Radeon Gallium3D MSAA Mesa 10.1 Git Benchmarks

[Adarion]

Oh wow, so many Anti Aliasing modi. Well, I am quite sure I did not try all of them, or even hear/read about them. But most AA that I used looked to me like a) perfomance decrease and b) BLUR. And I hate blur. Anisotropic filtering looks nice, makes things crispy and eye-piercing sharp. Pixels are fine as long as they are crispy. I admit that AA might make some text/fonts look much better. So maybe a few methods are good as fallback for "lazy" applications and progs (games) where things really matter will hopefully do their own AA.

[marek]

Are you sure that there are engines which cannot use SSAA in principle? I understand that those folks which strive for maximum visual quality keep requesting forced SSAA as driver function (only to be repeatedly turned down by AMD).

SSAA can be used, but the cost is even higher if deferred rendering is used. With standard (also called "forward") rendering, you typical colorbuffer has 32 bits per pixel. Deferred rendering usually needs 128 bits per pixel or more. For example, StarCraft 2 uses 192 bits and 256 bits per pixel (the latter is for the highest graphics settings I guess) + a 32-bit depth buffer. For 4x SSAA, we're talking about 1152 bits per pixel. I think most consumer cards are not fast enough to handle it, otherwise SSAA would be more popular.

[mmstick]

siavashserver is right. You are wrong. Applications are responsible for implementing other AA modes if necessary. Applications are also responsible for making use of MSAA such that it actually improves visual quality. 3D drivers cannot help there, because the drivers don't know how the rendering works and where the AA should be applied to make it work. That's why I advise everybody not to use environment variables which enforce MSAA and other AA modes, because in 50% of cases it will make no visual difference, but it will still decrease performance. Drivers can only expose AA features, but applications also have to properly integrate them to their rendering pipelines. More and more games are starting to use deferred rendering and other techniques where MSAA is completely useless and that's why MLAA other techniques have been developed - to add AA to graphics engines where MSAA or even SSAA cannot be used. However the other AA techniques are mostly blur-based anyway (like MLAA and FXAA), so they cannot be better than SSAA/MSAA in general. They are only used in apps as a last resort where no other AA is applicable.

Nonsense; install a utility on Windows named RadeonPro. RadeonPro is essentially a supercharged Catalyst Control Center which gives singnificantly finer control over the driver parameters and allows one to enable SMAA, different types of Ambient Occlusion, SweetFX, Dynamic Framerate Control, and Dynamic V-sync Control in every game; it doesn't have to know about a graphics engine. Now, if a third party tool can do this, then why can't it be implemented at the driver? Also, SMAA is very much better than MSAA and SSAA. Unlike MSAA, SMAA actually works with alpha textures and specular aliasing. FXAA and MLAA may look horrible, but SMAA is different. It's simply common knowledge in the enthusiast gaming community on Windows and there is plenty of evidence in comparison screenshots. If it wasn't better, we wouldn't be installing RadeonPro to use SMAA in the first place.

Here's an example of no AA: http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Crysis3/4_7_NoAA.png
MSAA: http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Cr..._9_MSAA_4x.png
SMAA: http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Cr..._6_SMAA_4x.png
no AA: http://www.abload.de/img/noaa9yup9.png
SMAA: http://www.abload.de/img/smaa5iu5y.png

Try it out for yourself with RadeonPro: http://www.radeonpro.info/

Also, SMAA works with deferred rendering, so your point is moot.

[liam]

Nonsense; install a utility on Windows named RadeonPro. RadeonPro is essentially a supercharged Catalyst Control Center which gives singnificantly finer control over the driver parameters and allows one to enable SMAA, different types of Ambient Occlusion, SweetFX, Dynamic Framerate Control, and Dynamic V-sync Control in every game; it doesn't have to know about a graphics engine. Now, if a third party tool can do this, then why can't it be implemented at the driver? Also, SMAA is very much better than MSAA and SSAA. Unlike MSAA, SMAA actually works with alpha textures and specular aliasing. FXAA and MLAA may look horrible, but SMAA is different. It's simply common knowledge in the enthusiast gaming community on Windows and there is plenty of evidence in comparison screenshots. If it wasn't better, we wouldn't be installing RadeonPro to use SMAA in the first place.

Here's an example of no AA: http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Crysis3/4_7_NoAA.png
MSAA: http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Cr..._9_MSAA_4x.png
SMAA: http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Cr..._6_SMAA_4x.png
no AA: http://www.abload.de/img/noaa9yup9.png
SMAA: http://www.abload.de/img/smaa5iu5y.png

Try it out for yourself with RadeonPro: http://www.radeonpro.info/

Also, SMAA works with deferred rendering, so your point is moot.

