I'm only interested in 2x AA, as anything larger takes a serious performance hit.
Since this is gonna be my dream sys, I refuse to have framerates anywhere below 65. I don't get why people want a boost from 110 FPS to 140, when there is NO difference (the eye cannot percieve more than 60-70 FPS).
Well, I guess as new games come out if I want to have a good FPS i'll have to eventually downtone it to 1024 =(
<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>
AA is generally slower than a resolution bump. Try 1600*1200, and if you still see jaggies then try 2X AA on that. If it's too slow, bump down the resolution. The GF4Ti4600 should be able to handle all current games at 1600*1200*32 MAX without AA and most the same res with AA.
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
hey guys, wake up, remember the geforce 4 ti archetecture is different than even the geforce 3s, it has new AA improvements. 4xAA dosnt take that big of a hit. personally i dont use it, i just jack up the res, i have a 19 inch monitor and anything 1280x1024 or above looks fine without AA. course i could use it if i wanted to, i have a ti4400. but thats not the point. the reason i dont play at 1600x1200 most of the time is because then my monitor refresh rate is 60hz and ill get a headache after an hour or two.
The first LAN party I went to was at a PETA convention. They booted me when I shot a crab in HL!
interesting idea... never done that.
i did try UT / serious sam with 2 and 4x AA at 800x600 but it just chugged on my geforce2pro.
eventually i might upgrade, but my gaming requirements at the moment are fairly limited.
plus geforce 3 & 4's still cost buckets in ozland.
Whats better, <font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue> or <font color=green>AMD?</font color=green>