View Full Version : High screen resolution or effects?

04-08-2003, 10:27 AM
Does setting you screen resolution high (to say 1280X1024) get rid of as much jaggies as Anti-Aliasing and AntiS filtering? Basically, am I just wasting GPU power cranking up my AA and AF effects at this resolution, or is it still making a difference? :confused:

04-08-2003, 12:05 PM
almost yup:) the other half of the work is how good your monitor is:p

05-26-2003, 01:10 PM
Anisotropic filtering will make a difference but AA will probably kill more fps than its worth at that res but if you can then go fo it.:cheers:

05-27-2003, 04:32 AM
Your question is an EXCELLENT ONE.

Anti Aliasing, is good for screenshots. Maybe good if you are projecting your game onto a giant screen (with a projector with a low res--800 X 600 or 1024 X 768), then maybe too.

But with all the beefy capabilities of GF3's GF4's and GF5's WHY chop your FPS down so much instead of just raising the resolution two notches. I play in whatever res my computer can still put out 100 FPS in. Period.

So a new bang for the buck system today:

Athlon XP 2.0 Ghtz
512 MB
GF4 Ti4400

This system can run every game on the market (until D3 comes out) in 1600 X 1200 @ 150 FPS OR MORE!

Q3 = 270 FPS
BF1942 = 190 FPS

AND so when you can have that HUGE of resolution, at that smooth of speed, there is no comparrison. To get that kind of smoothness with FSAA enabled, you'd have to drop down to 1024 X 768, and then tell me what is the damn point? It looks nicer, but you can't see as clearly at long distances?

FSAA is a gimick. It DEFINATLY has a HUGE future in computers (3+ years from now), but right now it is absurd.

If you have a tiny monitor (17 or less) then you might be getting 400 FPS in Q3, which means, sure turn on FSAA, but only because you can't go to a higher res. And don't go under 100 FPS for FSAA, that is not worth it.