Anisotropic filtering a waste of GPU cycles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wblane
  • Start date Start date
Actually it is noticable... even in 1280x1024 - sure, it blows 640x480
away, but using AA helps. I dont use FA as it can degrade image
quality or a little more performance hit.
 
Of course, I still think the best FSAA was with the V5-5500 :-)

True enough. It was the first, and still is best in AA.. I read a test
between Kyro2, Gf3, Radeon8500 and V5500 in AA quality. They tested them on
Nolf, MaxPayne etc. The best AA image quality was with Voodoo, then Kyro
(altough dog-slow) while gf3 and r8500 were long behind.
But that was like 2-3 years ago.
 
Fortunately my Sony E400 was replaced by the G400 when I had problems with
it, so I am now able to do 85Hz at that res. 80Hz is the minimum for me,
otherwise I can see the flicker.
Click to expand...

For me it's not about seeing the flicker. If it's lower than 85Hz it
causes eye strain.
 
Marko said:
For me it's not about seeing the flicker. If it's lower than 85Hz it
causes eye strain.
Click to expand...

I've never been able to see any difference in the various refresh rates
in any monitor I've had.
 
Mart said:
I've never been able to see any difference in the various refresh rates
in any monitor I've had.
Click to expand...


Look just over the top of your monitor, at the wall behind it, or preferably
a little further away and you will likely see the flicker below 75Hz.

Regardless of whether you can consciously see the flicker or not, less than
about 75Hz causes eye strain.

Ben
 
Then you must be lucky. Flicker is often caused in 60Hz refresh, and NOT ON
LCD's!
Click to expand...

Higher res demands higher refresh rates... 60hz is even fine in
800x600 - and in some conditions, its required due to lighting.

But 1600x1200 and up - ya need more..

LCDs don't apply...
 
Higher res demands higher refresh rates... 60hz is even fine in
800x600 - and in some conditions, its required due to lighting.

But 1600x1200 and up - ya need more..
Click to expand...

I don't understand the logic in that. 60Hz looks just as bad to me at
640x480 as it does at 1600x1200.
 
Flicker is more visible in bright areas, and static pics. While dark
background tends to flicker less..
question.
 
Darthy said:
Higher res demands higher refresh rates...
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I have to disagree.

Lighting and contrast will likely affect the threshold at which you cannot
see flicker, not resolution.

Of course, higher resolutions require higher scanning frequencies (the
horizontal scanning frequency) to maintain a given refresh rate... but
that's a slightly different story.

Ben
 
Danny said:
light bulbs are blinking at the same speed in the US!
Click to expand...


I presume you mean the same as 60Hz?

It's different though, 'cos an incandescent bulb will remain "excited" for
longer than the phosphors of your monitor. Besides, it's 60Hz full cycle,
with a positive and negative voltage in each cycle, both of which will cause
heating of the element, so it's 120Hz flicker.

Ben
 
Ben said:
I presume you mean the same as 60Hz?

It's different though, 'cos an incandescent bulb will remain "excited" for
longer than the phosphors of your monitor. Besides, it's 60Hz full cycle,
with a positive and negative voltage in each cycle, both of which will cause
heating of the element, so it's 120Hz flicker.

Ben
--
Click to expand...


Woops, I stand corrected. :))

Dan
--
 
Fluorescent lighting... various factors could make problems for
higher than 60hz refresh rates.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but what has that to do with your statement about needing
higher refresh rates for higher resolutions?
 
Agreed, but what has that to do with your statement about needing
higher refresh rates for higher resolutions?
Click to expand...

Not always the case, but it seems to me (personally) that a refresh
rate in the 75~85+ range is more important on a CRT especially if
you're using super high res.

Like some monitors will *DO* 1600x1200 - but at 60hz, its useless in
my book. My Samsung has a MAX of 2048x1536x32bit (I just jumped into
this mode) and the 60hz max my monitor can do is not hight enough -
the screen shimmers slightly. BTW, the tube is sharp enough that I am
able to read this fine.

I can get 75hz on 1856x1392 which is a slight bit too small... I use
it for a while every now and then... makes 1600x1200 look kinda big...

I cant stand anything below 1280x1024.
 
That's an impressive monitor you got. However about that "can't stand
anything below 1280x1024". Just remember back in days when 512x384 was SO
crisp and shiny. All voodoo users were bragging about playing in 640x480.
Heck even win95 worked just fine in 640*480. Now win2k and up won't work
anything below 800x600. Many "OK, CANCEL" buttons are out of screen on lower
res..
 
That's an impressive monitor you got. However about that "can't stand
anything below 1280x1024". Just remember back in days when 512x384 was SO
crisp and shiny. All voodoo users were bragging about playing in 640x480.
Heck even win95 worked just fine in 640*480. Now win2k and up won't work
anything below 800x600. Many "OK, CANCEL" buttons are out of screen on lower
res..
Click to expand...

1 - I grew up on an Vic20 / Commodore 128 and then Amiga...

Where I had 22colum by 20 character text... the C128 has a max of
640x200!! My Amiga 640x400 (which I forced to go highter)

2 - Thanks... a free upgrade from Samsung when they messed up on my
warranted monitor... ; ) Great service! I'd give them a 10! Sony
= 0. I'm currently in 1792 by 1344 for normal use.

3 - in the OLD DOOM 1 days, we played that game in 320x200... getting
quake in 640x400 (still fake 3D graphics) was like WOW.

WindowsXP will do 640x400

I've had Windows98 crash down to 160x100 - yeah, that SUCKED!!
Reboot wouldnt fix it... had to use the keyboard to tell Windows to go
higher.

Do you KNOW how crappy 160x100 looks on a 19" monitor?!
 
Danny said:
Woops, I stand corrected. :))
Click to expand...

Further, with incandescents there is no blinking--a slight variation in
brightness maybe but the thermal mass of the filament is such that any such
variation would be very small.

Flourescents on the other hand, do blink.
 
Back
Top