Lower res with high settings or higher res with low settings?

[DCEite]

Nice information!

@DCEite: Well I've always observed that the higher you increase the resolution, the less you need to use anti-aliasing (I can't same the same for filtering though). So, basically, I'd much rather prefer 1024x768 with no AA to 800x600 with AA. That's because the jagged edges get smaller as you increase the resolution. Keeping the monitor size constant i.e.

Slightly Off topic:

When i play NFS Carbon in 1024x768, even with lowest settings, the frame rate is unplayable. Surprisingly, every other game i have tried, (Far cry, Flatout2, Quake4) the game runs at playable frame rates in 1024x768 even with AA turned on.
Didnt know that NFSC was such a graphic intensive game :huh:

 

[FaH33m]

yeah...in my opinion NFS carbon really has some serious problems..regarding fps and gfx settings..it really takes up lots of resources..and with all settings as medium expect for the reflections set to low\off. and filtering set to anistropic
2X AA,resolution 1024 X 768 the world details high i get around 20-25 fps .whereas for the same settings i got 35 + fps in NFS MW ..

 

[DCEite]

yeah...in my opinion NFS carbon really has some serious problems..regarding fps and gfx settings..it really takes up lots of resources..and with all settings as medium expect for the reflections set to low\off. and filtering set to anistropic

2X AA,resolution 1024 X 768 the world details high i get around 20-25 fps .whereas for the same settings i got 35 + fps in NFS MW ..

Out of curiosity, which GFX card are you using.. is it stock or oced

 

[saumilsingh]

At low resolutions, due to the large pixel size, the precision is lost and adding pixels will not improve the image and may in-fact worsen the effect. You can see the same with Anti-aliased text with different pixel sizes.

Don't you mean less number of polygons? Because afaik (and correct me if I am wrong), a polygon is just 1 Unit, it has no size or measure equivalent based in actuality.
The text effect you mention is understandable since it's 2D and suspect to the inherent scaling problems.

@DCEite: Well I've always observed that the higher you increase the resolution, the less you need to use anti-aliasing (I can't same the same for filtering though). So, basically, I'd much rather prefer 1024x768 with no AA to 800x600 with AA. That's because the jagged edges get smaller as you increase the resolution. Keeping the monitor size constant i.e.

That's only true for the really low resolutions (1024x768 and below) where you are still struggling to define any sort of respectable detail with only a handful of polygons to work with, and adding AA to the equation only mashes things up worse.

Imho, an image only starts getting anywhere close to well-defined at 1152x864 and above.
And in those resolution ranges, a lower resolution with AA definitely looks better than the next higher resolution but without AA.

1152x864, 2xAA > 1280x960, 0xAA

Even 1280x960, 4xAA > 1600x1200, 0xAA as a monitor big enough to support that resolution will magnify the jaggies as well.

 

[FaH33m]

Out of curiosity, which GFX card are you using.. is it stock or oced

its a gainward 6600gt AGP golden sample edition .oc'ed to 540-core and 975 -memory. on stock cooling..

the stock settings are 500\900