rec.autos.simulators

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

Destro

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by Destro » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:41:54

Since getting my GF2 32mbGTS I've been running most of my games at
1600x1200 16bit. Some heavy games I have to drop down to 1280x1024  or
1024x768 in order for them to be smooth enough to play decently. 25fps
and up seems ok to me most of the time.

I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this
card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at
this setting?

Mainly concerned about Nascar4 and Oper Flashpoint with a sprinkling of
others like Max Payne, Rogue Spear, Undying, Swat3 and Trophy Rally.

anewma

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by anewma » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 01:52:00

The answer is definitely no for 4xfsaa. It would be unplayable. Quincunx can
play but not at high enough framerates for my taste. We're going to have to
wait for gf4 for this


Martin Eriksso

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by Martin Eriksso » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 01:45:37

4xFSAA (ie. not quincunx) at 1600x1200 needs an internal image size of
6400x4800, which in 16 bit color/16 bit z buffer takes about 122MB memory...
you have that on your gfx card? No I don't think so =) And even if the z
buffer is compressed you wouldn't have any place for textures on that 64MB
card.

I'd say that you can run 1280x960 with quincunx FSAA and get a pretty good
result. At 1600x1200 it's really overkill to run any FSAA. And 4x is whooper
sooper dooper overkill.


SST

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by SST » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 03:04:08

Q3A at 1600 X 1200 X 32 FSAA 2X , Demo four.dm_66 getting 70fps!


SecretSquirre

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by SecretSquirre » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 03:11:12

"Why?"


Destro

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by Destro » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:11:33

Cause chicks dig it and it reduces tendencies of ***leakage during
gameplay, of course.

More seriously, cause I find the shimmering lines in games annoying even
at 16x12 and am willing to fork over some dough to rid of them for
better visuals.


>"Why?"



>>Since getting my GF2 32mbGTS I've been running most of my games at
>>1600x1200 16bit. Some heavy games I have to drop down to 1280x1024  or
>>1024x768 in order for them to be smooth enough to play decently. 25fps
>>and up seems ok to me most of the time.

>>I'm thinking of getting a Ti500 so I can run FSAA 4x at 16x12. Is this
>>card fast enough to run most of todays heavy games smoothly enough at
>>this setting?

>>Mainly concerned about Nascar4 and Oper Flashpoint with a sprinkling of
>>others like Max Payne, Rogue Spear, Undying, Swat3 and Trophy Rally.

Kroagno

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by Kroagno » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:55:45


What about 1280x1024x32 at 4xFSAA? That should be ideal.

SecretSquirre

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by SecretSquirre » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:19:34

Here's a better suggestion: Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will perceive a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails.

Tough luck about that ***seepage, stop eating Olestra?


  Cause chicks dig it and it reduces tendencies of ***leakage during gameplay, of course.

  More seriously, cause I find the shimmering lines in games annoying even at 16x12 and am willing to fork over some dough to rid of them for better visuals.

SST

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by SST » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:24:44

Quake3A Results (Demo four.dm_66) in FPS.

1600 X 1200 X 32, Trilinear

200 / 460           85.4      Stock GF3

240 / 500           96.6      Stock Ti500 (+13.1%)

240 / 540           100.6    +17.7%

245 / 540           101.4    +18.7%

200 / 460           35.3      (FSAA 2X) (-58.6% at equal clock)

240 / 540           40.9      (FSAA 2X) (-59.3% at equal clock)

* 240/500 to 240/540 = +4.1% performance gain

1280 X 1024 X 32, Trilinear

200 / 460           113.4    Stock GF3

240 / 500           122.9    Stock Ti500 (+8.3%)

240 / 540           125.1    +10.3%

245 / 540           125.7    +10.8%

200 / 460           58.0      (FSAA 2X) (-48.8% at equal clock)

240 / 540           69.3      (FSAA 2X) (-44.6% at equal clock)

* 240/500 to 240/540 = +1.7% performance gain

1024 X 768 X 32, Trilinear

200 / 460           136.7    Stock GF3

240 / 500           139.1    Stock Ti500 (+2.1%)

240 / 540           139.7    +2.2%

245 / 540           139.9    +2.3%

200 / 460           95.7      (FSAA 2X) (-29.9% at equal clock)

240 / 540           111.1    (FSAA 2X) (-20.4% at equal clock)

* 240/500 to 240/540 = +0.5% performance gain




> > Q3A at 1600 X 1200 X 32 FSAA 2X , Demo four.dm_66 getting 70fps!

> What about 1280x1024x32 at 4xFSAA? That should be ideal.

SST

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by SST » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:27:42

how

  Here's a better suggestion: Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will perceive a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails.

  Tough luck about that ***seepage, stop eating Olestra?


    Cause chicks dig it and it reduces tendencies of ***leakage during gameplay, of course.

    More seriously, cause I find the shimmering lines in games annoying even at 16x12 and am willing to fork over some dough to rid of them for better visuals.

na_bike

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by na_bike » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:51:46

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 18:45:37 +0200, "Martin Eriksson"


>4xFSAA (ie. not quincunx) at 1600x1200 needs an internal image size of
>6400x4800, which in 16 bit color/16 bit z buffer takes about 122MB memory...

No no, you render at 3200x2400 and downsample to a 1600x1200 image for
rendering.

The amount of memory required is 3200x2400x6 + 1600x1200x2 bytes =
47,6MB.

Joachim Trens

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by Joachim Trens » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:26:47

Hi Squirrel,

regarding the LOD bias, is there an adjustment under OpenGL that has a
similar effect?

Thanks in advance

Achim


[snip]
...Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will perceive
a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails.

Rave

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by Rave » Mon, 29 Oct 2001 23:10:16

Use Nvmax.

  how

    Here's a better suggestion: Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will perceive a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails.

    Tough luck about that ***seepage, stop eating Olestra?


      Cause chicks dig it and it reduces tendencies of ***leakage during gameplay, of course.

      More seriously, cause I find the shimmering lines in games annoying even at 16x12 and am willing to fork over some dough to rid of them for better visuals.

SST

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by SST » Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:00:38

got ya.


  Use Nvmax.

    how

      Here's a better suggestion: Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will perceive a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails.

      Tough luck about that ***seepage, stop eating Olestra?


        Cause chicks dig it and it reduces tendencies of ***leakage during gameplay, of course.

        More seriously, cause I find the shimmering lines in games annoying even at 16x12 and am willing to fork over some dough to rid of them for better visuals.

SecretSquirre

GF3 Ti500 <--- is FSAA an option now on high end?

by SecretSquirre » Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:59:54

Yes, LOD bias is vailable under Open GL, in fact, some would say it has more
relevance with OpenGL, then Direct3D, that's not entirely relevant, there's
a million discussions on it.

Concerning nvmax, one of the most popular tweaking programs for nvidia
chips, I can't seem to find an LOD setting for OpenGL.

I am aware that there are issues with nvidia drivers and lod bias and
opengl. It used to be that you couldn't force any changes at all, it wasn't
supported.  Unlike in the 3dfx drivers, where you could change it easily.

Maybe things have changed with the detonator drivers, maybe they haven't.
Let me do  a quick research...checking...checking...no luck, I can't find
any obiovus hack or tweak to OpenGL and LOD for nvidia chips. Maybe someone
else has a lead?


> Hi Squirrel,

> regarding the LOD bias, is there an adjustment under OpenGL that has a
> similar effect?

> Thanks in advance

> Achim



> [snip]
> ...Adjust LOD bias to -.05 with no FSAA, I guarantee that you will
perceive
> a better image, without the significant loss of FPS that FSAA entails.


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.