FSAA and high polygon loads mutually exclusive?

[nggalai]

Hi there,

this discussion started as an OT here.

Doomtrooper claimed:

With games becoming more complex and realistic looking modern video cards will not be able to use FSAA at playable frame rates..example above 24 fps..Yehhhh. As game continue to put more polys on the screen (UT 2) FSAA is not a option.

. . . and then proceeded together with some others to hijack the thread by posting lots of screenshots.

I replied:

This is slightly OT, but still . . .

Doomtrooper, pray do explain how high/complex polygon load and FSAA are mutually exclusive as you imply with your posts in this thread.

Doom replied:

Not sure if I understand your question but FSAA and high polycount games don't mix. Try running a game like Medal of Honor: Armored Assault with FSAA on and see what happens. Not even a Ti4600 could get playable frame rates with 4x FSAA on the OMHA beach map.
So my original request was to see more reviews done on ADVANCED features like PS, VS etc..vs the same old FSAA. I personally believe far too much time is spent on getting rid of a jaggies..but that is my opinion.

FSAA must basically draw the scene a couple of time depending on the sampling to my understanding, saying that... cards today can't give the performance required using a game engine similar to the one above and use FSAA too.

So IMO I'd rather see more reviews done on OTHER advanced features....as FSAA should be taking a backseat until we can get game engines like the one above playing with respectable frames @ 1280 x 1024 32 bit with 8 high poly models on the screen.

On which I reply in this new, dedicated thread.

Doomtrooper,

I think you are mistaken somewhat, here. The actual geometry is not rendered mutliple times for FSAA. One polygon stays one polygon. It's rather that the (sub)pixels are sampled multiple times, i.e. FSAA is fillrate and, depending on the implementation, bandwidth limited, and not geometry limited.

I fail to see how high polygon loads could affect FSAA usability, unless of course you are talking about such high polygon loads that the whole graphics board becomes bandwidth limited and you have an FSAA implementation that eats bandwidth, rather than fillrate, like mad and thus gets unusable.

Any thoughts, anybody?

ta,
.rb

_________________
www.nggalai.com -- it's not so much bad as it is an experience.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nggalai on 2002-02-10 23:21 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nggalai on 2002-02-10 23:23 ]</font>
________
buy silversurfer vaporizer

 

[Brimstone]

The more polys on the screen, the more aliasing you get. As geometry detail increases you need more resolution or AA.

Games aren't just increasing in geometry detail. They're also are getting more complex texture operations. Bandwidth is in high demand in modern games and many areas are sucking it up tons of bandwidth.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brimstone on 2002-02-10 23:33 ]</font>

 

[LeStoffer]

Nope to the topic...

I guess one could argue the many more polygons raises the amount of overdraw and hence take away more effective fillrate/bandwidth. At some point there isn't enough left to do FSAA at reasonable speed, but I'm not sure whether this is Doomtrooper argument?

BTW just look at Unreal Performance Test 2002 fra Anandtech with the GF4 ti4600: 1024x768x32 without FSAA = 85.6 FPS -> with 2xAA FSAA = 78.8 FPS.

That's not just amazing but also goes to show that high polygon and FSAA can work nicely together.

Regards, LeStoffer

 

[Geeforcer]

On 2002-02-10 23:51, LeStoffer wrote:
Nope to the topic...

I guess one could argue the many more polygons raises the amount of overdraw and hence take away more effective fillrate/bandwidth. At some point there isn't enough left to do FSAA at reasonable speed, but I'm not sure whether this is Doomtrooper argument?

BTW just look at Unreal Performance Test 2002 fra Anandtech with the GF4 ti4600: 1024x768x32 without FSAA = 85.6 FPS -> with 2xAA FSAA = 78.8 FPS.

That's not just amazing but also goes to show that high polygon and FSAA can work nicely together.

Regards, LeStoffer

Geometry limitations can make for (almost) free FSAA.

 

[John Reynolds]

I lose less than 5fps on average enabling 2x AA on my GF3 Ti500 in Sacrifice once my "wizard" has over a dozen summoned creatures onscreen.

 

[Galilee]

Yes in some games FSAA is actually for free.
I lost less than 10fps in Serious Sam 2 with 2X FSAA. (Ti200).

 

[Doomtrooper]

John,

Sacrifice is not what I consider a modern game. It doesn't support pixel shaders etc..
If you want to use examples of FSAA don't be using Quake 3 as an example either as that engine is also very outdated.
Galilee was nice enough to post some Geforce 3 shots with MOHAA with all the settings cranked WITHOUT anistropic getting 17 fps on Omaha beach. This is a simple test folks, if you think FSAA is a viable option with modern engines then your not playing with all the other options on. So here is the challenge, MOHAA is modified Quake 3 engine game with lots of polys. Load up the game:

Set your settings to this:

Join a online game, France is a good one with 30 plus players. Turn on Anistropic and 4X FSAA as 2X FSAA does really nothing.
Take a screenshot, I'll be happy to post it.
The other test, download Aquamark from here:

http://image.bestinkorea.com/darkcrow/testutil/AquaMark.exe

Turn on 4X FSAA and post your results, again I will host the pic.

