AA/AF Performance Hit Results

This content was originally featured on Amdmb.com and has been converted to PC Perspective’s website. Some color changes and flaws may appear.

Anti-Aliasing Performance Hit Results
I’ve done something I haven’t seen done on too many review sites before, and I hope you all find it useful, I’ve normalized the 3DMark2001 scores for no AA, 2xAA, and 4xAA, to give you a good indication of how much of a performance hit each card takes when you fire up anti-aliasing.

I’ve run 3DMark2001 SE Build 330 at No AA, 2xAA, and 4xAA, at 1024x768x32.

ATI Radeon 9000 Pro Review - Graphics Cards 15

This benchmark surprised me– seems that the much-older GeForce3 is actually doing better with anti-aliasing.

Anisotropic Filtering Performance Hit Results
Just as was done before, except for AF, I’ve normalized the 3DMark2001 scores for no AF, 4xAF, 8xAF, and 16xAF, to give you a good indication of how much of a performance hit each card takes when you fire up anisotropy.

I’ve run 3DMark2001 SE Build 330 at No AF, 4xAF, 8xAF, and 16xAF, at 1024x768x32.

ATI Radeon 9000 Pro Review - Graphics Cards 16

The Radeon 9000 pulls ahead here– it’s safe to say that you can leave 16x Anisotropy running all the time, as the performance hit is a minimal one. The GeForce3 Ti200 would not run 16x AF, and the MX440 was only able to run 2xAF according to Riva Tuner, and when I manually set it to 8x in NVMax it returned identical scores to no AA at all.

« PreviousNext »