Antialiasing.....
- Thread starter Knuckles
- Start date
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Take a screenshot of your game, open up the screenshot in your favorite paint program (gimp, photoshop, or paintshop to name a few examples), resize the image to twice what it was with a smothening filter (bilinear works), then resize it back to what it was with a normal pixel resize. Viola, anti-aliased image.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #3
actually, its not really what I asked..... I want to be in the game to see it.
Anyway, I decided to get a cheap GF4 MX for the moment, I know its not really good as the TIs one but, with my current budget and my current video card (riva TNT2 M64 32MB 4X) I need to get something better. Actually, what would anyone recommend me(and things on it like TV out, RAM, AA, AS, etc) ?
ASUS only please!
Anyway, I decided to get a cheap GF4 MX for the moment, I know its not really good as the TIs one but, with my current budget and my current video card (riva TNT2 M64 32MB 4X) I need to get something better. Actually, what would anyone recommend me(and things on it like TV out, RAM, AA, AS, etc) ?
ASUS only please!
mightyrocket
Banned
Well, I think that a TI 4200 is better, they haven't got problems in games.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #9
Yeah, I planned to get the ASUS SuperFast ti4200 128MB 8X ,but with the money I have right now , impossible. I think I will get the cheapest GF4 MX available....
I thinks it's a MX440SE 64MB, I'll see witch one is at the lowest price.
I thinks it's a MX440SE 64MB, I'll see witch one is at the lowest price.
Last edited:
nephalim
Psychic Vampire
For N64 emulation, good antialiasing and ansiotropic filtering make a big difference. The M9 (Radeon 9000) is breathtaking in comparison to my old M4. With ansiotropic filtering at 16x, things get a little blurry, so for some 8x might be preferable (I use 16x, though.) With that and the antialiasing, it makes the N64 look very clean and higher detailed than it is, I really like it.
As I said, i'm nearly sure the Radeon 9000 (non-pro) is cheaper than the ti 4200, and it is sufficiently fast and has all the features that the MX 4 does not, including full DX 8.1 support (which was removed from the MX 4,) with pixel shader support. It's far improved from the MX 4 and only a little more expensive (not 100% sure on the price.)
As I said, i'm nearly sure the Radeon 9000 (non-pro) is cheaper than the ti 4200, and it is sufficiently fast and has all the features that the MX 4 does not, including full DX 8.1 support (which was removed from the MX 4,) with pixel shader support. It's far improved from the MX 4 and only a little more expensive (not 100% sure on the price.)
Tagrineth
Dragony thingy
Try and get an old Radeon 8500 LE (or 9100). It's better and faster than the 9000 and 9200.
And nephalim, DX8 support wasn't 'removed' from the GF4MX - it wasn't there to begin with. GF4MX is based on GeForce2MX, not GeForce4. Proof? GF4MX doesn't support EMBM either.
But anyway, if you're determined to get something cheap, might I suggest an amusing alternative - the SiS Xabre 600? Otherwise, yeah, an MX440 should be a great boost from what you have now.
And nephalim, DX8 support wasn't 'removed' from the GF4MX - it wasn't there to begin with. GF4MX is based on GeForce2MX, not GeForce4. Proof? GF4MX doesn't support EMBM either.
But anyway, if you're determined to get something cheap, might I suggest an amusing alternative - the SiS Xabre 600? Otherwise, yeah, an MX440 should be a great boost from what you have now.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #12
Damnit, why no one underestand??????????
I HATE THOSE DAMN ATI CARDS, STOP ANOYING ME WITH THAT PLEASE!
THe cheaper card with good things on it I found is a PowerColor GF4 MX440 64MB DDR AGP 8X. w/ TV-out and DVI.
http://www.power-color.com/html/xmx48-b3.html
at 77$CAN at a shop near from me.
I HATE THOSE DAMN ATI CARDS, STOP ANOYING ME WITH THAT PLEASE!