 

[Typedef Enum]

Man...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Typedef Enum on 2002-02-11 01:16 ]</font>

 

[Dave Baumann]

Type - If you aren't going to provide anything useful then don't say anything at all. In future pointless swipes at from any user to any user will be removed. Discussion is good, pointless swipes is bad!

_________________
'Wavey' Dave
Beyond3D

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveBaumann on 2002-02-11 01:07 ]</font>

 

[Livecoma]

On 2002-02-11 00:16, John Reynolds wrote:
I lose less than 5fps on average enabling 2x AA on my GF3 Ti500 in Sacrifice once my "wizard" has over a dozen summoned creatures onscreen.

Back when I had my GF3 I got similar #'s as well. That lead me to believe it was atleast partially geometry limited in situations like that..

BTW Sacrafice itself may not be the newest game, but graphics wise its ahead of its time and continues to look better then alot of new games released today.

 

[Geeforcer]

Doomtrooper,

That's all fine and dandy, but you have to take circumstances into consideration. For instance, 17fps score in MoA - can be due to a number of factors, such as bandwith/fillrate limitation, CPU limitation and geometry limitations. When you are limited by CPU (as is the case in many sims) or geometry (as will probably be the case in Unreal2) bandwidth/fillrate consumers like FSAA have less and less impact on the performance. Very high polygon count does necessary make FSAA prohibitively expansive.

 

[tEd]

On 2002-02-11 00:40, Doomtrooper wrote:


This is a simple test folks, if you think FSAA is a viable option with modern engines then your not playing with all the other options on.

The Problem in mohaa are the complex shadows if activated taking a big fps hit with almost no noticable quality increase. as i said already i think its playable with 2fsaa and full aniso with just set the shadows to simple on a gf3ti500. Unfortunately i don't know how to show the fps counter maybe someone could help me with it.

Turn on Anistropic and 4X FSAA as 2X FSAA does really nothing.

I think it's the opppsite. 4xfsaa gives you just a little aa quality increase to 2xfsaa but takes twice as much fps.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tEd on 2002-02-11 01:27 ]</font>

 

[Livecoma]

The Problem in mohaa are the complex shadows if activated taking a big fps hit with almost no noticable quality increase.

Quake3's stencil shadows? Yeah kinda not worth the hit, IMO...

 

[Doomtrooper]

Heheh,

I'm not trying to turn this into a war folks. People just jump right on the defensive, relax...
Its a simple test, I happen to like the shadows..more so than a few jaggies. So I see no one with MOHAA is willing to try this test, how about Aquanox....

I'm just being realistic here....I also see 2x used alot in these these replies..if fsaa is free start cranking it up. The Radeon 8500 is almost free at 2X also, the quality of 2X is has minimal effect.

Using Galilee's shots:
None

2X

 

[Geeforcer]

Sigh... first off, the second image looks better then the first one, esp the rifle (IMO). Second, 2x FSAA is certainly not free. Its just that in this case you are limited by something other then bandwidth.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Geeforcer on 2002-02-11 01:52 ]</font>

 

[Oats]

Doomtrooper,

Post the same shot with and wihtout FSAA...

 

[Xmas]

MSAA only costs bandwidth and a very small amount of fill rate (for less-than-half covered edge pixels). So enabling MSAA in a geometry-limited situation will be virtually free.

Of course, if a game isn't playable without AA, it won't become playable with AA enabled. But that sure doesn't mean that AA and high poly loads are mutually exclusive. If you are geometry-limited , MSAA is almost free, in contrast to bandwidth-limited situations where it comes at a high cost.

_________________
samX

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Xmas on 2002-02-11 02:01 ]</font>

 

[Doomtrooper]

On 2002-02-11 01:52, Oats wrote:

Doomtrooper,

Post the same shot with and wihtout FSAA...

No FSAA

2X Smoothvision

Hey I'm doing all the uploading, anyone gonna contribute with a 4X FSAA and Aquanox ?

 

[John Reynolds]

On 2002-02-11 00:40, Doomtrooper wrote:
John,

Sacrifice is not what I consider a modern game. It doesn't support pixel shaders etc..
If you want to use examples of FSAA don't be using Quake 3 as an example either as that engine is also very outdated.

Sacrifice is probably more graphically demanding than most games released last year. At 1280x1024, 2x AA, and 32-tap aniso, I often see the frames dipping into single digits during large fights. Even an empty map gives only low 40s with those settings.

And you do realize that MOH is based on the Q3 engine, don't you? And you can't exactly base an entire argument using only one game as an example, not unless you know exactly what the code is doing.

 

[Doomtrooper]

John,

I'm not basing it on one game, I'm still waiting for someone to try Aquanox benchmark at 4X FSAA. Something with Pixel Shaders and lots of detail and heavy fighting....Comanche 4 would be another..4X FSAA.