Higher res = higher FPS

[xstyla]

I think that's what "power of 2" textures are about. 720 = 512 + 128 + 64 + 16 or 768 - 32 - 16 and all rasterizer fragments are 16 pixels tall, so... no clamped and messed up fragments for the shaders and the cache. this' mosdef a hardcore multithreaded graphics driver thing to run that better than random non "power of 2" resolutions.

math and IT logic that is.

[miseru99]

Congrats @hell321 for another useless post copied with same/similar non-topic thing.

@xstyla Potentially all native res are also a multiply of 16, same with what most people use as custom res(as usually that is just their screen res) and 720 isn't really a power of 2, through also 640 which is native for some NTSC games isn't either while still being multiply of 16, soo I wouldn't really say that's the case if I understand what you ment. Unless the difference between height and width would matter here, then potentially PAL games would see no difference/were already faster as they're mostly 512x512. But nah, it can't be, read below.

By quick check I also saw what Qadaffi at Star Ocean 3, no difference in-game, while speed in menus got higher from like 80fps to well over 90 from x2 to 1500x1500 (not a multiply of 16, soo math and logic doesn't count;P). SO3 is a 3D game with 2D menus soo wonder if that is mainly visible in 2D games or could affect some 3D games too.

[xstyla]

well. right. I had to think about it again. doesn't change that it's mosdef somewhat of a driver or rasterizing issue... probably. else there's not really a reason. it could be a square texture thing or sampling issue with direct mapping without interpolating samples. it might just be the effect running a relative optimal scale where the original demi distortion is relatively 2x or 3x as fitting the output resolution.

i have tons of theories about that. but nothing to proof tho cause i don't have the game here atm anymore.

[Squall Leonhart]

NPOT would be a perf killer on Radeon's

[xstyla]

NPOT would be a perf killer on Radeon's

do you have any proof? you bought a radeon? and... no... I'm not gonna take the bait. don't need yet another ati vs. nvidia gebabble

[tuanming]

do you have any proof? you bought a radeon? and... no... I'm not gonna take the bait. don't need yet another ati vs. nvidia gebabble

I used to have both the hd 6970 and the gxt 570, but i returned the AMD one and got my money back after comparing with games that are graphically demanding or intensive.

[Nexxxus]

I experienced a similar odd thing:
Turning on FXAA gives a +20fps boost on the Mihen Highroad in FFX.
Yeah even when NOT using MSAA. so using FXAA is faster than using no AA method at all.
strange huh?

[Squall Leonhart]

do you have any proof? you bought a radeon? and... no... I'm not gonna take the bait. don't need yet another ati vs. nvidia gebabble

only Petes GPU benchmarks

[StriFe]

Even if Benchmarks are a valid source of information, that doesn't mean it's the same for other people with the same specs, every pc has other performances, no matter what the hardware is. I guess you know what I'm talking about

[Rezard]

I stumbled across something similar when learning directX and couldnt really explain it. As far as anybody could tell me, it's something to do with modern graphics cards handling larger textures better than smaller ones. so in my tests going from 800x600 to 1280x1024 doubled my fps, was very strange ;p

Very strange, but extremely interesting.

This actually made sense to me, and I was having a little trouble putting the concept into words. I was thinking something to the effect of modern graphics units being designed, or more optimized, to a larger workload. So optimized towards a more modern standard, that for them to take on a minor enough task, they could be forced to operate at a less efficient rate.

Make sense? Well, I'm just babbling on a concept I feel I understand, but can't find the right words for...

... But I found this. It seems to represent the very idea I'm getting at.

Modern graphics cards are really good at pushing a lot of polygons, but they have quite a bit of overhead for every batch that you submit to the graphics card. So if you have a 100-triangle object it is going to be just as expensive to render as a 1500-triangle object. The "sweet spot" for optimal rendering performance is somewhere around 1500-4000 triangles per mesh.

This would be like what we're dealing with, right?

And for all you fans of the "ATI vs. nVidia" debate; How about the way Livy's Radeon seemed to benefit more from this than my GeForce? Kinda seems like the "sweet spot" was more benefitial to the Radeon, which could indicate that the less efficient (or less optimized) situation was more detrimental to it.

(Lack of optimization: ATI's achilles heel)