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 ResultsI’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.
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.
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.
