Fxaa vs msaa?

FXAA is receives some pretty wide spread panning.

Namely due to causing blur on textures.

I think it brings up an interesting topic of preference. There seems to be no "better way" in my eyes.

All AA methods have issues.

 

That said, I have less of a problem with these issues:

http://www.abload.de/img/fxaalujex.png

than these: 

http://www.abload.de/img/msaap0jdl.png

Opinions?

 

FXAA is inferior in quality but much, much less demanding than MSAA. If your computer can handle it you should go for MSAA, it's clear that the quality should be better once you understand how each of the antialiasing methods work. Of course, I'd rather have 20 fps more in bf4 than have that 10% increase in quality, there is a price/performance ratio which FXAA wins.

I personally just go without using anti-aliasing.

Nice comparement picture man. Good 2 know and see, Thank you for this.

on a monitor with HUGE pixel density sure. but on a completely normal display playing games without any kind of AA - meh. I'd rather have 30 fps avarage

I agree and disagree. 

Firstly I must say that 'quality' in this case IS subjective.

MSAA does have its benefits though I believe in certain implementations where shader AA is an issue and where TRAA isn't applied FXAA is a lot more beneficial. 

Even when removing geometry aliasing FXAA can provide a smoother experience.

Thankfully bf3 and 4 allow for the best of both worlds. That said, so many people avoid FXAA and I find that hard to understand given my reasons in the OP. Compared to straight up MSAA, FXAA isn't just the performance route.