Tech and Talk > Gaming > PC gaming Tech > Fast Approximate Anti-Aliasing vs normal Anti-Aliasing?

Fast Approximate Anti-Aliasing vs normal Anti-Aliasing?

Check out the Skyrim Total Enhancement Project and they have instructions on how to tweak the settings to maximize performance along with suggested tested mods. They explain a lot of the graphics settings.

reply to me1212
The reason fast aproximate is easier on the GPU is because it is taking less samples, which in turn makes your vid card happier. Less samples means less processing, But your image will appear more jagged. Your image should still look pretty good compared to no AA, but in my experience the benefits of more samples vs the performance hit is not worth it unless your at like say 100 fps with a 60 hz monitor. My rule of thumb is i want to stay around 60 fps when i'm actually doing something in game (actual combat in BF3, not standing around with nothing moving on the screen.) I usually turn AA to it's lowest setting and max out other settings, then raise AA last above 2x once everything else is maxed. Really it's personal preference, try both and if you can't tell a difference use the lower setting and increase fps. I find I get pretty similar results with Post Processed AA That I do with Pre processed (FSAA) at a much less performance hit.

reply to me1212
Another issue with FSAA is that FSAA affects the whole screen including any overlays (games huds, etc.) - this tends to lead to fuzzy text/overlays which don't look as good. IMO.

reply to me1212
I tried turning aa off(it was at 8x/max) and turned fxaa on, at the same time turning the filtering from 12x to 16x/max. Can't really tell a nickle's worth of difference between them myself, other than about 180MB of vram being freed up and about 18% less gpu usage. I think I'll keep it this way, makes the plants look way better too.