GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

Since getting my GF2 32mbGTS I've been running most of my games at 1600x1200 16bit. Some heavy games I have to drop down to 1280x1024 or 1024x768 in order for them to be smooth enough to play decently. 25fps and up seems ok to me most of the time. I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at this setting? Mainly concerned about Nascar4 and Oper Flashpoint with a sprinkling of others like Max Payne, Rogue Spear, Undying, Swat3 and Trophy Rally.

4xFSAA (ie. not quincunx) at 1600x1200 needs an internal image size of 6400x4800, which in 16 bit color/16 bit z buffer takes about 122MB memory... you have that on your gfx card? No I don't think so =) And even if the z buffer is compressed you wouldn't have any place for textures on that 64MB card. I'd say that you can run 1280x960 with quincunx FSAA and get a pretty good result. At 1600x1200 it's really overkill to run any FSAA. And 4x is whooper sooper dooper overkill. "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Since getting my GF2 32mbGTS I've been running most of my games at > 1600x1200 16bit. Some heavy games I have to drop down to 1280x1024 or > 1024x768 in order for them to be smooth enough to play decently. 25fps > and up seems ok to me most of the time. > > I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this > card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at > this setting? > > Mainly concerned about Nascar4 and Oper Flashpoint with a sprinkling of > others like Max Payne, Rogue Spear, Undying, Swat3 and Trophy Rally. >

The answer is definitely no for 4xfsaa. It would be unplayable. Quincunx can play but not at high enough framerates for my taste. We're going to have to wait for gf4 for this "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Since getting my GF2 32mbGTS I've been running most of my games at > 1600x1200 16bit. Some heavy games I have to drop down to 1280x1024 or > 1024x768 in order for them to be smooth enough to play decently. 25fps > and up seems ok to me most of the time. > > I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this > card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at > this setting? > > Mainly concerned about Nascar4 and Oper Flashpoint with a sprinkling of > others like Max Payne, Rogue Spear, Undying, Swat3 and Trophy Rally. > >

Q3A at 1600 X 1200 X 32 FSAA 2X , Demo four.dm_66 getting 70fps! "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Since getting my GF2 32mbGTS I've been running most of my games at > 1600x1200 16bit. Some heavy games I have to drop down to 1280x1024 or > 1024x768 in order for them to be smooth enough to play decently. 25fps > and up seems ok to me most of the time. > > I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this > card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at > this setting? > > Mainly concerned about Nascar4 and Oper Flashpoint with a sprinkling of > others like Max Payne, Rogue Spear, Undying, Swat3 and Trophy Rally. >

"Why?" "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Since getting my GF2 32mbGTS I've been running most of my games at > 1600x1200 16bit. Some heavy games I have to drop down to 1280x1024 or > 1024x768 in order for them to be smooth enough to play decently. 25fps > and up seems ok to me most of the time. > > I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this > card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at > this setting? > > Mainly concerned about Nascar4 and Oper Flashpoint with a sprinkling of > others like Max Payne, Rogue Spear, Undying, Swat3 and Trophy Rally. >

Cause chicks dig it and it reduces tendencies of anal leakage during gameplay, of course. More seriously, cause I find the shimmering lines in games annoying even at 16x12 and am willing to fork over some dough to rid of them for better visuals. SecretSquirrel wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>"Why?" > > >"Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... > >>Since getting my GF2 32mbGTS I've been running most of my games at >>1600x1200 16bit. Some heavy games I have to drop down to 1280x1024 or >>1024x768 in order for them to be smooth enough to play decently. 25fps >>and up seems ok to me most of the time. >> >>I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this >>card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at >>this setting? >> >>Mainly concerned about Nascar4 and Oper Flashpoint with a sprinkling of >>others like Max Payne, Rogue Spear, Undying, Swat3 and Trophy Rally. >> > >

"SST" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9ressk$g3$[email hidden]... > Q3A at 1600 X 1200 X 32 FSAA 2X , Demo four.dm_66 getting 70fps! What about 1280x1024x32 at 4xFSAA? That should be ideal.

