Which is better, higher res and no AA, or lower res and AA?

[Nagorak]

Based on your experiences running with AA, which looks the best. Running in the highest possible resolution (1600) with marginal 2x AA, or running in 1024 with 6X AA, or maybe somewhere in the middle? I used to think that higher res was better, but now I realize that I may have made a mistake (although until now I never had a card fast enough to really use AA anyway). We'll just assume AF is at max (16x on R9700), although it has no real bearing on this question except in terms of performance.

Please give me your feedback and feel free to explain your reasons if any.

 

[Althornin]

i voted 1280x960 4xAA, but mostly because that the res i play at with my 9700. My monitor sucks - 60Hz at 1600x1200 - my eyes would bleed, so that a no go.

 

[gokickrocks]

i play on a LCD, so 1600x1200 is a no go due to lack of support from the LCD...i too play at 1280x960 4xAA 8xAF

 

[T2k]

i voted 1280x960 4xAA, but mostly because that the res i play at with my 9700. My monitor sucks - 60Hz at 1600x1200 - my eyes would bleed, so that a no go.

OFF
WHat kind of LCD? How much is the max frmate rate?

 

[pcchen]

IMHO, without very good FSAA (16X non-order grid or better), high resolution is always better. On my 17" CRT, 1600x1200 already has some AA effect. Combine it with 2X FSAA gives good results. 1280x960 + 4X FSAA is still unable to remove jaggies at near-flat/vertical lines, and is generally much slower than 1600x1200 + 2X FSAA. Unfortunately, some games are not good under 1600x1200. Their fonts are too small.

 

[Xmas]

Which AA implementation?

I'd always use 1280x1024 and the highest amount of AA I can get at decent fps. It's the native resolution of my display.

 

[Reverend]

On my 17" CRT, 1600x1200 already has some AA effect.

Please explain/elaborate. I have the flu so my head is probably spinning a little but are you saying 1600x1200 is the "starting point" of anti-aliasing? What's aliasing and anti-aliasing to you, pcchen?

In answer to the topic question. Aliasing is most noticed as jagged edges to me first and foremost. Anti-aliasing means less jagged edges. Not more jagged edges (as in higher resolutions without any AA).

Many commonly mistake more pixels (=more apparent detail) to be preferential to less-pixels+less-jagged-lines. We should distinguish discussions pertaining to AA to AA alone, and more pixels to higher resolutions.

 

[Johnny Rotten]

Depends entirely on the monitor your running. With a 17" I'd go 1024x768 + 4 or 6X FSAA. On a 19" I'd go 1280x960 I'd go with 4X FSAA.

 

[THe_KELRaTH]

I've got an Iiyama 17" Pro and Iiyama 19" 454. The video bandwidth on the 17" (4yrs old) is 160 dot clock and although it supports 1600x1200 the image starts to look washed out and slightly blurred (Milky effect).
The 19" has a vb of 345 Dot clock and is pin sharp at 1600x1200.

I think thats why some ppl don't think AA is needed at high resolutions as most monitors are between 100 - 200 dot clock.

 

[Nagorak]

What are the advantage of a higher resolution, besides less obvious jaggies (due to the pixels tending to be smaller)? You can't really see the individual pixels at 1024 anyway, so I'm wondering if you gain that much by running in a higher rez? I also really hate it when games shrink the hud down to microscopic size.

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

In the olden days (Voodoo5/GF2) I use to suppor the AA over res arguement. However, after experiencing it first hand, I have to say resolution is the real thing. Many people back then argued that 800x600@4RGAA is better/just_as_good as 1600x1200. By the same logic, 80x60@40xAA would be just as good as 1600x1200 no AA. The problem is the pixel size is just to BIG. No matter how nice the AA is, the blocks themselves are too large to define a clear picture.

In this new DX9 performance era, it's not one or the other, but both. Higher resultion and Anti-aliasing is needed, not one OR the other.

 

[dksuiko]

What are the advantage of a higher resolution, besides less obvious jaggies (due to the pixels tending to be smaller)? You can't really see the individual pixels at 1024 anyway, so I'm wondering if you gain that much by running in a higher rez?

