling

 

[KimB]

I agree, of course it's bad, but it's easy and you could afford to do that on lots of games, especially when you are CPU limited (not hard with such ridiculous high power, even in HL2..)

Except you could do the exact same thing on a single card with much higher efficiency. So using multiple cards to make for more FSAA samples would just be stupid.

 

[Xmas]

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things but I get the 8x, 10x and the 12x but how are they pulling off 14x?

Is it really that hard to put two and two... erm, six and eight together?

Wow! 14x is a big number.. supersmooth edges but still flickerin tree leaves

Think a little...

But it's not smooth below 4x!

richard huddy recently mentioned to developers that they could use alpha to mask functionality to AA alpha test on radeon9700 and above but they need to use a backdoor probably because the API doesn't directly supports it or something.

Recently? Well, that's funny, because it's the exact same thing they touted almost three years ago. Yes, DirectX doesn't support alpha to coverage, so you need some kind of backdoor. OpenGL does support it, but I'm still not able to make my a2c samples (that ran flawlessly on my old GF3) run on my 9600/9800.

 

[bloodbob]

I've worked out how they do it they get 14 cards stick it all in one machine and hook them up together!

 

[incurable]

Ah well, knowing the source, the 14x was probably a mistake and should be 13x instead.

I'm thinking 6 extreme samples ... 8)

 

[2senile]

I think Dave is hinting to the fact higher AA sampling rate will be achieved via supersampling

I'd like to think you are correct.

Sadly, i'm just a simple user who wants my games to look the best they can & have no idea of the difficulties involved in geting there.

All I "know" is that SS looked better to me.

 

[bloodbob]

Okay so I think we all understand its 2x 6X MSAA samples combined using different texture co-ordinates.

I'm just wondering how many people are gonna hate this because of the bluring of textures that are align to samples in screen space ( AKA blurry writing ).

 

[KimB]

I'm just wondering how many people are gonna hate this because of the bluring of textures that are align to samples in screen space ( AKA blurry writing ).

That shouldn't happen with supersampling if the game's designed properly.

 

[Xmas]

That's a very big if.

 

[Ailuros]

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things but I get the 8x, 10x and the 12x but how are they pulling off 14x?

Is it really that hard to put two and two... erm, six and eight together?

While 6*2 = 12....
8*2 = 16

In order to get to 14x you'd need 7*2, which shouldn't be impossible either. We just haven't seen odd amount of AA-samples this far.

 

[nAo]

8 + 6 = 14

 

[Ailuros]

8 + 6 = 14

I don't get it *sigh*

 

[Demirug]

2*4+2*1 = 10
2*6+2*1 = 14

 

[nAo]

Yeah, that's better, it needs a min common denominator to properly compose and display the final image.

 

[Ailuros]

(2*4)+(2*1) = 10
(2*6)+(2*1) = 14

(small addition otherwise I get weird results...)

Let me get this straight 2*6 stands for 6x MSAA from each board + 2xSSAA? If yes, geometry isn't scaling is it?

 

[Demirug]

(2*4)+(2*1) = 10
(2*6)+(2*1) = 14

(small addition otherwise I get weird results...)

Let me get this straight 2*6 stands for 6x MSAA from each board + 2xSSAA? If yes, geometry isn't scaling is it?

Sorry, I am already write to much.

But think about this: If you need the double pixelshader power for 2xSSAA do you need vertex/geometry power scaling?