Does TAA Boost FPS? Sometimes Yes, Sometimes No
The impact of temporal anti-aliasing (TAA) on frames-per-second (FPS) is nuanced. Compared to more advanced real-time ray tracing techniques, TAA can solidly improve FPS by 2-3x for a similar level of anti-aliasing. However, using TAA still carries a non-trivial performance cost resulting in measurably lower average and 99th percentile FPS metrics compared to simply disabling anti-aliasing altogether.
So whether TAA gives your game‘s FPS a boost or not depends on what alternatives it‘s being compared against. Keep this crucial context in mind as we dive deeper!
TAA‘s FPS Benefits Over Ray Tracing
TAA provides meaningful performance advantages over algorithmically accurate, per-pixel approaches like path tracing for smoothing jagged edges in real-time graphics.
- According to Nvidia, TAA boosted FPS by 2-3x compared to path tracing in key gaming benchmarks while minimizing aliasing artifacts [1]. These are massive performance gains.
- By reusing data from prior frames, TAA avoids expensive calculations required to ray trace lighting and shadows for each individual pixel, in every frame from scratch. This is the key to its speed.
- Red Dead Redemption 2 sees "over 2x more performance" with TAA instead of taxing software ray tracing as per Rockstar‘s technical director, Alex Hadjadj [2].
So clearly, utilizing temporal data pays dividends in improved FPS even though some aliasing creeps back in. For hybrid rendering pipelines, TAA enables more headroom for advanced graphics by reducing the ray tracing load.
TAA‘s FPS Cost Over No Anti-Aliasing
However, comparing TAA with no anti-aliasing (AA) at all tells a different story. Going from no AA to even temporally-assisted AA incurs concrete FPS penalties.
- ComputerBase saw up to a ~20% FPS drop across 10 games when activating TAA to smooth edges instead of relying solely on high display resolutions [3].
- Tom‘s Hardware‘s testing indicates a ~15% lower average FPS with TAA enabled versus disabled in Horizon Zero Dawn at 4K benchmark runs [4].
| Anti-Aliasing Option | Avg FPS @ 4K | 99th Percentile FPS @ 4K |
|---|---|---|
| No AA | 87 fps | 58 fps |
| TAA | 75 fps | 50 fps |
FPS Impact of Enabling TAA (Horizon: Zero Dawn Testing)
The performance cost stems from TAA‘s added computational steps like camera jittering, history buffer management, and secondary filtering to control noise and artifacts.
In short, utilizing data from prior frames to "guess" anti-aliased pixels is much quicker than calculating them directly. But not as fast as no AA at all.
Real-World Game Developer Perspectives
Beyond the numbers, it‘s insightful to hear directly from graphics engineers working on complex titles about how TAA fits into their FPS optimization balancing act:
"TAA is not free in terms of performance cost of course. It saves huge rendering cost, but costs not negligible post processing." – Graphics Programmer, Horizon Zero Dawn [5]
"Reducing aliasing from shading/texturing load allowed us to push more transistors toward a richer visual presentation." – Principal Software Engineer, Gears 5 [6]
Their commentary aligns with the benchmark data – TAA requires trading some FPS for improved anti-aliasing compared to none at all. But also allows visual quality headroom relative to more pure ray traced approaches by reducing that rendering workload first.
TAA Optimization Considerations for FPS
Not all TAA implementations have equal performance either. Unique game engine integrations like Unreal Engine‘s Temporal Anti-Aliasing Upscaling (TAAU) tweak the algorithm to recover more FPS.
The visual needs and base hardware capabilities greatly affect the FPS outcome as well. Evaluating a few key variables helps set expectations:
Display Resolution: Higher rendering resolutions reduce visibility of jagged edges, lowering the quality/performance value of TAA specifically. At 4K with a sharp image already, TAA‘s FPS hit diminishes while improving apparent smoothing.
| Resolution | Avg FPS (No AA) | Avg FPS (With TAA) | % FPS Drop |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1080p | 105 | 88 | 16% |
| 1440p | 90 | 80 | 11% |
| 4K | 62 | 57 | 8% |
Varying FPS Impact of TAA By Display Resolution
Scene Complexity: More geometrically complex game environments make identifying the edges challenging, increasing TAA‘s value for anti-aliasing. Think intricate foliage or architecture versus plain skyboxes.
Hardware Power: Higher GPU horsepower better amortizes TAA post-processing costs. A RTX 3090 or RX 6950 XT minimizes any FPS loss, while entry-level cards struggle.
Balancing Visual Fidelity With FPS Games
This brings us to the key tradeoff – balancing anti-aliasing visual quality versus maximum FPS performance. Here are some common scenarios:
- Fast competitive multiplayer: Prioritize FPS with no AA. Highest frame rates trump minor edge aliasing.
- Slower paced single player: Allow FPS loss for TAA‘s AA quality if the game benefits visually.
- Ray tracing hybrid renderer: Leverage TAA to offset ray tracing costs for higher FPS.
As with most graphics configurations, there is no definitive superior choice that universally applies. The right TAA decision depends entirely on your game type, aesthetic needs, base hardware, and target frame rate.
Measuring performance empirically while actively playing helps quantify if enabling TAA improves or lowers FPS versus your requirements. Some trial and error may be needed to strike the right balance!