First, you are arguing with the guy who implemented this in the radeon driver, so, I think he probably knows what he's talking about in this area (specifically as to where the implementation resides, again, since he has written the damn thing). Second, I went http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/ and watched the movie. SSAA always looked better than smaa, though it does have greater overhead and I'd agree that smaa is what everyone game developer should be targeting (unless marek, rob, or some other person who I think would know tells me otherwise and gives an explanation). Lastly, just b/c people install some utility doesn't mean it is actually useful (hey, mcafee!).

[mmstick]

First, you are arguing with the guy who implemented this in the radeon driver, so, I think he probably knows what he's talking about in this area (specifically as to where the implementation resides, again, since he has written the damn thing). Second, I went http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/ and watched the movie. SSAA always looked better than smaa, though it does have greater overhead and I'd agree that smaa is what everyone game developer should be targeting (unless marek, rob, or some other person who I think would know tells me otherwise and gives an explanation). Lastly, just b/c people install some utility doesn't mean it is actually useful (hey, mcafee!).

I don't think it matters who I'm arguing with. He already demonstrates he doesn't know anything about SMAA, or even the existence of RadeonPro for that matter. You can't really argue that RadeonPro is not useful when the Dynamic V-Sync/Framerate Control reduces framerate stutter and includes the ability to improve the graphics of games through the use of SMAA, AO, and SweetFX. I've been an enthusiast PC gamer for many years now, and RadeonPro has been one of the essential tools amongst Radeon users for a while now. It's a wonder that AMD hasn't brightened up and learned a thing or two from RadeonPro.

[liam]

I don't think it matters who I'm arguing with. He already demonstrates he doesn't know anything about SMAA, or even the existence of RadeonPro for that matter. You can't really argue that RadeonPro is not useful when the Dynamic V-Sync/Framerate Control reduces framerate stutter and includes the ability to improve the graphics of games through the use of SMAA, AO, and SweetFX. I've been an enthusiast PC gamer for many years now, and RadeonPro has been one of the essential tools amongst Radeon users for a while now. It's a wonder that AMD hasn't brightened up and learned a thing or two from RadeonPro.

He hasn't said anything about smaa in particular, IIRC, just that msaa should be provided by the driver (it is a gl_arb extension while the rest aren't, AFAICT). What's more, he says that you shouldn't force aa settings at the driver level (his reasoning makes sense to me, if you can refute that I'm willing to listen).
Again, just b/c people use the tool doesn't mean it is objectively useful (aside from helping with microstuttering which it clearly helps with), or that it doesn't also have downsides (the needless overhead that marek spoke of).

[Rakot]

siavashserver is right. You are wrong. Applications are responsible for implementing other AA modes if necessary. Applications are also responsible for making use of MSAA such that it actually improves visual quality. 3D drivers cannot help there, because the drivers don't know how the rendering works and where the AA should be applied to make it work. That's why I advise everybody not to use environment variables which enforce MSAA and other AA modes, because in 50% of cases it will make no visual difference, but it will still decrease performance. Drivers can only expose AA features, but applications also have to properly integrate them to their rendering pipelines. More and more games are starting to use deferred rendering and other techniques where MSAA is completely useless and that's why MLAA other techniques have been developed - to add AA to graphics engines where MSAA or even SSAA cannot be used. However the other AA techniques are mostly blur-based anyway (like MLAA and FXAA), so they cannot be better than SSAA/MSAA in general. They are only used in apps as a last resort where no other AA is applicable.

Hello, Marek,

I have unrelated question regarding radeonsi driver. You published the series of patches "Sharing r600g glMapBuffer optimizations with radeonsi" which would increase performance for Team Fortress 2. It was reviewed by Michel D?nzer but I didn't see it pushed in mesa master. So what is the state of this patchset? Does it increase performance in other applications?

Also what are the missing parts in radeonsi driver without taking into account lag in OpenGL support? I saw hyperz patches. Is there anything else missing in the driver?

Thanks

[mmstick]

He hasn't said anything about smaa in particular, IIRC, just that msaa should be provided by the driver (it is a gl_arb extension while the rest aren't, AFAICT). What's more, he says that you shouldn't force aa settings at the driver level (his reasoning makes sense to me, if you can refute that I'm willing to listen).
Again, just b/c people use the tool doesn't mean it is objectively useful (aside from helping with microstuttering which it clearly helps with), or that it doesn't also have downsides (the needless overhead that marek spoke of).

What stops SMAA from being included as a gl_arb extension in the future? It would be silly to not implement it. AA can be forced at the driver level in Windows so it shouldn't be any different here on Linux -- I really dislike seeing jaggies. MSAA has much more overhead than SMAA so that still doesn't make sense. It's not like you couldn't disable it either since why can't we have something like RadeonPro in Linux?

