Decreasing supersampling seems to improve the fps immensely for my system

[Vandaahl]

The interesting thing I have noticed that FPS with .5 sampling on 2560x1440 is not equal to FPS with 1 sampling and 1280x720 (the latter value is greater)
That I find strange at least. I would expect them to be equal.

This is what Alex said:

Super sampling is multiplier for resolution in final 2D.
1st scene is built in 3D for resolution set, then resulting 2D picture is scaled by supersampling.
....so u would need 2x if your game resolution is 1/2 of monitor resolution.

Also you can try back effect, set resolution to half then super-sample by 2x, which means it should be half of 3D math.

So according to his logic, the first scene would take less effort, while the overall 2D result should remain the same. I'm way out of my league here, but it kind of makes sense.

 

[dm06]

So according to his logic, the first scene would take less effort, while the overall 2D result should remain the same. I'm way out of my league here, but it kind of makes sense.

There's no his logic. It's implementation's logic.
Also either wording in his explanation strange or I dunno.
How sampling does work:
the value of sampling is used for rendering resolution, the final result is stretched to fit display resolution.
As an examples:

1.

• display 1920x1080
• sampler 0.5
• rendering resolution 960x540
• output: fat pixels
• more FPS

2.

• display 1920x1080
• sampler 2
• rendering resolution 4k
• output: fine image
• 4 times less fps against 1 sampler and 16 times less against 0.5 sampler

So OP did right thing, he effectively reduced rendering resolution thus reducing required horse power to render the scene with some image quality trade-off.

And this depends on rendering implementation.
In my case when FPS with .5 sampling on 2560x1440 is not equal to FPS with 1 sampling and 1280x720 (the latter value is greater) I suspect that some rendering work is being performed on images with final display resolution and as the resolution bigger in the former case the result FPS is lower as expected.
The case is dismissed.
Thanks! )

 

[Vandaahl]

There's no his logic. It's implementation's logic.
Also either wording in his explanation strange or I dunno.
How sampling does work:
the value of sampling is used for rendering resolution, the final result is stretched to fit display resolution.
As an examples:

1.

• display 1920x1080
• sampler 0.5
• rendering resolution 960x540
• output: fat pixels
• more FPS

2.

• display 1920x1080
• sampler 2
• rendering resolution 4k
• output: fine image
• 4 times less fps against 1 sampler and 16 times less against 0.5 sampler

So OP did right thing, he effectively reduced rendering resolution thus reducing required horse power to render the scene with some image quality trade-off.

And this depends on rendering implementation.
In my case when FPS with .5 sampling on 2560x1440 is not equal to FPS with 1 sampling and 1280x720 (the latter value is greater) I suspect that some rendering work is being performed on images with final display resolution and as the resolution bigger in the former case the result FPS is lower as expected.
The case is dismissed.
Thanks! )

I know how super sampling works.

I was referring to what Alex said about the 3D scene. I have no idea what a 3D scene has to do with it, as I did not know of its existence.

 

[Morbad]

You sure it is?

I'm sure it is.

Of course, it did. Supersampling should be set to 1, if you are running 1080p and set it to x2 it's like you are running at 4k.

Yes.

The interesting thing I have noticed that FPS with .5 sampling on 2560x1440 is not equal to FPS with 1 sampling and 1280x720 (the latter value is greater)
That I find strange at least. I would expect them to be equal.

2D UI elements aren't scaled and there is some overhead, so the higher output resolution will usually be a touch slower, especially if it's not native (anything other than 1.0x), but they should be close.

They are extremely close on my systems.

 

[Ninjitsu]

Yeah, this will happen with any game. supersampling of 1x basically means no supersampling. Below 1x you're undersampling and the image will look worse. above 1x the screen is being rendered x times larger and being downscaled.