FXAA has been hugely popular in the few titles it is being used in like FEAR 3. I believe it is only on PC, I think console uses MLAA. But NVIDIA invented a new way of accomplishing AA with way less performance cost. Giving a good picture and FPS combo; I have played FEAR 3 on both and I would go with FXAA (even though I have a GTX 480) over the 2x or 4xAA. It is actually superior in image quality on certain things. The best part is it works on NVIDIA and AMD cards, even though NVIDIA invented it. You can read in depth here, I'm not sure how much it works on older cards like the 9800GTX or GTX 260.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/07/18/nvidias_new_fxaa_antialiasing_technology/1[/link]



















FXAA will be the future way AA is applied and hopefully NVIDIA puts it in their drivers, since they own the rights soley. NVIDIA knew it was too big not to share with AMD and this is going to change the way AA is applied. This may just work, unlike PhysX it shows gains on both cards makers.




[Edited on July 19, 2011 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

7/19/2011 11:21:11 AM

i don't see it...

7/19/2011 11:48:57 AM

I'm 100% in favor of freeing up cycles for more PhysX processing. The pool of guts that rain out of enemies on Alice is 10/10.

7/19/2011 11:50:21 AM

haha I just got F3AR and I can tell you FXAA is impressive and it's really nice to see NVIDIA include all cards unlike ATI's MLAA (which is worse anyway so who cares)

oh and that picture is really hard to see, focus on the metal clips.

It makes a huge difference in some instances like running across flat roofs.






[Edited on July 19, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Reason : _]

7/19/2011 12:32:47 PM

I see no difference in those non-zoom FXAA screens above


Just make the story and gameplay better

7/19/2011 11:30:15 PM

Oh look, another BlackDog thread.

7/20/2011 12:47:13 AM

^^^Uh... in that comparison, it looks like 4X AA isn't AA'ed at all. I call BS.

It's actually a lot easier to see the value in this demo video: http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/fxaa-technology-demo

Why anyone would care about a particular implementation of such a minute detail, I have no idea.

7/20/2011 6:51:19 AM

because it has barely any performance hit....even though it looks better than traditional 4xAA in some scenes, worse in others. Did you read the article?

Quote :

"FXAA Performance FXAA is clearly fast. On every video card we tested, FXAA 1 was faster in F.3.A.R. than traditional 2X MSAA, and 4X MSAA. With the GeForce GTX 580 at 2560x1600, FXAA was 13.3% faster than 2X AA and 52.8% faster than 4X AA. At 1920x1200, the GTX 570 was 24.8% faster with FXAA than 2X AA, and 51.6% faster with FXAA than 4X AA. With the GTX 560 Ti running F.3.A.R. at 1680x1050, FXAA was 23% faster than 2X AA and 50% faster than 4X AA. The Radeon HD 6970 was 14.7% faster using FXAA at 2560x1600 than 2X AA, and 50.9% faster than 4X AA. At 1920x1200, FXAA performed about 16.1% faster than 2X AA with the HD 6950, and about 42% faster than 4X AA. Finally, the AMD Radeon HD 6870 gave us framerates that were on average approximately 15.8% faster with FXAA than with 2X AA, and 37.8% faster with FXAA than with 4X AA. FXAA Image Quality Compared to 2X AA, FXAA is uniformly superior. Compared to 4X AA, there are some I Q trade-offs, but the performance advantage that FXAA offers gives FXAA the advantage. In some areas, 4X AA offered slightly superior image quality, and in other areas FXAA is better. Even though 4X AA offers slightly better hard edge aliasing reduction than FXAA, we still think FXAA is a better option in most circumstances. For starters, shader aliasing is reduced by FXAA but not MSAA. Alpha texture aliasing is reduced by FSAA, but not MSAA. Single-pixel aliasing is also reduced, as is sub-pixel aliasing. The flickering of very small objects or surfaces can be a big problem, and FXAA deals with it admirably while MSAA does not handle it at all. FXAA vs. MLAA FXAA is NVIDIA's response to MLAA, and we have seen it to be very similar in terms of image quality, but much faster. MLAA was an average of 37.1% slower than FXAA without offering any improvement in image quality. In fact, when processing transparent foliage textures, FXAA produced a smoother image than MLAA. Aside from performance, there are pros and cons to each solution. A brief list, according to what we've witnessed in F.3.A.R., follows: NVIDIA FXAA: Pros: - Compatible with AMD and NVIDIA GPUs - Small performance hit (compared to MSAA and MLAA). - Image quality comparable to 4X MSAA and MLAA. - Highly customizable for balancing performance and image quality. - Can reduce aliasing on edges, textures, and shaders. Cons: - Requires game developer implementation AMD MLAA: Pros: - Does not require game developer implementation, implemented in driver in any game. - Compatible with every game and game engine, regardless of API (D3D or OpenGL). - Can reduce aliasing on edges, textures, and shaders. Cons: - Only compatible with AMD GPUs. - Large performance hit. - Not as effective with single-pixel objects. Given our way, we would like to see FXAA implemented as an NVIDIA Control Panel option so that games without in-built FXAA support can benefit from this technology. The nature of the way FXAA was conceived may prevent that from being possible, though. It would also be grand if game developers implementing this feature gave us gamers some degree of control over the parameters of whatever version of FXAA is utilized. "

