Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Conclusion

Anti-Aliasing Analysis, Part 1: Settings And Surprises
By

This article presented us with a lot more surprises than we were expecting to encounter. The concept seemed simple, but as we dug further, we found more and more anomalies, caveats, and issues to discuss.

As it stands, our previous assumption that you can manipulate anti-aliasing in the driver panel alone was turned upside-down. And yet, we’re only left with half of the bigger picture.

We now know what the different anti-aliasing modes are, how to enable them, and which ones are likely to work and which ones are likely to do nothing at all. But what we haven’t covered yet is performance, and that is key. For example, knowing that supersampling provides the best anti-aliasing quality doesn’t help when it cripples a $500 graphics card at 1920x1080. That’s why this article is part one of two, and that second part is coming in the very near future.

The lessons we learned are unmistakable. First and foremost, enhanced MSAA modes like CSAA, EQAA, and edge-detect don’t impress us all that much from an image quality-improvement standpoint. As it turns out, 2x MSAA is good, 4x MSAA is great, and 8x MSAA is superlative when it comes to removing aliasing artifacts from the edges of polygons. You can add coverage samples and edge-detect algorithms to 4x MSAA and it still doesn’t rival true 8x MSAA. At the end of the day, these proprietary modes can make slight improvements to visual quality, but realistically, you’re probably not going to notice their effects compared to the base MSAA mode on which they ride. We had to spend time zooming in to static screenshots to see if coverage samples and edge-detect processing were making any difference at all. But the difference between true 4x MSAA and 8x MSAA is relatively easy to notice.

Secondly, we learned that the aliasing that occurs on objects with texture transparencies is unaffected by MSAA, and despite newer DirectX 10/11 techniques like alpha-to-coverage, we see a need for further transparent texture anti-aliasing. When it comes to Radeons, adaptive anti-aliasing rarely works, but Nvidia’s transparent supersampling is relatively reliable in DirectX 10 and 11 games. This is an area we’d really like to see AMD improve.

What about AMD’s morphological anti-aliasing? MLAA works on every game we tested, and it can even clean up aliasing artifacts on transparent textures a little bit (although it won’t do nearly as good a job as a true texture transparency anti-aliasing method like adaptive or transparency anti-aliasing). Morphological AA also works in conjunction with MSAA. MLAA can be a great option, but it can have a detrimental effect on image quality when small text is critical in game play. As such, it isn’t viable as a set-and-forget method of anti-aliasing for everyone.

If you really want to generalize, most users are probably best served by setting their in-game anti-aliasing to 4x MSAA and leaving it at that, assuming their graphics hardware is fast enough to handle it. Otherwise, Nvidia owners may want to enable transparency supersampling through the driver in order to reduce aliasing artifacts on transparent textures. Hopefully, AMD will assign some driver development to this area so that adaptive anti-aliasing becomes a reliable option for Radeon owners, too.

In any case, our upcoming anti-aliasing analysis, which focuses on benchmark performance, will help folks see what settings their hardware can handle.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 86 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -4 Hide
    atikkur , April 13, 2011 4:19 AM
    PERTAMAX gan. .
  • 8 Hide
    burnley14 , April 13, 2011 4:24 AM
    Awesome article. I am unfortunately not one of the elite few who know all the ins and outs of graphics performance, so this was very enlightening for me.
  • 4 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , April 13, 2011 5:28 AM
    Great article, very informative. I've never really used forced anti-aliasing through the driver, and from what I've read it doesn't really sound like a good idea anyway, given the fact that most modern games provide adequate AA levels through in-game settings (these are usually better optimized as well). Seems like forced driver level AA is pretty hit-or-miss. With a few rare exceptions it just doesn't seem like it's worth the effort.

    ...went to the link for Tom's Geforce3 article. The good old Geforce3, now that takes me back.
  • 8 Hide
    tallguy1618 , April 13, 2011 5:36 AM
    This is definitely one of the better articles I've read
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , April 13, 2011 6:37 AM
    what are you talking about?
    we can still force Supersampling
    as of 266.58 on Nvidia cards
  • 1 Hide
    army_ant7 , April 13, 2011 7:00 AM
    Why does it say here, http://www.geforce.com/#/Optimize/Guides/AA-AF-guide (go to the next page of this article), that it internally renders the frame at a resolution 4 times greater? But according to the 2nd page of this article, it says that at x4 AA it only internally renders a frame at a resolution 2 times greater.
  • 3 Hide
    JimmiG , April 13, 2011 7:23 AM
    Great article, but this is really something Nvidia and AMD will have to fix together with game developers...

    The settings I select in the driver control panel should apply without me having to worry about coverage samples, multi samples, DirectX versions or the alignment of the planets. It should just work.

