You have to find something equilibrate: you may have 50FPS, but the IQ is crap. Jaggies everywhere is sometimes worse than low FPS.
Printable View
I'm pretty sure people can make their own determination as to what they like.
What is MSRP? :S
Its subjective really, choppiness makes games less enjoyable to me than some jaggies.
But if the game is already running significantly over 60fps and sustaining it for the most part, i'll take 2x AA on a 21.6 Screen @ 1680x1050 instead of none.
I barely see a difference going to 4x AA and wouldn't take the hit from going higher.
For me its a function of pixel density, for 20" (1680x1050) screens 2xAA is plenty, 22" (1680x1050) screen 2-4x AA is good enough, 24" (1920x1200) screens and their pixel density makes 2x about all i want and finally 30" screens more or less don't need any (I haven't used a 30" screen but its sharper per square inch so ...).
levish i dont understand, you go larger in screen with the same pixel quantity, so the pixels are larger and more obvious, unless you move the screen farther away and its all the same
i have a 26" at 1920x1200 and a classic 2900xt and only play at max res. i generally get 40-60 (vsync enabled) and for most games dont feel the need for any AA. if for some reason i cant quite handle that res, its probably my cpu that limits me so i reduce a few things that arnt that important to me, like shadows, until it is playable. i was able to play crysis at med/high at 1920x1200 and get about 15-40fps
Is there any detailed review out there comparing GTX 280 in SLI and HD 4870 in CF? The review made my TweakTownhad no details at all, no AA/AF comparison and while the GTXs were overclocked the Radeons were at stock.
Your bullets and weapons hit just as hard, regardless of IQ :up: Its all subjective.
On the topic of 4870CF scores, seeing only E5800 gives me high hopes for the 4870X2. There are rumors that these cards are doing 7000 currently... and that was probably not even on a highly clocked system like the one posted above. If those numbers are true then the X2 scales extremely well, at least in Vantage.
http://www.scan.co.uk/Index.aspx?NT=1-0-94-549-0
So far it looks like only 512MB cards are available except for the 1GB ASUS 4850.
4870 starts at £190, 4850 stars at £130.
The more 133tist stores are charging significantly more (as usual): http://www.overclockers.co.uk/produc...d=56&subid=939
We have them for £113 (4850) & £185 (4870) http://www.cyberpowersystem.co.uk/sy...crossfire_pro/ as part of a system build.
Pixmania have them in stock and cheap
HD4850 £111
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/1304...12-mb-gdd.html
HD4870 £185
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/1344...12-mo-gdd.html
So I have never bought ATI before; Who generally makes a more reliable card and stands behind their warranty?
The only real standout on either side is EVGA, due to a good warranty, and their stepup program. I wish a company on the ATI side would offer something similar.
ha;
4xAA, even at 19x12 in my opinion...and at 19x12 on 20.something" viewable crt, dot pitch is quite 'dense'.
4xAA is optimal and minimum for me.
4xAA is suitable for 1280x1024 also...(@20.something")
im very jaggie sensitive :D
8xAA doesnt seem to do anything to my eyes, not even at 1280x1024 (which should make jags more noticeable vs higher res)
and 2xAA is better than none. :)
i hate jaggies, but i suppose jaggies have rights too:p:
where's my 4870X2 ?
actually 19x12 with 2xAA is pretty good with my screen:)...and the only way to match this quality wood be with an l220x i reckon
this aussie e-tailer has a 4870 1gb listed,no price though but dated for JULY 8TH!
http://www.austin.net.au/ProductList...G/Default.aspx
2xAA minimum, 4xAA optimal (if the card can handle it and the game is not a slideshow of course :p:)
Damn what a dillema, the price of these 4870's is so good, i don't know if i get a pair of those or a GTX 280, monster performance with lots of trouble or nice performance with no troubles? that's the question.