Here's a better suggestion: Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will perceive a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails. Tough luck about that anal seepage, stop eating Olestra? "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Cause chicks dig it and it reduces tendencies of anal leakage during gameplay, of course. More seriously, cause I find the shimmering lines in games annoying even at 16x12 and am willing to fork over some dough to rid of them for better visuals.

Quake3A Results (Demo four.dm_66) in FPS. 1600 X 1200 X 32, Trilinear 200 / 460 85.4 Stock GF3 240 / 500 96.6 Stock Ti500 (+13.1%) 240 / 540 100.6 +17.7% 245 / 540 101.4 +18.7% 200 / 460 35.3 (FSAA 2X) (-58.6% at equal clock) 240 / 540 40.9 (FSAA 2X) (-59.3% at equal clock) * 240/500 to 240/540 = +4.1% performance gain 1280 X 1024 X 32, Trilinear 200 / 460 113.4 Stock GF3 240 / 500 122.9 Stock Ti500 (+8.3%) 240 / 540 125.1 +10.3% 245 / 540 125.7 +10.8% 200 / 460 58.0 (FSAA 2X) (-48.8% at equal clock) 240 / 540 69.3 (FSAA 2X) (-44.6% at equal clock) * 240/500 to 240/540 = +1.7% performance gain 1024 X 768 X 32, Trilinear 200 / 460 136.7 Stock GF3 240 / 500 139.1 Stock Ti500 (+2.1%) 240 / 540 139.7 +2.2% 245 / 540 139.9 +2.3% 200 / 460 95.7 (FSAA 2X) (-29.9% at equal clock) 240 / 540 111.1 (FSAA 2X) (-20.4% at equal clock) * 240/500 to 240/540 = +0.5% performance gain "Kroagnon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "SST" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9ressk$g3$[email hidden]... > > Q3A at 1600 X 1200 X 32 FSAA 2X , Demo four.dm_66 getting 70fps! > > What about 1280x1024x32 at 4xFSAA? That should be ideal. > >

how "SecretSquirrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WWJC7.24265$[email hidden]... Here's a better suggestion: Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will perceive a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails. Tough luck about that anal seepage, stop eating Olestra? "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Cause chicks dig it and it reduces tendencies of anal leakage during gameplay, of course. More seriously, cause I find the shimmering lines in games annoying even at 16x12 and am willing to fork over some dough to rid of them for better visuals.

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 18:45:37 +0200, "Martin Eriksson" <[email hidden]> wrote: >4xFSAA (ie. not quincunx) at 1600x1200 needs an internal image size of >6400x4800, which in 16 bit color/16 bit z buffer takes about 122MB memory... No no, you render at 3200x2400 and downsample to a 1600x1200 image for rendering. The amount of memory required is 3200x2400x6 + 1600x1200x2 bytes = 47,6MB.

Hi Squirrel, regarding the LOD bias, is there an adjustment under OpenGL that has a similar effect? Thanks in advance Achim "SecretSquirrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WWJC7.24265$[email hidden]... [snip] ...Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will perceive a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails.

Use Nvmax. "SST" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9rg1dn$ikd$[email hidden]... how "SecretSquirrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WWJC7.24265$[email hidden]... Here's a better suggestion: Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will perceive a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails. Tough luck about that anal seepage, stop eating Olestra? "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Cause chicks dig it and it reduces tendencies of anal leakage during gameplay, of course. More seriously, cause I find the shimmering lines in games annoying even at 16x12 and am willing to fork over some dough to rid of them for better visuals.

