How did you go about applying FXAA? How are you testing this?
(11-16-2011, 03:14 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]How did you go about applying FXAA? How are you testing this?
PCSX2 has a built in FXAA option.
I see NO difference at 2x scaling. (My Dad owns a gt 440.)
*Shrugs*
I don't use PCSX2 so I don't know how it's implemented by them. All I know is it works wonders for certain applications including dolphin, particularly at high internal resolutions. Perhaps you're just not used to seeing aliasing (some people don't notice it because they've always played games without AA). Post some screenshot comparisons and I'll see if I can point it out for you.
(11-16-2011, 03:22 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]*Shrugs*
I don't use PCSX2 so I don't know how it's implemented by them. All I know is it works wonders for certain applications including dolphin, particularly at high internal resolutions. Perhaps you're just not used to seeing aliasing (some people don't notice it because they've always played games without AA). Post some screenshot comparisons and I'll see if I can point it out for you.
Nope, your right.
His LCD has a native res of 1024 x 768.
I DO see a difference when I play it on his '32 TV.
(I don't live with my dad, so I'll get screenshots later.)
I can ignore aliasing quite well.
I just accept it as part of the game, really.
Unless I'm super bored. Then I go into OCD Aliasing overdrive.
1360 x 768 + 4x aa looks FAR better than 1080p with any form of AA on my display. (Or 1080p by itself, for that matter.)
(1280 x 800 + 4x aa is a close second.)
Updated my list for the hell of it:
GTX 590 - fastest card in the 500 series
GTX 580
GTX 570
GTX 480 - fastest card in the 400 series
GTX 295 - fastest card in the 200 series
GTX 560 TI / GTX 470
GTX 560
GTX 285
GTX 280
GTX 460 1GB edition
GTX 460 / GTX 275 / 9800 GX2 - fastest card in the 9 series
GTX 465
GTX 460 SE
GTX 550 TI / GTX 260 C216
GTX 260 C192
GTS 450 / GTS 250 / 9800 GTX+ / 8800 ultra - fastest card in the 8 series
9800 GTX / 8800GTX
8800 GTS G92
9800 GT / 8800 GT
GT 440 / 8800 GS
8800 GTS 640MB
8800 GTS 320MB
GT 430 / GT 240 / 9600 GT
9600 GSO
GT 220
9500 GT
8600 GTS
GT 520 / 8600 GT / xbox360 / PS3 - current generation of video game consoles
9400 GT / sandy bridge HD 3000 - fastest intel IGP, the mobile (laptop) versions are slower
8500 GT
Your card goes here
Intel HD 2000 / Intel HD
G 210
8400 GS
Includes the reference version of all geforce 8, 9, 200, 400, and 500 series desktop cards as well as the current generation of video game consoles and intel desktop IGPs. Does not include any AMD cards (gaming, workstation, or compute) , AMD mobile GPUs, AMD APUs, AMD IGPs, nvidia IGPs, mobile gpus from any brand, workstation gpus from any brand, compute gpus from any brand, older nvidia gpus, older intel IGPs, cards from any other brand, or ULP (ultra low power) gpus.
Alright, I get it.
And the x1550 is weaker then all of those.
Still 4x aa + 1360 x 768 is FLAWLESS.
Does this mean the 550 is merely average?
Fantastic.
At least it's better than Wii U. (Rumored to be based on a 4870.)
Since the ASUS gtx 550 is stock overclocked, doesn't that close the gap between it and the gtx 460 SE?
Quote:Alright, I get it.
And the x1550 is weaker then all of those.
Actually it's not. I just updated the chart to show you where yours ranks.
Quote:Does this mean the 550 is merely average?
Yes.
Quote:Does this mean the 550 is merely average?
Fantastic.
At least it's better than Wii U. (Rumored to be based on a 4870.)
I hate to ruin your party but if the WIIU does have a gpu that is equivalent to the HD4870 then that means it's equivalent to a GTX 550 TI as well since those two cards are almost identical in performance.
Quote:Since the ASUS gtx 550 is stock overclocked, doesn't that close the gap between it and the gtx 460 SE?
A little bit. A GTX 460 SE would still probably outperform it though.
I always like to have my GPU be at least equal to the lowest console on the market,
so that means I shouldn't have to upgrade the 550 for at least 4 years.
(X1550 > Wii Gpu.)
Wait, didn't you say that HD 2000 was SUPERIOR to my card?
Quote:Wait, didn't you say that HD 2000 was SUPERIOR to my card?
HD 3000 is superior to your card, not the 2000, at least according to the benchmarks that I'm looking at.
(11-16-2011, 04:16 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Wait, didn't you say that HD 2000 was SUPERIOR to my card?
HD 3000 is superior to your card, not the 2000, at least according to the benchmarks that I'm looking at.
I thought so.
Hey, why is i5 2300 good for emulation despite not crossing the 3 ghz threshold?
What makes sandy bridge so efficient per clock or whatever?
Isn't 2.8 ghz bad for emulation?