Anti-Aliasing 1920x1080+

[mtempty]

Do gamer's use AA on resolutions higher than 1920x1080, if so, is the performance lost in fps recognisable in game with smoother edges? I read somewhere that once you go pass a certain res, it only becomes slight adjustments visually, but major loss in performance overall.

Yes, someone will say it's worth it to have AA on 16x and all that jazz, but I want to know is the visual performance gained worth the fps lost for the general gamer?

I personally don't use AA on my 1920 x 1080 setup at 60hz. Although as soon as I use AA 2x my frames drop considerably and I always turn it back off.

Thoughts?

[Helltech]

I always have it maxed out if my card can chug it out.

[Baxterz]

My AA is always on at least 4x if my card can actually run it which is usually can as I have a 7970.

[mtempty]

So if you can, you will. Sort of expected.

I own a GTX660ti, so I can play the majority of games with 2x/4x, I should have been more clear, I was specifically referring to Far Cry 3 where I select 2x AA and frames begin to fluctuate depending on gameplay instead of my usual 60fps constant. And to be fair, with or with out 2x AA, I can't visually see a difference worth mentioning. Maybe a compatibility issue with Nvidia? Going on a whim...

[Horrerblade]

If you get a 2560*1440 on a 27 inch display then you can turn off the AA because the pixels are so fine that you wont even notice the jagged edges that AA fixes plus when you turn off aa you gain a performance boost but you lose that when you up the resolution so you basically stay at the same performance.

[SammichThyme]

I play at 2560x1440 and I can't tell the difference. I can tell when it's at 1080p or lower, but it makes a bigger difference the lower you go.

[RuecanOnRails]

If you're having FPS issues when enabling AA, I'd suggest trying SweetFX. It is fully customizable and while it doesn't have the same effect as full scale AA settings in game or driver settings you can do a lot of polish work with it. It's also lot lighter with very small fps drops.

http://www.guru3d.com/files_details/sweetfx_shader_suite_download.html

For some pre made profiles

http://sfx.thelazy.net/games/

As for your question of "is the visual performance gained worth the fps lost for the general gamer?" That is really depended on you, you will need to do a lot of trial and error to find a suitable balance between what your gpu can do in terms of visual vs fps. If your monitor is only 60Hz try to aim for 60fps using Vsync to prevent any tearing. of course you may find 30 fps more than acceptable in some games and in those games you will want to crank up the settings. Most games play different and require different amount of fps to be played smoothly, twitch first person shooter games benefit more from a higher FPS then a top down strategy game.

[Nee]

Even at 1920x1200 I still have to use AA because I can tell quite a big difference between on/off and even WHICH type of AA is currently being used. In my case, the only game I currently play which I can't fully max is my heavily modded Skyrim. The hit is quite big depending on the type of AA, as well. I used to be able to max it out at 8x regular AA (before all of my current mods) but after discovering that I could use Super-Sampling AA with my 6970, I tested it out and the difference was quite big.

Even Super-Sampling AA at 2x looks better than 8x AA in my opinion and the performance hit is a lot less as well. 4x Super-Sampling AA is still less of a hit than 8x AA and would be where I usually play if my GPU could handle it all the time.

Like Ruecan said, though, it comes down to personal preference whether or not the performance hit is worth it to you.