Yes, LOD bias is vailable under Open GL, in fact, some would say it has more relevance with OpenGL, then Direct3D, that's not entirely relevant, there's a million discussions on it. Concerning nvmax, one of the most popular tweaking programs for nvidia chips, I can't seem to find an LOD setting for OpenGL. I am aware that there are issues with nvidia drivers and lod bias and opengl. It used to be that you couldn't force any changes at all, it wasn't supported. Unlike in the 3dfx drivers, where you could change it easily. Maybe things have changed with the detonator drivers, maybe they haven't. Let me do a quick research...checking...checking...no luck, I can't find any obiovus hack or tweak to OpenGL and LOD for nvidia chips. Maybe someone else has a lead? "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9rgq5u$trrso$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Hi Squirrel, > > regarding the LOD bias, is there an adjustment under OpenGL that has a > similar effect? > > Thanks in advance > > Achim > > > "SecretSquirrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:WWJC7.24265$[email hidden]... > [snip] > ...Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will

perceive > a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails. > > > > >

got ya. "Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9rh3k8$m3t$[email hidden]... Use Nvmax. "SST" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9rg1dn$ikd$[email hidden]... how "SecretSquirrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WWJC7.24265$[email hidden]... Here's a better suggestion: Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will perceive a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails. Tough luck about that anal seepage, stop eating Olestra? "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Cause chicks dig it and it reduces tendencies of anal leakage during gameplay, of course. More seriously, cause I find the shimmering lines in games annoying even at 16x12 and am willing to fork over some dough to rid of them for better visuals.

Hi Squirrel, thanks for the reply. I've tried to write the LODBIASADJUST parameter into the Display/0000/OpenGL branch of my Registry and set it to the same value its twin in the DirectX branch is set to (0xfffffffb), but haven't been able to determine whether it has an effect. I've changed back and forth 4 times, twice I thought it had an effect, and twice I thought it hadn't <g> I hadn't really expected it to have an effect as there's not too many identically named parameters in the two branches. But I thought I'd give it a try. Achim "SecretSquirrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_XVC7.24349$[email hidden]... > Yes, LOD bias is vailable under Open GL, in fact, some would say it hasmore > relevance with OpenGL, then Direct3D, that's not entirely relevant,there's

Quoted text (7 lines)

> a million discussions on it. > > Concerning nvmax, one of the most popular tweaking programs for nvidia > chips, I can't seem to find an LOD setting for OpenGL. > > I am aware that there are issues with nvidia drivers and lod bias and > opengl. It used to be that you couldn't force any changes at all, it

wasn't > supported. Unlike in the 3dfx drivers, where you could change it easily. > > Maybe things have changed with the detonator drivers, maybe they haven't. > Let me do a quick research...checking...checking...no luck, I can't find > any obiovus hack or tweak to OpenGL and LOD for nvidia chips. Maybesomeone

Quoted text (28 lines)

> else has a lead? > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9rgq5u$trrso$[email hidden]... > > Hi Squirrel, > > > > regarding the LOD bias, is there an adjustment under OpenGL that has a > > similar effect? > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > Achim > > > > > > "SecretSquirrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:WWJC7.24265$[email hidden]... > > [snip] > > ...Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will > perceive > > a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails. > > > > > > > > > > > >

That was a good effort. Again, I'm temporarily convinced the nvidia driver set can't adjust LOD bias in OpenGL. How very very strange. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9rhkdk$tgr2n$[email hidden]... > Hi Squirrel, > > thanks for the reply. > > I've tried to write the LODBIASADJUST parameter into theDisplay/0000/OpenGL > branch of my Registry and set it to the same value its twin in the DirectX > branch is set to (0xfffffffb), but haven't been able to determine whetherit > has an effect. I've changed back and forth 4 times, twice I thought it had > an effect, and twice I thought it hadn't <g> > > I hadn't really expected it to have an effect as there's not too many > identically named parameters in the two branches. But I thought I'd giveit

Quoted text (21 lines)

> a try. > > Achim > > > > "SecretSquirrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:_XVC7.24349$[email hidden]... > > Yes, LOD bias is vailable under Open GL, in fact, some would say it has > more > > relevance with OpenGL, then Direct3D, that's not entirely relevant, > there's > > a million discussions on it. > > > > Concerning nvmax, one of the most popular tweaking programs for nvidia > > chips, I can't seem to find an LOD setting for OpenGL. > > > > I am aware that there are issues with nvidia drivers and lod bias and > > opengl. It used to be that you couldn't force any changes at all, it > wasn't > > supported. Unlike in the 3dfx drivers, where you could change it

easily. > > > > Maybe things have changed with the detonator drivers, maybe theyhaven't. > > Let me do a quick research...checking...checking...no luck, I can'tfind

