Turning on Antialiasing

Quite possibly the biggest difference between Half Life 2 and Doom 3 (other than the fact that Half Life 2 is infinitely brighter) is that aliasing is far more pronounced in Half Life 2 than in Doom 3.  The aliasing isn’t overwhelming and at resolutions of 1280 x 1024 and above it is minimized relatively well, but it’s still something we’d like to get rid of.

Enabling 2X AA proved to help somewhat but not as much as we would have liked, thus we turned our attention to enabling 4X AA on the cards compared here today. We haven't included any screenshots in line because they would have to be scaled down to fit on this page, so we are offering a zip file of all of the screenshots we are talking about here.

Our first test was 1024 x 768 with 4X AA enabled - we found that while 1024 x 768 with 4X AA enabled gave us some very solid image quality, we preferred playing at 1280 x 1024 without AA.  Most cards offered slightly reduced performance playing at 1280 x 1024 vs. 1024 x 768 with 4X AA.

Next we looked at 1280 x 1024 with 4X AA enabled - here we found that 1280 x 1024 with 4X AA enabled was a good alternative to 1600 x 1200, however with most cards 1600 x 1200 ran faster than 1280 x 1024 with 4X AA enabled.  In the end the choice here comes down to whether your monitor supports 1600 x 1200 or not; if it does, then by all means, 1600 x 1200 is the resolution to run at, otherwise 1280 x 1024 with 4X AA is a good alternative. 

Finally we have 1600 x 1200 with 4X AA enabled - this is truly a beautiful setup and while you can definitely play it on even a GeForce 6800, it is best paired with a GeForce 6800 Ultra or Radeon X800 XT or better yet, two GeForce 6800 Ultras.  You don’t get a much better looking game than Half Life 2 at 1600 x 1200 with 4X AA enabled. 

So interestingly enough, although Half Life 2 definitely appreciates antialiasing being enabled, in reality the performance hit is just not worth the resulting gains in image quality – especially when compared to just cranking up the resolution and leaving AA disabled.  For those of you that are interested in enabling AA anyway, we have provided some AA benchmarks on the next pages. But before we get to the benchmarks let's have a look at AA image quality.

First let's look at both ATI and NVIDIA with everything disabled:


Antialiasing Disabled on ATI


Antialiasing Disabled on NVIDIA

So far so good, both ATI and NVIDIA look identical (except for the birds flying around in the background, but regardless of how many breadcrumbs we left out they would not stay still).

Now let's turn on 4X AA:


4X AA Enabled on ATI


4X AA Enabled on NVIDIA

You can immediately see the benefit of having AA turned on in Half Life 2 (these screenshots were taken at 1024 x 768), but let's zoom in for a closer look to see if either card is doing a better job:

ATI (4X AA - 200% Zoom)
NVIDIA (4X AA - 200% Zoom)

From the screenshots above it is tough to tell the difference between the two competitors. It looks like NVIDIA may have a slightly more blurry AA implementation than ATI, but it is really tough to tell the two apart.

The Slowest Level in the Game Turning on Anisotropic Filtering
Comments Locked

79 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kovie - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link

    Mis-type, meant to say 6600GT being gouged.
  • Kovie - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link

    "Recently a number of users have asked that we compare the $300 GeForce 6800 to the $200 GeForce 6600GT to see if the added cost is truly worth it."

    Actually we asked to compare the currently $245 6600GT (newegg) against the currently $250 6800 (outpost). Once the 6800GT stops being gouged and goes down to its supposed price then it will be a better buy. Right now the $5 difference between them and the ability to potentially unlock the extra pipes on the 6800 make it a better buy.
  • Le Québécois - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link

    For my part I'm more curious about Slower CPU, to see how much it affect the FPS.
  • mikecel79 - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link

    Where's the ATI 9600 and 9500 series cards in this? The are DX9 cards also.
  • LocutusX - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link

    So... I wonder how all the poor souls who went with GF59xx's are feeling now... ;)


    But yes, both manufacturers' "current-gen" parts are doing very well.
  • ciwell - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link

    I find the 6800 vs the 6600GT results to be intriguing as the 6600GT stacks up very nicely. I wonder how the comparison is in other games though.
  • Akira1224 - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link

    I know the flames are going to start soon. I would like to say great job to both Nvidia and ATI. Both cards are spectacular this round and we should all be impressed with the tech being shown in this roundup. To anyone who is gonna start with the ATI RULZ NVIDIA SUXORZ or vice versa lets all just save it. The performance is so close either way you can't lose. For the record I have a 6800GT.
  • Jalf - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link

    Well, I can give you the results with my hardware. :)

    I'm running an ancient Geforce 2 GTS (32mb) and Athlon TBird 1400 MHz.

    I haven't noted down actual FPS values, but in 800x600, with medium-ish settings, it runs perfectly smoothly. That's impressive, if you ask me. :P

    So I doubt you'll have a problem. :)
  • ksherman - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link

    i wonder how old, old hardware will be... mabye theyll go as far back as the 8500 and Ti400's.... (cuz thats what i have ;)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now