Just wondering what you guys thought about antialiasing and anistropic filtering, I know I mispelled that..lol
Me and my cousin have concluded neither is needed when playing at high resolution, like say 1600x1200. The pixels are already so small at that high of a resolution that when you turn them on it looks no better, it just actually slows down the FPS. It seems to me these filters were invented when most gamers were using 1024x768 or lower. At those resolutions you can see the jaggies. But it seems that at the high resolutions there is no need for it.
But why do the benchmarks continue to show the different speeds when say 4x or 8x is turned on. I have noticed in the past where nvidia and ati cards where neck and neck until it was turned on. Then a reviewer would say well "so and so" card is better because it performed better when it was set to 4x or 8x.
Who the hell is using this anyway, arent almost all of us playing at high resolutions like 1600x1200 or 1900x1200 or whatever the widescreen resolution is?
What are your thoughts on this???
Me and my cousin have concluded neither is needed when playing at high resolution, like say 1600x1200. The pixels are already so small at that high of a resolution that when you turn them on it looks no better, it just actually slows down the FPS. It seems to me these filters were invented when most gamers were using 1024x768 or lower. At those resolutions you can see the jaggies. But it seems that at the high resolutions there is no need for it.
But why do the benchmarks continue to show the different speeds when say 4x or 8x is turned on. I have noticed in the past where nvidia and ati cards where neck and neck until it was turned on. Then a reviewer would say well "so and so" card is better because it performed better when it was set to 4x or 8x.
Who the hell is using this anyway, arent almost all of us playing at high resolutions like 1600x1200 or 1900x1200 or whatever the widescreen resolution is?
What are your thoughts on this???