Quoted text (32 lines)

> > any obiovus hack or tweak to OpenGL and LOD for nvidia chips. Maybe > someone > > else has a lead? > > > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:9rgq5u$trrso$[email hidden]... > > > Hi Squirrel, > > > > > > regarding the LOD bias, is there an adjustment under OpenGL that has a > > > similar effect? > > > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > "SecretSquirrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:WWJC7.24265$[email hidden]... > > > [snip] > > > ...Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will > > perceive > > > a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Destroy wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Since getting my GF2 32mbGTS I've been running most of my games at > 1600x1200 16bit. Some heavy games I have to drop down to 1280x1024 or > 1024x768 in order for them to be smooth enough to play decently. 25fps > and up seems ok to me most of the time. > > I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this > card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at > this setting? > > Mainly concerned about Nascar4 and Oper Flashpoint with a sprinkling of > others like Max Payne, Rogue Spear, Undying, Swat3 and Trophy Rally.

you don't need fsaa at 1600x1200.

It depends on the game in question, I have a 1.4Ghz tbird and a GF3 Ti500 and I would say that 16x12 and 2x or quin fsaa is an option for most of todays games I dont think 4x is (in q3 max all, 16x12 4x demo127 I get 42fps) > > I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this > > card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at > > this setting? > you don't need fsaa at 1600x1200. Yes you do, I still see jaggies at 1600x1200 but they are greatly reduced

You people are obviously clueless. 4X AA = Quincunx, the quality is identical. Quincunx runs at the speed of 2X AA so you get twice the frames back. There is NO reason why 1024x768x32bit Quincunx would look bad at all. 1600x1200 Quincunx is just a waste of bandwidth, you won't see jagged edges in 1024 Quincunx at all, plus it will be fast. And yes the Ti500 could easily do 1024 QC AA at nice FPS. "StraxusII" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VjdH7.4133$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> It depends on the game in question, I have a 1.4Ghz tbird and a GF3 Ti500 > and I would say that 16x12 and 2x or quin fsaa is an option for most of > todays games I dont think 4x is (in q3 max all, 16x12 4x demo127 I get > 42fps) > > > > I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this > > > card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at > > > this setting? > > > you don't need fsaa at 1600x1200. > > Yes you do, I still see jaggies at 1600x1200 but they are greatly reduced > >

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Scott Lansbury wrote: > 4X AA = Quincunx, the quality is identical. Could you provide a mathematical proof of this? -- [email hidden] I'm supposed to put a quote here?

Replying to "Scott Lansbury" <[email hidden]> :

Quoted text (7 lines)

>You people are obviously clueless. > > >4X AA = Quincunx, the quality is identical. >Quincunx runs at the speed of 2X AA so you get twice the frames back. > >There is NO reason why 1024x768x32bit Quincunx would look bad at all.

So, what you're saying is that there's no gain in graphics quality with resolutions higher than 1024 with FSAA? I hope you dont mind if I disagree.

> 1600x1200 Quincunx is just a waste of bandwidth, you won't see jagged edges > in 1024 Quincunx at all, plus it will be fast. Have you seen 2048x1536x32 in todays games? I have on my friends new Samsung monitor and GF3. Its WAY better than 1600x1200. So I guess, yeah, 16x12 is a waste.

> 4X AA = Quincunx, the quality is identical. > Quincunx runs at the speed of 2X AA so you get twice the frames back.not true in all cases im afraid in q3 I get 42 fps at 16x12x2x and 35fps using 16x12xquin > There is NO reason why 1024x768x32bit Quincunx would look bad at all. > > 1600x1200 Quincunx is just a waste of bandwidth, you won't see jaggededges > in 1024 Quincunx at all, plus it will be fast. > > And yes the Ti500 could easily do 1024 QC AA at nice FPS.agreed with the rest