How resource heavy is AA?
#11
Yeah even 2GB of vid RAm isnt enough in most cases for this. I'd imagine you won't have any problems on a 4GB card though.
I5 3570k 3.4ghz| 4GB R9 290| 8GB DDR3
Reply

Sponsored links

#12
I wouldn't really say the deciding factor is speed tbh. Generally, if you have a decent gaming machine, you could easily turn on at least 2x msaa in GSdx and not lose any speed, but the whole point of turning on the AA is to make your games look better, and the fact of the matter is, that the hardware AA generally introduces more visual bugs than it's worth.
Reply
#13
(07-06-2013, 08:25 AM)Koji Wrote: You never NEED AA (indeed, PS2 games were never designed with it in mind) that said, on some games MSAA works quite nice. FXAA will work on every game without glitches (though it can and will muddy textures slightly, and the overall result is usually not as great as MSAA) and is generally fairly light on your GPU. FSAA/SSAA offers the best results, but requires a GPU with massive bandwidth (it's accomplished by making the display resolution higher than your monitor's resolution, usually by using native 4x or higher).

Sure it can Muddy it a little and might not be as good as hardware AA but it is a whole lot less glitchy then hardware AA. And I think Asmodean PCXS2FX Make most game look way nice then just using FXAA More vibrant color including Textures so that Muddy comment is moot imo with that shader.

FXAA I think is terrible AA but as for AA in PCSX2 goes FXAA is they way to go. IT probably the only game I use FXAA in too
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)