Again, you have a really twisted view on 'objectively useful' because there is nothing subjective about RadeonPro that you can debate. It gives power to the users rather than taking it away. Try it out for yourself, there is nothing but a plethora of 'objectively useful' features that it provides. For example, you can modify various hidden driver parameters such as sliding the Texture LOD to a lower value which increases the quality of textures if your graphics card is powerful enough. You can modify the flip queue to reduce the pressure on the CPU to increase framerate and reduce stutter at the cost of slight input latency; or do the reverse. If an open database was created, one could even submit the best driver settings per GPU model for a game, and have it automatically select the best profile for that game. Then there's no point in waiting for drivers to improve game performance/quality.

[liam]

What stops SMAA from being included as a gl_arb extension in the future? It would be silly to not implement it. AA can be forced at the driver level in Windows so it shouldn't be any different here on Linux -- I really dislike seeing jaggies. MSAA has much more overhead than SMAA so that still doesn't make sense. It's not like you couldn't disable it either since why can't we have something like RadeonPro in Linux?

Again, you have a really twisted view on 'objectively useful' because there is nothing subjective about RadeonPro that you can debate. It gives power to the users rather than taking it away. Try it out for yourself, there is nothing but a plethora of 'objectively useful' features that it provides. For example, you can modify various hidden driver parameters such as sliding the Texture LOD to a lower value which increases the quality of textures if your graphics card is powerful enough. You can modify the flip queue to reduce the pressure on the CPU to increase framerate and reduce stutter at the cost of slight input latency; or do the reverse. If an open database was created, one could even submit the best driver settings per GPU model for a game, and have it automatically select the best profile for that game. Then there's no point in waiting for drivers to improve game performance/quality.

The only thing stopping it from being an extension in the future is for the Architectural Review Board to put it in there. The only aa method I could find in the spec is multisampling. I'd imagine they have a reason for not including other methods in there (I'd guess the reason is, as marek says, that this is something that game developers are supposed to handle). From a quick look at direct 3d it looks like it also only supports multisampling. So, I take it you complain about this to the windows devs as well?
I don't own a radeon card so trying it might be difficult. I'm not doubting that this tool can make the game look better sometimes but what marek seems to be saying is that it since you are forcing it on for the entire game you are unecessarily hurting your fps. Why unecessarily? I think it is b/c it is always trying to aa the scene even when it doesn't need it.
If you want the feature in the driver you can submit the patch.

[mmstick]

The only thing stopping it from being an extension in the future is for the Architectural Review Board to put it in there. The only aa method I could find in the spec is multisampling. I'd imagine they have a reason for not including other methods in there (I'd guess the reason is, as marek says, that this is something that game developers are supposed to handle). From a quick look at direct 3d it looks like it also only supports multisampling. So, I take it you complain about this to the windows devs as well?
I don't own a radeon card so trying it might be difficult. I'm not doubting that this tool can make the game look better sometimes but what marek seems to be saying is that it since you are forcing it on for the entire game you are unecessarily hurting your fps. Why unecessarily? I think it is b/c it is always trying to aa the scene even when it doesn't need it.
If you want the feature in the driver you can submit the patch.

Yes, the PC gaming community has complained about how NVIDIA/AMD do not implement SMAA in their drivers on Windows, but instead implement inferior solutions like MLAA and FXAA. Neither are desirable. The only way to get SMAA on Windows is either for the game developer to implement it as a graphics option, manually inject SMAA into the game's code yourself with the SMAA injector, or use RadeonPro which automatically forces it in all 3D Direct3D/OGL apps unless otherwise specified.

Rather than look better sometimes, it makes all games look/perform better all of the time. It's not hurting FPS at all -- no, in fact it improves FPS. But let's look at it from a different perspective.

You have a new shiny game with a new shiny $500 graphics cards, but you want to enable all the graphics options to Ultra and use a good amount of AA. If you use MSAA, you cut your FPS by a large margin, and it doesn't look very good, even at 8xMSAA. However, if use RadeonPro to use SMAA 4x Ultra instead, you have higher framerates, and the image looks nicer. It's a win win.

But then you still like playing some of your older games on Steam, but these games just can't make use of your GPU because the graphics are too crud to max out your hardware. For that, you can take the texturelod slider from default and lower it to -2 so that textures in your old games become more detailed, thus improving your image quality and utilizing that graphics card a bit more. Furthermore, you can also use it with modern graphics techniques like SSAO and HBAO with SMAA, and maybe even SweetFX to improve the colours, to make your games much more enjoyable. I mean really, don't you think I'd rather have better graphics than have 300FPS with only half my GPU being utilized?

In any case, it's still a win win for users. I mean honestly, high end graphics cards are sold to gamers, so why not implement features that improves games and gives gamers want they want? As an enthusiast, I've felt the industry has been holding back far too much lately on what we could do.