[cooperb21]

I got my new gtx 970 and it can play any games i tried maxed out but the only problems i have is when i tried to enable SSAA or anything like that i can no longer get 1080p 60 fps. Example of games would be Tomb raider and Metro 2033 reduce where 2xSSA and games will drop to 40-50fps in some area.

Im not sure what is better fxaa or no aa.

 

[End3R]

It is and it isn't. AA is subjective and each person will say they need a different amount. Depending on the game, I personally don't ever go over 4 or 8x because the difference past that isn't noticeable enough to me, to warrant the performance hit.

That being said, it sounds like either you have additional AA being forced through your control panel, or you're being bottlenecked by a CPU because my 270x can handle every game out there with 4-8x AA and get smooth FPS (between 30-60), even ones like Shadows of Mordor, Dragon Age, and Watch Dogs on "max" settings (not including AA in the term "max" ie all the other effects are).

So that being said, I'd assume your 970 should be getting more if you are only using 2x AA or FXAA. Make sure you don't have extra AA being forced via your control panel, and what is your CPU?

And just so nobody misunderstands me, yes, AA is worth it as you get a better image, but, depending on the person and resolution, a game with "max" settings at 4x AA will look 99% the same as if you were using 16x AA, with a higher fps.

 

[Dunan]

Not sure if this still applies, but amd cards always handled AA better than nvidia in the past. As I said, it may not still apply, I haven't read up current GPU capabilities between the two in quite some time.

 

[daman246]

SSAA is Rendering the game at a higher Resolution then Downsampling to fit your monitor Resolution. so a game running SSAA 4x at a base of 1080p is actually running at 4k then scaled down to your monitor. there is no type of AA that will hit your GPU harder than this for the reasons stated above.

from my experience FXAA and SMAA are the ones the least effect your performance, MSAA is a runner up after SSAA

 

[cooperb21]

Quote:

Originally Posted by End3R

It is and it isn't. AA is subjective and each person will say they need a different amount. Depending on the game, I personally don't ever go over 4 or 8x because the difference past that isn't noticeable enough to me, to warrant the performance hit.

That being said, it sounds like either you have additional AA being forced through your control panel, or you're being bottlenecked by a CPU because my 270x can handle every game out there with 4-8x AA and get smooth FPS (between 30-60), even ones like Shadows of Mordor, Dragon Age, and Watch Dogs on "max" settings (not including AA in the term "max" ie all the other effects are).

So that being said, I'd assume your 970 should be getting more if you are only using 2x AA or FXAA. Make sure you don't have extra AA being forced via your control panel, and what is your CPU?

And just so nobody misunderstands me, yes, AA is worth it as you get a better image, but, depending on the person and resolution, a game with "max" settings at 4x AA will look 99% the same as if you were using 16x AA, with a higher fps.

I have a I7 4930k i dont think its a bottleneck. I have a hard time believing your R9 270X can play metro 2033 60fps with 2xssaa.

Look at this video here im getting normal fps SSAA just hogs your fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPlW-o-dLVY

 

[cooperb21]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunan

Not sure if this still applies, but amd cards always handled AA better than nvidia in the past. As I said, it may not still apply, I haven't read up current GPU capabilities between the two in quite some time.

Does not seem any better im getting better fps with my 970 in that benchmark.

Pretty sure its just SSAA it will do that to any modern gpu. Since i can 100fps without it off and 45-60fps with 2xssaa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-j5ooZDcWo

 

[cooperb21]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daman246

SSAA is Rendering the game at a higher Resolution then Downsampling to fit your monitor Resolution. so a game running SSAA 4x at a base of 1080p is actually running at 4k then scaled down to your monitor. there is no type of AA that will hit your GPU harder than this for the reasons stated above.

from my experience FXAA and SMAA are the ones the least effect your performance, MSAA is a runner up after SSAA

My question is why does tomb raider and metro not have normal AA? Why all this ssaa ****.

 

[daman246]

Quote:

My question is why does tomb raider and metro not have normal AA? Why all this ssaa ****.

Tomb Raider has FXAA, you can always try injecting AA into your games using a 3rd party software or nvidia controll panel/AMD catalyst

 

[Vici0us]

It's worth it if you're @ 1080P. But it's gonna effect FPS dramatically.

 

[boredgunner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunan

Not sure if this still applies, but amd cards always handled AA better than nvidia in the past. As I said, it may not still apply, I haven't read up current GPU capabilities between the two in quite some time.

This hasn't been the case since the release of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 400 series. What is true however is that NVIDIA offers a wider variety of AA forms, and lets you force AA into a larger amount of games. This is actually one of the main reasons I buy NVIDIA cards over AMD. I force SGSSAA in so many games.
Quote:

Originally Posted by cooperb21

My question is why does tomb raider and metro not have normal AA? Why all this ssaa ****.

To answer your initial question, anti-aliasing is mostly subjective like End3R said. Some people notice aliasing far more than others. Don't let that fool you though, the effectiveness of different AA forms is objective.

I can't speak for Tomb Raider, but Metro 2033 Redux as well as Last Light and Last Light Redux have two AA forms: some form of post-process AA like SMAA and FXAA, which is always running unless you disable it in a config file. They don't let you turn this off in the options. This just applies a blur filter to hide, not really remove, aliasing, but it's surprisingly effective (SMAA/FXAA injectors are garbage when actually using them for anti-aliasing, Metro's post-AA is much more effective).

The other form is SSAA, which is by far the most effective form of anti-aliasing. daman246 partially explained what SSAA is; that's downsampling actually, which is part of SSAA, but when oversampling the image SSAA then applies AA filters unlike downsampling. I use it in most games... but not Metro since it brings me below 50 FPS too often. But for someone who hates aliasing like I do, SSAA is wonderful.

You probably don't need SSAA in Metro; the post-AA does a surprisingly good job at masking the aliasing. I'm really sensitive to aliasing but Metro 2033 Redux and Last Light/Last Light Redux look fine (but not perfect) to me with no SSAA. If anything, use a little bit of downsampling. Try NVIDIA DSR which is in NVIDIA Control Panel (enable all of the DSR factor options and then choose a larger resolution in-game).

I do agree that good MSAA/CSAA support would have been nice. While SSAA is more effective, properly implemented MSAA/CSAA with transparency MSAA will be more than enough for just about anyone, and the performance hit will be next to nothing on modern day GPUs. The best examples of this have to be Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, which have near perfect AA despite only using MSAA.

A good question to ask is, why is AA support getting worse in DX11 games? doomlord probably has the answer to this. So many DX11 games have terrible AA and absolutely no compatibility with forced AA (which is due to laziness I'd wager). None of the Metro games allow forced AA (real AA that is, not post-AA) when running in DX11 mode. With the release of next gen consoles, quality MSAA/CSAA should become a standard.