01-18-2012, 11:25 PM
01-18-2012, 11:34 PM
3.8ghz vs 3.2ghz?
there is nothing wrong with his system... just not overclocked enough
he should disable 9xSSAA (0xaa)
and change internal resolution from 1x to 4x
there is nothing wrong with his system... just not overclocked enough

he should disable 9xSSAA (0xaa)
and change internal resolution from 1x to 4x
01-19-2012, 06:19 AM
You realize that 4x IR (16x resolution) is more stressful on the gpu than 1x IR + 9xSSAA (9x resolution) right? Although his graphics card should be able to handle both with ease.
01-19-2012, 06:26 AM
1x IR + 9xSSAA
is somehow ... stupid?
thats the point
is somehow ... stupid?
thats the point
01-19-2012, 06:33 AM
(01-19-2012, 06:19 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]You realize that 4x IR (16x resolution) is more stressful on the gpu than 1x IR + 9xSSAA (9x resolution) right?
That's what I was thinking

01-19-2012, 06:58 AM
boys....
he has a ati 6870...
more than Enough for 4x IR...
the cpu is bottlenecking
he has a ati 6870...
more than Enough for 4x IR...
the cpu is bottlenecking
01-19-2012, 07:51 AM
(01-19-2012, 06:58 AM)dannzen Wrote: [ -> ]boys....
he has a ati 6870...
more than Enough for 4x IR...
the cpu is bottlenecking
That's not what we're saying...
01-19-2012, 11:44 AM
(01-19-2012, 06:19 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]You realize that 4x IR (16x resolution) is more stressful on the gpu than 1x IR + 9xSSAA (9x resolution) right? Although his graphics card should be able to handle both with ease.
OOH!
Oh!
Can any one break this down for me?
Something I meant to ask about earlier.
(Like, how much is 1.5x?)
01-20-2012, 11:14 AM
Let's see how many different ways I can explain this.
Functional standpoint:
y = x * w^2 * z
Where x is native resolution, w is the IR setting, z is the SSAA setting, and y is the actual internal resolution.
Word standpoint (I don't know what to call this):
SSAA represents a resolution. 9xSSAA is 9 times the resolution (3x scale in each direction). Internal resolution used to be called efb scale since it sets the x and y scale. The native resolution is 640 x 528. Therefore:
1x IR (1x scale in each direction): 640 x 528
1.5x IR (1.5x scale in each direction): 960 x 792
2x IR (2x scale in each direction): 1280 x 1056
2.5x IR (2.5x scale in each direction): 1600 x 1320
3x IR (3x scale in each direction): 1920 x 1584
4x IR (4x scale in each direction): 2560 x 2112
Then you multiply that by the SSAA number to get the real internal resolution (the resolution that the scene is rendered at).
Hmmm, only two that I can think of.
Functional standpoint:
y = x * w^2 * z
Where x is native resolution, w is the IR setting, z is the SSAA setting, and y is the actual internal resolution.
Word standpoint (I don't know what to call this):
SSAA represents a resolution. 9xSSAA is 9 times the resolution (3x scale in each direction). Internal resolution used to be called efb scale since it sets the x and y scale. The native resolution is 640 x 528. Therefore:
1x IR (1x scale in each direction): 640 x 528
1.5x IR (1.5x scale in each direction): 960 x 792
2x IR (2x scale in each direction): 1280 x 1056
2.5x IR (2.5x scale in each direction): 1600 x 1320
3x IR (3x scale in each direction): 1920 x 1584
4x IR (4x scale in each direction): 2560 x 2112
Then you multiply that by the SSAA number to get the real internal resolution (the resolution that the scene is rendered at).
Hmmm, only two that I can think of.
01-20-2012, 01:38 PM
Hmm...
10k HD (Supposedly the "maximum" of the human eye .) could be possible with 4x native + 9xSSAA.
10k HD (Supposedly the "maximum" of the human eye .) could be possible with 4x native + 9xSSAA.