On my monitor (Viewsonic PF815, 22"/20V"), running at 1024x768 is decent, but when running 1600x1200 (or even 1280x1024) contrast is a whole lot better and the picture is clearer over all. At 1024x768, you can also see the individual horizontal lines on the screen and at 1600x1200 - you don't. If I were to put a comparison to it, running 1024x768 on a 22"/20V" monitor is like running 640x480 on a 17"/16V" monitor.

Before I had this monitor, I had a 17"/16V". One of the games I was playing at the time was Project IGI - at 1024x768 with 4xFSAA (On a GF3), I hardly noticed any jaggies at all. Then when I moved up to my current monitor, I thought I disabled AA on accident (I didn't). Back then, I would've said low-res (1024x768) is fine, just give me AA - but now it's resolution first, AA last. Which isn't too much of a problem nowadays, anyway - since you can have both.

Anyway, I placed my vote on 1600x1200 with 2xAA.

 

[pcchen]

Please explain/elaborate. I have the flu so my head is probably spinning a little but are you saying 1600x1200 is the "starting point" of anti-aliasing? What's aliasing and anti-aliasing to you, pcchen?

It's about how CRT reconstructs signals. CRT has its bandwidth, anything higher than that is effectively filtered. Therefore, for very high resolution (such as 1600x1200 for my mid-end 17" CRT), the signals are somewhat "low-pass filtered". This brings the AA effect I talked about.

LCDs, on the other hand, won't be able to have this effect (at its native resolution).

Many commonly mistake more pixels (=more apparent detail) to be preferential to less-pixels+less-jagged-lines. We should distinguish discussions pertaining to AA to AA alone, and more pixels to higher resolutions.

One thing to note: human eyes may also have a low pass filter in it. For example, if there is a 15" display with resolution as high as 7200x5400, even non-AA rendering should be smooth to most people.

 

[Randell]

In the olden days (Voodoo5/GF2) I use to suppor the AA over res arguement. However, after experiencing it first hand, I have to say resolution is the real thing. Many people back then argued that 800x600@4RGAA is better/just_as_good as 1600x1200. By the same logic, 80x60@40xAA would be just as good as 1600x1200 no AA. The problem is the pixel size is just to BIG. No matter how nice the AA is, the blocks themselves are too large to define a clear picture.

pixel size depends monitor size - 800x600 on a 17" monitor looks better than 800x600 on a 21" monitor, hence 800x600 @ 4xAA might be preferable due to refresh rates and font size etc.

Of course the bigger the better the monitor the higher the minimum resolution you find acceptable.

 

[Himself]

1600x1200 with 4X FSAA on a 22" monitor.

 

[UberLord]

I'd also have to ask "which game" ?

UT2003 I prefer the higher res - in my case 1280x1024
UT I prefer the lower res with more AA

 

[Randell]

1600x1200 with 4X FSAA on a 22" monitor.

git - On a LCD so either 1024x768 & 4xAA or 6xAA. After I upgrade this CPU to a XP2400/2600 then a 1280x960 LCD will be my next upgrade aim.

Just a bit worried that by being stuck at a resolution, I will have to upgrade my VPU at least every 12 months to allow for gaming at that rez with AA&AF in the latest games.

 

[Nick]

800x600 with 16x

When playing an action game, you won't see the pixels even at 640x480. Unless ofcourse 'patience' is your kind of action game or you have a 22" monitor at 10 cm.

 

[Ailuros]

Some good points here. I'll try to answer using conditionals:

With ATI's AA algorithm and a 17" monitor I'd opt for either 1024/6xAA or 1280x4xAA, with 1152x864/6xAA or 4xAA (depending on how demanding the application is) probably being the best intermediate sollution.

 

[Mintmaster]

IMHO, without very good FSAA (16X non-order grid or better), high resolution is always better. On my 17" CRT, 1600x1200 already has some AA effect. Combine it with 2X FSAA gives good results. 1280x960 + 4X FSAA is still unable to remove jaggies at near-flat/vertical lines, and is generally much slower than 1600x1200 + 2X FSAA. Unfortunately, some games are not good under 1600x1200. Their fonts are too small.

I assume that's a GF3/GF4 or something? I think the 9700's 4x FSAA has a marked improvement over its 2xFSAA, so 1280x1024 w/ 4xAA is significantly better than 1600x1200 w/ 2xAA. My choice would be reversed with a GF4, however, due to the ordered grid 4x.

I guess Nagorak should specify the card that we're using