"We've been experimenting with making it higher and lower. One of the big tricks is how much ESRAM we're going to use, so we're thinking of not using hardware MSAA and instead using FXAA to make it so we don't have to have this larger render target," Baker told us.

"We're going to experiment. The target is either 1080p non-anti-aliased or 900p with FXAA. We're trying to optimise... we don't want to give up anything for higher res. So far we're not 100 per cent happy with any of the options, we're still working on it. For day one it's not going to change. We're still looking at it for post-day one. We're likely to increase resolution after we ship."

"A lot of the performance is on the GPU side. There's still room for optimisation and we're still working on it," Baker commented. "Ideally it would have been a rock-solid 60 all the time when we shipped but obviously when there's big fights going on, lots of particle effects, lots of physics objects... we're still working to condense the systems, make them more parallel so we can hit 60 all the time, ideally."

"There was an issue with decals taking a lot more time than they should which we fixed for launch," he said. "The worst-case scenarios are better, I think. The average is probably about the same as the beta."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-ships-at-792p

They fixed somethings but what you saw in Beta is what you will play in final version... yeap the framerate drops inside Titans is yet a issue like in Beta... they will fix these things (and try to up the resolution) after release.

rolltide101x said:

Ewwww FXAA!!!! It makes things look to milky, I think for the most part games look better with no AA than with FXAA. I typically play 1080p with 2x MSAA on most current PC games

1080p with no AA > 900p with FXAA.

You play with monitor? 1080p without AA on a 51" HDTV looks really bad (or I'm too sensible to jaggies).

PS. I like 1080p with 2xMSAA... it is a balanced choice of AA for 1080p.