Dolphin, the GameCube and Wii emulator - Forums

Hey, what do the "Quality Levels" on MSAA even mean?
(I personally use Direct3D9, still curious.)

Yeah, I'd like to know that too. They don't seem to make a difference visually/performance wise. To be honest, it's kind of annoying because it clutters the drop-down menu.

d3d11 or openGL backend?
AMD or Nvidia graphics card?

For nvidia openGL users:
2xMSAA = 2 color/depth/stencil/coverage samples per pixel
4xMSAA = 4 color/depth/stencil/coverage samples per pixel
8xMSAA = 8 color/depth/stencil/coverage samples per pixel
8xCSAA = 4 color/depth/stencil samples per pixel, 8 coverage samples per pixel
8xQCSAA = 8 color/depth/stencil/coverage samples per pixel, same as 8xMSAA
16xCSAA = 4 color/depth/stencil samples per pixel, 16 coverage samples per pixel
16xQCSAA = 8 color/depth/stencil samples per pixel, 16 coverage samples per pixel

I don't have an AMD card but I believe AMD is effectively the same but calls it EQAA instead of CSAA.

I don't have a dx11 graphics card so I don't know what the AA options are for that backend. Could somebody list them? I don't feel like looking at the code.

(01-20-2012, 10:53 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]d3d11 or openGL backend?
AMD or Nvidia graphics card?

For nvidia openGL users:
2xMSAA = 2 color/depth/stencil/coverage samples per pixel
4xMSAA = 4 color/depth/stencil/coverage samples per pixel
8xMSAA = 8 color/depth/stencil/coverage samples per pixel
8xCSAA = 4 color/depth/stencil samples per pixel, 8 coverage samples per pixel
8xQCSAA = 8 color/depth/stencil/coverage samples per pixel, same as 8xMSAA
16xCSAA = 4 color/depth/stencil samples per pixel, 16 coverage samples per pixel
16xQCSAA = 8 color/depth/stencil samples per pixel, 16 coverage samples per pixel

I don't have an AMD card but I believe AMD is effectively the same but calls it EQAA instead of CSAA.

I don't have a dx11 graphics card so I don't know what the AA options are for that backend. Could somebody list them? I don't feel like looking at the code.

I understand Opengl's options, it's the quality levels on D3d11 I don't.

Crazy thing, the HD 2000 actually CAN do 2x native in some of the less demanding gamecube games. (Sonic Adventure 2 Battle does it flawlessly.)
So a high end card could probably manage that in a weaker game. (GTX 570 or Equivalent.)

Screenshot of these options please so that I know what the hell I'm supposed to be explaining?

(01-20-2012, 04:45 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Screenshot of these options please so that I know what the hell I'm supposed to be explaining?

These options. (Mouse is a bit wonky right now.)

My best guess: It defines the number of coverage samples. That would explain why it only goes up to 2 for 2xMSAA, 16 for 4xMSAA, and 32 for 8xMSAA. It would be weird if that was just a coincidence (that's the max number of coverage samples nvidia allows for each of those MSAA levels).

I can't find any documentation about this anywhere on the internet. It appears that these options are exposed by d3d11 and are part of the device driver, so nvidia would be the ones to ask about it. Someone could validate my theory by showing the options available on an AMD card (since AMD cards only allow up to 16 coverage samples for 8xMSAA, not 32).

Also, thanks.

(01-22-2012, 03:55 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]My best guess: It defines the number of coverage samples. That would explain why it only goes up to 2 for 2xMSAA, 16 for 4xMSAA, and 32 for 8xMSAA. It would be weird if that was just a coincidence (that's the max number of coverage samples nvidia allows for each of those MSAA levels).

I can't find any documentation about this anywhere on the internet. It appears that these options are exposed by d3d11 and are part of the device driver, so nvidia would be the ones to ask about it. Someone could validate my theory by showing the options available on an AMD card (since AMD cards only allow up to 16 coverage samples for 8xMSAA, not 32).

Also, thanks.

Hey, you helped me piece together this build.
If it weren't for you I'd have an i3, gts 450, and z68.
(Or some horrible DELL thingy.)

's the least I can do.


What'cha think Ivy bridge's coverage sample thingies would be like?
(I'm of course referring to the D3D11 capable HD 2500 and HD 4000.)
(By the way, what GPU would those be on par with? What about my HD 2000? Just curious.)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-graphics-card-geforce-gtx-590-radeon-hd-6990,2879-7.html
It's not always accurate as you can probably guess.

They said the HD 4000 is going to be 66% faster than the HD 3000. Which means you should go 3 or 4 rows up from the HD 3000 on that chart. That means it should perform
Geforce fx series and earlier: way faster than anything available
Geforce 6 series: similar to a 6800 ultra
Geforce 7 series: similar to a 7600 GT or 7800 GS
Geforce 8 series: similar to an 8600 GT
Geforce 9 series: inbetween the 9500 GT and 9400 GT, almost as fast as the 9500 GT
Geforce 200 series: inbetween a G210 and GT 220, almost as fast as a GT 220
Geforce 400/500 series: inbetween a GT 520 and GT 430

Still slower than all but the absolute worst $40 and under discrete gpus from nvidia/amd (ignoring the GT 520). And still slower than the GPU in the xbox360 and ps3. However this is to be expected since it's an IGP that aims to take up very little die space on the cpu die.

The HD 2500 is supposed to be only slightly faster than the HD2000 (up to 20% if I recall) but will have all of the ivy bridge IGP features.

Whoop de doo.

Not bad for something the size of my thumbnail.