    Similarly, any self-respecting game made in the last 6-8 years should have proper anti-aliasing options in its in-game menu. Not just an On/Off switch, but the full range of AA settings available with the video card being used.
  • -1 Hide
    BulkZerker , April 13, 2011 7:24 AM
    MrBonkBonkwhat are you talking about?we can still force Supersampling as of 266.58 on Nvidia cards



    IF the game lets it! Drivers trying to force AA doens't mean the game will allow it. If the game doesnt' support it your not goting to get tehy type of AA.

    Either way this AA fragmentation is almost as bad as all these custom versions of Driod.
  • 1 Hide
    Assmar , April 13, 2011 7:24 AM
    Maybe I'm wrong, but no Batman or Mass Effect 2 forced AA settings?
  • 2 Hide
    heycarnut , April 13, 2011 7:29 AM
    @army_ant7:

    Nvidia article is wrong, or at the very least semantically sloppy.

    4X samples generally means doubling of resolution for both axes. 4*(x*y)==(2*x)*(2*y).
  • 1 Hide
    army_ant7 , April 13, 2011 7:33 AM
    Quote:
    Nvidia article is wrong, or at the very least semantically sloppy.

    4X samples generally means doubling of resolution for both axes. 4*(x*y)==(2*x)*(2*y).


    Thanks for the reply heycarnut.

    With that it mind, what does 2X sampling multiply the axes by?
  • 0 Hide
    nileshd , April 13, 2011 7:43 AM
    if the game doesn't support anti aliasing, forcing through the driver may or may not work, but the point here is that nvidia drivers still do support supersampling as opposed to that mentioned in the article.
  • 0 Hide
    mattmock , April 13, 2011 9:25 AM
    Nvidia is currently offering a SSAA tool for download. Its a bit primitive and just sets SSAA for all games.
    http://nvidia.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nvidia.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2624
  • 0 Hide
    tavix , April 13, 2011 10:48 AM
    Gr8 article. Thanks!
  • 0 Hide
    ghostie , April 13, 2011 11:11 AM
    Thanks for the great article Don.
  • 0 Hide
    rpgplayer , April 13, 2011 11:22 AM
    how about some benchmarks with the games that accepted forced driver settings? that way we can see if the in game setting is biased toward one card company. like left for dead 2, benchmarks of the ingame setting for 2x,4x,8x. then benchmarks of the driver setting 2x MSAA/SSAA, 4x MSAA/SSAA and so on. that way we can see if the game is being biased.
  • 0 Hide
    feeddagoat , April 13, 2011 1:17 PM
    Ive always wondered what was the difference between and what was better between application decided and driver based AA. In far cry 2 using my HD4870 The trees turned into green blobs using driver based AA but in game AA worked perfectly. Since then Ive just left the let the application decide box ticked and ignored Driver based. Can't wait for part 2 to see what gives the best result if it even works. Great work toms!!
  • 2 Hide
    warhammerkid , April 13, 2011 1:20 PM
    Nvidia Inspector (http://blog.orbmu2k.de/tools/nvidia-inspector-tool) is like the Nvidia control panel on steroids. It gives access to many more of the configuration options than the Nvidia control panel, like SSAA, several settings for transparency anti-aliasing, and a whole bunch of other advanced configuration options. I prefer it over nHancer (http://www.nhancer.com/), as I've had better luck with it in the past, but both should work. I'm somewhat surprised, though, that no one at Tom's Hardware actually used it to test out Nvidia SSAA, as I've had quite a lot of success with it.

    assmarMaybe I'm wrong, but no Batman or Mass Effect 2 forced AA settings?

    I used Nvidia Inspector on Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 to play the game with 2x2 SSAA (2x horizontal and 2x vertical), and it definitely works if you set it to force the game to use those settings. Forcing MSAA in those games didn't seem to work though, or if it did the effect wasn't noticeable enough to be worth it, not surprising considering some of the issues Unreal Engine games have with anti-aliasing. I didn't bother trying this with Batman because the built-in AA for the game looked fine.
  • 0 Hide
    WyomingKnott , April 13, 2011 2:01 PM
    I can see the benefit from AA in the examples, but doesn't it make things look fuzzy? I suppose it's a necessary trade-off for now.
  • 1 Hide
    cleeve , April 13, 2011 2:44 PM
    army_ant7Why does it say here, http://www.geforce.com/#/Optimize/Guides/AA-AF-guide (go to the next page of this article), that it internally renders the frame at a resolution 4 times greater? But according to the 2nd page of this article, it says that at x4 AA it only internally renders a frame at a resolution 2 times greater.


    Depends on how you frame it I guess: when the dimensions are doubled, the area is quadrupled.

    Twice the size is four times the samples: Like a 2"x2" grid contains four square inches, and twice the size is 4"x4" but it contains 16 square inches... four times as much area, but only twice the size when you look at the dimensions.

    army_ant7With that it mind, what does 2X sampling multiply the axes by?


    1.5 times? :p 

    It's probably easier to just think of the number as how many samples per pixel. 2xAA=2 samples per pixel, 4xAA=4 samples per pixel, etc...
Display more comments