By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
rolltide101x on 10 March 2014
Edit Thread
ethomaz said:

rolltide101x said:

As far as looks 1080p with no AA will look better than the other 2 options overall. Resolution is pretty much the "end all" when it comes to looks. But if it injured the frame rate I would go with the 792p with 2x MSAA.

But seriously 792p with 2x MSAA? My laptop could run it at 792p with atleast 4x MSAA.

From what I understand the MSAA is processed in the render time when you created the framebutter... so they need to do that in the eSRAM that is small... so the MSAA uses a lot of space in the eSRAM...

FXAA is a post-processing AA that uses little space in eSRAM... so using it they free up the eSRAM space to up the resolution to 900p.

Without AA they can go up to 1080p.

From what he said you can fill the 32MB eSRAM with: 1080p noAA or 900p FXAA or 792p 2xMSAA.

That's what they archived in tests... of course they can try to optimize the use of eSRAM to reach something like 1080p FXAA or 900p MSAA... I don't know it is possible but I think they will try.

FXAA uses very few resources, they must be really stretching it with the 1080p with no AA. If you were running a game at 1080p with no FXAA at 45 FPS you would run it with FXAA at 42-43 FPS. But that is GPU rendering not memory rendering so I guess it is different. I have 2 GBs of GDDR5 ram in my GPU so I never have to worry about that.

 

Does anyone know how much memory AA actually uses? I have never looked into it