SMAA has greater performance penalty than regular MSAA on older cards?

medo98

Prominent
Dec 6, 2017
3
0
510
few days ago my nephew tried playing with the psu socket and inserting different wires in it and eventually killing half of my rig, so i had to switch to my old pc, a radeon hd 5670 with a core 2 quad q6600 and 8gb of ddr3 (salvaged from the old rig).

when i started playing games i couldn't bear the jaggies all over the picture and i knew MSAA is already a BIG FAT NO on a card like this.
so i went on searching for a good way to remove aliasing without taking half the framerate away, and i stumbled upon injectors like reshade and sweetfx.

i went on and installed reshade on on battlefield 3 and enabled SMAA, and the framerate was cut in half, switched to reshade's FXAA= same thing.
enabled in game FXAA on high and almost non-existent performance hit.

went to other games like the original cod 4(killhouse baby), same happens; SMAA enabled going from 125 fps all the way down to 60 fps, enabled in-game 4x anti aliasing(not sure what type though) and i get 80 fps.

supposedly, the SMAA and the FXAA has minimal performance penalty as opposed to regular MSAA, like 3 or 5 fps, am i doing something wrong here?

thanks in advance.
 
First of all RIP...
I'm sorry for your PC loss, but also happy your nephew made it out ok.

As far as AA goes I just flip the settings around until I find a look i like (which is usually ultra).

But if you have to find a balance and are restrained to a 270x just settle in the middle or lower end of anti aliasing. Anti aliasing has a huge performance impact on all cards.
 


sorry for the late reply :)
So i'm limited to 2xMSAA?
Well, then i'll just have to stick with it until i could get something better...
P.S: that x270 that you think i'm restrained to is long gone (got caught up in the explosion). So,i'm using a Radeon HD 5670, and boy I HATE GDDR3 MEMORY.

Thanks again.