Eh, I would have to say that 4x at 1280x1024 is noticeably better than 2x. It depends on how picky you are, but anything over 4x is insane.
Eh, I would have to say that 4x at 1280x1024 is noticeably better than 2x. It depends on how picky you are, but anything over 4x is insane.
I wouldn't notice since i'm running 1680x1050 :P
More to the point though, you're probably right, but it is a small difference and it'd be better to have a smooth frame rate than a little better image quality.
The only things worth sacrificing frames for are, imo, the first 2x of aa, the first 4x of af and hdr (though i don't run bloom in m2tw as i dont' notice the difference)
From wise men, O Lord, protect us -anon
The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of millions, a statistic -Stalin
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area -UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer
1680x1050! Now that's got to be nice. I only have 1440x900. At your rez I would say 2x is good. I also run 4x AF but no hdr (6800). I did try bloom and no bloom. I couldn't really tell the difference either. Bloom is kind of like a fake hdr anyway. Don't quote me on that though. I haven't read too much on bloom vs hdr.
Yeh, you're right about bloom - there was a massive discussion/debate/arguement/flame war about it on the official oblivion forums shortly after release :P
And yeh, running at this res is nice, except in newer games like oblivion where i have to turn my settings down just to run smoothly (7800gt)
From wise men, O Lord, protect us -anon
The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of millions, a statistic -Stalin
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area -UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer
Bookmarks