THe cheaper card with good things on it I found is a PowerColor GF4 MX440 64MB DDR AGP 8X. w/ TV-out and DVI.
http://www.power-color.com/html/xmx48-b3.html
at 77$CAN at a shop near from me.
Last edited:
Tagrineth
Dragony thingy
"OH NO! ANOTHER OPTION THAT MIGHT PROVIDE BETTER PERFORMANCE AND FEATURES THAN WHAT I'M LOOKING AT! MUST RESIST AT ALL COST!"
Good fucking lord, man. Get a grip.
By the way, ignore PowerColour at all costs (unless you're looking for a good Voodoo4) and do take my suggestion and look at a SiS Xabre-600 as well.
Edit: By the way, show me one review where a GF4MX consistently beats a Radeon 9000 Pro and I'll back off. Please. Humour me.
Last edited:
Malcolm
Not a Moderator
PowerColor GeForce4 MX440SE 64MB DDR $67Knuckles said:
Gainward FX5200 128M DDR DVI+TVO $98 <-- i donno about this brand
local computer store in my area (also cnd)
http://www.e-mycomputer.com/Countries/Canada/component_list.asp?CategoryCode=VG
Last edited:
Tagrineth
Dragony thingy
You sure?Clements said:
At Pricewatch the 64MB Radeon 9000 Pro is $58.
The 64MB DDR MX440 is $37...
Yes, it's a 50% difference but the 9000 is still very low.
We could also take it a step farther and say a 9000 NP 64MB for $50.
OR you could bump it up to the GeForce3-equivalent Radeon 9100 64MB or 128MB for $59, one dollar more than the 9000 Pro 64MB.
The next available nVidia step is the GeForce FX5200, which is total garbage, for $57.
Hmm, we have to pay so much more in the UK than other regions due to higher taxes or something. The prices I quoted were from: http://www.autdirect.co.uk/acatalog/AGP_Video_Cards.html
Tagrineth
Dragony thingy
Or for some more price quotes... www.buyxg.com - this place is closer to retail but let's see the % diff:
Radeon 9000 Pro 64MB: $67
Radeon 9100 64MB: $61
Radeon 9200 64MB: $60
MX440 64MB: $37
FX5200 128MB: $62 <-- crap card
The thing about getting an MX440 is it's missing far too many combiners and features to do N64 emulation correctly. Even a POS like the FX5200 would be better, if not faster.
By the way, for comparison's sake, on buyxg I couldn't find a single Ti4200 (great card) for less than $100.
And for additional comparison, from pricewatch (pw prices include shipping within continental US; shouldn't be too much worse for international if they use a good carrier):
SiS Xabre 200: $43
SiS Xabre 400: $51
SiS Xabre 600: Not listed
But the 400 is still pretty decent, and definitely better than the GeForce4MX line.
Radeon 9000 Pro 64MB: $67
Radeon 9100 64MB: $61
Radeon 9200 64MB: $60
MX440 64MB: $37
FX5200 128MB: $62 <-- crap card
The thing about getting an MX440 is it's missing far too many combiners and features to do N64 emulation correctly. Even a POS like the FX5200 would be better, if not faster.
By the way, for comparison's sake, on buyxg I couldn't find a single Ti4200 (great card) for less than $100.
And for additional comparison, from pricewatch (pw prices include shipping within continental US; shouldn't be too much worse for international if they use a good carrier):
SiS Xabre 200: $43
SiS Xabre 400: $51
SiS Xabre 600: Not listed
But the 400 is still pretty decent, and definitely better than the GeForce4MX line.
Kahenraz
New member
I can get you a GeForce FX 5200 for $79. It was originally priced for the public by nVidia at $75 (see GF FX promo by nVidia). You really can't go wrong for $79. This card also outdoes the GF4 MX (also see promo by nVidia.)
see the link below:
http://www.amamax.com/vdinob555gfx52sa3xx.html
see the link below:
http://www.amamax.com/vdinob555gfx52sa3xx.html