Quote :

"The Bottom Line In F.3.A.R., FXAA performs extremely well and reduces aliasing as well as or better than 4X AA in most cases. It's not perfect, but it is effective and inexpensive in terms of GPU time. In this particular title, we are grateful for the enhanced image quality and outstanding performance that FXAA offered us on all levels of video cards that we tested. We are extremely happy to see FXAA working on AMD and NVIDIA GPUs. We hope that NVIDIA can spread FXAA to more game developers and that those developers will make use of FXAA's more advances sub-pixel contrast reduction features. This is a feature that has mostly flown in under the radar, and we think NVIDIA should have been more vocal about it. It is a great step forward for anti-aliasing technology, which has remained largely stagnant on the NVIDIA side of the pond since the introduction of CSAA with the GeForce 8800 series in late 2006. FXAA is a fast and effective tool, and we are excited to see how much better NVIDIA can make it going forward. Big kudos to NVIDIA, for making Anti-Aliasing interesting again."

It is pretty funny you call BS on a patented NVIDIA AA technology because a screen shot might not have actually had 4xAA applied in one picture out of 4...





[Edited on July 20, 2011 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2011 4:32:23 PM

Quote :

"Why anyone would care about a particular implementation of such a minute detail, I have no idea."

Quote :

"Big kudos to NVIDIA, for making Anti-Aliasing interesting again.""

Here is a picture of mine with FXAA in action in F3AR at 1920x1200 all Ultra




Sorry about the DP, I meant to edit again




[Edited on July 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ,]

7/20/2011 4:39:53 PM

Fear only has the first edition of FXAA implemented according to the dev blog. I wonder how version II would matter.

After checking the BF3 images it's looking to me that FXAA goes buck wild on round objects. Some of the screenshots have round objects losing what looks like about 30% of it's area. Which would mean those little jumpy things in halo would be near impossible to hit

7/20/2011 5:22:02 PM

Yea I'm sure NVIDIA is already working on FXAA2 or whatever they will call it. Supposedly FXAA has been sitting around a little while, but never got looked at too much because it was below modern AA in certain areas (even though better in others) and a huge time hit went visuals mean everything. I mean why do you think everyone is buying Rage, BF3 and COD5 and eventually GTA V. Also why do you think a CPU as old as the Q9550 is still $300 when the brand new CPUs are worth half of that on sale. The GPU is everything and right now Fermi is king how CF is the better multi GPU solution lately, which is sort of surprising considering the age vs SLI.

7/20/2011 5:39:18 PM

I also would not be surprised if the next version of FXAA only works on NVIDIA cards. NVIDIA gave out their free version and now they are going to optimize it for Fermi/GT200/G80 based cards who work totally different from AMD cards. I expect mainly Fermi support to push people to upgrade and Fermi is a GPGPU instead of just a GPU. Of course forced driver support




[Edited on July 20, 2011 at 6:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2011 6:53:29 PM

Quote :

"It is pretty funny you call BS on a patented NVIDIA AA technology because a screen shot might not have actually had 4xAA applied in one picture out of 4..."

I didn't call BS on the technology. I just said the screenshot looked like BS. And if you're using a straw man of your competition to make your own product look better, that seems like false advertising to me, honest mistake or not.

7/20/2011 7:09:48 PM

all it is, is an open AA technology for everyone. No one can find fault in it but ATI/AMD fan boys.

7/20/2011 7:33:15 PM

Even the 2XAA looks a shit ton better than FXAA. Are you blind?

7/20/2011 10:44:41 PM

No one said the FXAA is always the best looking, I said at times it beats the normal AA and the FPS hit is 50% less. That is a hell of an accomplishment when MLAA loses to it with less IQ and in FPS.

If it was such a stupid idea why do you think brand new games are using it? It allows you to play at your native res at high settings with a small loss in FPS vs a 50% loss (in FEAR 3)

7/20/2011 11:31:11 PM