Why you should use anisotropic filtering.

[Yuriman]

A picture is worth a thousand words.
http://home.earthlink.net/~eckyx3/Forums%20related/compare.JPG
Left is with 16x, right w/o. Click on it for a full size view.

Ill keep this short and sweet like most of my posts.

I hear a lot of people not using Anisotropic filtering, and I figured I would finaly post about it, to clear some things up. It does not take a large hit on ati cards 8500+ and 6800's. I dont know about the FX's though. It only takes my 3dmark03 score down by 200 points, which is realy not noticable to the eye. Plus, just look at the visual difference! Is that not worth 2fps?

[Sentential]

Oh wow. I knew it made a difference.....but DAMN :drool: Reminds me to max that out

[Quailane]

I didn't know that AF reduced bluriness in far objects. Ok, I am sold.

[Gautam]

Meh, I need all the FPS I can get. It's gonna take more than that to take away my 2 fps. :)

But I seriously can notice an FPS difference between having AF on and having it off, and I don't like it. Somehow I don't pay much attention to the IQ, but that's just me, and I'm pretty strange I guess.

[Yuriman]

Well, you might as well run lowest texture details then. For those of us that run highest however, it helps a lot.

[PLOBBY]

wow that really is a huge difference

[hkh]

Cool I never new what AF did but now that I no I think I am going to bump it up a bit thanks for the pic.

[I.M.O.G.]

I learned this back in some old discussions with OC550... You could see when there was AF and when there wasn't by seeing the ground go blurry about 6 feet in front of the gun.

[Chowdy]

Very striking difference. I have it on for most games :D

[Yuriman]

Even on my ole' pc with a radeon 9100, I keep AF at 16x. Either it runs a game well with it or the game doesnt run at all either way.

[Quailane]

I haven't noticed any slowdown whatsoever on my dad's 9800xt with af at 16. Framerates stay exactly the same.

[itizme]

I give that 2000 words right now as I sign out of here to verify some video settings!!

[stryder2720]

Yea in Halo it makes a huge difference but in UT2K4 its not that big of a diff.
URT:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/stryder2720/UT20042004-09-2102-17-05-29.bmp
Halo:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/stryder2720/halo2004-09-2102-40-55-00.bmp

:edit: GAH photobucket made them too small :temper:

[micamica1217]

I learned this back in some old discussions with OC550... You could see when there was AF and when there wasn't by seeing the ground go blurry about 6 feet in front of the gun.

boy, I was thinking the same thing.

it's like a flashback to all the AF discussions with OC550.
nice work Yuriman.

btw, AF looks alot better in UT2k4 for me...as well as many other games.
but then, it's just me who likes the eye candy.

mica

[Grov]

Yeah i have it at 8x in control panel and 4x aa.

I play at 1600x1200, might just stick af on 16, and aa 2x.

[ninthebin]

I play all my games with 8x, havent really seen that much of a difference between 16x and 8x - but then havent really looked that hard.

I would say in older games it could have equally as negative effect as not using it, as they generally use very bad very small textures (anything around the HL engine say) and seeing the same bad texture replicated over and over sort of looks more strange than it bluring out.

[bboynitrous]

I love AF, I like it way more than AA, and it takes less of a performance hit. I noticed it immediatly the first time I used it. THen again it was on Half life and without it there, the game really looks like hell (well, once you first see it, you never go back haha). I never really turn it off especially since the x800. It's like free af. No performance hit. Well hardly any. Nice pics.